Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

1…4142444647…101

Comments

  • #1292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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 whitewater and a waste of taxpayers money if the National Maternity Hospital pays someone to inquire into them.

    Again your wrong.


  • #1293
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I think very highly of the Catholic Church but I understand why a lot of people feel differently. My opinions are not swayed by the media or by public opinion which is understandably swayed by decades of anti RCC vitriole. I am every bit as subservient to God`s Church as I always have been. You see, I look at all that is and was good about the Church. That is not to say I am oblivious to its sins.

    My view on the EU is similar in that I think things need to change but I think we are better off in it than out of it.

    Considering that you've stated on this site that anyone claiming that they were abused by the church are only doing so for money, it's pretty obvious that you don't think any abuse took place or your just trying to get a rise out of people.


  • #1294
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Can you not bring yourself to admit that the taxpayer's will be paying for the inquiry not the NMH as you are keen in insist?

    The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.


  • #1295
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So who should do the review and who should pay for it?

    A judge and the department of Justice respectively.


  • #1296
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

    You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You said a judge should do the enquiry, who do you think pays the judges?

    I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.


  • #1298
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I think it is someone other than the NMH, which is all that matters.

    So your earlier posts
    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. The state should appoint a judge to examine it.

    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The people the NMH commission, will receive payment from the NMH and not from me. So no is the answer.

    Were lies

    You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?


  • #1299
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So your earlier posts






    Were lies

    You don't mind taxpayers money spent as long as you get to decide where it's spent?

    I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.


  • #1300
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I have no problem with the taxpayers money being spent appropriately. The NMH commissioning an inquiry into itself is a corrupt misappropriation of taxpayers money.

    In your opinion.


  • #1301
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

    If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

    That's why he is wrong.


  • #1303
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,840 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I don't get the push back here, I think it is fair enough to state that an entity commissioning an inquiry into itself may not yield completely impartial results.

    Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.


  • #1304
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Well the NMH would have to have some input into who'll do the inquiry to ensure the person would know something about the business and would be impartial/not with animus. Given the Royal College of Obstetrics apparently declined a request to do the inquiry, it seems it might be hard to fill the position.

    Perhaps they did not like the terms of reference. Maybe the NMH had been a little to forthright and expressed a desire for the type of inquiry that would exonerate them.


  • #1305
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If the NMH was investigating the NMH then he wouldnhave a point. The fact that it will ve an external company seems to matter not as he thinks that the NMH money will mean they won't be impartial.

    That's why he is wrong.

    No, that`s why I`m right. Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

    For all we know the NMH may be planning to interview multiple candidates until they find one that will do it their way and of course that could mean a total whitewash. Even if they just pick a name from a hat, the people (or person) commissioned might be mindful of the possibility of repeat business in future when they issue their report. That means some serious sugarcoating.


  • #1306
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.
    Don't know how or where you work, but in my area, there are plenty of professionals who act as professionals regardless of who's paying them. While the people most easily bought off, seem - with distressing regularity - to be the same people who manifest the greatest outrage at the idea that anybody else might be corruptible.


  • #1307
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    It is called projection. People project what they would do on to others.


  • #1308
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    robindch wrote: »
    Don't know how or where you work, but in my area, there are plenty of professionals who act as professionals regardless of who's paying them. While the people most easily bought off, seem - with distressing regularity - to be the same people who manifest the greatest outrage at the idea that anybody else might be corruptible.

    Don`t know where you work but in business, there are many who operate on the principle that the customer is always right (even when they`re wrong). The NMH is the customer, I think we can therefore expect a whitewash.


  • #1309
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,635 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    A judge and the department of Justice respectively.

    No crime was committed.


  • #1310
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Igotadose wrote: »
    No crime was committed.

    That presumption is always made when a judge is appointed. Judges can preside over civil cases and not just criminal ones. They can chair tribunals of inquiry also.


  • #1311
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Calina wrote: »
    It is called projection. People project what they would do on to others.

    Is that what happened when they aborted a healthy child?

    MOD: Your friendly mods with like to remind you, as others have been reminded, that as this is a discussion forum posting one liners/slogans that read like bumper stickers and/or making inflammatory comments is below the standard of discussion expected and required. No more of this kind of thing please.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    No, that`s why I`m right. Of course the inquiry team are going to be partial to the people who are paying their wages.

    Any evidence that this has happened before when inquiries like this have happened in ireland?
    For all we know the NMH may be planning to interview multiple candidates until they find one that will do it their way and of course that could mean a total whitewash. Even if they just pick a name from a hat, the people (or person) commissioned might be mindful of the possibility of repeat business in future when they issue their report. That means some serious sugarcoating.

    This could also go for anyone who does the investigation, you think judges (you said one should do the investigation) are above reproach?

    So who/what company do you think should be commisioned to do this investigation that would satisfy your criteria?

    Also, what experience.would a judge have in these matters? The 1st thing he would do is bring in a company to do this investigation and write a report for him, the taxpayer would still be forking out for it which you said was unacceptable to you.


  • #1313
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    Details of all inquiries carried out into hospitals can be found here:https://www.lenus.ie/discover - can you find one report where despite the evidence the inquiry was favourable to the 'clients'?
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The NMH is the customer, I think we can therefore expect a whitewash.


    Have you found that inquiry report yet where a whitewash occurred?


  • #1314
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    This could also go for anyone who does the investigation, you think judges (you said one should do the investigation) are above reproach?

    So who/what company do you think should be commisioned to do this investigation that would satisfy your criteria?

    Also, what experience.would a judge have in these matters? The 1st thing he would do is bring in a company to do this investigation and write a report for him, the taxpayer would still be forking out for it which you said was unacceptable to you.

    Like a say, I judge should do the inquiry. No judges are not above reproach. A judge would have the similar experience to other judges who carried out inquiries in the past. A judge would call on witnesses and hear testimony. No judge in history has ever looked up the yellow pages to find some company to do his job for him. What is unacceptable would be for the MNH to commission the inquiry team.


  • #1315
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Like a say, I judge should do the inquiry. No judges are not above reproach. A judge would have the similar experience to other judges who carried out inquiries in the past. A judge would call on witnesses and hear testimony. No judge in history has ever looked up the yellow pages to find some company to do his job for him. What is unacceptable would be for the MNH to commission the inquiry team.

    A judge would have to bring in experts, possibly from the companies you are claiming would be biased, those companies would have to be paid by the taxpayer.


  • #1316
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Have you found that inquiry report yet where a whitewash occurred?

    The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.


  • #1317
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The inquiry and it`s whitewash are still at the tendering stage.

    Ah so you have no evidence of it you're just predicting it will happen?

    Well going by your previous predictions over the last several years I'm guessing that history will repeat itself and you will yet again be wrong on many levels.


  • #1318
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    A judge would have to bring in experts, possibly from the companies you are claiming would be biased, those companies would have to be paid by the taxpayer.

    At a tribunal, witnesses can be subpoenaed and different parties can send their own experts to testify. Taxpayers money is wasted if it is not used properly as would be the case if the NMH commissions the inquiry team. A tribunal would be more impartial.


  • #1319
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Ah so you have no evidence of it you're just predicting it will happen?

    Well going by your previous predictions over the last several years I'm guessing that history will repeat itself and you will yet again be wrong on many levels.

    I am predicting nothing, the NMH have already admitted they are commissioning an inquiry into themselves.


  • #1320
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    At a tribunal, witnesses can be subpoenaed and different parties can send their own experts to testify. Taxpayers money is wasted if it is not used properly as would be the case if the NMH commissions the inquiry team. A tribunal would be more impartial.

    So you don't want to waste taxpayers money but you want a tribunal?

    In ireland?

    Yeah.....those have always been the best options and value for money :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I am predicting nothing, the NMH have already admitted they are commissioning an inquiry into themselves.

    You're predicting it will be a "whitewash" before a single person has given evidence or even before the enquiry has started!

    Why do you lie RK? Lies make baby jeebus cry you know! Off to cenfession with you.


Advertisement