Yes. You donât know the issues here. I agree
You are deflecting. Most right minded Green Party members will be mortified by this. Now that I think about it most right minded party members left when the Greens sold their soul again
Paedos.
Who?
Youâre wrong on this.
1 Like
Can you explain?
Anybody providing testimony did so under the legislative protections and restrictions of the 2004 commissions of investigation act.
Publication of the testimony is.prohibited by law and would be counter to the basis If which the testimony was given
Fair enough I wasnât fully aware, if they testified on the basis of keeping their anonymity.
They testified under the terms of the act
1 Like
Only 24 hours away
Did you watch any of this? Do you actually know anything about it? Believe it or not I watched a few hours of this between last night and today. What struck me was how little homework the tds had done on this. @Little_Lord_Fauntleroy is completely right watch the debate if you wish and watch Rodericâs summing up. Itâs pretty clear.
Iâll try to answer some of your questions. Firstly, the commission were of the opinion that this database of information should be destroyed at the end of this month. The database itself is an amazing piece of work. It assimilates a huge amount of info that had been held prior to this on a sheets of paper in countless different locations in various religious orders or stakeholders. A one stop shop for info about people who were abused. It needs to be preserved. Thatâs what todayâs legislation was. The sealing of it is because of the 2004 legislation under which the commission of investigation was set up. The reason it would be sealed is that as part of the commission, survivors were asked to come and put on record anything they liked. The people they made allegations against had no right of reply and werenât informed. For example, theres nothing to stop one of those people putting on record that binky barnes is a paedo and a rapist.
The simple reason that people arenât immediately entitled to their information (as natural justice would suggest they should) is that the right to privacy is enshrined in the constitution. So if a mother who gave up her child doesnât want her child to get her info, she has a right to privacy. Thatâs the basic problem that has popped up again and again and again.
You are right that our country has been shameful in its mistreatment of these women. And that we have failed them repeatedly. But today wasnt one of those days.
4 Likes
That all sounds very reasonable, but why the anger ? A mates mother was forced to give up a baby in one of these places and sheâs fuming.
In fairness, itâs an incredibly emotive issue. And the interested parties are a huge lobby. The sent thousands of emails to senators and tds this time and about 6 or 7 hundred last time. But plenty of tds stood up today and yesterday and made great speeches that were factually just wrong.
I think Roderic felt like shit about it. Last night he promised loads and someone obviously had a word with him because he was fairly resolute today.
What anger?
Supseded by GDPR
From the general public at the records being sealed⌠Iâve read next to nothing on the topic so interested to hear your thoughts.
that the question and the feeling is that if the greens were in opposition they would agree that it is but th AG has advised that the commission acted under the 2004 act and Rod is obliged to follow AG avice
A lot of so called Intelligent TDâs made to look extremely foolish today. As for certain posters 