Child removed from Roma gypsies-This time in DUBLIN Mod Warning Post #1

Grand Moff Tarkin · 23-10-2013 07:26PM

All well that ends well.

darkpagandeath · 23-10-2013 07:27PM

listermint wrote: »

Does that matter?

Everything in life weighs up options,call it profiling if you like but this occurs in policing, in teaching, in hospital, in school, in job interviews, shopping, getting into nightclubs.

NOBODY is safe from profiling. We are all different, wear your hair the wrong way, wear a pair of runners and you get judged and looked at funny.

Thats how the world we live in works.

Calling the Guards idiots and silly irish and giving out about hysteria is a bit rich when people are incensed when they do nothing.

You cant bloody win, and these forum is an example of how fickle people really are.

Or proving that people are concerned about the state massively overreacting to something that could have been done differently. There was no proof the child had been neglected or in any immediate danger. that's what the child act is supposed to be used for. Not to be used for is that kid yours. well i have a passport and birth cert. no that's not good enough

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:27PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

The Gardai acted unlawfully IMO. They can only remove a child from its home when there is a real and immediate threat to the child's health or safety. We will see the proof of this when the couple sue the State.

I think that's the bit they were trying to ascertain.

listermint · 23-10-2013 07:28PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Or proving that people are concerned about the state massively overreacting to something that could have been done differently. There was no proof the child had been neglected or in any immediate danger. that's what the child act is supposed to be used for. Not to be used for is that kid yours. well i have a passport and birth cert. no that's not good enough

il stick with fickle thank you.

nanook · 23-10-2013 07:31PM

I heard on drivetime this evening that they were waiting for the dna results. I take it not in yet

Phoebas · 23-10-2013 07:31PM

seamus wrote: »

Well, no.
The Gardai would have no power to detain the family or prevent them from travelling without a court order and only then if they had good reason to suspect a crime had been committed.

The only powers available to them under the law were to take the child into custody temporarily as they had good reason to suspect the child did not belong to the family.

The only thing which didn't work here was the hospital providing the wrong information, and the hospital needs to look into that and take steps to avoid such a thing happening in future. Otherwise everything went well, job done properly.

The family in this case were very cooperative, so I wouldn't imagine any problem with them agreeing to supervision. Obviously if they weren't then that limits the guard's options.

We don't know that the hospital were at fault. Or the Gardai for that matter. Or the parents.
You're very premature in declaring the job done properly.

darkpagandeath · 23-10-2013 07:32PM

listermint wrote: »

il stick with fickle thank you.

fickle over a law being used in an unintended way ? there was confusion over whether the record’s the biological parents gave to the garda were correct. Not over immediate danger to the child

namloc1980 · 23-10-2013 07:32PM

seamus wrote: »

The only powers available to them under the law were to take the child into custody temporarily as they had good reason to suspect the child did not belong to the family.

No they don't have that power. The acted under section 12 of the child care act which allows them to take a child only when there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of the child. It would seem they acted unlawfully.

dj jarvis · 23-10-2013 07:33PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Or proving that people are concerned about the state massively overreacting to something that could have been done differently. There was no proof the child had been neglected or in any immediate danger. that's what the child act is supposed to be used for. Not to be used for is that kid yours. well i have a passport and birth cert. no that's not good enough

twisting the truth of what happened a bit or we not
they could not match record held - it not as if people have false passports and birth certs is it ?

but good to see your judgement is better than the 2 trained garda who were on the spot and had to make the call,

maybe they should ring you next time - oh wait , you wont have the benefit of after the fact knowledge then will you :rolleyes:

Phoebas · 23-10-2013 07:34PM

listermint wrote: »

But this case was by the book.

I don't know how you can say that with any confidence when its clear that something went wrong somewhere.

cletus van damme · 23-10-2013 07:34PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then why Dna tests ?

because the passport only had an infants photo and they had no other proof.

the gardai need to do due process and ultimately be correct, the independant (answering another poster) only need a sniff of an angle for a story and nobody really gives a hoot how inaccurate they are.

Nodin · 23-10-2013 07:35PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

so the cops doing their job is now cudda wudda nonsense ???

a complaint is made , they have to act
the family could not prove at that point in time that the child was theirs

what would you like them to do ???

...their jobs, in a level-headed calm manner.

Gatling · 23-10-2013 07:35PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

. Not over immediate danger to the child

And if the child isn't actually there's , kidnapped ,unofficially adopted ,welfare scam what ever it is ,

Then what ohhh they didn't do any harm sure give the child back for another while

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:36PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

No they don't have that power. The acted under section 12 of the child care act which allows them to take a child only when there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of the child. It would seem they acted unlawfully.

We don't know that.
Maybe the family kept moving home?
Maybe someone in the family has history?
Maybe the garda thought they were a flight risk?

I seriously doubt they did it for fun.
They had their reasons i'm sure and nobody posting here knows those reasons no matter how expert they want to feel..

My name is URL · 23-10-2013 07:37PM

listermint wrote: »

Calling the Guards idiots and silly irish and giving out about hysteria is a bit rich when people are incensed when they do nothing.

If you see things in such a black and white way, then what's the point in anyone even debating it with you

Is it a case of either 'do nothing' or go in all guns blazing, in a very conspicuous and public way?

Phoebas · 23-10-2013 07:40PM

tayto lover wrote: »

We don't know that.
Maybe the family kept moving home?
Maybe someone in the family has history?
Maybe the garda thought they were a flight risk?

I seriously doubt they did it for fun.
They had their reasons i'm sure and nobody posting here knows those reasons no matter how expert they want to feel..

I'm inclined to think that they must have had other information that isn't public. But the way it looks right now looks bad.

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:41PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm inclined to think that they must have had other information that isn't public. But the way it looks right now looks bad.

I don't think it looks bad at all.
Doing nothing would look bad.

Phoebas · 23-10-2013 07:43PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't think it looks bad at all.
Doing nothing would look bad.

If the only choices were doing nothing and taking the child into custody, then yeah.
But obviously that's a false choice.

namloc1980 · 23-10-2013 07:45PM

tayto lover wrote: »

We don't know that.
Maybe the family kept moving home?
Maybe someone in the family has history?
Maybe the garda thought they were a flight risk?

I seriously doubt they did it for fun.
They had their reasons i'm sure and nobody posting here knows those reasons no matter how expert they want to feel..

So if that's the case and they took the child because there was an immediate and serious danger to the child then I presume she won't be returned to her family. Or will the immediate and serious risk be gone now the DNA results are in?

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:45PM

Phoebas wrote: »

If the only choices were doing nothing and taking the child into custody, then yeah.
But obviously that's a false choice.

I don't believe from reading the story on several newspapers that they had other choices.

Tigger · 23-10-2013 07:45PM

today fm and i radio have both stated that the dna tests showed she was theirs
rte still say they are waiting on results

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:47PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

So if that's the case and they took the child because there was an immediate and serious danger to the child then I presume she won't be returned to her family. Or will the immediate and serious risk be gone now the DNA results are in?

My point is that there is much we don't know about this case BUT they obviously had their reasons.

dj jarvis · 23-10-2013 07:47PM

Nodin wrote: »

...their jobs, in a level-headed calm manner.

REAL easy to say after the fact , care to enlighten with some knowledge that is not already in the public domain

hindsight is the foresight of a gob****e

darkpagandeath · 23-10-2013 07:49PM

tayto lover wrote: »

My point is that there is much we don't know about this case BUT they obviously had their reasons.

were going on information presented to us were not going on hearsay

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:50PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

were going on information presented to us were not going on hearsay

What information?

6am7f9zxrsjvnb · 23-10-2013 07:50PM

Has a thread ever had as many posters knee deep in egg as it drips from their righteous faces?!
Hilarious stuff!

darkpagandeath · 23-10-2013 07:51PM

tayto lover wrote: »

What information?

:rolleyes:

Lockstep · 23-10-2013 07:52PM

It's been confirmed as their child.
Yup

Get Real · 23-10-2013 07:52PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe from reading the story on several newspapers that they had other choices.

I don't have a terribly strong view to either side of this story.

On the one hand there's the case of what if nothing was done and the child had have been abducted and how terrible that would be.

On the other the child was theirs, and a quick decision was made to call round to someones house and remove a child based on what was originally a facebook comment of suspicion.

But to be fair, there is a middle ground in this. Could the gaurds/social services, not have kept this a private matter, spend a while analysing and carrying out investigations in the background?

I think if this happened to say an Irish teacher and her husband living in Terenure there would be uproar. If I made a Facebook comment to a journalist, saying I suspect your kids aren't yours, and the following night the guards hammered on your door and whisked your children away for the night, is that ok? Just to be on the safe side like?

tayto lover · 23-10-2013 07:53PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That doesn't tell me anything.

Child removed from Roma gypsies-This time in DUBLIN *Mod Warning Post #1*

Comments

Child removed from Roma gypsies-This time in DUBLIN Mod Warning Post #1