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…4344464849…66

Comments

  • #1352
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    Whats the reasonable grounds then Tony?

    You're just playing silly buggers at this stage. Go away.


  • #1353
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I can't for the life of me see what the police did wrong!

    They had no reasonable grounds for believing that there was an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of the child but took him anyway.


  • #1354
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    You're just playing silly buggers at this stage. Go away.

    You gonna tell us what the reasonable grounds for taking the children were or not?


  • #1355
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,127 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


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

    I hope not. The guilty should be prosecuted BUT as I said last night we don't have all the facts and until we do I will not condemn anyone. The authorities were on the spot at the time and obviously had concerns as things did not check out. They seem to have taken the action they thought was necessary. Lets see how it pans out.


  • #1356
    EmptyTree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 749 ✭✭✭EmptyTree


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    the member, accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary, may, without warrant, enter (if need be by force) any house or other place (including any building or part of a building, tent, caravan or other temporary or moveable structure, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft) and remove the child to safety.

    I'm just amazed that they deemed it necessary to include hovercraft in the legislation.

    (I actually had to look it up myself because I thought someone was taking the pi**)


  • Advertisement
  • #1357
    Smiles35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    old hippy wrote: »
    If the Garda abducted your kids on a whim, would you be asking the same question?

    I would. I'd' be saying ''This is over this crap in Greece'' ''We'll get the child back tommorow.'' tbh


  • #1358
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    So Tony based on what you have bolded - why then have the state given the child back to the parents, surely if they acted on the bolded bit then they can't put the child back into such an environment....

    Because the subsequent confirmation of the childs documents and the positive DNA test proved that the parents were the childs parents?

    Really, you're having trouble with that one?


  • #1359
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    You gonna tell us what the reasonable grounds for taking the children were or not?

    You haven't been doing too well reading the thread have you.


  • #1360
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    You haven't been doing too well reading the thread have you.

    So you agree there were no reasonable grounds for believing that there was an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of the child? Or do you disagree? If so, why?


  • #1361
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    EmptyTree wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »

    I'm just amazed that they deemed it necessary to include hovercraft in the legislation.

    (I actually had to look it up myself because I thought someone was taking the pi**)

    It seems to me that the powers enacted by the legislation have been made EXTREMELY flexible to allow on the spot enactment.

    And as I mentioned earlier, given the state's appaling history of crimes involving children, I personally don't see that as a bad thing.


  • Advertisement
  • #1362
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    So you agree there were no reasonable grounds for believing that there was an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of the child? Or do you disagree? If so, why?

    It's alrady been pointed out. Go back and try again.


  • #1363
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,888 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    EmptyTree wrote: »
    Tony EH wrote: »

    I'm just amazed that they deemed it necessary to include hovercraft in the legislation.

    (I actually had to look it up myself because I thought someone was taking the pi**)

    The Act was written in the late 1980s.......Hovercrafts were all the rage back then, I believe the legislators anticipated a good deal of the population would live in hovercrafts in the future.

    (I just made up that last bit).


  • #1364
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,031 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because the subsequent confirmation of the childs documents and the positive DNA test proved that the parents were the childs parents?

    Really, you're having trouble with that one?

    No I'm not at all, you are missing the point, look at what you highlight in bold below for us all. If the below are the reasons the guards took the child, then DNA shouldn't matter, the child should still in the care of the state if there is this immediate and serious risk you talk about


    .—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that—


    (a) there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child,


  • #1365
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,888 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It's alrady been pointed out. Go back and try again.

    you are some man for sticking to your guns.....I'll say that at least.


  • #1366
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Tony EH wrote: »
    You're just playing silly buggers at this stage. Go away.

    There were no reasonable grounds and absolutely no immediate risk, the silly buggers being played are by those seeking to defend the wholly indefensible.


  • #1367
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    We'll just have to guess what Tony thinks are reasonable grounds for taking the kids seeing as he wont tell us. My guess is that he thinks its OK because the parents were Roma Gypsies. Anyone else?


  • #1368
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    No I'm not at all, you are missing the point, look at what you highlight in bold below for us all. If the below are the reasons the guards took the child, then DNA shouldn't matter, the child should still in the care of the state if there is this immediate and serious risk you talk about

    That's perfectly within the boundries of what the Gardai did. Besides your missing out the next part. The part where they can take the child and hand them over to the care facilitators. It then becomes their responsibility.

    There's nothing in the text to say that the Gardai are to keep the kid forever.

    The risk was assessed AT THE TIME and the powers enacted upon.

    Subsequent confirmation of information rendered the case null.

    It's really not that hard.


  • #1369
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    you are some man for sticking to your guns.....I'll say that at least.

    In this case there is only one set of guns to stick to.

    As I said earlier, I certainly don't agree fully with how the Gardai acting in this case, but they did act within the law.


  • #1370
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    drumswan wrote: »
    We'll just have to guess what Tony thinks are reasonable grounds for taking the kids seeing as he wont tell us. My guess is that he thinks its OK because the parents were Roma Gypsies. Anyone else?

    Or you can read...


  • #1371
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Or you can read...

    Can you point me to the post to read then?


  • Advertisement
  • #1372
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Haven't read the entire thread - anything more than scanning is painful given the pantomine that seems to be going on, but it seems to me that those arguing that there was a risk and that the Gardai were simply responding to that risk have problems actually clarifying what the risk was and why...


  • #1373
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,031 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That's perfectly within the boundries of what the Gardai did. Besides your missing out the next part. The part where they can take the child and hand them over to the care facilitators. It then becomes their responsibility.

    There's nothing in the text to say that the Gardai are to keep the kid forever.

    The risk was assessed AT THE TIME and the powers enacted upon.

    Subsequent confirmation of information rendered the case null.

    It's really not that hard.

    If there is a serous risk - why leave the other children in the house?


  • #1374
    Dr.Winston O'Boogie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Dr.Winston O'Boogie


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Haven't read the entire thread - anything more than scanning is painful given the pantomine that seems to be going on, but it seems to me that those arguing that there was a risk and that the Gardai were simply responding to that risk have problems actually clarifying what the risk was and why...

    Would the risk not be if they left the child with the Roma's, and waited for DNA testing results, the Roma's and child may have fled? This going on the assumption that they may have done something illegal which obviously it turns out they didn't. But at the time the Gardai were not clear on that.


  • #1375
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,888 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Tony EH wrote: »
    In this case there is only one set of guns to stick to.

    As I said earlier, I certainly don't agree fully with how the Gardai acting in this case, but they did act within the law.


    If you believe that, then you believe that the child's parents represented an immediate and serious risk to the child's welfare or health. Because this is what you yourself have quoted in the childcare act as being the grounds for removing the child.

    I dont see how the gardai could discern an immediate and serious risk to the child's health or welfare is in this case....

    .....made all the more galling by the thousands upon thousands of cases where parents in this country did represent an immediate threat to their children, and nothing was done.


  • #1376
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    reasonable grounds
    Reasonable grounds indeed..
    The guards followed up on the concerns of a citizen, concerns based on an actual case proven to be fact..

    On follow up the documentation provided was not supported when the guards tried to verify its accuracy. So the only possible proof had reasonable doubt cast on it by a neutral third party who should be trustworthy.

    "Reasonable grounds" is open to personal opinion. Without hindsight things definitely didnt seem to stack up.. chances are that different guards may have gone in a different direction and waited... but we task the guards with making their best possible decision based on the evidence at the time.


  • #1377
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,888 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    niallo24 wrote: »
    Would the risk not be if they left the child with the Roma's, and waited for DNA testing results, the Roma's and child may have fled? This going on the assumption that they may have done something illegal which obviously it turns out they didn't. But at the time the Gardai were not clear on that.


    But you could say that about every family in the country.....

    (though to be honest, if I thought there was any chance the Gardai would take my kids until they had DNA tested us, i would flee).


  • #1378
    Donaldio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Donaldio


    Its amazeing to see the Gaurds actually do anything at all really.


  • #1379
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,127 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    bbam wrote: »
    Reasonable grounds indeed..
    The guards followed up on the concerns of a citizen, concerns based on an actual case proven to be fact..

    On follow up the documentation provided was not supported when the guards tried to verify its accuracy. So the only possible proof had reasonable doubt cast on it by a neutral third party who should be trustworthy.

    "Reasonable grounds" is open to personal opinion. Without hindsight things definitely didnt seem to stack up.. chances are that different guards may have gone in a different direction and waited... but we task the guards with making their best possible decision based on the evidence at the time.

    Would there have been a social worker with them when they first went to the house please?


  • #1380
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,352 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    If there is a serous risk - why leave the other children in the house?

    As I have already said, perhaps the parents were able to produce the docs for the other children. I don't know, I wasn't there and anything said on it is a matter of conjecture without any solid facts either way.

    If the Gardai simply didn't bother with the other kids documents, then there would be grounds for an issue, but it remains unknown whether that was the case.


  • Advertisement
  • #1381
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,031 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    As I have already said, perhaps the parents were able to produce the docs for the other children. I don't know, I wasn't there and anything said on it is a matter of conjecture without any solid facts either way.

    If the Gardai simply didn't bother with the other kids documents, then there would be grounds for an issue, but it remains unknown whether that was the case.

    You seem to have the opinion, that if the child is the parents, that you don't care what happens to the child, but with the doubt hanging over one, and the "risk", it means the child has to be taken into care?


Advertisement