Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…3637394142…66

Comments

  • #1142
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    If a kid looks different than the parents of course suspicion would arise especially if the kid looks like a different race than the parents.

    Human beings have this thing called reason and logic and common sense.

    Of course anyone who disagrees with the PC industry are called a racist.

    Utter rubbish.
    Reason, logic and common sense would tell the authorities to get their facts right before acting.


  • #1143
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Human beings have this thing called reason and logic and common sense.

    Reason, logic, and common sense would show that children do not always look like there parents, and coming to any kind of conclusion on that basis, is not based on reason, logic or common sense.


  • #1144
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    If a gypsy couple have a white kid with blonde hair everyone is naturally going to assume the worst until there is a DNA test.
    No, racists are most likely going to assume the worst. Thats pretty much the definition of racism, well done.


  • #1145
    griffdaddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭griffdaddy


    Can't wait until the Gardaí start snatching all the 'milkman's children' because they look different to their parents


  • #1146
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    There is no requirement in law to produce documentation on demand to prove your children are your own in this country that I know of.

    That means that the acting Garda or Gardai can act as to their interpretation of the matter, based on the immediate facts at hand. Which they did. An absence of a particular requirement doesn't mean that the acting lawful official is bound to the opposite course of action.
    drumswan wrote: »
    You repeatedly saying they acted within the law doesnt make it so Im afraid. They had no basis for 'reasonable suspicion' other than racial profiling. They most likely acted illegally.

    No, the fact that they acted within the law makes it so.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    Go and read the act. Ive already demonstrated hows its most likely illegal.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0017/sec0012.html

    I've read the act, more than likely well before you.

    There is nothing illegal taking place.


  • #1148
    Penny Dreadful
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Penny Dreadful


    drumswan wrote: »
    You are still not getting it. How could the parents reasonably be assessed as a risk to one of the children but not the others?

    In some households a daughter may be abused by her father and the sons are unharmed and unaware of what is going on.
    In those cases only one child is a risk.


  • #1149
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, the fact that they acted within the law makes it so.
    They had no grounds for reasonable suspicion and therefore acted outside the law, its fairly cut and dried. The courts will no doubt confirm this in time. By all means continue to pretend to yourself otherwise but nobody else is buying it.


  • #1150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That means that the acting Garda or Gardai can act as to their interpretation of the matter, based on the immediate facts at hand. Which they did. An absence of a particular requirement doesn't mean that the acting lawful official is bound to the opposite course of action.
    So the Gardai can do whatever they want and whatever they do is correct?


  • #1151
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    They had no grounds for reasonable suspicion and therefore acted outside the law, its fairly cut and dried. The courts will no doubt confirm this in time. By all means continue to pretend to yourself otherwise but nobody else is buying it.

    Of course they did. The parents couldn't produce the relevant documents when asked. They were even sketchy about the name of the child, which caused further problems.

    The Gardai instituted the emergency measures as outlined in the Child Care Act and handed over the child to care services while information was ascertained.

    There's nothing in law to say that they cannot do this. The section on Garda powers is quite vague and so open to the interpretation of the enforcing officer, until such time as it is clarified further.

    The overarching thrust of the act is that the child's welfare is paramount and the acting officer must take action with that uppermost in his/her mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So the Gardai can do whatever they want and whatever they do is correct?

    Where did I say that?


  • #1153
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Where did I say that?
    Right here:
    Tony EH wrote: »
    That means that the acting Garda or Gardai can act as to their interpretation of the matter, based on the immediate facts at hand. Which they did. An absence of a particular requirement doesn't mean that the acting lawful official is bound to the opposite course of action.



    No, the fact that they acted within the law makes it so.


  • #1154
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Of course they did. The parents couldn't produce the relevant documents when asked.
    Again, where is the requirement to produce documentation to prove your childs parentage on demand? How many parents could do this, especially while living abroad? Where is the precedent for this?
    The Gardai instituted the emergency measures as outlined in the Child Care Act and handed over the child to care services while information was ascertained.

    There's nothing in law to say that they cannot do this. The section on Garda powers is quite vague and so open to the interpretation of the enforcing officer, until such time as it is clarified further.
    The law is quite clear, reasonable suspicion is required, there is none here, unless you can suggest what that reasonable suspicion is instead of dancing around the issue? Is it that they are Gypsys and probably up to something? The kid doesnt look like the parents? What?
    The overarching thrust of the act is that the child's welfare is paramount and the acting officer must take action with that uppermost in his/her mind.
    The childs welfare was abused by the state here, another flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.


  • #1155
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Right here:

    That's not the same as saying "can do whatever they want and whatever they do is correct"


  • #1156
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    wes wrote: »
    Reason, logic, and common sense would show that children do not always look like there parents, and coming to any kind of conclusion on that basis, is not based on reason, logic or common sense.

    You can't see an reason why the Gardaí would be suspicious especially after the almost identical case in Greece? None at all? Are you for real or what?

    You clearly have an anti-Garda agenda.


  • #1157
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    This is typical of what happens in child protection cases. The children's referendum was supposed to make it easier to intervene in child protection before there was a crisis ( as I recall a baby was recently taken from a mother , possible junkie, after birth recently and was not therefore, in immediate danger).

    The self righteous circle of hysteria goes like this:

    Police/social workers make use of agressive new laws to take a child not necessarily in "immediate danger" from a family - preferably if the outrage is to be extremely high - from a racial minority or oppressed group.

    ANGRY DENUNCIATIONS OF POLICE ACTIONS

    Laws changed. Now chastened Police/social workers fail to make use of lesser laws to save a child not in "immediate danger" when they visit. Child dies. Baby P etc. Outrage more severe if racial minority, poor ( Would a middle class white child be ignored? WOULD THEY?)

    ANGRY DENUNCIATIONS OF POLICE INACTION.

    New more aggressive laws passed.

    Police/social workers make use of agressive new laws to take a child not necessarily in "immediate danger" from a family - preferably if the outrage is to be extremely high - from a racial minority or oppressed group.

    ANGRY DENUNCIATIONS OF POLICE ACTIONS

    Wash. Rinse. Repeat.


  • #1158
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    I suppose if your underage daughter was pregnant you would believe her immediately if she claimed she was visited by an angel who told her she was blessed among all women and would give birth to the Christ child?

    You're verging on blasphemy there, remember we now have a law for that too. better hope some nosebag doesnt report you or the cops will be on to cart you off too...

    Ill stand up for your rights though...:)


  • #1159
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Of course they did. The parents couldn't produce the relevant documents when asked. They were even sketchy about the name of the child, which caused further problems.

    Where did you hear this?

    I heard it took them a while to find the documents but that doesn't mean anything as anyone who has done the panicky desperate search for a passport the night before a holiday knows.


  • #1160
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    This whole shebang is clearly being driven in the media and among the PC brigade by a bunch of ex-Stickies, ex-Provos, cryptic Marxists and other political extremist and members of the criminal underworld who have given up on the gun and the bomb and instead have manufactured the human rights industry as a cloak to attack the state and the policing of this country.

    This whole affair stinks of a deliberate conspiracy.


  • #1161
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    drumswan wrote: »
    Again, where is the requirement to produce documentation to prove your childs parentage on demand? How many parents could do this, especially while living abroad? Where is the precedent for this?


    The law is quite clear, reasonable suspicion is required, there is none here, unless you can suggest what that reasonable suspicion is instead of dancing around the issue? Is it that they are Gypsys and probably up to something? The kid doesnt look like the parents? What?


    The childs welfare was abused by the state here, another flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.

    The reasonable suspicion was, of course, that the child didn't look like the parents. Which is all the Greek police had.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    Smiles35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    reprazant wrote: »
    Where did you hear this?

    I heard it took them a while to find the documents but that doesn't mean anything as anyone who has done the panicky desperate search for a passport the night before a holiday knows.

    Did you not hear about them not knowing where she was born?


  • #1163
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    The reasonable suspicion was, of course, that the child didn't look like the parents. Which is all the Greek police had.

    Thats not reasonable. Plenty of kids dont look like their parents, the state doesnt take them into care.


  • #1164
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Of course they did. The parents couldn't produce the relevant documents when asked.

    They produced a passport for the child and told them what hospital the child was born in.

    A newspaper was able to verify the child was born there within the day.


    Where did you hear they were 'sketchy' about the kids name?


  • #1165
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Smell Badda wrote: »
    Did you not hear about them not knowing where she was born?

    They did know though. They told the gardai who checked but the hospital initially said there was no record before miraculously finding the record of the birth a few hours later.

    Or did I just miss out on some sarcasm?


  • #1166
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    drumswan wrote: »
    Thats not reasonable. Plenty of kids dont look like their parents, the state doesnt take them into care.

    It's all the Greek police had. So ipso facto the Greek police were, despite being correct, racist. And the child should be handed back with an apology.


  • #1167
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,360 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    Again, where is the requirement to produce documentation to prove your childs parentage on demand? How many parents could do this, especially while living abroad? Where is the precedent for this?

    This has already been explained to you. I'll try again.

    Just becasue there is no requirement within a given, doesn't mean that that particular avenue is closed off completely to the enforcing officer. There is no mention of a document requirement EITHER WAY in the act, so the Garda member is not bound to act in either way.

    This is the last time I'll be on this roundabout.
    drumswan wrote: »
    The law is quite clear, reasonable suspicion is required, there is none here, unless you can suggest what that reasonable suspicion is instead of dancing around the issue? Is it that they are Gypsys and probably up to something? The kid doesnt look like the parents? What?

    Everyone's definition of "reasonable suspicion" will vary. The parents in this case could not produce documents when asked and I also believe that they could not account for the birth name of the child in question.

    That alone may be considered reasonable suspicion for some people.

    I personally think it's erring too much on the side of caution, but either way, it's still within the boundries of the law in this regard.
    drumswan wrote: »
    The childs welfare was abused by the state here, another flagrant violation of the spirit of the law.

    There was no violation of the law.

    You seem to having some trouble with this.


  • #1168
    Smiles35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    reprazant wrote: »
    They did know though. They told the gardai who checked but the hospital initially said there was no record before miraculously finding the record of the birth a few hours later.

    Or did I just miss out on some sarcasm?

    I didnt hear about them finding it later. :D The Guards tried though.


  • #1169
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    The reasonable suspicion was, of course, that the child didn't look like the parents. Which is all the Greek police had.

    Is that all the Greeks had? Wasn't it health workers there that alerted authorities?

    Could they have had more to raise their suspicions other than looks?


  • #1170
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Is that all the Greeks had? Wasn't it health workers there that alerted authorities?

    Could they have had more to raise their suspicions other than looks?

    No. They never said the kid was badly treated.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    You can't see an reason why the Gardaí would be suspicious especially after the almost identical case in Greece? None at all? Are you for real or what?

    Wait, so basically, someone committed a crime in Greece, and according to your own twisted and bizarre logic, suspicion on the basis of that is reasonable?
    Your talking complete and utter nonsense.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    You clearly have an anti-Garda agenda.

    Wow, your jumping all over the place...... Seriously desperate stuff from you.

    As it stands, from what I know, that Guards had very little reason to remove this child from there parents. Now, maybe they had more information, that we don't know about, that turned out to be wrong. If that's the case, then they were just doing there jobs, however if they didn't, then there is something that went very wrong here, and that is something that needs to be fixed, so that a mistake like this doesn't happen again.

    That is not an Anti-Guard agenda as you put it, for reasons that I can only imagine is simple desperation, as your reasoning has been shown to be highly questionable.


Advertisement