Follow-Up to Ryan Report
Meeting with Representatives of Survivor Groups/Former Residents.
15 April 2010
1. The Taoiseach, accompanied by the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, the Ministers for Health and Children and Justice and Equality and Law Reform, the Minister of State for Children and Youth Affairs and senior Departmental officials, met 19 representatives from 10 organisations representing survivor/former residents at Government Buildings on 15 April 2010. A list of the representatives and their organisations is attached. The meeting lasted approximately from 5.45pm to 9.15 pm.
2. In his opening remarks the Taoiseach thanked the organisations’ representatives for accepting his invitation to the meeting and went on to make the following points.
· Since the then Taoiseach’s apology in May 1999 the State has put a range of measures in place in response to child abuse in residential institutes. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was established to establish a comprehensive view of the causes, nature and extent of abuse and to report on its findings and recommendations. An independent Redress Scheme was established to provide fair and reasonable awards to victims of childhood abuse. A National Counselling Service was set up to help victims cope with their experiences, together with a family tracing service to assist former residents trace their families of origin. Educational services were provided for former residents and their families, and funding was provided for support groups. These responses had been comprehensive, compassionate and as user-friendly as possible. The taxpayer has met, and continues to meet, almost all of the costs involved.
· The publication of the Ryan Report meant that for the first time an independent Commission had undertaken a detailed examination of the residential institutions and identified the failures of all involved, including the State.
· The Ryan Report had set out a series of recommendations and the Government had published a detailed Implementation Plan last summer to implement them.
· The Ryan Report had vindicated the Government’s decision to establish the Residential Institutions Redress Board to compensate survivors without their having to go through the Courts. Being an ex-gratia scheme, involving no finding of fault or declaration of liability, the Redress Scheme requires a much lower burden of proof than would have been required in Court.
· The Redress Board had commenced making awards in May 2003. Wholly independent in the performance of its functions, over the last seven years it has dealt with over 13,800 cases, resulting in over 13,000 awards being accepted by applicants. It has some 800 applications to process and continues to accept late applications in exceptional circumstances. It is expected that the Board will complete its work within the next year or so.
· The Government has considered a range of demands for the Redress Scheme to be extended and for awards made to be reviewed. However, it is not possible for the Government to second-guess the independent Board and associated appeals process to the Review Committee. There is provision for late applications and the Board continues to process such requests. The Government is satisfied that the arrangements put in place have benefited survivors and does not propose to revise the arrangements.
· The final cost of the response to residential institutional abuse is estimated to reach €1.36 billion. While the main cost is from the Redress Scheme, others include the cost of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse and the Education Finance Board.
·
The Government and Dáil Éireann last year called on the Religious Congregations to make further substantial contributions by way of reparation. The Government envisaged this contribution being available not just for public purposes but as a priority for funding necessary services to victims, including some form of independent trust or fund which would be available to support education and welfare purposes. To facilitate public assessment of the Congregations’ contributions in the context of their resources, the Government had appointed an Independent Panel to assess the statements of resources to be provided by the Congregations.
· The Panel’s Report was received in late November and shortly afterwards a full set of responses from the Congregations was received. The Panel concluded that the statements of resources provided by the Congregations give a complete and reasonable view of their overall financial situation, and that the assets, liabilities and commitments are fairly stated.
· The Panel’s Report and the responses of the Congregations would be published by the Government after today’s meeting and copies were available for everyone present.
· The offers of contributions from the Congregations, taken together, were valued by the Congregations at €348.5 million, of which some €110 million is cash to be provided over a number of years. The balance consists of €235.5 million in property and €2 million by way of rent waiver on a property.
· This was a very significant amount. However, some of the offers involve complex property proposals which will require detailed discussions with the Congregations to enable the State to adopt a definitive position in relation to them.
·
The Government intends that the €110 million cash element of the offers will be used to establish a Statutory Fund to support the needs of survivors for general education and welfare purposes as envisaged in the motion adopted by Dáil Éireann last June. The exact nature of the Fund, how it would operate and the uses to which it might be put will be addressed in consultation both with the victims’ representatives and with the Congregations. Following this consultation, the arrangements will be considered by the Government. Legislation will be needed to establish the Fund.
· In the light of the stark findings of the Ryan Report, the overall costs being incurred in the response to residential institutional abuse and the resources available to the Congregations as outlined in the resource summaries in the Panel Report, the Government considers that the ultimate outcome should be that the State and the Congregations would share the final costs on a 50:50 basis.
· While the Government acknowledge that the bulk of the Congregations’ assets are property that is in use for social services or residences, or where use is restricted in some other way, the Government believe that a 50:50 contribution from the Congregations, while challenging, would be fair, reasonable and achievable over time. The Government had met the Congregations earlier today and had proposed to them that they engage in a process to establish how, over time, that outcome can be achieved. The Government intends that any cash received in the additional contribution to reach a 50% share of the overall costs, will be used as a contribution to the planned National Children’s Hospital.
3. The Taoiseach then invited each group represented to respond.
4. Tom Hayes, Alliance, said there was a lack of accountability and transparency from Government and Government Agencies such as the Redress Unit. Because of these issues, Members of Alliance could not support a Fund run by the Government. The issues were:
- Some survivor groups were overfunded, had salaried staff, etc.
- no answers had been received as to the audited accounts of the ad-hoc Education Fund from 1997.
- no action had been taken as a result of the Report into the Outreach Services in England, which says that many survivors will not use these Centres because of their religious connections.
- no action had been taken vis-à-vis Right of Place in Cork or the Aislinn Centre in Dublin to regulate their funding. The Alliance wanted an investigation into the activities of Right of Place in Cork and the HSE’s handling of what is going on there.
- Funding to groups had been a contentious issue and one that must be addressed now. The Alliance “expenses” amount from the Department of Education and Science for 2010 amounts to only €6,000, which was simply not sufficient, despite the fact that the Committee had complied as far as it could with all requests from the Redress Unit. Alliance Accounts continue to be audited annually with copies sent to the Department of Education and Science and the Redress Unit. Expenses are always based on the previous year’s activities, as are this year’s requests.
- The Department of Education and Science only funded individuals who were willing to support Department policies, and while it gave the impression that it was engaging with other survivor groups, it never took their concerns on board. Also, it consistently used funded individuals to create the public perception that those individuals spoke on behalf of the majority of survivors.
- Alliance had always recognised that there would be no more money for Redress. If there was to be a Fund, it was not education and counselling services that were needed now: victims’ needs had changed.
John Kelly, Irish SOCA said he was deeply disappointed that prosecutions of individuals guilty of abuse in institutions had not happened. Irish SOCA was very concerned re the protection of the children of today and improving their lot. He considered ABA schools for autistic children should be helped, and mentioned his own child, who requires help with daily needs. He doubted whether the State would in fact obtain a 50:50 contribution from the religious Congregations. He also questioned how the State would manage to liquidate the school playing fields offered by the Christian Brothers and indeed the properties offered generally, and suggested that the Congregations be invited into a buy-back scheme for the properties, an idea about which he said he had spoken to the bishops.
As regards the Department of Education and Science, it had tried to limit each group to two representatives at today’s meeting but had then invited several extra groups, including two politicians – one a UK Labour party Councillor – and a salaried person. The Department would not give Irish SOCA a penny in funding. Later during the meeting, Mr Kelly said that he had no confidence in the Redress Unit of the Department. The Taoiseach rejected this view of the Unit.
Marie Seo, also Irish SOCA, said that the consensus at Irish SOCA meetings had been against a Fund and that the Government should give the victims the money and let them look after themselves. She said that discussions on the proposed memorial should be stopped until the contributions from the religious congregations are sorted out and that they wanted the State to consult with the church regarding redress for the Magdalene women. Cardinal Brady was very supportive of the women that were placed in the laundries. She wanted to know how soon the discussions about the Fund would start.
Gerard Lyons and Sean Leonard, Justice and Healing for Institutional Abuse said their Group questioned why the State was defending defenders in abuse trials and criticised the redress process. They felt that the State had taken advantage of people and shafted the victims. Also, there is no 50/50 contribution split as the State was 100% negligent and the religious congregations were 100% guilty of abusing them. They wanted no Fund and the playing fields being offered by the religious congregations had already been paid for by the local communities. The apology rang hollow, there is nothing for them in the present offer and the State did not and does not care. They had not got proper awards and only few people had got awards equivalent to High Court. Finally, it was disingenuous to expect them to read all the documents being released today.
Michael O’Brien, Right to Peace said the Government was afraid to take on the religious and noted that Cardinal Brady had not been approached for a contribution from the bishops. In removing the social welfare Christmas bonus, the Government had removed it from victims. The Government would not put him into a home. He held up the Court document referring to him when he was being put into an institution as a child and said he wanted it corrected. He complained that Redress Board awards had been reduced when appealed and said he would bring taxpayers out to march for victims again as had been done last year. His organisation wanted no Trust Find, and he accused the Government of not caring for the victims and hoping they would die off. He noted that staff are paid out of the Education Fund. He also criticised the payment of money to groups. He wanted the bishops, religious, the government and victims’ representatives all brought together. He said there were victims dying in the streets in the UK and that victims are the most vulnerable people in the country.
Mr O’Brien ended by saying that he had shortly to go into hospital for a heart operation and this plus his recovery would take some three weeks, but after that he would go on hunger strike for victims’ rights. He then walked out of the meeting.
Christopher Heaphey, also of Right to Peace, said that the Government, the Church and the Religious Orders were all equally culpable for the crimes committed against victims. On top of this, the Government had entered into an indemnity deal with the Congregations for €128 million, or some €8,500 per victim. The deal was grotesquely wrong. The survivors had never been consulted about it. To add insult to injury, it was decided that €12.7 million would go to educate victims, but only 23% of survivors avail of the Education Fund. A further €10 million was set aside to give victims counselling but survivors did not want the Congregations to pay for their counselling. It was unclear where the balance of the €128 million had gone.
Also, the Redress Scheme had included, without victims’ understanding or consent, a waiver that gave the Congregations a get-out clause for the crimes they had committed. Unless victims signed that waiver, they got no redress. Few survivors who signed it understand or understood its implications.
The Government should take the necessary money from the Congregations and give it to the victims, €60,000 each.
Tom Cronin, Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, noted that the victims’ groups would have no say re the property in the congregations’ offers, and so were left with the €110m cash offer. After last year’s meeting, there had been a terrible backlash from survivors, who argued that the representatives had had no standing to do a deal for 15,000 people, so the present offer was not going to be helpful. Very few people had got big awards from the Redress Board and many were in the 0- €50,000 bracket.
He felt that the Education Finance Board was too restrictive and should be broadened.
Finally, he wanted to know whether the money in the proposed Fund was for successful applicants, their spouses, children etc, and how the criteria would be met.
Paul Cronin, also Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, said it was a pity that they hadn’t got the reports of the assets of the religious congregations in advance of the meeting. He had suggested that the idea of pensions for former residents should be considered but wasn’t disappointed as he had felt the Government’s mind was made up.
Carmel McDonnell Byrne from Aislinn, responding to criticism of groups made by earlier speakers, said that neither she nor Christine Buckley receives a salary. Aislinn’s funding from the State goes on heat, stationery, etc. Aislinn has two paid staff, of whom neither is a survivor. Christine Buckley had got a salary for four years out of twenty-six. She went on to make the following points:
-Aislinn very much welcomed the Fund proposal and the Memorial proposal.
- Aislinn wanted all late applications to the Redress Board to be allowed. Also, the Redress Scheme should be extended to the Magdalene women.
- the Redress Board hearings had been very adversarial and the requirement that a victim must not reveal information about their award was very undesirable.
- solicitors should have been, but had not been, prosecuted for double-charging
-Aislinn wanted to be involved in negotiations with the religious congregations
- despite what had been said earlier, education and counselling services were very important to the people who call to the Aislinn Centre.
Christine Buckley, Aislinn, thanked the Taoiseach and Ministers for listening. She was in total agreement with the Fund proposal. She was glad that the Congregations had been called in to contribute to the cost of redress. She said the Redress Board hearings were very adversarial, to judge from the experiences of the people Aislinn had accompanied to the Board, and she referred to ongoing research into related suicides. There should be a review of the Redress Board, with every case looked at – perhaps by an independent panel, as she knew from MoS Andrews that for legal reasons a review would be very difficult. She considered the proposed Fund a very important step forward. Also, education was very important: thanks to it, in her view, Aislinn had not been in Court with any clients for the past three years and she suggested a Director of Counselling be seconded to help the Education Finance Board. As to counselling, people were waiting for it, and the proposed Trust Fund should help with this. She too felt that the Magdalen women should be covered by redress.
Finally, she said that Aislinn wanted to be able to visit victims in prison but had been refused [Minister Ahern responded that he would have this looked into] and that she supported the idea of a Memorial. A Memorial was not about those who had been in the institutions in the past, as that was over and one with, but it was very important in relation to children who were in care now, and also for abusers to see the memorial in place.
Here the Taoiseach pointed out that the question of Magdalene women was not part of the present discussion, which was about people who had been abused as children in residential institutions, and the position of Magdalene women was no analogous with that. In relation to women who had been in Magdalene laundries, the relevant Departments will help individuals with information where they can, but it was not part of today’s discussion.
Frank Traynor (Right of Place) said the Ryan Report had enabled victims to be known as survivors, and no longer to be embarrassed about their past. Obviously, there was anger and distrust both among groups and with the Government, and it would not be right to dismiss that anger. Survivor groups could benefit from professional liaison group to work with them to figure out what survivors want. He was not a spokesperson for Right of Place but wanted to say that he had no issue with the governance of Right of Place.
Funding for the survivor groups was important: the groups are undervalued and underfunded. A report on the groups, how they are structured, who they represent, so as to give them respect for what they do, would be a good idea.
As regards the proposed Fund, survivor groups need to find out if its the only show in town. It was important that the Government make that clear, because some people think there’s another windfall coming their way. If there is to be no windfall, the Government should clear that up, so that people can focus on victims’ real needs.
Noel Barry, Right of Place said the State couldn’t do everything. His group would like to see the Magdalen women qualify for Redress. Also, the legal profession should be removed from the process. Solicitors deserved their fees but not the barristers, and they should be excluded. As regards the proposed Memorial, its purpose is to remind future generations about Ireland not being an island of Saints and Scholars, and it is very important.
Andrew Brennan, SOCA UK thanked the Government for their efforts. He said he found it hard to separate Magdalenes from the victims’ situation. His mother was in a Magdalen, and his family had then been put into an institution.
Michael Waters, SOCA UK thanked the Taoiseach for his invitation. He wanted to wish Michael O’Brien well. He felt the SOCA Centre in Camden Town did a good job. Returning to 3 June last, he said that there was an expectation of further substantial financial contribution from the religious and that this offer will not be welcomed by many survivors.
He raised the possibility of a ballot among all survivors (using the Redress Board list), to see what they wanted done about the offer, because, he suggested, the people in the room today represented only a small number of survivors.
Quality care for today’s children with disabilities was very important. Three hostels for children recently closed in Dublin, he said, and he couldn’t find what alternative has been put in place. Had any lessons been learnt?
Also, the situation in the UK should be considered: many survivors were living rough etc, and the Redress Board awards had not changed their lives. He instanced the suicide of a person who had been in contact with him. It was crucial to be able to support victims. Money wouldn’t solve the problem.
Phyllis Morgan of the Outreach Centre, London said the Centre always helped all who came through its doors.
Sally Mulready said she was the Local Councillor in London that had been referred to earlier. She had a number of questions:
- the Trust Fund: Would there be an opportunity to contribute on the Legislation? What was the timetable? It would be useful to get down to detail quickly.
- 32%, or some 4800 people, at the Redress Board were from the UK and they should have a voice.
- how would the Fund be administered? Public finance skills would be necessary.
She also said that the Education Finance Board was a good idea – but there was a problem with take-up and greater promotion and advertising were necessary. Also, it would be useful to widen the criteria for it so that group applications can be made. She would consult with UK survivors and revert. Finally, she echoed the point already made re windfalls – tonight’s meeting would put an end to that speculation.
Paddy Doyle said he was not representing any group but felt tremendous sadness at the end of the meeting, for two reasons. First, the real issue was being lost sight of. Money hadn’t so far sorted out much for people and it was time to move away from how much victims were going to get. Rumours that each victim was going to get €300,000 were ridiculous nonsense. To do so would cost well over € 5 billion and it was time those rumours were put a stop to: people were even trying to borrow on the strength of such a windfall. He was also sad at the evident tensions between groups claiming to represent survivors, and reports of those tensions were getting into the media. Groups should come to their senses and stop tearing each other apart. There was a need to work together. He had accepted an invitation to join the Committee about the proposed Memorial and he had also served as a member of the government-appointed Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.
Services for people who had a disability because of what happened them in care were equally important. As regards the Education Finance Board, he hadn’t bothered to apply to it, because of the form-filling required: instead of requiring forms to be filled up, the EFB should simply check whether the applicant had been before the Redress Board, and if so, entitlement under the EFB would be automatic. Finally, he said, people should stop ringing Department of Education and Science staff dealing with victims and being abusive to them. He also mentioned that he had picketed the current play in the Peacock Theatre because of lack of disabled access.
The Taoiseach had responded at a number of stages during the meeting to points and questions raised by various speakers. At the end he spoke again, at length. Following is a summary of the points he made;
- he had listened to all the contributions, which often differed in approach but were
candid and sincere, and he acknowledged the hurt suffered. For former residents it was clear that supports, avoiding isolation etc through survivor groups was important.
- The Redress Scheme had been an appropriate response by the Government to the situation that had faced victims. Before the Redress Scheme was set up, only a very small proportion of the cases for damages being taken by victims through the Courts system against members of religious congregations were successful. There were important reasons for this, including the length of time that had passed since the alleged abuse occurred and therefore difficulty of gathering evidence, and the Constitutional right of every person to defend their good name. The adversarial nature of the Courts system, especially when someone was being accused of a heinous crime, was also relevant.
- the Redress Scheme had got around these difficulties by greatly lowering the burden of evidence before someone could receive an award. Also, the Redress Board could and did make offers without a hearing and the great majority of the 13,000 or so applicants who had got awards – some 78.5% – had got them on that basis, without having to go to a hearing at all.
- While acknowledging that no scheme could remove all injuries suffered, the facts spoke for themselves and without the scheme many would have not got any award. The scheme of awards had been laid down by the Judge, the finances available to the scheme had not been capped and the scheme operated independently of Government. The Government did not propose to review or amend it. The Commission offered people the opportunity to tell their stories and former residents had eloquently told of their experiences.
- In the light of the Ryan Report the Government and the Dáil had called on the congregations for a further contribution. The congregations came forward with further contributions. The independent Panel reported on the financial assets. The Government had carefully considered the matter and its view, which he said is shared by the Dáil generally, is that the costs should be borne on a 50:50 basis by the Congregations and the Government. The mechanism to achieve this split by further contributions from the Congregations over time will be pursued, with any further contributions being for State use.
- The proposed Fund is intended to address ongoing needs of former residents to cope. As the cash contributions become available it is proposed to put the €110m into a Fund to benefit survivors/former residents, with the properties offered – to the extent it is suitable – going towards the State’s costs of redress. It was important for everyone to move on to the next stage. There will be a process of engagement with survivors’ representatives regarding the Fund and he will be asking the relevant Ministers to progress matters.
MICHAEL, THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO THE ARTICLE ON PADDY’S SITE. I HAVE A FEW VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS, WHICH I’M VERY SURE, THAT SUCH A WELL EDUCATED MAN LIKE YOURSELF SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEMS IN ANSWERING.
WHY IS RIGHT OF PLACE BUILDINGS PROJECT LIMITED, THE ONLY CHARITY BY THAT NAME LISTED ON THE COMPANIES REGISTERERS OFFICE WEBSITE??? THIS MEANS OF COURSE, THAT YOUR SO CALLED BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DONT EVEN EXIST AS A LEGAL ENTITY, WHICH IN FACT, MAKES YOU YOURSELF OUT TO BE A LIAR, IN SAYING THAT YOU REPRESENT A COMPANY SUPPORTING SURVIVORS??
DO GO ONTO THE ( CRO ) WEBSITE, SIR, AND CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME. AND IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES IN LOCATING THE SITE, LET ME KNOW, AND I WOULD BE ONLY TOO HAPPY TO BE OF ASSISTANCE, AS ALWAYS.
IN FACT I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT EVERYONE WHO READS THIS WEBSITE, DO THE SAME, AND THEY WILL FOR THEMSELVES, REALIZE THAT YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A ( BULLS*****R ) TRYING TO CON SURVIVORS, AND ALL FOR THE SAKE OF €250. EXPENSES, YOU CLAIM FROM THE HSE EVERY WEEK, AND DO NOTHING FOR THE SURVIVORS.
I SUGGEST SIR, YOU CRAWL BACK INTO YOUR HOLE IN WATERFORD *** *** AND STOP SPONGING ON THE MISERY OF SURVIVORS.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, AND WOULD LIKE AN HONEST ANSWER TO, IF YOU DON’T MIND,
( 1 ) WHY DID YOU ASK MR FRANCIS TREANOR, TO REWRITE A LETTER THAT YOUR SECRETARY AND YOUR BOARD HAD ALREADY APPROVED, WHEN HE HAS ( NOTHING WHATSOEVER ) TO DO WITH ANYTHING CONCERNING THE NEW BOARD, AND ALSO IS NOT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS??? YOUR LOYALTY, AND INTEGRITY, SIR AMOUNT TO NOTHING, AND THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY, ( 2 ) TWO OF YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAVE RESIGNED ALREADY, AND NOT FOR THE SILLY REASONS YOU SUGGESTED IN YOUR RECENT LETTER TO THIS SITE. WAS MR TREANOR NOT MEANT TO STEP ASIDE, WHEN THIS NEW BOARD WAS CONVENED??
( 2 ) AS A MEMBER OF THE STEERING GROUP, APPOINTED BY THE HSE TO OVERSEE THE ELECTIONS FOR A NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHY DID YOU NOT STEP DOWN WHEN THE ELECTION PROCESS WAS COMPLETED. AS RECOMMENDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING YOU HAD WITH THE HSE ON THE 18TH OF MAY 2010?? FOR YOUR INFO, ( PAGE 2 PARAGRAPHS 3&4 )???
I WILL SEND YOU A COPY, IF YOU DONT ALREADY HAVE ONE, MR WALSH, AND ALSO TO ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, ( IF YOU SO WISH ??) BUT LOW AND BEHOLD INSTEAD, ( SURPRISE, SURPRISE ) YOU FINISHED UP AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD???? WHAT AN ACHIEVEMENT?? BUT MORE SO, A TOTAL MYSTERY???
( 3 ) WHY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ( 2009 ) RIGHT OF PLACE BUILDINGS PROJECT LIMITED ONLY SHOWS AN INCOME OF €32,520 WHEN THEY RECEIVED € 350,000 FROM THE HSE, AND OVER €60,000 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION??? WHY DO THE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO THE ( CRO’S ) OFFICE, SHOW A SUM OF €6,600 PAID INTO A DIRECTORS PENSION, WHEN THEY ARE LISTED AS A CHARITY??? DIRECTORS OF CHARITIES DO ( NOT ) RECEIVE RENUMERATION, SO WHY WAS €6,600 PAID INTO A DIRECTORS PENSION??? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HAD YOU SUPPORTED MR TOM BRENNAN SIR, THE ELECTED TREASURER ON YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THEN ALL THE QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED, AND YOU WOULD HAVE STARTED WITH A CLEAN SHEET. HOWEVER SIR, YOU CHOSE TO SUPPORT CORRUPTION, AND BETRAY YOUR HONEST BOARD MEMBERS.
THAT SIR, IS WHY THEY RESIGNED. SHAME ON YOU MICHAEL WALSH, AND THAT IS THE REASON I AM ANGRY, AND DISGUSTED WITH YOU, BECAUSE YOU BETRAYED HONEST, AND INNOCENT, SURVIVORS.
AS YOU ARE NOW A LISTED MEMBER OF THE NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ( RIGHT OF PLACE BUILDING’S PROJECT LIMITED, AS PER ( CRO’S C10 ) FORM SUBMITTED ON THE ( 4TH OF NOVEMBER 2010 ) YOU SIR, ARE NOW ( DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE ) FOR ALL THE PAST FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES OF THAT SAID COMPANY, WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT.
( 4 ) ONE LAST QUESTION SIR, ON THE ( B10 OF THE CRO’S FORM ) ( CHANGE OF DIRECTORS ) WHY DID YOU CROSS OUT YOUR SECRETARIES NAME, AND SIGN YOUR’S??? SUBMITTING SUCH A FORM, ( SURELY ) MUST BE TOTALLY ILLEGAL?? MAY I SUGGEST SIR, YOU ASK THE PERSON WHO IS ADVISING YOU ON THESE IMPORTANT MATTERS, ( WHO EVER THAT MAY BE?? ) TO PROPERLY ADVISE YOU OF YOUR ( ILLEGAL ACTIONS ).
THE NAME OF THE COMPANY ON THAT DOCUMENT IS ( RIGHT OF PLACE BUILDING PROJECT, WHICH MEANS, THAT ( RIGHT OF PLACE SECOND CHANCE ) DOES NOT EXIST, SO WHY ARE YOU LYING TO SURVIVORS, PRETENDING THAT EVERYTHING IS LEGITIMATE, WHEN IN ACTUAL FACT, NOTHING, BUT NOTHING IS LEGITIMATE ABOUT ( RIGHT OF PLACE SECOND CHANCE )???
TRY TO REGAIN YOUR INTEGRITY NOW MR WALSH, AND FULLY SUPPORT YOUR HONORABLE FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS SIR, DO THE RIGHT THING NOW, FOR SURVIVORS SAKE, AND RESIGN. BECAUSE WE ALL NEED ANSWERS, ( NOW )
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, AT THIS LATE TIME OF THE YEAR, TO WISH YOU MR WALSH, AND MORE SO ALL INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL SURVIVORS, WHERE EVER YOU MAY BE IN THIS UNSETTLED, AND UNSURE WORLD, A VERY VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR 2011. AND PERHAPS WITH THE DAWNING OF A NEW YEAR, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, WE WILL ALL GET THAT LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO PUTTING ALL THIS SAD PART OF OUR LIVES BEHIND US ONCE AND FOR ALL.
bhliain nua sásta le gach marthanóirí nuair a bhí riamh d’fhéadfá a bheith ar an domhan
Where are you Mr Walsh. Have you lost your tongue??.you seem to have no problem telling us
how good you are and are trying to help survivers
it is quite clear you are only looking after your
own self intrests and your hidden mates (???).
Be a man and answer the questions then please
resign and take your gangsters with you
in discust Bill
Mossie, Wow!
I had to take a deep breath, and decide whether I should reply to your article. Because it was insulting, aggressive, abusive inappropiate language, and as usual also incorrect. I suppose, it must be nice being Judge, Jury, and Executioner of survivors who attempt to improve our lot who dont agree with your version of right and wrong!
Anyway, I’ve decided to reply to your questions, because the one thing that drives me is, to help where I can, to correct incorrect assumptions, mis-information, and conclusions based on fiction. I might add that my initial contribution to this site was as a survivor who genuinely believes that we need to be unified and strong going forward to achieve the best we can for us all. It was a call to find common ground and a unified voice. Therefore, this is going to be my final article on these matters.
Now, to answer your questions;
The first one is legal, regarding Right of Place Building Project. This company is now defunct. It has/will be replaced by Right of Place/Second Chance (the new company). I wish I could wave a magic wand and get the legal people to move quickly on this but it is outside our control. We haved been told it is being progressed and it takes time, there have been delays, but Mossie this does not make me a liar, a bull####r or a rat.
Your next question regarding why Mr Treanor had rewrote a letter that our Board had approved. Very simple answer; We became aware that Mr Noel Barry was going to take legal action against us. It is mine/secretary’s responsibility that what we publish is not open to litigation. Therefore, I asked Mr Treanor to legally proof read this letter.
Mr Treanor is a survivor, a member of Right of Place/ Second Chance, a pratcing Barrister, and who has given his services, time, and expertise free of charge to this organisation. We are very fortunate to have such a survivor who is available and willing to assist us. Mr Treanor returned the amended letter which was placed before the Board for their consideration and they had no issue to the amended version being passed. Mossie, the Board passed the amended version before it went out! Now, this was not an issue as to why the two directors resigned. Absolutely not!
Your next question; How did I become Chairman when I was a member of the steering committee that over saw the elections to Right of Place/Second Chance? Answer; Being a member of the steering committee did not debar me, or anyone elce, of allowing survivors choose who they wanted to represent them. None whatsoever.
Your next question regarding funding figures for Right of Place, well this is an accounting matter. All I can tell you is that professional people whose expertise in this area have examined the figures and the Auditors have passed them and they have been verified by all professional criteria. In other words from a legal and finacnial viewpoint they are correct. This Mossie is not…..supporting corruption, or irregularities or betraying anyone. This Mossie is getting to the facts and doing the job in a professional manner, consequently, I am able to give your questions a clear honest and non-fictional account of our inquiries.
Your last question asks; why did I cross out our secretaries name and sign mine? I did this because a very simple mistake had occured when we were signing these forms. Our secretary had accidently signed his name where I should have signed mine. The forms were sent off and the mistake only came to light then. The secretary informed the CRO and our solicitors of this error and the solicitors asked me to sign my name in the correct place-which I did and no one legally have an issue with that!
The above Mossie is my final communication with you on these matters. I hope you have found some enlightenment which will enable you to move on and find peace, justice, healing and personal happiness in the New Year.
I will finish with this piece of information. We as a new Group had to make a choice between living in the old organisations past (picking on old wounds old slights and resintments) or begin a process of healing and achieving new gains for our members/survivors. We choose the latter.
To Sally Mulready, thank you for your supportive comments. We need ideas that nuture the soul and inspire our thoughts, to enable us to progress our cause.
To Pauline Jackson; Pauline we in Right of Place/Second Chance can only be of assistance to our members, we do of course help any survivor who require our assistance but unless we have your name and address we cannot send you out any information we have.
It is a common mistake and misunderstanding by survivors who are not members of our organisation that they have a right to vote or demand information when if fact they don’t. We have situations where people have turned up at our meetings shouting and roring demanding all sorts of things only to realise that they are not members or survivors who do not support our organisation. So our advice is join an organisation that support your needs and expresses your demands – for you. Our fight is not yet won!
Sorry Paddy, (Doyle) my thanks to you for this site. It is a real gem of information. My apologies for not making a contribution to the minutes of the meeting with the Taoiseach, as I’m sure some sort of contribution to the events of that meeting must form some basis for our strategy going forward.
This is another point of vue. if we have never heard of your services how are we supposed to know that thay exist. If its by word of mouth , then you can only say that you represent people who have heard of you will benifit from them . .
. get paid for this comes from all of us. we have different needs. we live in different countrys
kits no help to know that we are excluded even if its a choise. we survived industriel abuse most of us want to be independent.whats wrong with sharing the compensation between us all . why should it pass through your group or any other . we are adults .you dont represent me.
Nice now to see that the results of the meeting that took place with Brian Cowen and all of the government funded survivor groups representing the survivors,but shameless and sadly that it only represented the catholic abused and remembering that these groups are funded by the State, which means they have a moral duty to represent all victims irrespective of what religion they are. Brian Cowen should not have been allowed to dismiss the Magdalene Laundries from that meeting. This behaviour must stop. The Bethany Survivors must also be represented the state has a duty to see that is done.
Derek
I completely agree with you. I think they should include include Bethany Survivors now . The Redress Board should not be closed down until Bethany Survivors are dealt with.
The evidence of the State having a regulatory responsibility for Bethany is there and all that is happening now is prefarication and they are putting off the inevitable.
I remember about four or five years back having endless discussions about the non inclusion of so many institutions in the Redress Act Schedule. At first they excluded even Coole, the hospital for sick and disabled children and many other Special Schools. They excluded institutions for blind people and institutions for people without speech or hearing. I remember giving evidence to a Government Select Commettee on the number of institutions excluded and it was very frustrating.
That was then, this is now..all the eveidence is there. Its a disgrace and we should all be shouting about it.
On the Women who were unlawfully detained in these laundries , it seems to me thast the State and the Congregations are burying their heads in the sand. Are they waiting for the Women and the Bethany Survivors to die?
We need to use the forthcoming election to lobby hard for decisions to be made promptly in the next Dail after the Election.
Derek
As far as the Womens Survivors Support Network is concerned you have our full support and please just let us know what you would like us to do.
best wishes
Sally Mulready
I am sorry for the sick and the disabled but if we mix everyone up in all this we will never get anywhere. people who were in industrial schools were sent there by order of the courts to be abused. they knew about the fact that we worked and never received any pay. even in very poor country’s children received pay we didn’t. The Churches own a large part of Ireland and they employed us .The Church of Ireland should take part too.
MR WALSH. I DONT SEE HOW YOU FOUND MY REPLY TO YOUR ARTICLE, ABUSIVE, INSULTING OR AGGRESSIVE. IN FACT, IT WAS QUITE THE OPPOSITE, AS MOST OF THE REPORTS AND COMMENTS I AM RECEIVING FROM SUPPORTER’S SEEM TO SUGGEST.
I ALSO SEE FROM YOUR MAILING, YOU MANAGED TO AVOID NOT ONE, ( BUT ALL ) OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PUT TO YOU. WONDER WHERE YOU GOT THAT TRAINING FROM?? YOU SURE YOU DONT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT???
I SEEM TO RECALL SOMEONE VERY MUCH LIKE YOU, WHO DID THAT SAME THING, JUST LIKE YOU. HE WAS CALLED NOEL BARRY. I WILL TRY AGAIN AND PUT A FEW SMALL QUESTIONS TO YOU, AND MAYBE I MAY GET AN ANSWER THIS TIME.
( 1 ) WHY IS THE COMPANY ACCOUNTS ON LINE FOR THE YEAR ( 2009 ) LYING?
( 2 ) WHY ARE DIRECTORS OF THE CHARITY, HAVING PRIVATE PENSION FUNDS BEING PAID FOR BY THE HSE. ( €6,500 ) PER ANNUM??
( 3 ) WHY DID YOU REGISTER, THE CHANGE OF DIRECTORS, WHEN YOU KNEW, ( ONLY TOO WELL ) THAT ( 2 ) TWO OF THEM HAD ALREADY RESIGNED??
( 4 ) WHY DID YOU SIGN A FALSE ( LEGAL ) DECLARATION, WHEN YOU ALREADY KNEW, THAT ( 2 ) TWO OF YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAD ALREADY RESIGNED??
PLEASE DONT BE GIVING ME ANY MORE OF YOUR FANCY TALK, AND AVOIDING THE ISSUES MR WALSH, AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING PUT TO YOU. WE ALREADY HAD LOADS OF THAT FROM YOUR PREDECESSOR, MR NOEL BARRY, AND CERTAINLY DONT NEED IT FROM YOU.
YOU MAY BE FOOLING SOME OF THE SURVIVORS WITH YOUR WAY OF WORDS MR WALSH, BUT A LOT OF US ARE NO FOOLS, AND WE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF SEEING THROUGH YOU.
IN A NUTSHELL MR WALSH, ( RIGHT OF PLACE ) HAS VIRTUALLY ( NO ) MEMBERSHIP, AND PEOPLE LIKE NOEL C BARRY, AND YOURSELF MR WALSH,WILL FADE INTO THE BACKGROUND, WHEN ALL THE EXPENSES, AND THE FUNDING WILL DRY UP.
PLACES LIKE ( RIGHT OF PLACE ) ARE BEING RUN, ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF DIRECTORS PENSION FUNDS, AND THEIR EXPENSES. SURVIVORS ARE BEING USED ONLY AS NUMBERS ON A DATABASE, TO SECURE FUNDING.
WHERE WERE YOU FOR THE PAST ( 11YEARS ) MR WALSH, WHEN THE SURVIVORS NEEDED YOU?? I CAN RECALL YOU PARADING, AND PICKETING OUTSIDE ( RIGHT OF PLACE ) OFFICES SOME TIME AGO SIR, AND NOW YOU ARE VERY HAPPILY RUNNING THE PLACE. VERY VERY PECULIAR I’D SAY??
THE VERY FEW MEMBERS THAT ARE LEFT IN ( RIGHT OF PLACE ) HAVE, ( NO SAY ) WHATSOEVER, YET AGAIN. ONLY DIRECTORS OF THE ( LIMITED COMPANY ) HAVE ANY SAY. SO ALL THE GROUNDWORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY HONEST MEMBERS IN STANDING UP TO MR NOEL C BARRY, HAS BEEN ( UNDONE ) BY YOU.
YOU, MR WALSH, ARE YET ANOTHER DICTATOR, JUST LIKE YOUR PREDECESSOR, MR NOEL C BARRY WAS. YOU REALLY DO NOT CARE ONE IOTA, FOR THE WELFARE OF SURVIVORS.
ANY FUNDING THAT WILL BE SECURED BY YOU, AND YOUR CRONIES SIR, IS BASED ON LIES, LIES LIES, AND MORE LIES. AND THAT IS MY ( HONEST OPINION )
I WONT BE HOLDING MY BREATH, MR WALSH, ON YOU ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY, AS I AM NEARLY CERTAIN, THAT IN YOUR VOCABULARY, THE WORD ( TRUTHFULLY ) IM SURE DOES NOT EXIST.
I WILL ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS MR WALSH, IF I THINK SOMEONE IS TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER MY EYES. SO DONT THINK FOR ONE MINUTE SIR, THAT I WILL LET IT REST. I HOPE THE SURVIVORS WILL SEE THROUGH YOUR LITTLE PLOY, AND EXPOSE YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU ARE. IF I WILL BE A PAIN IN YOUR SIDE, THEN SO BE IT. WE HAVE BEEN SILENCED FOR FAR TOO LONG. YOU WOULD JUST LOVE TO SHUT US ALL UP FOR GOOD NOW, ( WOULD’NT YOU?? )
YOU KNOW WHAT, IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME NOW, IF SOME SURVIVORS SHOULD TAKE OUT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST YOU, MR WALSH, FOR CLAIMING EXPENSES FOR MEMBERSHIP YOU DO ( NOT ) HAVE, OR SUPPORT. THINK ABOUT IT.
AND YOU SIR, CAN TAKE THAT, WHICH EVER WAY YOU WANT. AMEN.
WHY DONT ALL GROUP LEADERS ORGANISE ALL SURVIVERS
AND LOBBY ALL PARTIES DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN
WE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO THEM THAT NO WAY WILL
WE ACCEPT THE TRUST FUND.
WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF ABUSED AND FAMLIES WE SHOULD HAVE A VERY STRONG LOBBY,LET
ALL PARTIES KNOW IF THEY VOTE FOR BIFFOS PROPOSALS
WE WILL LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD
WHERE IN GODS NAME IS THE LEADERSHIP (LOOKING AFTER THEIR OWN INTERESTS)WAKE UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paying for posh offices, and then paying people like you is costing the independence of survivors , we would be better off with a bit of security in our lives,Anything for us should be given to us . we can decide for ourselves. we don’t need you sir
Hi,
Really like the site very informative.
Let me just first state that I am a dependent of a survivor and have seen how this horrible part of our history has effected thousands of men, women and their families the length and breath of this country and do feel it is so important that we never forget and also ensure that the rights and entitlement of survivors is ALWAYS listened to however I do have a few points to make:
The first is the more I pick up newspapers and read discussion boards like the one above it really makes me feel sad for the cause of survivors simply because you may loose the good will of the majority within this country and beyond by this incessant need to bicker and fight amongst each other. It simply has to STOP, not for me or any individual but for the collective.
Just also to have it noted I am 100% against a trust fund, and would vote number one in the coming election if a politician/ party said that they would help to fight this. However in the times we find ourselves in whilst fighting this we should never forget the basic rights that survivors should be entitled to and to this degree there IS a need in my opinion for survivors groups.
Survivors are an aging population littered with people who never had a chance in life because of the horrible way they were treated and also people who who need better basic provisions from the state.
Areas such as Free Healthcare, improved and free housing (to include people on waiting lists), better and free education, preferential rates for heating, electricity etc.
There has been developments over the last 10 years of the rights of survivors but this has to be continued. Judging by MICHAEL WALSH, I commend him for his apparent want and need im sure to develop these. I am disappointed but not surprised by MOSSIES and PAULINE JACKSONs responses. It seems that nothing else interests you MOSSIE other then de-railing the want of some.
If I look at your responses Mossie I see horrible accusations such as “stop claiming from survivors” yet you go on to mention Mr.Walsh is only being paid expenses from the HSE. This kind of talk could be construed as derogatory, and slanderous.
Mr.Walsh mentions that the name of the company has changed and the company is changing with it, to be much more survivor orientated and yet Mossie you admit to seeing Mr.Walsh object to the previous regime, how then can you, without any foundation before the new company is set up, already say that Mr.Walsh is another dictator just like the previous regime – that kind of blind accusation is treating someone the very same way survivors were treated, unfair and unjustified.
I would like to see a company set up that fights for the basic rights I have mentioned above and if people dont get paid but get expenses for putting in the hours it takes to do that – that that to me is a bargain. Sure I agree 90 – 100% of survivors are against a trust fund, but can that not be fought whilst a company is set up to fight for these basic rights?
Certain survivors need to wake up, realize how long it took to get to where you are know and realize that basic and preferential rights need to be attained now. this can ONLY be achieved by the collective, by the majority and in this regard Mr. Michael Walsh I wish you ALL THE BEST IN YOUR AIMS, as for Mossie, you most certainly are entitled to your opinion but remember the content and tone of your comments to a FELLOW SURVIVOR can be seen by the world. If you treat a fellow survivor like that (return to your waterford hole etc – why would those that can ensure you aims are achieved act any different.
hello michael. well the thing i see is that all of the things you mention have excited for many years and are free for all the people in the country.all of these groups who say thay help survivers have had 10 years to prove how usfull thay are. And most of us who live abroad have never even heard of thier existance. but the money being used by them is money that was meant for all of us . we are ageing thats true. but during the 60ths the children in the instutions went outside to school so thay got an education. the older ones have no interest in better education. we are over 60 years of age . we have paid the doctors all our lives and still do. we have earned our living as hard workers.why do you think that we need this man???? what for?????. WE HAVE LOOKED AFTER OURSELVES UP UNTILL NOW.
micheal it is quite clear you dont know what you are talking about.you critise “mossie for his atitude to m walsh.only for the likes of mossie and pauline jackson who are abused people and are not afraid to question the likes of M Walsh and R.O.P.and the crowd of gangsters before him we would know nothing about was happening.
when was there an honest account of the monies given by the H.S.E.and the religious orders to R.O.P.NEVER!!(remember you are talking of millions) i have yet to meet a surviver that got
anything from them But they looked after themselves and their cronies. “mossie asked m walsh a few questions about the new companey, like
why did two of the new committie resign.did m walsh give an answer not at all he never answered any questions he just gave a load of gibberish and lies.
Sure it would be great if we all could be one voice,we never will be until all the questions
are answered and the law hold those responsible
for the monies squandered. the abuse handed out by R.O.P.committie members to people who attended meetings in Cork, i was at one meeting a member of the committie threathened to breake one womans neck if she didnt shut up when she questioned a point.thats what mossie pauline and myself had to put up with.after listening and watching the way
the new committie are behaving i can assure nothing has changed A new face mouthing for the old regime to keep their cosy cartel going
may god forgive the lot of them
Michael, in response to your recent post. You must obviously think we are all stupid.I can plainly see that it was you who wrote that last article, while pretending to be a Dependent of a Survivor. Nice try Michael, but im not falling for that.
I see you still failed to answer any of the questions i put to you, But then again you wont, ( Will You ) You are pretty good at praising yourself also i see.
Why, Michael, if you are not the person, i think you are, did you say, ( I AM DISAPPOINTED, BUT NOT SURPRISED BY MOSSIES, & PAULINE JACKSONS RESPONSES? ) Only someone who knows me,. like YOU Mr Walsh, would have said such a thing.
You made a bad blunder there Mr Walsh. And we are not falling for that one. Its the very same Mr Walsh who wrote that comment, and you are not fooling anyone, pretending to be someone else.
Also for your Information. I have No desire whatsoever to Derail the process as you so put it. But i will have my say, if i think someone is purporting to be someone he is not, and as far as i am concerned got himself into a position by what ever means, to be running that group you are now in charge of.
Can i just first state that I am absolutely flabbergasted with MOSSIE. To even question the identity of a person leaving a comment is baffling. How can any person expect to have a serious debate, when there is that level of cynicism and negativity. To clarify (which I shouldn’t have to) the reason I said I was not surprised Mossie, if you read the whole comment, you will notice the reason I said that is covered in the 2nd paragraph.
As for BILL – “I clearly don’t no what I’m talking about?” – strange you say that when my main point is the need for a properly run Survivor group – which you agree with ” Sure it would be great if we all could be one voice” and the fact that I say to give Mr.Walsh a chance if he is a man who is trying to change the system. I don’t have to know much to shed some light on EQUALITY and FAIRNESS?
PAULINE – fair enough comments and I hope to address my point of view in the following.
I so not disagree that the management of ROP and indeed several other groups has been appaling and indeed have left a lot of survivors disillusioned with the groups that were set up to support them. This I do not disagree with.
As for Bills comments I could not respond to a personal story, as I was not there but I certainly would say that if something like that happened it is despicable and disgraceful.
However what I merely purport to saying is that:
1) I did not feel that the tone of previous comments made to a man who appears to want to change the way these support groups are set up. I ADMIRE anybody who has the courage of conviction in taking up the unenviable position of changing perception and changing the systems. It is much easier for people to sit in the background and complain (rightly I may add) but you cant change the systme from the outside.
2)I agree that the monies for ROP have to be accounted for, but that was money given to the previous regime. Surely Mr.Walsh was not responsile for the previous monies spent or allocated. So Why tarnish a man who was actively AGAINST the previous regime. How did anyone on this wesite expect it to change, WITHOUT CHANGE?
3) As for other comments. with regard education, etter welfare etc. It is not simply enough to stereotype the respective wants and needs of survivors. I have spoke to many survivors and they want, as much as anything else, a promise of a etter future for themselves and their children, especially in these uncertain times. This can only be done by the establishment of a FAIR, JUST and properly managed survivor group that can help each and every survivor and dependent.
I would also suggest that the many homeless, infirm and emotionally weaker survivors need SUPPORT, proper care and an opportunity to live with the support they were neglected in the formative years of their life’s.
I agree there has been wrongs, I agree groups have been badly managed and I agree they have not been run for the reason they were reputedly set up for. However lets not loose sight that somebody seems to be trying to CHANGE the very system Pauline, Mossie and Bill are rightfully unhappy with.
Its too easy to sit back and demand information from afar, how many of you have actively taken the task to try and change the system?
Would it not be easier to support a man/woman (whether its Mr.Walsh or Mrs.Walsh) in their aim to change and right the wrongs, then BLAME him for something he (according to Mossie) had nothing to do with creating.
But this is supposed to be for survivers of industriel schools.It seems to me that we are all too old to have young children . In fact many of our children have been very well educated by us without any help from the groups.As for a better life for our children well most of them have had that.How can anybody know the needs of people without even knowing of thier existance, If this man wants to change things he should have started of by making sure we know of his plans for change. In the fact that we were all in these institutions we should all recieve the same treatment.If we wanted this money to be used to help some and not the others then we should have been asked. This has been forced on us, that is not being genourous its dominating others.
Messagt to Michael Walsh.
When your organisation and othes bacome part of the problem, it is time for a rethink. It is quite clear from the survivors who comment on this site and Shame of Ireland you need to completely review the way you communicate with the survivors, and ask yourself where it all went wrong. I posted a picture, child and vulture on Shame of Ireland, it is an example of someone who was so focused on his mission he lost his way. If you have access please visit the site.
Micheal,
Everybody wants a properly run Survivor group. There is no question about that whatsoever. Including myself. But if you knew about, or saw the way, the ( So Called Elections ) to elect a new Board of Directors, were conducted, I’m sure your Point of view would be so much different.
I have no problem supporting any ( PROPERLY & DEMOCRATICALLY ) elected group to run Right of Place. Other Survivors, and including myself offered on numerous occasions to assist the old Regime in Right of Place to fulfil tasks, and other assignments that they may have needed help with. Unfortunately you seen what happened to that Regime, and no doubt there will be a lot of questions, and answers, arising from that in the near future.
I questioned who you were, as i was having discussions with one ( Mr Michael Walsh ) the newly (So Called Elected Leader of Right of Place) and after my last posting, which i am sure you have read, i assumed it was the same person writing again on the site replying to my posting, but writing his first name in Irish, to try and confuse me, and let on it was someone else, rather than himself.
So, if i have offended you in any way, i deeply apologise, and i can assure you, ( IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION )
I am not going to go into big detail at this point regarding the elections that took place earlier in the year, or indeed the way they were run,, but believe me, they were a total disgrace, as i am sure anyone that attended them will be able to clarify.
I would love to assist any Survivor group, But as far as Right of Place is concerned, and the people who run it. There is a very big question mark hanging over it, and no doubt, the people who run those Offices on Lower Glanmire Road know only too well where i am coming from, that is why I withdrew my support and details from there.
The way I see it, Michael, I do (Not ) look on anybody in that place in Lower Glanmire Road, to be Legally and Rightfully elected to the positions they hold, Regardless of how much they want to try and change anything.
I have asked Mr Walsh, and Mr Noel C Barry, on numerous occasions over the past couple of years to assure us, as Survivors, that everything that was happening in Right of Place was honest and above board, and that all the events splashed all over the Media was untrue. Alas, all we got was SILENCE, and we were Totally Ignored.
I think as Survivors, we all have the right to ask questions of what is being done in our names. Would you not agree? I don’t think it is too much to ask.
But i will not be silenced, or shut up by someone who may think i know too much for my own liking. No Sir, that is when i will dig my heels in. I put up with that carry on in Industrial Schools for nearly 15 years, and i have my fill of it, i can assure you. Enough is Enough.
All i will say is, during those ( SO CALLED ELECTIONS ) the will of the people were in NO WAY listened to, or Respected, and i have no doubt Michael, if you had been there with us looking in where we were, you would know exactly where i was coming from. The elections were pushed through, the way the Old Regime wanted them done, with the sole intentions of making sure, the people taking over, were the ones they wanted installed.
I do hope i have clarified my point now. Mossie
Mr Walsh you mentioned that the monies unaccounted
for in r.o.p.is the resonsibility of the old regime.As far as i know the new leadership took over the responsibility of r.o.p.So it is up to M Walsh now to give the answers and explations.As he accepted the leadership he is totaly responsibile.
All we get is talk talk talk and no action,If he intends to sort things out he should do something about it,instead of giving is the usual bullshit over and over again.
So Mr Walsh more action less bullshit
Very well said Paul.
I AM A SURVIVOR AND MY 3 BROTHERS WHY DID WE GET 4 DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF CLAIMS I GOT THE LEAST 33 000 EUROS CONSIDERING I SPENT 9 YEARS 2YRS IN RATHDRUM 7YRS IN ARTANE 1951 TO 1960 WITH A PRIMARY Education AND I DONT THINK I WAS COMPENSATED FAIRLY BUT WHAT I GOT IS GONE ON MY FAMILY THE MONEY IS BUT THE SCARS OF MY childhood is not gone THE IRISH GOVERMENT HAVE TO ANSWER FOR ALL SURVIVORS OF SUCH ATROCITIES I CANT CLAIM MORE BECAUSE MY SOLICITOR SAY I WAVERED MY RIGHT
Dear Survivor,
The Christmas newsletter from the ‘Privately Owned Company’ , “Right of Place Buildings Project Limited” , ( Not Renamed: “Right of Place Second Chance Limited ” ), tells us only part of the truth.
Those of us who have fought for accountability within the “Privately Owned Company”; that was pretending to be, a “Self Help Organisation of Survivors, For Survivors” .
Must, once again inform you of the facts.
Yes, a new Board of Directors was Elected/Appointed by some of the members and, with the blessing of the HSE.
Upon appointment to the Board, Mr. Michael Walsh took up the Chairmanship.
This is the same Mr. Michael Walsh, who was appointed by the Hse on-to ( The ‘Steering Group’; ) that was to oversee, true democracy and integrity ( i.e. lack of corruption ), in the election process of the New Board of Directors.
Congratulations Michael; you got yourself elected Chairman, of the Board of Directors of the Privately Owned Company, ‘Right of Place Buildings Project Limited’.
The other members elected to the new Board of Directors are:
Mr Patrick Cleasy Director/Secretary
Mr Thomas W Brennan Director/Treasurer
Mr Thomas Wall Director/PRO
Mr Martin Duffy Director/Public Liaison Officer.
As we all know, the positions of Secretary and Treasurer on the Board of Directors of any company, carry with it, great responsibility.
These two positions, above all others, require persons of high caliber and integrity.
In trying to achieve Full Financial Accountability and Full Support for Survivors, the Treasurer and Secretary were left with no option but, to resign from the new board.
The Chairman of The Board, ( Did Not ) support his Treasurer and Secretary, on issues of accountability and governance.
Instead of supporting his new board members, the Chairman allowed himself to be influenced, or swayed, by Mr. Noel C. Barry; plus, he sought the council of members outside the board.
The only thing achieved by holding Phony elections, was to replace one Dictator, Mr. Noel C. Barry, with another, Mr. Michael Walsh.
The Chairman obviously had no trust, in the board members who appointed him.
There never was, nor will there be, any honest, truthful, explanation as to why his Treasurer and Secretary resigned.
Mr Walsh, Please explain if you would be so kind. I know all Survivors would like an explanation from you.
Now the Chairman is going to ‘Co-opt’ two new directors, on-to the board; as stated in his Christmas Newsletter.
Within company law, he is of course, fully entitled to do this.
After all, it is, a ( “Private Owned Limited Company” ) funded by the Hse and, Mr Michael Walsh is the Chairman of the Board; just like Mr. Noel C. Barry was.
I would like to inform all Survivors, who believe that they are members of a self help group of survivors, run by survivors, for survivors, ( That, This, is Not True. )
Your names are being used by a Limited Company called, “Right of Place Buildings Project Limited, disguised, as a self help group for survivors”; to obtain funding on your behalf.
On the 14th of November 2009 at the Metrapole Hotel Cork; an overwhelming majority of Survivors, voted on a Constitution, for a “Self Help Group of Survivors”, called, “Right of Place/Second Chance”.
The Constitution, gave Rights to its membership.
Especially those, who wished to be associated with a,
“Self Help Group of Survivors”, “ Run by Survivors” , “For Survivors”.
Thirteen months later, the HSE, and the new Board of Directors of the Privately Owned Company; “Right of Place Buildings Limited” , have replaced one dictator with another.
All done legally, within ‘company law’.
Once again you and I have “NO SAY WHATSOEVER”.
The Cork and Kerry branches of the company no longer exist.
The chairman will pick his board of directors and you and I cannot stop him, ‘under company law’.
He could not do this, if the members had a Constitution, which prevented it.
Board members “should be elected and not appointed”; because they are the ones “we choose” to represent us.
The only course open to you and I, is to inform the company,
“Right of Place Buildings Limited”, that you want, and Demand, your name taken off their database.
With no membership, Funding Ceases. Then we will see how many True Volunteers exist, and, are not in it, just for the money.
We can then go forward as a self help group of survivors, run by survivors, for the benefit of survivors, With a Constitution.
Thank you for your help, in trying to get honest representation and support for survivors.
Controversial abuse charity expands offices
By Jennifer Hough
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2011
A CONTROVERSIAL government-funded charity for survivors of institutional abuse is set to open offices in Galway, Waterford, Limerick and Cork, according to a newsletter published by its new board of directors.
Right of Place in Cork will continue to be funded despite claims that government money — and money donated by religious orders and bishops — was not filtering down to members.
Concerns have been raised continuously over the past 12 months by members, other survivor groups and opposition politicians.
Right of Place has been funded to the tune of at least €2.4 million by the HSE since 2002, with a further €1m coming from the Department of Education.
A large portion of this money was spent on wages and expenses. At one stage the charity had 18 staff, including cooks and security personnel.
However, there is no known record of how hundreds of thousands of euro donated by dioceses and religious orders, such as the Rosminians, was spent and the amounts were never recorded in audited accounts.
Late last year a new treasurer, Tom Brennan, said he could find no “record or evidence” of how anyone except a select inner circle benefited from the charity over a 10-year period.
Shortly after his appointment to the new board of directors, Mr Brennan resigned as he said he could not get answers to the questions he was asking.
However, in a recent newsletter to its members, Right of Place says Mr Brennan stepped down for “personal reasons”.
“I would like to make it very clear I did not step down for personal reasons,” he told the Irish Examiner. “This is more of the bluff and bluster from the new board and I want to put the record straight.”
The newsletter also attacks the Irish Examiner for “pursuing agendas” which it says have caused pain and hardship to survivors.
Ironically, the newsletter offers VEC computer courses, despite the fact that the Right of Place website was discontinued in recent months.
Meanwhile, the Irish Examiner has been contacted by several people who say they never signed up to be members of Right of Place but somehow ended up on the organisation’s database.
A Magdalene survivor in her 70s, living in the US, requested to be taken off the database in 2009 but got no reply and still receives correspondence.
The woman says she never signed up to be a member of Right of Place and the only person she gave her details to was a solicitor travelling in the US with the charity’s founder Noel Barry.
The woman said her concern was that someone had given her private and confidential information to the organisation without her permission.
Right of Place claims to have 1,500 members and has been funded accordingly.
Former treasurer Mr Brennan said he asked to see a database of survivors on several occasions but said he was never given access to it.
This appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Monday, February 07, 2011
Thanks for this information. Well there is no buisness like charity buisness. The whole thing from the beginning was very dodgy because these groups were blindly trusted to take part in the healing process of thousands of fragil people who had been severly damaged.Who gave them the right to judge our state of mind and body. Where did thay learn this very delicate speciality.And because of the numbers of the victims it was impossable to take part in all our lives . and we dont need anyone telling us that thay can heal the scars we all have. And the survivers who run these groups are also damaged. it should be stoped but it appears that the government are deaf and blind to whats obvious. this makes the whole thing very frustrating for us all . its another form of torture
HOW MUCH LONGER MUST WE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THESE
GANGSTERS IN ROP,I DONT KNOW OF ANYONE WHO GOT
ANY HELP FROM THEM JUST LIES GIBBERISH AND BULLS!!!T
THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM IS EVERYONE MARCH
ON THE PLACE AND GET THEM OUT WE HAVE BEEN TO QUITE.ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WE HAVE SUFFERED ENOUGH WITH THEIR BULLYING AND LIES GET THEM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sally, Bethany House wasn’t that a home for women having babies the difference is, that was a home >nasty Evil as it might have been they were grown ups that was totally different to Industrial Schools, WHICH were BRUTAL REFORMATORIES (PRISONS)for babies and young children who were sentenced to detention and charged by the court from the age of O to 16 years which was most or all of their childhood years THOSE SENTENCED INTO THOSE EVIL PLACES HAVE BEEN TREATED BADLY AND BULLIED JUST BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO GET JUSTICE AND ARE STILL BEEN USED AND BULLIED .all cases are different and should be treated as such.Survivors have been frightened into silence by those the last government indulged by was of posh offices and huge perks falsely claiming to represent survivors Big Question why do they refuse to show what names of survivors they say represent on their books that they have been and are still claiming funding and expenses plus huge perks for< that has to stop , All those who received funding ie, Aislinn , Soca uk, Right of Place, must be brought to book ,every Euro they received over the many years must be accounted for all books gone through with a fine tooth comb.if they refuse to have all books inspected nor be willing to hand them over for inspection then those places MUST BE CLOSED STRAIGHT AWAY. Thank you Paddy for this amazing site where survivors can feel we can speak freely what’s on our minds ,we all deserve to be compensated we were put through so much as children how any of us survived is a miracle .