Comments on: Victims of abuse meet bishops in Maynooth

By: Hanora Brennan

Hanora Brennan — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:18:21 +0000

Robbie, you seem to be dissecting the information I have posted on the 16 August meeting. Let me state for you categorically, I was not invited to that meeting, myself and five others were in attendance because we refused to go away. I had heard of the meeting through Christy Heaphy (PR for ROP) at a meeting in Waterford where I was subsequently voted to represent 250 people that turned up and I had meetings with Messrs. Kelly and Gaskin regarding funding of these groups and the fraud surrounding the groups. I have worked tirelessy for survivors with no funding and flying no political flag so perhaps little less of your paranoia would be appreciated. I answer to nobody but I question everybody and anything that involves me. Being proactive is appreciated by many survivors as is being truthful, honest and consistent. I am not interested in getting into verbal vollies as was the wont on other sites. My time is now more precious. For those, like myself, who have and continue to work on our behalf we should be commended instead of snide comments insinuated. Maturity is supposed to be one of the advantages of the passage of time but it remains to be seen if this is the case.

By: rob dempsey

rob dempsey — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:13:52 +0000

Oh, I agree with Mr Kelly’s Call for the courts, the religious and the health boards be ‘made accountable for their abuses also….

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:20:27 +0000

Perhaps Mr Hayes could pass on the minutes of the secret meeting to ex Christian Brother Rory Connor so US – the excluded survivors – could peruse them! After all ex Brother Rory has a Tom Hayes approved Wiki:

This account and this account only has been authorized to license text on Wikipedia from the website http://www.alliancesupport.org/ that was authored by Rory Connor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kilbarry1

Howsabout it Tom?

For the uninitiated ex-Christian Brother Rory Connor is a supporter of the notorious Sister Callida.

Andrew

By: Martin Maguire

Martin Maguire — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:23:34 +0000

In reply to Rob’s comment and for clarification

>>>>WELL>>>….”that’s because both sides essentially had the same dehumanised experience as children”…..

My comment refers to the process of how once organisations are set up, then the organisation and its own well being (and indeed that of the people who are operating this) will begin to, or most likely, take precedence over the actual reason for having such an organisation in the first place.

An example would be a political party – I am sure all would agree on who’s interests such organisations appear to serve best – and it is not often my individual needs – and probably not often any other individuals.

One thing that can be assured is that it will serve the interests of the organisation – and these will most likely be, with a few exceptions, the personal needs of those who control such an organisation.

The impacts and after effects of the experiences of individual victims cannot be adequately managed by any organisation that operates without full levels of openness and transparency. It would appear therefore form the recent activity and the reaction to this that the organisations who attended the meeting either:

Did not consult with their members (assuming that they really are membership organisations, and if so their rules may provide an ability for members to challenge these actions)

They were not adequately in touch with their members and did not take on board all levels of opinion, feelings or provide opportunities for feedback.

I would therefore propose a question and this is:

Is there a need for organisations at all in this process?

From my own experience I can only say that in many cases there is an assumption that an organisation gives or adds credibility to some activities.

I do not think this is so. I believe that if people do not fully trust the individual, then, are they more likely to trust the organisation that these same individuals control?

I would think not.

I note there is also a reference to Fr. Michael Murnagh in the above communications. I had some brief dealings with him some years ago and my belief, arising from this experience was that he was, for me, unable to operate with the appropriate level of transparency, even where these activities we were involved with were funded by the State.

His recent career apparently has taken him from inner city Dublin to Wexford and now back.

I am not, from my own experience, too surprised at the lack of documented notes from the meeting or his level of recall.
To me it just appears that this leopard can never change his spots.

I can recall that when I first heard of his involvement with the walk to Dublin, I contacted Paddy and suggested that there would be an agenda associated to this activity, and this would surface at some point in the process. I can only suggest that the Meath St. meeting and the timing of this, was an attempt by him, to generate an appropriate agenda and related activities.

So should I consider, for his (Mernagh’s) purposes, the information shared at the meeting, did not provide him with this and therefore the outcomes (will/are and) have been quickly buried, leaving him unencumbered to explore alternative approaches in this area.

Thanks
MM

hmmmmm-well, if such secret deeds/meetings’ were not done…..then we’d have some idea ‘how to answer some of the questions that reman unanswered…before these deeds are done..not…after them!

By: Hanora Brennan

Hanora Brennan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:22:02 +0000

I attended a meeting on 16 August in Meath Street with Father Mernagh and the Group Leaders regarding the Ryan Report and it was established at that meeting that the survivors were NOT interested in the Phoenix Trust! This meeting was hosted by Father Mernagh and a document was signed by all members sitting at that table. I signed that document and though another representative has asked for a copy of that document, Father Mernagh claims not to know the whereabouts of this document. Minutes have been asked for and we’ve been told there are none though a girl sat there taking the Minutes! We had to be forceful and insist on attending that meeting. It transpired that John Kelly had attacked another survivor on the day of the March in Dublin and Christine Buckley refused to attend any meeting he was at, so I would assume that is why she was not at the Bishops’ Meeting. She got her noggin all over the Magdalene’s all the same in Carlow though I know of no connection she has or has had with the Maggies since its inception. Group Leaders are vipers. When will they stop turning? Heaphy, O’Brien, Kelly and Hayes have all shown their arrogance and ignorance and to what depths they will plumb for the filthy lucre? Get the boots on – it’s time to march. Paddy do not edit this message as I have vocal witnesses who will attest to all I say!! Many thanks for the platform to vent. As always, love and hugs. xx

By: Paddy

Paddy — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:54:21 +0000

Hi Paddy.

Enclosed is a copy of my recent comment, in case it does not appear, please ensure it is placed on your page.
Kate.
1. How do we know what was discussed.
2. who was notified?
3. In order to claim a clear mandate accurate audited membership would need to be supplie.

If the Group Leaders were to hold regular meetings with their Membership all issues could be discussed.
Then we would know that the Group Leaders claim were accurate and democratic.
For Example.

If there are ten groups and if they each have 500 members, then that is five thousand Survivors.

Fourteen Thousand went to the Redress Board. Therefore five Thousand would not be a majority. consequentially any Groups claim to a majority would be unfounded.

Kathleen O’Malley. Auhor.”Childhood Interrupted”.

By: Clare Foley

Clare Foley — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:26:47 +0000

To Nora
The Gang Of Four, Nora, were the only people who were ever abused in Ireland. Do you not see between the covers, it’s all about them, what with “Award Ceremonies” and what nots, it’s all about them, not you, not me, not anyone else. It’s about John Kelly going over and over and over what happened to him in an Industrial School. Guess what Nora, I’m really tired of listening to all this S****, it’s like playing the “Violin” over and over. So JK you spent a few years in an Industrial, well Hello John, there are thousands of us out there who spent their WHOLE CHILDHOODS in the Industrial schools. This is NOT ABOUT YOU “THE BIG FOUR” “THE LADS” Telling and RE-TELLING what happened to you FOUR LADS, in the Industrial School. Get over it and get on with it, and show us your “MANDATE”

By: Paddy

Paddy — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:17:09 +0000

Nora, all comments posted here will be passed on to relevant people for their consideration. There is a lot to say about the meeting that took place between four people and the Bishops – four people who acted in my view in a manner that excluded so many others who should have been in attendance at that meeting. All is not well.

By: robbie dempsey

robbie dempsey — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:24:07 +0000

I have spoken to one of the persons who attended the Maynooth Meeting….according to the person I spoke to…it is refered he was stating that ‘people who knew nought about the RIRB are entitled to be redressed’.by the RIRB…….I asked ‘why people werent asked (in their numbers) beforehand, to attend the Maynooth meeting..in answering…the point being…about the ‘government involvment’ in trying to ‘get the religious orders to pay further monies into the (Redress board) ….this, (contrary to what was put out in the public arena…i,e about monies going into the so called Independent Panel/trust fund) by the religious orders appears to be ‘misleading…result–confusion…..but, ‘who is causing it? why? well…on closer examination….I believe there is a delaying factor here…being used by the state/religious etc…against those determined to GO THE WHOLE WAY INTO THE HIGH COURTS? and, yes, there is a connection…for example…..in 2003…the RIRB recieved an application from my solicitor….and then they recieved another one–by registered post-in 2005–(which included ‘affixed files’ from the 2003 application, by the solicitor-without my knowledge!) …both applications were ‘lost’ (by the RIRB) sometime between March 2006-and November 2006…I, on the other hand…obtained the original copies….(which is witnessed)…….consequently, one was sent DIRECTLY into the high court..this being (portions) of the (Registered) 2005 application ..by yours truly….’before’ the Ryan report came out……;now there appears to be ‘pandemonium…because…the application (mine) issued to the RIRB/High Court with my reserved right…by right…to add A LOT MORE….than what the RIRB says, i.e, it was entitled to have..(was ot given by me)..clearly, I believe, this left the legal people in a bit of a trussle…(is there such a word); because, the defendants in my case, are now seeking back ‘all documents they gave in 2005′ under court orders! I wish to state here…and I hope there is no objection…what Robbie Dempsey obtained ‘will knock the socks of the defendants…(ref;abuses of a child and so forth)–and the aftermath has rsulted in-the defendants now fighting one another…because, each of them in turn…dont know what the ‘other defendants’ gave under the high court orders! alas to say…a company of solicitors has now disappeared!………a full story on this issue will issue in due course on another site…..and, if permitted…on Paddy’s site as well;

By: Nora Doran

Nora Doran — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:58:59 +0000

Paddy

Would you set up a Petition on your website and then people can sign it and it would be all in the one place. I think it’s time we should do something about this once and for all