lazygal wrote: » Gript is run by Tim Jackson of Youth Defence.
realitykeeper wrote: » The National Maternity Hospital say they are commissioning an independent inquiry into what happened in the sad events that led to an unborn child being aborted because the parents had been incorrectly informed that the child had a fatal abnormality. One wonders how independent this inquiry will be given that when you commission someone to do something, you are paying their wages. Perhaps for the sake of consistency, every report into the industrial schools and Magdalene laundries should be shredded and new reports into these institutions could then be commissioned by the Catholic Church. Am I wrong?
realitykeeper wrote: Am I wrong?
Bredabe wrote: » I saw a pro life poster on one of the main arteries last night, is there another campaign? I didn't see many of the details, but it has a red shape at the side and said something like 'love both'/'stop abortions'
Plumbthedepths wrote: Mod: Play nice. If you haven't anything constructively critical to say about a post kindly refrain from commenting on the poster. Thanking you.
It’s been 45 years since this incredibly brave Skerries woman took on the Irish courts system to fight for her rights to use contraceptives in Ireland. Mary McGee‘s 1973 case helped to change our laws. Full interview with Mary and Seamus McGee in the current edition of Skerries News…The current edition is in shops later today and online now (at link below behind small paywall)
Cabaal wrote: » Yes, you are very very wrong. In case you missed it, the catholic church did plenty of its own investigations with its own people into the rape of children by its priests. It identified the horrors carried out by the priests and nuns and then it buried the details as deep as it could, it threatened the victims and moved the abusers to other areas to abuse children once again. The difference here is the hospital is doing an independent inquiry and the details will then be published, the parents won't be threatened and solutions will be put in place. The report will not buried like the catholic church liked to do and it won't be a cover up like the church does either. So yes, you are wrong. very very wrong. :rolleyes:
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Apologies my reply fell below what it should have been.
realitykeeper wrote: » Not sure if you are deliberately misunderstanding. The hospital is paying people to inquire. There is nothing independent about that. This `independent` report is likely to come with sugar coating a mile thick. By contrast, if the Catholic Church commissioned its own report into institutional care, we are likely to hear all about then wonderful work the Church has done, fair play to the holy.
DubInMeath wrote: » Yeah like letting children in it's care die from malnutrition. Exploiting the people under it's care for the financial benefit of the church, along with sexual and physical abuse. You seem to ignore the fact that they did do these investigations and the result was to continue to lie and move abusers to other parishes while leaving them to continue to abuse children. As you said great work by the holy.
realitykeeper wrote: » But the standard in this country is for the institution in question to commission its own inquiry just like the National Maternity Hospital is doing. By this standard, we know that the Catholic Church is in fact a wonderful benefactor to all. The education and health care and services it provided with such love and compassion. God bless the Catholic Church.
DubInMeath wrote: » The church is a benefactor to alll, love and compassion, no your wrong again. Health suffered and still does through religious interference in hospitals. Education was used to try and indoctrinate people. Most advances in education in the state have been secular led, with the church attempting to dictate and hinder these changes. It's well past the time that the church should still be allowed have any say in these areas as they are paid for by the taxpayer and not the church.
aloyisious wrote: » Would my senses be wrong if they were detecting a degree of sarcasm in your posts about the holy benefactor? In this question I'm not picking a row, just trying to satisfy a feeling I have.
realitykeeper wrote: » You only think such things about God`s Holy Catholic Church because of reports which were not commissioned by the Catholic Church. I suggest the inquiry into the tragic case in which a healthy child was aborted be carried out by a judge as was the case with the Ryan report into the Church. It would be a whitewash and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.
Calina wrote: » No. I think the poster is trying to undermine the NMH's review outcome by suggesting a review done today under clear terms of reference is in any way similar to Catholic Church's past practice ....
realitykeeper wrote: » The NMH are paying the reviewers. That is not conducive to impartiality, clear terms or not.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The difference- and it's a significant difference - is that the RCC carried out internal reports and suppressed them while maintaining a public face of 'nothing to see here' to protect itself. The delay with the inquiry here seem to be that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK were approached to carry out an independent inquiry but declined due to lack of expertise among it's assessors. Another qualified agency is been sought - probably, as it usual, from outside the State. It is a very serious matter to claim that organizations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would risk their reputation by being 'paid off'. The RCC did not commission, for example, the Lutheran Church of Sweden to come in and investigate as an independent body so you are making false comparisons.
realitykeeper wrote: » In the past, internal reviews and self assessment were the standard until the law changed. This is not the past. What concerns me is that the Minister for health is permitting this waste of taxpayers money. The review into what happened at the NMH should not be commissioned by the NMH.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Who funds the NMH?
Bannasidhe wrote: » How is it a waste of taxpayer's money if the NMH are paying for it?
realitykeeper wrote: » Because the reviewers will have every incentive to issue a report which is favourable to their client, the NMH. The Minister of course is well aware of this, I guess he just doesn`t care.