• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Open letter to Vincent Browne re tonight's Children's Rights Referendum debate on TWVB


blacbloc

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
590
I'm specially interested in #vinb's choices for the panel. Looks like he's trying to set up a loony christian right versus voices of self-professed righteousness 'debate'. Sinnott and and Waters can expect be to be shouted and sneered at a lot, while everybody's favourite Santa Clause, Fergus Finlay will incline his head to one side and intone with sad dog eyes about caring for children while evading all substantive questions about the ramifications for children of what he and his fellow travellers are trying to do to them. Alternatively, he will reveal just how manipulative he can be with words - watch him carefully, in my opinion, one of the most devious people on the Irish political scene.
 

Didimus

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,285
I'm specially interested in #vinb's choices for the panel. Looks like he's trying to set up a loony christian right versus voices of self-professed righteousness 'debate'. Sinnott and and Waters can expect be to be shouted and sneered at a lot, while everybody's favourite Santa Clause, Fergus Finlay will incline his head to one side and intone with sad dog eyes about caring for children while evading all substantive questions about the ramifications for children of what he and his fellow travellers are trying to do to them. Alternatively, he will reveal just how manipulative he can be with words - watch him carefully, in my opinion, one of the most devious people on the Irish political scene.
I can accept that you think that this amendment does not go far enough, or is strong enough.
I can accept that you think that the government is hypocritical.
I'm not sure however by what you mean by the phrase " trying to do to them"?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
If you'd done a better job organising your "national campaign" wouldn't your masses of supporters already have bombarded tb3, rte et al with demands for your appearance? Or at least have gotten the date of the discussion right.
 

blacbloc

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
590
If you'd done a better job organising your "national campaign" wouldn't your masses of supporters already have bombarded tb3, rte et al with demands for your appearance? Or at least have gotten the date of the discussion right.
The campaign was five years ago - and the point of mentioning it is to demonstrate the motives and perspective behind the letter.

The programme is on tomorrow night, 31st October - not tonight 30th Oct..
 

Damon Matthew Wise

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
2
Seemed to be unable to post on the issue of tonights debate to Vincent Browne, so trying again:
Do not be hoodwinked into signing the rights of your children with disabilities over to the state in support of their illegal kidnapping agenda - the way that social workers try to blackmail, bully, insinuate and threaten families involving disability into extending fostering children from respite into "regular", "Full-Time" or "Permanent care" is something that needs to be raised - this referendum and the legislation published will allow the state to adopt out to foster parents all such children without consent or reason.

Many of our children are in the system for no other reason for the fact that there is no respite care available, and the HSE seems fit to use fostering services to dump our children and have them abused and neglected as the system does not understand and support their medical, therapy and social needs.

In the vast majority of cases nothing has ever been to court - and it is proposed that children who have been in this abusive and manipulative system will be adopted automatically (in order to save money) when the cheapest option is to support the family with disabilities in the home.

Hope tonight is not gong to have the issues hidden behind closed doors. Get the truth out!

Prime Time could not tell the truth - a thundering disgrace. Rubbish - the state will further take children into care without cause and buldig on the powers then adopt the children without reason and the courts will allow children to make a statement and ignore it.

No postive action and no definitions of the rights with regards to the UN Conventions, protocols and codicils means more state sponsorred uncontested kidnapping.

NO TO a children's referendum without rights.

Rubbish - lies, damn lies and covers ups - cannot lie straight in bed - want an honest debate bring us who have worked in the disability rights for decades and rights of the child since the 70's.

Watch out more children will disappear behind closed doors in the system.

Children get taken away from parents in the night and parents get refused their rights.

Children are brutilsed in care ... the state does NOT take the cases to court and parents and families get bullied into having children taken away without grounds.

Live in the real world. Remember the O'Hara family case and our fight for our children "look up "Meet The Wise Family" or "It's not a crime for a disabled person to have a child".

Most cases NEVER EVER see a court. Parents get bullied.

These children taken in the middle of night by social workers have NO RIGHTS - they bully and lie and cheat to get more money.

NO RIGHTS =- NO Childrens' Referendum - this is a "Sign children away to the state without any grounds and have then illegaly kidnapped and adopted referendum".

STOP LYING! Thousands of such cases happen every year and the Families with disabilities HAVE NO RIGHTS - their children are cattle to be swapped between states social care departments for money.

This referendum makes the provision of the state to take children easier rather then using foreign coutries in contravention of the The Hague Convention.

Let rights be defined and agreed and the protection of families with disabilities to get supports for the family stand to prevent illegal kidnapping.

They never get to court because there is no basis for the state taking the chldren.

We had to fight the extension of respite care heading towards full time/permanent care without grounds or consent while our children were shouted at, threatened, bullied and subjection to physical, emtional and psychological abuse and medical neglect.

WE KNOW THE FACTS - WE HEAR THE FACTS - PLEASE LET THESE FACTS BE HEARD - these are all done behind closed doors and outside of the court.

Do not allow state-sponsrered abuse to become easier.

We need specified chidrens and disabled rights under the UN Conventions and its addtional protocols to give REAL RIGHTS NOW - NOT Negative rights state-sponsored kidnapping and adoption of children who should not be forced into the fostering systen without any reason other then money.

Created the Group Vote NO to the "Children's Referendum" without defined Rights on facebook - look it up:

In order to protect the rights of the family and define rights consistant with international definitions using the UN Conventions, protocols and codicils, a negative rights constitutional ammendment WILL be used to continue to represss the rights of the family where disabilities are involved - rolling back parental powers subject to the whims of social workers adopting out children taken into excessive care without legal grounds, or basis just because of disability is ILLEGAL and MUST remain so.

The inability or unwillingness of the state to deal with the fostering system to brutilise and alienate Irish Citizens at home and abroad ramdomly and without going to court and without cause being in care system, and denationalionalising and exporting children from families with disabilities in order to remove them will allow them to legally kidnap children bullied into care, strip the parents and family of rights to each other without cause and do so in clear violation of The Hague Convention illegally in Ireland, rather then being given reasonable and cheaper support is effectively in the home.

State and Institutional abuse, subject to the whims of social workers withouut fair and balanced legal support of the family must not become legal in Ireland.

Damon Matthew Wise - National Secretary of the National Board and Directors of NCPD - the National Council for People with Disabilities Limited (search for galway.ncpd.ie, and also NCPD group on facebook); Co-Ordinator, Trustees of Federation Trust and Co-ordinator of ICAAN - the Irish Council for Aspies and Autistic Networking. ICAAN.ie causegroup

(Sorry about having to break it up - would not allow the single text section to be sent so had to break it up into seperate sentences - tried putting it into paragraphs, but like most objections to the referendum not defining and including specific positve rights seem to get blocked otherwise - have to find ways of posting around these blocks.).

<Mod> Posts merged </mod>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

revolution

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
1,013
(Sorry about having to break it up - would not allow the single text section to be sent so had to break it up into seperate sentences - tried putting it into paragraphs, but like most objections to the referendum not defining and including specific positve rights seem to get blocked otherwise - have to find ways of posting around these blocks.).

You ruined blacblocs thread dude!
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
NB Vincent Browne's TV3 debate is on tomorrow night 31st October, Halloween. It is NOT on tonight, 30th October.

Dear Vincent

My intention is to publish this email and any response you might make to it.

I've just seen your panel for tonight's debate on the Children's Rights Referendum. There are plenty of us who oppose this referendum other than for religious reasons. To exclude our voices from your programme will mean that your debate is unbalanced before it even begins. With respect to John Waters and Kathy Sinnott, some of whose concerns I share, they are unlikely to represent the views of people whose definition of family would include same-sex parents/guardians and unmarried parents/guardians many of whom also oppose this amendment.

I have been the national coordinator for a campaign (on behalf of the member organisations of Inclusion Ireland) aimed precisely at securing just a few basic, legislated rights for children and other people with disabilities and I can tell you categorically that neither Fine Gael nor Labour would commit to unequivocally support that objective. So much for their conviction to rights for children. This amendment will do nothing to help secure those basic rights.

While I accept that many of the proponents of this amendment are genuine in their concern for children, I believe their professional perspective is skewed so much towards extreme cases that they have lost all objectivity about the enormous danger they are threatening to inflict on the real rights of all our children in so many ways they appear not even to have contemplated - and on the rights of those who are proven to be children's best primary protectors and carers in the vast majority of instances.

This referendum is not about the rights of children - as its proponents disingenuously claim, it is about who should have the right to represent them. It's not just madness to transfer that right to the state to the extent that this amendment would, it is also to put at risk the interests of many more children than already are. Sate services are also being deliberately underfunded and the proposed amendment would also substantially weaken the grounds on which parents could make a legal challenge to the state on behalf of children.

Questions this parent hopes will be asked tonight include:

What legally enforceable rights, exactly, would this referendum confer on children themselves?

Who will have the authority to pursue the enforcement of those rights, if any - parents/guardians - or only the state and its agents?

How does the proposed amendment make the state more accountable than under the terms of existing legislation/constitutional arrangements for any future failure to protect children?

How will it make decisions and actions of the state with regard to vulnerable children transparent?

How can a government that is deliberately impoverishing so many children, and so many of them children with a disability like my son, make any serious claim to a concern about children's rights?

And finally, how does the government propose to make the state (aside from the Catholic Church which it has also seriously failed to challenge legally) accountable for its past failures?

Miriam Cotton
So, you're actually a two-trick pony?
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
I imagine John Waters and Kathy Sinnott were picked because they're the only two people who are opposed to the referendum who anyone has ever heard off and therefore will attract more interest.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
56,230
I imagine John Waters and Kathy Sinnott were picked because they're the only two people who are opposed to the referendum who anyone has ever heard off and therefore will attract more interest.
Whatever are you thinking, coming round here with your common sense?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

NB Vincent Browne's TV3 debate is on tomorrow night 31st October, Halloween. It is NOT on tonight, 30th October.

Dear Vincent

My intention is to publish this email and any response you might make to it.

I've just seen your panel for tonight's debate on the Children's Rights Referendum. There are plenty of us who oppose this referendum other than for religious reasons. To exclude our voices from your programme will mean that your debate is unbalanced before it even begins. With respect to John Waters and Kathy Sinnott, some of whose concerns I share, they are unlikely to represent the views of people whose definition of family would include same-sex parents/guardians and unmarried parents/guardians many of whom also oppose this amendment.

I have been the national coordinator for a campaign (on behalf of the member organisations of Inclusion Ireland) aimed precisely at securing just a few basic, legislated rights for children and other people with disabilities and I can tell you categorically that neither Fine Gael nor Labour would commit to unequivocally support that objective. So much for their conviction to rights for children. This amendment will do nothing to help secure those basic rights.

While I accept that many of the proponents of this amendment are genuine in their concern for children, I believe their professional perspective is skewed so much towards extreme cases that they have lost all objectivity about the enormous danger they are threatening to inflict on the real rights of all our children in so many ways they appear not even to have contemplated - and on the rights of those who are proven to be children's best primary protectors and carers in the vast majority of instances.

This referendum is not about the rights of children - as its proponents disingenuously claim, it is about who should have the right to represent them. It's not just madness to transfer that right to the state to the extent that this amendment would, it is also to put at risk the interests of many more children than already are. Sate services are also being deliberately underfunded and the proposed amendment would also substantially weaken the grounds on which parents could make a legal challenge to the state on behalf of children.

Questions this parent hopes will be asked tonight include:

What legally enforceable rights, exactly, would this referendum confer on children themselves?

Who will have the authority to pursue the enforcement of those rights, if any - parents/guardians - or only the state and its agents?

How does the proposed amendment make the state more accountable than under the terms of existing legislation/constitutional arrangements for any future failure to protect children?

How will it make decisions and actions of the state with regard to vulnerable children transparent?

How can a government that is deliberately impoverishing so many children, and so many of them children with a disability like my son, make any serious claim to a concern about children's rights?

And finally, how does the government propose to make the state (aside from the Catholic Church which it has also seriously failed to challenge legally) accountable for its past failures?

Miriam Cotton
At least now I know who was threatening to sue me on the VEC thread!
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,844
I think the line of questioning in the OP is sound. But the great thing about the interweb is the capacity for links; I just have to ask a question that eluded me some time ago.
Miriam Cotton
Was I right that your claim three years ago that “Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has also issued a statement in support of Corduff and called for an independent international inquiry into the events of 23rd April and the project as a whole. “ is based on a garbling of a Mayo News article that was, itself, inaccurate? I never found anyone who could answer the questions in my post at the link below:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/67955-arch-tutu-calls-investigation-into-rossport-assault-3.html#post1908340
 

RedCloud

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,998

Reck-less

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
608
It was a brave gamble by Miriam Cotton to effectively 'out' herself both:

here, on P.ieasblacbloc
and
over on a competing forumasMediaBite


See also:



but will it have been worth it all?


This time tomorrow it will be hugely interesting to see the results of the referendum.
 
Top