super_furry wrote: » I'd love to know just who's funding these appeals.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Do they actually need much funding? Seems if you're sufficiently indigent, you can launch any sort of spurious, vexatious legal challenge, and the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab at the end of the day...
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is probably easier if you have no source of funds and therefore no way for the government to chase you for costs. As is the case with the current set of litigants.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Yeah one guy only owns a piano. If he fails his appeal he should have to repay the costs and never own anything again. Sick of this type of crap.
Amnesty International Ireland has welcomed a ruling by the High Court to quash a decision by the Standards in Public Office (Sipo) Commission that it had to return a €137,000 donation from the Open Society Foundation funded by international financier and philanthropist George Soros.
Gintonious wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-s-quashing-of-sipo-decision-on-soros-money-welcomed-by-amnesty-1.3581952#.W2BIpZKooec.twitter Also related to this: That'll please the crazies.
spookwoman wrote: » Was thinking the same thing how many on here were giving out about amnesty and that money
gandalf wrote: » Ah now that's because that was on the other godless side :P
Loafing Oaf wrote: » So once Ms Jordan's appeal is thrown out tomorrow,
Deleted User wrote: » Add in voluntary health and teaching personnel, and I think you might find the State would have a fairly substantial deficit
especially since the State itself - shamefully - was culpable in passing draconian laws, condemning these women and their children to a hellish life, and failing completely in their duty of care to the poor unfortunates their actions condemned as surely as those so-called "igious" who carried out the abuse.
The vast majority of schools are the property of the Catholic Community - not the hierarchy.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Delusion.Members of religious orders who were nurses, doctors, teachers, were paid a wage by the state same as any other member of those professions. If they'd taken a vow of poverty and chose to give up their wage to their order, that was up to them. Look at Tuam. The council was paying the nuns for the 'welfare' of the women and children incarcerated there. Same with every other 'home' in the country. Whatever the nuns did with this money, it didn't seem to be on the welfare of the inmates. And in many cases the women themselves or their families paid the nuns too. Those who couldn't pay ended up enslaved in a laundry. More profits for the nuns. The Bon Secours nuns who ran Tuam now own a private healthcare (how Christian is that?) empire worth billions but will not pay a cent towards the survivors of Tuam.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Two reasons. (1) The political class was in thrall to the RCC. No TD could risk being denounced from the pulpit by the local PP, or getting a belt of the crozier from the bishop. (2) They, foolishly, naively, TRUSTED the nuns and priests and brothers to properly look after vulnerable adults and children, which is what the state was paying them to do!It was never illegal to have sex outside of marriage, or to be pregnant outside of marriage. There was no legal basis for the detention of mother and baby home women, or for the vast majority of Magdalene laundry women who had not been convicted of any crime. All adoptions before 1952 were illegal, forced adoptions after then remained illegal. Your claim that the state's laws excused, or required, the nuns to do what they did is baseless.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Or some bogus trust they were moved into so abuse survivors can't get compensation.
Deleted User wrote: » You are correct in saying that it was never illegal to have sex outside of marriage - so how do you explain the Gardaeturning runaways to these hellholes?
Deleted User wrote: » Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
Accordingly, the survivors should be compensated - but not by seizing schools that are the property of the Catholic Community as was suggested.
Building schools is the responsibility of the Government. They failed in that duty.
Then failed further to adequately supervise care given to the poor unfortunates that were incarcerated there - frequently by the Garda Excuses. There were Inspectors periodically sent into these "homes". I distinctly remember reading one report where a home was roundly criticised by an Inspector - and absolutely nothing was done about it. You are correct in saying that it was never illegal to have sex outside of marriage - so how do you explain the Gardaeturning runaways to these hellholes?
The hierarchy of the Church does not own the schools. The people do.
....... wrote: » Because culturally a priests word was as good as a Guards or a Judges. No one in one of these places had the means to mount an actual legal challenge and they were being shunned by their community for ending up there in the first place - so no one to help them.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Employees in state funded schools and hospitals were... paid. I don't know why you think this is at all strange, it would be strange if they were not.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Well, seizing schools won't compensate anybody, because there'll still be a need for a school.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Hold on there. Why do you think they're called "National Schools"? Read up on how that system came about in the 19th century and how the RCC and the Presbyterians(!) colluded to carve out state-funded schools under their control from what was supposed to be a pluralist non-sectarian system. Many schools were actually built by the state, but on church land, and somehow or other the building ended up in church ownership. Many more which were built fully or partially by "church" funds (i.e. money raised from the community) have since been greatly extended or entirely rebuilt at the full expense of the state, yet remain church owned. Just a couple of years ago in Greystones a new secondary school was built by the state, on state-owned land, fully funded by the state. This school was then given to the Church of Ireland to run and use for evangelisation purposes. That's just wrong.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » They were wrong to defer to the church in the manner in which they did, but they were either in thrall of the church or terrified of it. None of that can take responsibility away from those who committed the criminal abuses in the first place. Meanwhile the bishops and cardinals who knew all along about the whole thing and covered it up face no sanction from their church or the law, even today.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The people do not own them! Look at what happened when the CBs decided to sell off a school playing field without the agreement of the ERST trust which "owned" the school never mind the parents and community who you say own it!! The church controls these schools, the people have no ownership or control over them.
Deleted User wrote: » In a Republic - where "all the children of the Nation" were meant to be "cherished equally"
Deleted User wrote: » The key word there is "state funded" I think. I'd have to research when exactly the majority of schools became state funded, and, frankly, I can't be bothered. Suffice to say that many priests and nuns procided free education for children long before the foundation of the state - and, I would suspect in many cases, for quite some time after it.
I responded to a comment that the state should seize Catholic owned schools - which, as you say, would be pointless - and all of a sudden I supposedly think Priests and Nuns were "compelled" or "obliged" to perpetrate horrendous abuse on the vulnerable that they were meant to protect?
One thing I can say without a doubt is that there are schools that were built entirely by the Community, on Community land.
Those schools were built because of the sacrifices of our forbears. They will not easily be wrested away, believe me.
Deleted User wrote: » The vast majority of schools are the property of the Catholic Community - not the hierarchy.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » If you recall your history lessons, that republic lasted a week. The oft-quoted phrase appears nowhere in our constitution or laws.Well certainly all primary schools were eligible for state funding and payment of salaries under the 1937 constitution.If what we suspect is good enough for this thread, then it is almost certain that the funding arrangment under the Free State was the same, and even before the Free State came into existence. Yet the community does not own them, the church grabbed ownership of them. The church stole these schools from the communities and taxpayers who funded them.
iguana wrote: » And what sort of shïtty community wouldn't want to pay redress to the victims of such heinous abuse? No community that has any right having any sort of care of children anyway. :rolleyes:
Deleted User wrote: » In the case of my own National school, parents contributed loads of turf to heat the school in the winter, right up to around 1970, when the state contributed its first investment in the building, by installing a central heating system. Since then, the only other contribution by the state to the "structure" was renting a prefab.
Deleted User wrote: » The victims deserve redress. Both the State and the Church need to pay compensation, imo.
Bredabe wrote: » Whats up with them changing legal teams midstream as it were?
alaimacerc wrote: » I might be a cynic, but my first two guesses would be... First legal team tells them it's a no-hoper, and they won't take "stop it, you're an embarrassment to yourself and others at this stage" for an answer. Or... Yet another delaying tactic. "Oh noes, I'm new on the case, yer honour, we'd like an adjournment to as late a late as we can get away with."
Deleted User wrote: » right up to around 1970
Let's just say that I'd love to see any Bishop try to transfer ownership of any of those four schools. Believe me, there would be an absolute uproar. Those schools were built because of the sacrifices of our forbears. They will not easily be wrested away, believe me.
Deleted User wrote: » I know Donegal has been "the forgotten County" in the eyes of many successive Governments - but it really stretchesthe imagination to suggest that the State built schools everywhere else, and somehow neglected to build them in Donegal.
Deleted User wrote: » This whole "seize the Catholic schools" mantra is idiotic. If a Catholic owned school is seized, then the State has to replace it - so where's the gain for the state?
Seizing schools is not the answer - and would result in a tremendous backlash against the Government in many Communities, believe me.
kylith wrote: » I guarantee you that the church does not pay the heating bill. They don't pay to keep the lights on, they don't pay the teachers, they don't pay for the supplies. This is one of the reasons why schools should be removed from religious hands and run by a secular body.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f06b6c459fd06fb0f35c97cc6f973b.svg)
