"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 12:47AM

kbannon wrote: »

How do you know? Have you seen inside it?

You seem to be making to common assumption that it was a septic tank full of sh*t. Based on what we've been told, it wasn't. It was just a sort of concrete bunker seemingly.

I'm not saying that it was appropriate to bury them without their mother knowing they were there but that's different.

a wastewater facility means and is a septic tank and that term was in the original statement. 20 chambers and remains in 17 of them

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 12:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am offering a contentious view in order to generate debate.

ah debate? Why?

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 12:55AM

kbannon wrote: »

I've already given my opinion on this matter in a number of threads in boards. However, seeing as you want this to be about me...
The fact that children died so young is inexcusable. But we don't know why they died despite the hysterics.
The fact that society shunned unmarried mothers simply because an uncaring church told them to is inexcusable.
Do I think the children were murdered? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think the bodies were dumped? No, there's no evidence to support this despite people claiming they were.
Do I think they were disposed of in a septic tank? It was unlikely to be one that contained any sh*te. I'll await confirmation otherwise from the commission.
Do I think the RCC have questions to answer? Yes but given how they couldn't give a crap what people think, why would this change their view?
Do I think plenty of people are expressing faux outrage over this and despite their waffle will do absolutely nothing and will idly sit on their arses whilst we hear about other abuses of vulnerable people today? Definitley! There's plenty of evidence to support this!

You do not know that; and you?

Oh and have you seen the death cert listings? eg malnutrition

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 12:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

100 years ago, infant mortality was 81.3/1,000. In 2014 it was 3.7/1,000. Illnesses like whooping cough and TB were rife even in well to do families.

Ireland now is a vastly different country to that of the early 1900's. Actually it is vastly different from the 1960s! I can remember in national school having a Rang naAmadan the class of fools for the slow learners! Imagine that happening now?

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-1916/1916irl/bmd/births/

Tuam ie the home had twice the national average of infant mortality and Bessborough even more

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 12:58AM

tigger123 wrote: »

Would love to know what the infant mortality rate was within those homes, when compared to outside.

Tuam; twice the national average.Bessborogh even more and more died of severe malnutrition there too.

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 01:01AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Bullocks wrote: »

There is nothing to investigate. It was appropriate to the time. Not to ours mind. So certainly history, and something to be learned from. But not really relevant to today in terms of seeking justice, or condemnation, from a perspective that no longer applies.

:rolleyes::eek:

NB as late as 1970s..

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 01:04AM

infogiver wrote: »

The priests and nuns that you say pressurised and obliged the families to dump their daughters, where did they come from?

either from poor families and scared to stand up lest they were turned out or the upper class who despised the poor .

and they did pressurise.

Graces7 · 15-03-2017 01:07AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I am sure they werent. But it is done now. We have improved as a society. Best just leave it.

Noooooooooooooooo ! A million times no.

Seth Brundle · 15-03-2017 07:49AM

Graces7 wrote: »

You do not know that; and you?

Based on all experiences against the vulnerable that have occurred, people continue to let the RCC dominate their schools and hospitals. We still continue to tick the RCC box on the census.
Given everything that has happened, why do we still do this?
We still neglect the vulnerable in our society.
Where is the protest for Grace? Where are all the boards threads for her? Where is the public condemnation?
Where are all the state services needed for the vulnerable? Where is the public outcry?
Why is there still allegedly 1 in 4 children being abused?
Where is the public outcry against the immigration system and all those who have spent years being dehumanised in internment centres.

We as a nation are good at talking but not quite so good at doing!

Graces7 wrote: »

Oh and have you seen the death cert listings? eg malnutrition

So how long were the children in the homes before they died of malnutrition?
The reality is that we don't know why they died, what other factors were at play here.
If it was the nuns then I'll be the first to take aim at them but for now I won't be claiming that it was completely their fault.

Jelle1880 · 15-03-2017 08:50AM

This mentality of just leaving it sickens me. Might as well admit you don't care and don't want to embarrass the Church.

15-03-2017 09:39AM

Graces7 wrote: »

ah debate? Why?

Maybe it's my way of kicking back against my Catholic upbringing and questioning everything rather than accepting someone preaching at me.

ohnonotgmail · 15-03-2017 09:40AM

kbannon wrote: »

Based on all experiences against the vulnerable that have occurred, people continue to let the RCC dominate their schools and hospitals. We still continue to tick the RCC box on the census.
Given everything that has happened, why do we still do this?
We still neglect the vulnerable in our society.
Where is the protest for Grace? Where are all the boards threads for her? Where is the public condemnation?
Where are all the state services needed for the vulnerable? Where is the public outcry?
Why is there still allegedly 1 in 4 children being abused?
Where is the public outcry against the immigration system and all those who have spent years being dehumanised in internment centres.

We as a nation are good at talking but not quite so good at doing!

So how long were the children in the homes before they died of malnutrition?
The reality is that we don't know why they died, what other factors were at play here.
If it was the nuns then I'll be the first to take aim at them but for now I won't be claiming that it was completely their fault.

all of their lives. the babies were born there.

Seth Brundle · 15-03-2017 09:52AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all of their lives. the babies were born there.

...and were there any other factors?
Of the ten (IIRC) that died of malnutrition, what facts can you honestly stand over?
What information have you got that makes you confident that they were starved rather than had some kind of condition or whatever?
What makes it wrong for me to wanting to hear as many of the facts as possible yet your assumption of occurrences is correct?

Edit: Have you a verifiable source that of those that died of malnutrition, they were born there?
And, that they are buried there? As I said previously, I don't believe that there are 796 bodies in there. I'm going to wait and see to be sure but I suspect that many of the deaths were actually illegal adoptions.

Anyhow, maybe you forgot but do you want to answer my query on how you have helped the vulnerable in society currently or is your silence simply because I'm right?

kbannon wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

kbannon wrote: »

OK then. As you're so concerned for them, what have you done in the last two weeks about it?
In fact, what have you done to help any of the vulnerable in our society within the last two weeks?
Apart from waffle on the internet, that is!

pathetic.

Well then, show us how you're not just grandstanding!

ohnonotgmail · 15-03-2017 10:07AM

kbannon wrote: »

...and were there any other factors?
Of the ten (IIRC) that died of malnutrition, what facts can you honestly stand over?
What information have you got that makes you confident that they were starved rather than had some kind of condition or whatever?
What makes it wrong for me to wanting to hear as many of the facts as possible yet your assumption of occurrences is correct?

Edit: Have you a verifiable source that of those that died of malnutrition, they were born there?
And, that they are buried there? As I said previously, I don't believe that there are 796 bodies in there. I'm going to wait and see to be sure but I suspect that many of the deaths were actually illegal adoptions.

Anyhow, maybe you forgot but do you want to answer my query on how you have helped the vulnerable in society currently or is your silence simply because I'm right?

you asked a question on how long the babies were there. i answered it. I have no intention of engaging with the rest of your nonsense.

Mr.Wemmick · 15-03-2017 11:05AM

kbannon wrote: »

Anyhow, maybe you forgot but do you want to answer my query on how you have helped the vulnerable in society currently or is your silence simply because I'm right?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Talk about whataboutery with a heavy dose of ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

People's inference is as valid as anything else considering our knowledge today from the Murphy and Ryan report findings regarding the treatment of children in care all over Ireland during the exact period of times Tuam home was up and running.

Catherine Corless difficulty in getting to the facts and the tough resistance she met from officials is also valid in making us all feel sinister and possibly horrific things have gone on in that home.

And finally, even more reason to lead us to sound and expected areas of thinking is the deliberate cover up by state and church, and the failure to fully investigate this home - it is not happening. The silence is deafening.

Jelle1880 · 15-03-2017 11:22AM

kbannon wrote: »

Anyhow, maybe you forgot but do you want to answer my query on how you have helped the vulnerable in society currently or is your silence simply because I'm right?

Completely irrelevant and a sad attempt at an ad hominem attack.

That said, I'm sure the person you aimed it at never let a child deliberately starve and then throw it in a mass grave with other children.

So they've done pretty good so far.

pilly · 15-03-2017 11:45AM

kbannon wrote: »

Based on all experiences against the vulnerable that have occurred, people continue to let the RCC dominate their schools and hospitals. We still continue to tick the RCC box on the census.
Given everything that has happened, why do we still do this?
We still neglect the vulnerable in our society.
Where is the protest for Grace? Where are all the boards threads for her? Where is the public condemnation?
Where are all the state services needed for the vulnerable? Where is the public outcry?
Why is there still allegedly 1 in 4 children being abused?
Where is the public outcry against the immigration system and all those who have spent years being dehumanised in internment centres.

We as a nation are good at talking but not quite so good at doing!

So how long were the children in the homes before they died of malnutrition?
The reality is that we don't know why they died, what other factors were at play here.
If it was the nuns then I'll be the first to take aim at them but for now I won't be claiming that it was completely their fault.

So what good works are you doing at the moment to help all these children? Apart from typing crap on the internet to wind people up?

15-03-2017 11:56AM

Graces7 wrote: »

No there is not. Quite the opposite in fact. Would be eg a drug addict turning their back on that life. Knowing and choosing. Seeing the evil . or a prostitute turning away from that life, rather than a virgin

Have not been back to CathAns. I suspect I would be persona non grata now!

Ah! Sorry. I was thinking more along the lines of someone who knows evil exists, but chooses to try to see only the good in people.
Often to the extent of not being actually able to see evil when it is staring her in the face, because she just can't cope with it.

Partly that, and partly sticking her head in the sand when she has to deal with a situation that she just can't cope with.

Having said that, the lady in question genuinely would have had no idea what was going on, here, having been raised in Scotland, to Irish parents.

A warrior she is not, like most people, and it's only now I understand what you meant by that comment.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

This mentality of just leaving it sickens me. Might as well admit you don't care and don't want to embarrass the Church.

I agree that the mentality of leaving it is sickening. But - and I'm not aiming this at any particular poster, it's a general observation:

I strongly suspect that a lot of people here are trying to avoid embarrassing more than the Church.

There's society, and the State, involved, as well as the Church, and reputational damage abroad.

Lots of potential motives to want things left alone.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Talk about whataboutery with a heavy dose of ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

People's inference is as valid as anything else considering our knowledge today from the Murphy and Ryan report findings regarding the treatment of children in care all over Ireland during the exact period of times Tuam home was up and running.

Catherine Corless difficulty in getting to the facts and the tough resistance she met from officials is also valid in making us all feel sinister and possibly horrific things have gone on in that home.

And finally, even more reason to lead us to sound and expected areas of thinking is the deliberate cover up by state and church, and the failure to fully investigate this home - it is not happening. The silence is deafening.

This:

We need answers as to why Catherine Corless had such difficulty in getting the facts.

AFAIK, the records for Tuam were lodged with Galway Council when the home closed.

That being the case, the question needs to be asked, and answered: What was the motive for the resistance she encountered?

Who were the officials in question - and why did they not want to provide the information.

Now, the potential reasons are many and varied, ranging from "Can't be bothered, I'm busy", to more sinister reasons.

We need to know what those reasons were, though.

15-03-2017 11:58AM

pilly wrote: »

So what good works are you doing at the moment to help all these children? Apart from typing crap on the internet to wind people up?

In fairness, he makes a lot of valid points, there.

Mr.Wemmick · 15-03-2017 12:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This:

We need answers as to why Catherine Corless had such difficulty in getting the facts.

AFAIK, the records for Tuam were lodged with Galway Council when the home closed.

That being the case, the question needs to be asked, and answered: What was the motive for the resistance she encountered?

Who were the officials in question - and why did they not want to provide the information.

Now, the potential reasons are many and varied, ranging from "Can't be bothered, I'm busy", to more sinister reasons.

We need to know what those reasons were, though.

Yes, agreed. It really keeps us all in the dark as to the facts; however, the drawn inference people are arriving at is sound and solid enough considering the history of criminal treatment of children in care in the country at those times. You would wonder what is so bad that they do not want to let it out, because if the facts are different to what is suspected then why hide it, why keep it quiet.. makes absolutely no sense and if anything, it hints at something worse.

A suspicious or mysterious death of anyone, never mind this many, deserves a full and thorough investigation.

15-03-2017 12:49PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Yes, agreed. It really keeps us all in the dark as to the facts; however, the drawn inference people are arriving at is sound and solid enough considering the history of criminal treatment of children in care in the country at those times. You would wonder what is so bad that they do not want to let it out, because if the facts are different to what is suspected then why hide it, why keep it quiet.. makes absolutely no sense and if anything, it hints at something worse.

A suspicious or mysterious death of anyone, never mind this many, deserves a full and thorough investigation.

Agreed. It definitely merits full investigation.

It does make sense, in a way, though.
The Irish state has always protected itself and its "Institutions".

Think Church, Banks, Insurance Companies, Gardaí, various Politicians, the list goes on, and on.

Which is what makes me so utterly convinced that a lot more than the Religious orders need to be investigated.
The state, medical practitioners, Co. Councils, even as far back as the British Government - all had access to the records.

Not one of them did anything.... other than blame the Mothers involved.

So, in that sense, I'm sickened by the hypocrisy - but I'm not remotely surprised.
It's "business as usual".

The Rape of Lucretia · 15-03-2017 01:11PM

Graces7 wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

:rolleyes::eek:

NB as late as 1970s..

Exactly. Ireland has changes enormously in 40 years. Thats why judging cultural matters such as the children of fallen women is no longer valid today. Ireland in those days was still catholic, and even more ignorant than today.

The Rape of Lucretia · 15-03-2017 01:14PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Noooooooooooooooo ! A million times no.

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

Mod: Banned

Boggy Turf · 15-03-2017 04:10PM

When will the inquiry be complete?

pilly · 15-03-2017 04:16PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

Probably the most patronising and unfunny post I've ever read on boards and that's saying something.

Well done you on having a dictionary on your desk.

15-03-2017 04:33PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

So, family experience of Mother and Baby homes, is, according to you, unimportant as a means of forming opinion?

Instead, it requires a thesis, which is complex, eloquent, and explicit!:rolleyes:

There's a word to describe that type of post, but I don't consider your post worth the ban I would almost undoubtedly get, if I were to use it....

Your post speaks for itself....

Mr.Wemmick · 15-03-2017 04:38PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis.
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

Ugly, nasty, snide comment/attitude towards another poster.

Is there any need for it? Your post says more about you.

I really admire Grace's passion and heart felt contributions on this thread.

nhunter100 · 15-03-2017 04:42PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

I see what you mean there. I think you might have explained this point earlier, but maybe I didnt grasp its complexity well enough. Now that you rephrase it so eloquently, and explain your complex reasoning for your position so explicitly, I possibly have a better grasp of your thesis. Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Your posts are are very advanced in their thought process, but much appreciated.

You have being calling for people to just move on and forget about it Tuam, its in the past? Justice knows no timescale. As for the above post it isn't worthy of a mention. Just try some respect something the church and the religious orders could learn too.

Boggy Turf · 15-03-2017 05:49PM

nhunter100 wrote: »

You have being calling for people to just move on and forget about it Tuam, its in the past? Justice knows no timescale. As for the above post it isn't worthy of a mention. Just try some respect something the church and the religious orders could learn too.

The pain for many people is not in the past.
The Rape of Lucretia would have made a great priest. Blind, arrogant, cold and more than willing to cover evil up.

mickstupp · 15-03-2017 06:30PM

Boggy Turf wrote: »

The pain for many people is not in the past.
The Rape of Lucretia would have made a great priest. Blind, arrogant, cold and more than willing to cover evil up.

Hang on now, I know a bunch of relatively newly qualified priests, some of whom were in my class in Maynooth. None of them blind, arrogant, cold and more than willing to cover evil up. They were interested in community interaction and helping people. I hope they'll make great priests. I don't think The Rape of Lucretia would've fit in at all. He/She is entirely willing to let criminals away with disgusting acts, advocating it in fact... much like a lot of the church hierarchy now that I think of it! But! That doesn't mean all priests are terrible excuses for human beings. Only some of them.

"Significant" numbers of babies remains actually found

Comments