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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

12467…92

Comments

  • #92
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    political analyst wrote: »
    I'm not a lawyer either. But I know the principle of compulsion, which means that admissions made in testimony given to a statutory inquiry cannot be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, anyone involved in illegal activity mentioned in the commission's report is dead or unfit to stand trial or so old that, even in the unlikely event of a decision to prosecute, he or she would die before a trial could take place.

    Why? There's people in their 30/40's now that were in those homes. Nazi's are still being trialled 75 years after WW2 ended.


  • #93
    The Hound Gone Wild
    Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭The Hound Gone Wild


    smurgen wrote: »
    Why are they being destroyed? Where in laws does it say they need to be destroyed? How come now non government parties amendments were being considered?

    They aren't being destroyed. The option is to seal them for 30 years or destroy them. The government tonight voted to create a copy and give it to Tulsa and seal the original copy.

    As you might imagine legislation is a nightmare so bear with me.

    [url]=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/23/enacted/en/print#sec43[/url]

    Section 43 (1) & (2).
    Essentially, you dissolve a commission of investigation when the final report is delivered and when you dissolve you give everything you gathered to the relevant minister.

    [url=]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/11/enacted/en/print#sec8[/url]

    Section 7 (4) (b)

    Essentially, you preserve records in the national archives or you dispose of them in accordance with the same act under section 5


  • #94
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    It stinks of a cover up. The excuse that is being peddled just seems so thin and flimsy.

    Absolutely disgusting, thise poor Women & Children will never get the justice they deserve.


  • #95
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    The Hound Gone Wild wrote: »
    They aren't being destroyed. The option is to seal them for 30 years or destroy them. The government tonight voted to create a copy and give it to Tulsa and seal the original copy.

    As you might imagine legislation is a nightmare so bear with me.

    [url]=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/23/enacted/en/print#sec43[/url]

    Section 43 (1) & (2).
    Essentially, you dissolve a commission of investigation when the final report is delivered and when you dissolve you give everything you gathered to the relevant minister.

    [url=]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/11/enacted/en/print#sec8[/url]

    Section 7 (4) (b)

    Essentially, you preserve records in the national archives or you dispose of them in accordance with the same act under section 5

    So any of the parties effected can access Tuslas file if they request right? Under GDPR is assume they'll be entitled to their own information?


  • #96
    The Hound Gone Wild
    Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭The Hound Gone Wild


    smurgen wrote: »
    So any of the parties effected can access Tuslas file if they request right? Under GDPR is assume they'll be entitled to their own information?

    It seems like it's the plan.

    You can view the bill as a PDF at the bottom of this page: [url=]https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2020/38/?highlight[0]=commission&highlight[1]=investigation&highlight[2]=mother&highlight[3]=baby&highlight[4]=homes&highlight[5]=certain&highlight[6]=related&highlight[7]=matters&highlight[8]=records&highlight[9]=another&highlight[10]=matter&highlight[11]=bill&highlight[12]=2020[/url]

    Section (3) (1) (c) (ii)

    It looks like GDPR applies to Tuslas copy.

    Again tho... I'm not a solicitor


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    The Hound Gone Wild wrote: »
    It seems like it's the plan.

    You can view the bill as a PDF at the bottom of this page: [url=]https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2020/38/?highlight[0]=commission&highlight[1]=investigation&highlight[2]=mother&highlight[3]=baby&highlight[4]=homes&highlight[5]=certain&highlight[6]=related&highlight[7]=matters&highlight[8]=records&highlight[9]=another&highlight[10]=matter&highlight[11]=bill&highlight[12]=2020[/url]

    Section (3) (1) (c) (ii)

    It looks like GDPR applies to Tuslas copy.

    Again tho... I'm not a solicitor

    Sounds to me like there's no plan in place to guarantee tusla will allow access. That tusla will lock down the data. This makes me wonder why no amendments to guarantee access by those affected would be considered.

    Worth a listen.

    https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1318998738187243524?s=09


  • #98
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    smurgen wrote: »
    So any of the parties effected can access Tuslas file if they request right? Under GDPR is assume they'll be entitled to their own information?
    My understanding, based on an hour of reading so please correct me when I'm wrong, is that the attorney general's position is that the records are not subject to GDPR, and legally the government has to adopt the AG's position when asked for it. So the government couldn't accept further amendments to the act that explicitly gave GDPR-style rights to people requesting access, they can't knowingly write illegal law, as much as they might regret not being able to.

    So they had a choice between doing nothing and losing access for 30 years, or creating a copy which is by default placed in this weird GDPR limbo until they can figure the situation out, hopefully soon. Doing anything else would be asking the government to act illegally I think.

    Edit: maybe not "anything" but else, don't know why they didn't extend the commission's lifetime for instance, maybe that would have been seen as an attempt to delay the report?


  • #99
    The Hound Gone Wild
    Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭The Hound Gone Wild


    smurgen wrote: »
    Sounds to me like there's no plan in place to guarantee tusla will allow access. That tusla will lock down the data. This makes me wonder why no amendments to guarantee access by those affected would be considered.

    Worth a listen.

    She's a barrister AFAIK. Trust her over me on this.


  • #100
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    TheChizler wrote: »
    My understanding, based on an hour of reading so please correct me when I'm wrong, is that the attorney general's position is that the records are not subject to GDPR, and legally the government has to adopt the AG's position when asked for it. So the government couldn't accept further amendments to the act that explicitly gave GDPR-style rights to people requesting access, they can't knowingly write illegal law, as much as they might regret not being able to.

    So they had a choice between doing nothing and losing access for 30 years, or creating a copy which is by default placed in this weird GDPR limbo until they can figure the situation out, hopefully soon. Doing anything else would be asking the government to act illegally I think.

    The AG's position is not legally binding. So the attorney general is free to subvert GDPR (EU Law) at will and the Government is powerless to challenge it? Sounds like a total spoof and more of the hiding behind questionable guidance such as Seamus Woulfe saying rent freezes etc were unconstitutional and the government hiding behind that advice.


  • #101
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    _Brian wrote: »
    My question here is who is pushing for this ??

    The government are taking allot of flack making this decision, but I can’t see why they are so adamant to go ahead and seal them.

    And I presume a subsequent government can change this decision.

    The state aided and abetted the church in all of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Man with broke phone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,201 ✭✭✭Man with broke phone


    Sickening.

    Half of the antimaskers today were actually protesting about this. The papers want to paint them as anti maskers but 50 per cent of them are not nutters or serial protestors. Half of the protest today was calling for an end to the state and child molesting or child abusing partnership.

    They passed me today and I would have joined them only they had a pile of anti lockdowners with them.

    If the serial protestors want something to march about its this. Forget all that flu stuff. Public will get onboard if you keep the message simple.

    About 80 percent of the protestors today at the point depot had masks on.


  • #103
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Man with broke phone wrote: »
    Sickening.

    Half of the antimaskers today were actually protesting about this. The papers want to paint them as anti maskers but 50 per cent of them are not nutters or serial protestors. Half of the protest today was calling for an end to the state and child molesting or child abusing partnership.

    They passed me today and I would have joined them only they had a pile of anti lockdowners with them.

    If the serial protestors want something to march about its this. Forget all that flu stuff. Public will get onboard if you keep the message simple.

    About 80 percent of the protestors today at the point depot had masks on.

    This is really interesting thank you for the info. I read the news about them and yea they were painted as anti maskers and I just dismissed them as idiots. Had no idea they were protesting this.


  • #104
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,667 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »
    Another man wanted to know where his sister was buried. They refused to reveal the details.

    No one has any rights to information about their siblings.


  • #105
    quokula
    Registered Users Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭quokula


    It's hard to find decent information on this without all the usual outrage merchants oversimplifying and misinterpreting it.

    My understanding from what I've read was that it was already sealed for 30 years, that's out of the government's hands and today's vote didn't change that. It seems people gave testimony on the grounds it would be sealed and have a right to privacy that the government can't turn around and undo now.

    As far as I can understand this vote makes information available that would otherwise be lost due to a previously existing deadline, to ensure that people directly involved are able to access the data should they wish to do so. It's quite technical but opposition parties are just opportunistically using it to play political games and attack the government over pre-existing things that this bill doesn't actually have influence over.

    The government could do with some better PR to explain some of these things though, they rarely seem to get a look in in the media coverage.


  • #106
    CalamariFritti
    Registered Users Posts: 5,405 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    No one has any rights to information about their siblings.

    You dont find that statement a bit problematic?


  • #107
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    Scumbags and anyone who ever votes for anyone who agreed to this cover up is just as bad

    FF/FG and the Greens are a disgrace

    Scumbags, absolute scumbags


  • #108
    rockatansky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭rockatansky


    quokula wrote: »
    It's quite technical but opposition parties are just opportunistically using it to play political games and attack the government over pre-existing things that this bill doesn't actually have influence over.

    Wait a second, is there not a few of the Victims groups very upset as a result of this? So it's not just the opposition being opportunistic as you put it.


  • #109
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    quokula wrote: »
    It's hard to find decent information on this without all the usual outrage merchants oversimplifying and misinterpreting it.

    My understanding from what I've read was that it was already sealed for 30 years, that's out of the government's hands and today's vote didn't change that. It seems people gave testimony on the grounds it would be sealed and have a right to privacy that the government can't turn around and undo now.

    As far as I can understand this vote makes information available that would otherwise be lost due to a previously existing deadline, to ensure that people directly involved are able to access the data should they wish to do so. It's quite technical but opposition parties are just opportunistically using it to play political games and attack the government over pre-existing things that this bill doesn't actually have influence over.

    The government could do with some better PR to explain some of these things though, they rarely seem to get a look in in the media coverage.

    Better than the €15m ones they already have?

    Government's 64 special advisors to cost taxpayer €15m


  • #110
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    s1ippy wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1319296907416514565?s=20

    This is hard to watch.

    Richard Boyd Barrett was born in a mother and baby home.

    https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1319360295085744129?s=20

    I am not in favour of protesting right now but I really don't see what alternative we have. The government voted 78 to 67 in favour of sealing these records. They are going to allow abusers and murderers to die without facing justice. With this action they have enabled institutional rape, murder, paedophilia. This cannot be allowed and we need to organise to take action on behalf of the voiceless dead, maimed, mentally unwell and the fearful victims.

    A point that has been raised ; most of the abusers are long dead. look at the era in which it all happened?

    Any further " action" would only extend and exacerbate the pain of those left behind

    Trust in that when the report comes out you will see there is no cover up and it is needful that this sensitive private material be taken out of circulation for everyone's sake before the report comes out.

    There is nothing more to be done on the terms by which you are thinking

    It is time to support the descendants of the victims not rage.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    They’re going to cover it on Morning Ireland. Hopefully, some light may be shone on this very emotional matter


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    eddie73 wrote: »
    Excuse my ignorance, why did the gov rule in favour of sealing these records? Seems like a very very odd decision. What was their rationale?

    Excellent question.

    To protect the privacy of the victims' families.

    it would not be just family who would seek them. Every sensationalist reporter and crank would have access.

    Few seem to have any idea of how shocking it will be.

    Wait until you see the report on 30th. This will make more sense then.


  • #113
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    quokula wrote: »
    It's hard to find decent information on this without all the usual outrage merchants oversimplifying and misinterpreting it.

    My understanding from what I've read was that it was already sealed for 30 years, that's out of the government's hands and today's vote didn't change that. It seems people gave testimony on the grounds it would be sealed and have a right to privacy that the government can't turn around and undo now.

    As far as I can understand this vote makes information available that would otherwise be lost due to a previously existing deadline, to ensure that people directly involved are able to access the data should they wish to do so. It's quite technical but opposition parties are just opportunistically using it to play political games and attack the government over pre-existing things that this bill doesn't actually have influence over.

    The government could do with some better PR to explain some of these things though, they rarely seem to get a look in in the media coverage.

    Thank you. A perfect explanation.


  • #114
    mvt
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭mvt


    CalamariFritti wrote: »
    You dont find that statement a bit problematic?

    You dont think that someone has a right to privacy?


  • #115
    mvt
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭mvt


    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    Scumbags and anyone who ever votes for anyone who agreed to this cover up is just as bad

    FF/FG and the Greens are a disgrace

    Scumbags, absolute scumbags

    I wouldn't claim to know a whole lot about this topic but I would think that there are few TDs who think they are voting for a cover up.

    Calling the members of three political parties absolute scumbags is not a very useful addition to the debate around this sensitive issue.


  • #116
    mikep
    Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭mikep


    I just read the '04 act and it seems to me that based on section 31 of that act regarding preservation of documents, all documents need to be preserved untill the commission is dissolved. Which happens once the final report is presented.

    I guess that means that based on original legislation all relevant documents could be destroyed once the report is presented, if those holding them should wish to do so..


  • #117
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,069 ✭✭✭techdiver


    landofthetree wrote: »
    The state needs the Romish church to provide education. Without all the Romish schools what would the government do?

    Do you expect the Romish church just to gift all these lands and buildings to the state?

    Whilst this is partly true the state is still building new schools on public land and handing them over to the church to run also. The new "Holy Family" school in mullingar is a prime example of this.


  • #118
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    mvt wrote: »
    I wouldn't claim to know a whole lot about this topic but I would think that there are few TDs who think they are voting for a cover up.

    Calling the members of three political parties absolute scumbags is not a very useful addition to the debate around this sensitive issue.

    They are scumbags, every single one of them who voted to hide these documents which you and me both know would destroy the Church and their mates FF/FG are scumbags. Can defend them all ya like but they are a disgrace

    The Greens sold out by agreeing to try cover this up aswell, I did hope they had some morals left

    Saving the reputation of the Church and FF/FG if they have any left, is more important than people finding out thee truth

    That's Ireland 2020

    We should be so proud


  • #119
    dundalkfc10
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    :o
    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    They are scumbags, every single one of them who voted to hide these documents which you and me both know would destroy the Church and their mates FF/FG are scumbags. Can defend them all ya like but they are a disgrace

    The Greens sold out by agreeing to try cover this up aswell, I did hope they had some morals left

    Saving the reputation of the Church and FF/FG if they have any left, is more important than people finding out the truth

    That's Ireland 2020

    We should be so proud


  • #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dundalkfc10 wrote: »
    Scumbags and anyone who ever votes for anyone who agreed to this cover up is just as bad

    FF/FG and the Greens are a disgrace

    Scumbags, absolute scumbags

    I have no dogs in the fight, but I think before you go on abusive rants you should examine the actual information and not just comments on Journal.ie.

    So much of the popular comments are based on supposings and what shouters have said.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,610 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Well what I find very problematic about all of this and to those posters who elude to the government never getting a fair shake in the media here. Which is blizzard assertion btw.

    That the ministers department released a statement and the content of that statement solely lays the blame on gdpr and then Futher goes on to explain gdpr itself.

    At no point do the reference an agreement between the individuals that gave evidence. So it seems the minister was asked.... by the same media... And provided a bull**** response using data protection as a crutch outside of its intended purpose


Advertisement