Crocodile tears from
Taoiseach Brian Cowen Fina Fail and TD Alan
Shatter Fine Gael in their hypocritical statements on
child abuse in regard of the Ryan Report.
.........................................................................................
Members of Fina Fail and Fine Gael
TDs starkly refused to help Trish Bland and her
abused daughter Sarah.
Sarah
Bland as a baby - abused by upperclass devil
worshipping paedophiles - who are protected by the
powers-that-be in the Irish Republic
Trish Bland - mother of Sarah Bland who was
"ritually" abused as a child by upperclass
paedoplies.
Taoiseach Brian
Cowen refused to help Trish Bland!
Quote: see full article below!
The case has been brought to the attention of
five former Taoiseachs and the serving Taoiseach. It
has also been brought to the attention of several
TDs, including the current Minister of Foreign
Affairs in the South of Ireland, Mr Brian Cowen.
They have done absolutely nothing to investigate this
terrible case of abuse. Why did the Dublin Government
do nothing? The authorities know that to deal with
the case in an open and transparent way would be to
expose the hideous cover-up by the court system in
the Republic of Ireland, where justice appears to be
possible only when it will not damage a certain
Dublin elite.
Alan Shatter -
Fine Gael TD "spokesperson for children"
Refused to help Trish
Bland!
Quote: See full article below!
Patricia Bland then turned to Dublin's leading
family law expert, Mr Alan Shatter, who
is known as "Mr Family Law" because of the
many books that he has published and written on the
subject. She paid him £2,000 and hoped that he could
rescue her children from degrading torture. Mr
Shatter had just commenced his political career in
Fine Gael. In order for him to act
in the interests of his new client, young Sarah
Bland, he would have had to sue the previous
solicitor, Mr Michael O'Mahoney, for negligence. Mr
O'Mahoney just happened to be the legal adviser to
Fine Gael, the political party of which Alan
Shatter was a member. That aspiring
TD, "Mr Family Law," did nothing. Later, he
became the shadow Justice Minister in the South of
Ireland. He still did nothing. It was only later when
Patricia Bland recovered her legal files from his
office that she discovered that her calls had been
treated with contempt and that
"Mr Family Law" had suppressed the evidence
of seven witnesses, including a leading psychiatrist
and a senior social worker.
......................................................................................................................................
Trish Bland took her case to the Northern Ireland
Assembly in sept 2001 , she couldnt get justice in
the Irish Republic because a high level paedophile
ring had the power to stifle any investigation!
(within the legal
profession - read between the lines and you will see
what "legal profession" really refers to!)
See: - Welcome
to the Northern Ireland Assembly
Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 10 September 2001
TOP
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with
concern the failure of the Irish justice system to
resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of
British citizen Sarah Bland.
I bring the motion before the House because I
believe that the rights of a British woman and her
daughter, who lived in Dublin, were trampled
underfoot in a most appalling manner by the
authorities there.
The matter should have been debated in Dáil
Éireann; it should have been processed by an Irish
court. It is on today's Order Paper because of the
failure of successive Dublin Governments and the
Dublin courts to face up to their responsibilities.
The case is a political message to all those in the
political establishment of the South and, as long as
the gross injustice, known as the Bland case, remains
unresolved, anything that the Irish authorities may
say about rights, equality, justice, honour and truth
should be treated with contempt. If the Bland case is
a lesson in how the Dublin authorities would treat
one of its own, the political significance of that
should never be lost on Unionists in the House and
outside.
The case concerns a young Roman Catholic woman,
Sarah Bland, living in the midlands of the Republic
from 1980 to 1982 and the 20-year fight by her
resilient mother, Patricia Bland, to right the crimes
visited on that family. The case continues to this
day, but I want the Assembly to note it because of
the rape, incest and abuse that occurred during the
early 1980s when Sarah Bland was a child.
The case is the only example that I can find in
which a child suffered rape and incest as a result of
being placed, by a High Court order, into the hands
of the abuser. Instead of rescuing and protecting the
child from abuse by a court order, the courts in the
Irish Republic lent themselves to that abuse. We must
publicly ask the Irish courts and the political
extablishment why a four-year-old girl was sent back
to her abusing father by a court order after he had
admitted in open court to being an abuser, a wife
beater and an alcoholic. The child was subjected to
incest, torture, drugging and rape by a number of men
in a stately home, which, by Christmas 1980, was run
down, filthy and chaotic. Had common sense prevailed
in the Irish Republic's legal establishment, Sarah
Bland would never have been placed in the care of her
father.
For two years, Sarah Bland exhibited signs of
extreme trauma. She endured hundreds of hypnotic
comas and revealed to her mother the extent of the
hedonistic torture and debauchery to which she had
been subjected. However, no solicitor would act to
defend the rights of this child or her mother. When
the mother tried to get help, she was also made a
victim. Sneering allegations and threats were made
against her. In this case, a child was raped and a
family was robbed of its rights and, later, of its
finances.
The case has been brought to the attention of five
former Taoiseachs and the serving Taoiseach. It has
also been brought to the attention of several TDs,
including the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in
the South of Ireland, Mr Brian Cowen. They have done
absolutely nothing to investigate this terrible case
of abuse. Why did the Dublin Government do nothing?
The authorities know that to deal with the case in an
open and transparent way would be to expose the
hideous cover-up by the court system in the Republic
of Ireland, where justice appears to be possible only
when it will not damage a certain Dublin elite.
Mr and Mrs Bland lived in Rath House from 1971
until 1980. The family was given legal advice by a
firm of solicitors called Gerrard, Scallan and
O'Brien. Mrs Bland approached the family solicitor to
get help for her husband, who was already suicidal,
in a state of depression and involved in domestic
violence. She sought to have him made a ward of court
for his own and his family's protection until his
suicide attempts had ceased and he had received
psychiatric help. Because of this action, increasing
domestic violence was visited on Patricia Bland by
her husband, and she had to flee the family home. She
was amazed that the same company of solicitors -
Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien - then began action on
behalf of her husband. They did so in the knowledge
that he was unable to manage his own financial
affairs and that, if their legal action were
successful, the children would be placed back into
the care of the abusive father. Despite the conflict
of interest, the company chased Mrs Bland and her
children and had them brought to Dublin for that very
purpose.
In an attempt to protect her children, Mrs Bland
fled to England on the advice of another solicitor,
Mr Guy French of Fred Sutton and Company. He gave her
bad advice, but his intentions appeared to be good.
However, despite a hearing in England at which her
husband admitted in open court to wife-beating,
alcoholism, catatonic collapse and psychiatric
problems, Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien fought to have
Mrs Bland returned to Dublin with her children. That
duly happened, and her flight to England to seek
justice in a British court was used continually
against her in Irish courts to prevent her from
having full custody of her children.
Once she was back in Dublin, Mrs Bland paid
£1,600 to McCann, Fitzgerald, Roach and Dudley to
fight her case. However, that company came to a
private deal with the first company, Gerrard, Scallon
and O'Brien, to ditch this "troublesome British
woman". The agreed action resulted in a court
order to place her children in the care of their
father, even though they both knew of the evidence
that he had committed rape and incest against his
children. I hope that the case would have had a
different outcome if that evidence had been brought
to the attention of the Dublin courts. Not only is
the fact that the evidence was never allowed to be
brought to their attention alarming, but it shows
that impropriety, greed and cover-up ruled the day.
Patricia Bland then turned to Dublin's leading
family law expert, Mr Alan Shatter, who is known as
"Mr Family Law" because of the many books
that he has published and written on the subject. She
paid him £2,000 and hoped that he could rescue her
children from degrading torture. Mr Shatter had just
commenced his political career in Fine Gael. In order
for him to act in the interests of his new client,
young Sarah Bland, he would have had to sue the
previous solicitor, Mr Michael O'Mahoney, for
negligence. Mr O'Mahoney just happened to be the
legal adviser to Fine Gael, the political party of
which Alan Shatter was a member. That aspiring TD,
"Mr Family Law," did nothing. Later, he
became the shadow Justice Minister in the South of
Ireland. He still did nothing. It was only later when
Patricia Bland recovered her legal files from his
office that she discovered that her calls had been
treated with contempt and that "Mr Family
Law" had suppressed the evidence of seven
witnesses, including a leading psychiatrist and a
senior social worker.
4.15 pm
The handling of this case by the legal and
political elite of Dublin makes Charles Haughey look
squeaky clean. Every legal and ethical code has been
trampled, tattered and debased. Every attempt that
the mother made to protect and get justice for her
children in the courts - or with the help of
politicians - and regain her good name were met with
indifference, obstruction and malice.
Her child was finally rescued when Judge McWilliam
reversed a court order and sent the mother and
children to Canada in 1983. They lived there in
hiding, under police protection. However, after the
rape came the robbery. Her estate was sold, and legal
expenses of over £432,000 were claimed by and paid
from that estate to Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien, the
original solicitors who should have declared their
conflict of interest and refused to act.
In the following 15 years, Patricia Bland
contacted five Taoiseachs, numerous TDs and MEPs -
the list reads like a 'Who's Who' of Irish politics -
all of whom did nothing. Only in the North was her
case considered, first, by the Northern Ireland Forum
for Political Dialogue and today by the Assembly. It
is an indictment of the Irish Republic and its
establishment that it did not at least consider this
case and the matters raised by it. I hope that this
debate will prompt someone with integrity in the
South to come forward and say that enough is enough
and seek an inquiry or tribunal into a sorry
nightmare that could have been avoided if appropriate
action had been taken in the first place. The
evidence for the allegations is well-documented, and
the documentation, tape recordings and video cassette
can be made available to any Member who wishes to see
them.
Sarah Bland is now 24 years of age. She is in the
Building today. She has had a difficult life and has
experienced fear and post-traumatic stress. From an
early age, she has known little but abuse, exile and
poverty, but at long last she can see her case put
forward. Today's vindication does not come from a
Southern courtroom or the Irish state or any of its
statutory bodies. Sarah Bland is willing to meet MLAs
and tell them about her plight. She is also willing
to be an advocate for victims of child sex abuse. I
hope that the House can lend its full support to the
motion and show that we want to see justice and
honour in the case.
Sir John Gorman:
I first heard about Mrs Bland when I was Chairman
of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue.
Ian Paisley made a moving speech which I took to
heart. I made some enquiries and, as a result, was
convinced that the actions of the original
solicitors, Gerrard, Scallan and O'Brien ought to be
investigated, as they acted for Mrs Bland when she
first told the family solicitors of the dreadful way
in which she was being treated.
It was as a result of that first description of
her problems that the first actions were taken
towards having her husband declared a ward of court.
What happened next was that Mr Rory Bland went to the
same solicitors. Having acted for Mrs Bland for 11
years, those solicitors then acted against her by
suing her on behalf of her husband, repeatedly
admitting that their client was Rory Bland. I brought
the matter to the attention of the Minister for
Justice, Mr John O'Donoghue, on 25 August 1998 and
had a rather dismissive reply from him. Of course, he
had received a series of letters from many other
quarters pointing out the extraordinary instance of a
solicitor acting for both clients in a conflict.
The guide to the professional conduct of
solicitors in Ireland says that when a solicitor acts
for two clients and conflict arises between the
interests of those clients, he should cease to act
for both clients - clear and simple. However, for 11
years, that rule of the Law Society was not observed.
Mrs Bland pursued her case in Dublin, London and
Canada. Our equity in this - our right to
comment on the laws of another country is strictly
limited. It was limited in England, and it was
limited in Canada in the same manner. I have a
great deal of sympathy for Mrs Bland in relation to
the solicitors in the party. She has had a
rather excessive go at the rest of the judicial
system in the Republic which, I think, is not to be
criticised in the same manner as that particular firm
of solicitors.
Our right to comment on the law of another country
is strictly limited. It was limited in England and
Canada for the same reason. I have a great deal of
sympathy for Mrs Bland.
Ms McWilliams:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on
this subject. It is in no way peculiar to the Irish
justice system. There are huge inadequacies for
victims trying to get successful prosecutions for
ritual abuse, sexual abuse, rape or even domestic
violence.
The largest and probably the most sophisticated
study ever carried out is the Statistics Canada
study. It is used throughout the academic world and
the judicial system as an example of what can happen
when cases come forward. It used a sample of over
12,000 people in Canada and showed that only 6% of
cases are reported to the police. There is an
enormous amount of under-reporting. Most rape and
sexual abuse is not carried out by strangers - 81% is
carried out by men known to the women. That 6% is
tiny; 50% of that huge 12,000 sample had not reported
the incident, because they felt that the police could
not do anything about it.
In 1992, the police were still using the official
term "No Crime", and that term was used on
the papers. Our work in Northern Ireland and in the
Republic has, I am glad to say, moved on since then.
I know that because I used to go through papers to
which a large "NC" had been attached.
Today, reasons must be given for not pursuing a case.
Fifty per cent of that sample said that they did not
think that they could do anything; 41% felt that the
nature of the abuse made it difficult for the victim
to gather evidence that would stand up in court.
However, it has little to do with that. Thirty-three
per cent feared further attack. Recent studies in the
United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland show
that even when victims are persuaded to take their
cases to prosecution, less than half of the cases are
pursued - even after the police have taken them up.
I want to pay tribute to the child abuse and rape
inquiry teams that I have accompanied to court in the
Republic and in Northern Ireland. They have taken
innumerable cases to court, only to find that many of
the cases are dropped by the Department of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) in Northern Ireland or in the
Republic. They found that the witnesses were only as
good as their evidence and that the state will take a
case only if it feels that the witness is competent.
If the state feels that the witness is not competent,
it will not take the case.
I recently had to write to the DPP about the case
of a young woman who had cerebral palsy and who had
not even been interviewed by the DPP. The department
read the words "cerebral palsy", dismissed
the witness as incompetent and did not pursue the
case. The DPP had told the perpetrator that it was
not pursuing the case, but when I wrote asking the
department to interview the girl, it changed its
mind. As is normal, the perpetrator came after me,
as, unknown to me, the DPP had given him my name
without informing me. He took an abusive process
application, arguing that his rights had been
infringed. However, the DPP did pursue the case. The
DPP had never actually interviewed any of the
witnesses to determine their competence.
It is little wonder that statistics show that less
than half the cases go forward to prosecution and
that only 6% officially go to the police or to the
judicial system. Only half of those go to trial, and
only 10% end in convictions. Depressingly, the most
recent studies show that conviction rates are
decreasing while reporting is increasing. That is not
peculiar to the Republic of Ireland - it is the case
in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Although
more cases are reported today, our conviction rates
are lower today than they were in the 1980s.
Something is wrong with the judicial system, and it
must be put right before we criticise other
jurisdictions.
I want to take up the issue of flights out of
jurisdiction. That must be taken much more seriously
in all courts here, in the Republic of Ireland and in
Great Britain. When women flee because they fear for
the safety of their children, they are held in
contempt of court. There must be reasons for taking
such drastic steps; some are even prepared to
challenge the court that has asked them to hand over
their children. That came up in another case in which
I was involved - one that resulted in a successful
conviction. It concerned a prison officer, well known
in Carrickfergus, whom I can name, because the right
to anonymity disappears with conviction.
Occasionally, such people must be named in order to
protect others. I did not name the individuals in the
first case because, although the case went to court
twice, no verdict was reached. The two unfortunate
victims were separated, which is often the case. The
victims are not able to support one another as they
cannot be taken together through the courts. They are
separated, and one is not allowed to mention the
other. The minute that happens, the case is thrown
out.
4.30 pm
In this case, the Caldwell case, the woman had to
change her identity. It is ironic that the troubles
in Northern Ireland have given us information that we
can use to get others out of the country. We were
able to use the systems in place to help informers.
The woman had to have a new name and a new insurance
number, and she had to leave the country. Her
daughters, who were students, had to sit their exams
abroad. Then, after all that money had been spent,
the court decided that she had to be brought back
when the father from inside prison decided, as in
this case, that he wanted the children made wards of
court. That shows that the judges had little
expertise and training. We spend a fortune doing all
this, and it is all wasted. The poor woman had to
return.
Fortunately, two police officers came to court to
say that if her new identity were exposed, then all
the time in England, where the woman had to go
underground, would have been wasted. Many other women
are in hiding. The man in this case had attempted
murder. He swore in the courts and in the hospital to
which she was taken - again, it was bad practice, for
he was put in the bed in the next cubicle to her -
that if he could not get her this time, then as long
as he was alive, he would get her. That is often what
such men say. That is undoubtedly why victims must
take such enormous precautions.
In the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and
elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we are learning from
such cases. Police officers have been trained to deal
with them, and police policy has moved so far forward
from the 1980s. The judiciary, however, has not yet
been touched. The Law Societies in the Republic and
Northern Ireland must take the issue of conflict of
interest much more seriously. Recently, the Minister
of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was
challenged because a judge had to put a young man
into Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre - a juvenile
who was too young to be there. The case famously came
up in the newspapers. The judge had ruled that the
elderly woman in the case should not have contact
with the young man as he was below the age of sexual
consent. The solicitor was dealing with both cases
simultaneously, working for the woman and the young
man and passing messages between the two of them.
Again, it was the parents and an aunt and uncle who
contacted me to highlight that. The Law Societies
should stop allowing that to happen. The conflict of
interest that solicitors have in such cases must be
taken seriously.
This morning, I had a phone call about bail
conditions. I had to arrange to have someone
rehoused, to be moved from somewhere where she was
quite happy to live. The perpetrator in that serious
case had decided that he could get rehoused just
around the corner while the case was going through
the courts. The victim, who is taking that person to
court, is living in terror. The bail conditions were
such that he had to present himself at police
stations on a four-weekly basis. Why were they not
such that he was not allowed to go anywhere in the
vicinity of the woman? What can be learnt from that
to ensure that witnesses do not repeatedly withdraw?
One third of all witnesses who start the process of
going to court in rape, sexual abuse and domestic
violence cases withdraw because of the fear of more
attacks or intimidation by the person who perpetrated
the abuse in the first instance. When victims come
forward, they must be able to have confidence in the
judicial system. They are victimised once by the
perpetrator and again by the system to which they
turn for help.
I will not support the motion. First, it has not
been well worded. Perhaps Mr Paisley can tell us why
it says:
"the daughter of British
citizen Sarah Bland".
It might have read:
"the daughter of British
citizen" -
comma -
"Patricia Bland".
That is not why I am not supporting it.
I will do whatever I can in the case of Sarah
Bland, as in any other case. I am concerned that the
motion points simply to the failure of one judicial
system, and I am concerned that that is the reason
behind it. It is not a criticism of the judiciaries,
North and South. Had it been like that, I would have
taken a different view, but I never, ever, want to
see a sex abuse case used for political reasons.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I regret that Ms McWilliams is looking at this in
a partisan way. If anything similar had happened in
Northern Ireland, most Members would condemn it
strongly. It does not matter where the abuse takes
place. It does not matter who is responsible for the
abuse or where they live; before God, and before
morality and decency, they are to be condemned.
The House has a responsibility to lift its eyes
beyond its own territory - especially to a country
that invites us to become part of its system, invites
us to go under its laws and tells us that our system
is not the right system. It is to be regretted that
that is not the view of Ms McWilliams. We all know
about her work in this realm, and it is widely
appreciated. However, her position today, adopted
because the motion relates to the Irish Republic, is
to be regretted.
The Irish Republic already stands indicted before
the whole world with regard to corruption. There are
five legal and public inquiries going on at the
moment in the South of Ireland. The highest of the
land - or their families - are involved in those
inquiries. The legal system in the Irish Republic has
taken the right to deal with such matters upon
itself. We know the shenanigans of one former
Taoiseach and we know how the courts reacted to that.
I am glad that the inquiries have been set up in the
South of Ireland, and I am glad that they are
proceeding against the high and mighty elite, who
thought that they were free to do what they liked,
breaking the commandments of the land.
It is obvious from the evidence that there were
matters in the Irish Republic that could not be
justified. The Ulster Unionist Member who spoke in
this debate - an ex-police officer - made it clear
that on one matter alone there was a case that must
be answered. How could a solicitor be justified in
having two clients, and, after changing horses
halfway through, go against the client that he had
been instructing and taking large sums of money from?
When one considers the relationship of those
solicitors with people in high office in the South of
Ireland and their standing in society in the South,
one comes to the conclusion that those relationships
were stronger than truth and stronger than
righteousness.
I salute Sarah and her mother for having the
courage and the strength to take on the case. I know
something of what they have come through, and I know
from my own 50 years' pastoral work in this city how
such cases drain the victim and those associated. I
salute them today, and I trust that the Assembly will
salute them by passing this resolution.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I thank those who have spoken in favour of the
motion. I thank Sir John Gorman for his comments, and
for putting his finger on the nub of the case. It was
not a case of not having the right expert; it was not
a case of missing a point of evidence; it was about
the crime committed by the original solicitor. If the
first solicitor had not acted in conflict with his
professional interests, such a travesty would not
have occurred, or it would have taken a different
course. Sir John is right to raise that point. Had
that solicitor acted differently, the financial
estate of the Bland family would also have been
protected, ensuring that the family did not endure
the double victimhood of having to live in poverty
subsequent to the rape and incest. It is clear that
the first lie is always the most difficult to tell.
In this case, the most difficult lie was that of the
solicitor. Once it was told, as we well know, the
spinning of the web was begun. It had to continue, in
order to conceal the original cover-up. That lies at
the heart of the case.
The House was shocked by the comments of Monica
McWilliams. There was a good deal of padding, but,
when it all came down to it, her reason for not
supporting a case that highlights the plight of a
rape victim and a brutalised mother was a missing
comma. That is pathetic. What kind of excuse is that
to give to the House?
Monica McWilliams was correct when she said that
elements of the case were not unique. That is true.
It happens every day in other jurisdictions. However,
we are debating a specific issue. At some point, we
must be specific; life is not always full of
generalities. In this case it is disappointing, to
say the least, that a missing comma has been used as
an excuse by the Member for South Belfast. The
allegation was made that -
Ms McWilliams:
Will the Member give way?
Mr Paisley Jnr:
No, you have done yourself enough disservice
today.
Ms McWilliams:
You are not giving way because you know that -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
The Member has done herself enough disservice. The
measures mentioned by the Member have been in place
since 1992, and the campaign has been ongoing since
1980. The measures that have been identified have
therefore been wholly inadequate to address the
problems that this case has thrown up. Pious words
will do nothing unless we have action.
Members should vote in favour of the motion. By
doing so, they will demonstrate that, in this
jurisdiction, we are at least prepared to note the
concerns and plead with others down there to listen
and to take genuine action.
4.45 pm
It was a mistake to divulge the identity of the
Carrickfergus family. I hope that on reflection the
Member will consider that. I know that the daughter
in that case is still in hiding away from Northern
Ireland. Her life has been messed up considerably -
Ms McWilliams:
She is one of my students.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That may be the case, but I wish that the Member
had not mentioned her name.
Ms McWilliams:
It is in the newspaper every day.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That is all very well. It was very sad for that
young girl who is trying to get a new life. That her
case has been raised in the newspaper is not a
justification for raising it today. It does damage;
it brings it back; and it brings it home. That is
what I have been told -
Ms McWilliams:
She wants publicity.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
That is what I have been told by the victims and,
on that basis, the Member should have some respect
for the victims. She may have been speaking to other
victims who want a different course of action, but
there are victims who do not.
The other claim - that in this case the judges
lacked expertise - is also nonsense. The judges in
the Bland case were not permitted to see the
evidence. Therefore, they could not make the decision
to prevent the child falling into the custody of the
abuser. Again, that goes back to the original
misdemeanour by the first solicitor. If the first
solicitor had not acted in the way that he did, the
judges would have eventually got to see the evidence.
However, the fact that the judges never got to see
the evidence until much later in the case, when the
damage had been done, shows that it is a question not
of missing expertise - although it might be so in
other cases - but of the failure to show the bench
the evidence. It was only after the bench saw the
evidence that they made sure that the child was taken
to Canada and put under police protection in exile
there.
I hope that, given the evidence about the cover-up
in this case, Members will not hide behind flimsy
excuses but will put their money where their mouth is
and support the motion in the way that it has been
worded. I cannot explain the missing comma. It has
gone astray somewhere in the transmission of the
documents, but the meaning is very clear. I hope that
no flimsy excuse will be used by any Member to avoid
taking a decision that others have been too
frightened to take because of fear of the elite -
legal or political - whom they wish to protect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with
concern the failure of the Irish Justice system to
resolve the rape/incest case of the daughter of
British citizen Sarah Bland.
Adjourned at 4.49 pm.
See: - The
Northern Ireland Assembly debates the satanic abuse
case of Sarah Bland
.................................................................................................................................
- Dublin Already has a
Foot in Door of Stormont Assembly
LORD Kilclooney
has written to the London Times saying: "In
practice the sovereignty of the UK in Northern
Ireland is being weakened. Dublin, for the first
time, will have its foot through the door of the
Stormont Assembly." (Tuesday, July 29).
I can tell Lord
Kilclooney that Dublin has already had its foot
through that door on September 10, 2001 when my
and my daughter's case came up for a one-hour
debate in the Assembly.
The motion
concerned the failure of the Dublin Government to
act on the Bland Case of a British citizen and
her Irish daughter's plight.
At issue was
the conduct of Dublin solicitors and a member of
the Irish judiciary. The eight unionists
supporting Bland since 1993 have realised that
the judicial "inappropriate behaviour"
caused me, a British citizen in Dublin, to be
unable to progress to Appeal, and thus my freedom
and human right to apply to the European Court of
Human Rights were prevented indefinitely.
As a British
woman and mother of an abuse victim in the
Republic, I went to Northern Ireland to tell the
people there of this matter, thinking they might
lend an ear. I thought my rights to be heard in a
sovereign jurisdiction, which was British, would
be sacrosanct. How wrong I was.
The motion took
years to come before the Assembly.
Mr Just ice
Peter Smithwick, President of the District Court
in the Republic, decided to ban Sir John Gorman
from having any debate on Bland in the Assembly.
Smithwick
- President of the Order of Malta
The
Sarah Bland Scandal
Illuminati
Pics, Illuminati Symbols pg.4
- Order of Malta
Secret
Society Links
I had not
realised the writ of Irish judges extended to
Northern Ireland, but it seems to have been
exercised on this occasion.
In April and
May of 2001 Judge Smithwick wrote to, phoned and
had a meeting with Sir John Gorman to enforce his
will upon him.
Sir John
immediately backed out of the debate as a
proposer.
The debate went
ahead, and Sir John made a magnificent
humanitarian speech on Bland but failed to
mention the core of it, the Dublin Judiciary's
" judicial impropriety".
This blunted
the sword of the Assembly's very worthy and
unanimously supported debate, and meant that
Dublin did not have to respond to it all or make
any changes to its judicial system.
Despi te an
unopposed victory for the Blands in the Assembly
Debate, Judge Smithwick had won the day in
Belfast.
Patricia
Bland, Dublin
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0611/abuse.html
..................................................................................................................................
The cover-up goes on!
The Ryan Report on child abuse is a
smokescreen, a PR exercise by the status quo to give
the public the impression that they care about
children, which is a deception! They refuse to
investigate claims of child abuse when the claims are
against upperclass people and even within the Garda -
EG: The case of Cynthia Owen - who claims that Garda
were involved in her case. See:
Dalkey house of horrors
Cynthia Owen - her baby was
murdered by a person using knitting needles
These "wolves in
sheeps clothing" - the Irish Government
- both Fina Fail and Fine Gael, who are the front men
for the real power brokers behind the scenes - in the
"Big Houses"! Some call them the "Shadow
Govenment" - other people in the USA
and UK have seen a similar situation in their
countries and it seems the pattern repeats itself in
many countries of "western culture".
The taboos for scrutiny and
investigation in Ireland are:
1) "Paedophile Rings"!
2) Upperclass child abuse!
3) Secret Societies!
4) Claims of criminal activities
against witches, covens or satanist groups!
5) Christian groups who behave
strangely - eg: "barking in their "prayer
meetings" - "speaking in tongues" -
running wild during their "prayer services"
- holding "prayer meetings" late into the
night and sometimes until dawn!
6) Investigating and publicising
thoroughly - instead of trying to hide the news deep
in the inside pages of newspapers - why so many
foreign refugees go missing from "care
homes" often run by the Garda or former Garda
personel. See: 328 refugees kids go missing from Garda run
"care" homes!
.......................................................................................................................................
Here are recent comments by Alan
Shatter and Brian Cowen on the Ryan Report -
I say weasel words - hypocrites and
cowards!
........................................................................................................
http://www.finegael.org/news/a/427/article/
TUESDAY 26 May 09Shatter says HSE Child
Care Report for 2007 scandalously inadequate
Alan Shatter TD, Fine Gael Spokesperson on Children
today said, ‘the Report published today by the
HSE on our Child Protection Services for the year
ending 31st December 2007 is scandalously inadequate
and lacking in essential information.’
Leinster House
Dublin 2
Ireland Contact
Joanne Lonergan
016183858 Alan Shatter TD
Children
visit
site » Shatter
criticises HSE Child Care Report
Alan Shatter TD, Fine Gael Spokesperson on Children
today said, ‘the Report published today by the
HSE on our Child Protection Services for the year
ending 31st December 2007 is scandalously inadequate
and lacking in essential information.’
“Unlike the Report for the year ending 31st Dec
2006, this Report:
• Fails to disclose the number of children on
waiting lists for full assessments following
notification of child abuse or neglect or of welfare
concerns;
• It fails to detail the average time spent by a
child on a waiting list for assessment following such
notification;
• And it fails to provide a detailed breakdown
on a regional basis or on the basis of the 32
different Local Health Offices of confirmed cases of
abuse or neglect or of cases still under
investigation.
“The Report does, however, confirm the
dysfunctional and uncoordinated nature of our Child
Protection Services, even to the extent that there is
a lack of uniformity in the phraseology used to
describe the actual services detailed.
“The Report details that, in the year 2007, the
HSE Child Protection and Welfare Services received
23,268 reports relating to child abuse, neglect and
child welfare concerns and that there was
‘initial assessment’ undertaken in respect
of 15,074 children. Therefore, no initial assessment
was undertaken in relation to 8,194 reports received,
being over 35% of the total. Surprisingly, this
latter statistic is nowhere highlighted or commented
on in the report. The HSE should explain why it
appears as if 8,194 reports made to it concerning
children at risk were ignored.
“Astonishingly there is no agreement within the
HSE as to what is meant by the concept of an
‘initial assessment’ nor is it defined in
the Report. It seems that an ‘initial
assessment’ means different things in different
areas. For example, in the eight Dublin Local Health
Offices it is stated that, out of a total of 4,673
reports received, 4,402 ‘initial
assessments’ were undertaken. That is, initial
assessments were completed in relation to 95% of
children. However, in the four Cork Local Health
Offices, out of a total of 2,255 reports received, it
is stated that initial assessments were undertaken in
respect of 585 children, that is, only 26% of the
children concerned. From these figures it appears
that in 74% of cases no ‘initial
assessment’ was undertaken and that reports of
children at risk were ignored.
“The huge discrepancy in these figures needs to
be explained by the HSE. In particular, the HSE
should state what action comprised an ‘initial
assessment’ by social workers attached to Dublin
Local Health Offices. An explanation should also be
given as to what comprises such assessment in the
Cork area. On the surface it seems that reports of
children at risk in Cork are less likely to be taken
seriously than reports of children at risk in Dublin.
However, the Dublin figures are not believable in
that within the majority of the Dublin Local Health
Offices it is stated that as at the 31st Dec 2007
every such report had received an ‘initial
assessment’ and no initial assessment was
outstanding.
“The Report on our Child Protection and Welfare
Services for the year ending 31st December 2006
contained a detailed regional breakdown of
information concerning the number of confirmed cases
of abuse following not only an initial assessment but
following a complete assessment. It is extraordinary
that the report for the year ending 31st December
2007 contains no such information. Whilst it details
that there were 1,978 confirmed cases of abuse or
neglect in 2007 it does not identify them on a
regional or Local Health Office basis and it is
impossible to know from the Report regional
variations in the assessment of whether children are
truly victims of abuse or at risk and whether child
care intervention is required.
“The HSE is obliged under Section 8 of the Child
Care Act 1991 to provide a detailed annual report on
the workings of our Child Protection Services within
a reasonable timeframe. Today’s Report contains
less detail than the Report published for the
previous year. The HSE has failed in the statutory
obligation imposed on it in the 1991 Act to provide a
report in the detail necessary and it has failed to
produce the report within a reasonable time frame. It
is unacceptable that a report for year ending 31st
December 2007 concerning the workings of our Child
Care Protection Services is only published on 26th
May 2009 and that there is no indication when a
Report will be published for the year ending 31st
December 2008. The Report of the Ryan Commission has
highlighted the absolute necessity of ensuring that
we have properly functioning, transparent and
accountable Child Protection Services. The
publication today by the HSE of this Report again
highlights that our services are scandalously
inadequate.
“Despite protestations to the contrary by
spokespersons on behalf of the HSE it is still
absolutely clear that the HSE has utterly failed to
ensure throughout the country a uniform application
of our 1999 Children First Guidelines. The Minister
for Children has also utterly failed to ensure that
the guidelines are properly applied to protect
children at risk. The Ryan Commission in its Report
repeated the recommendation contained in other
reports relating to children’s services that
action must be taken to ensure the uniform and
consistent implementation throughout the State of
these guidelines.
“If children today are not given the protection
to which they are entitled, the shame expressed and
tears shed over past events will lack all
credibility. We must not as a State continue to fail
the most vulnerable children of today and
tomorrow.”\
Dáil debates child abuse report
Thursday, 11 June 2009 18:08
The Dáil has been debating on the report of
the Ryan Commission into Child Abuse.
The debate was delayed because of the motion
of confidence in the Government tabled by Fine
Gael on Tuesday. The Dáil is sitting for an
extra day tomorrow to make up the time lost.
Watch
the Dáil debate live
The Taoiseach has described the report
as the gravest ever published in the history of
the State.
Brian Cowen said the report was a searing
indictment of those guilty of abuse and of the
organs of the State that failed in their duty of
care.
Advertisement
He also repeated the State's apology and said
it was appropriate that a memorial to the victims
be erected.
He also said the report radically changed
public perception of what went on in industrial
schools and said stories of abuse are no longer
in doubt.
The Taoiseach said we must make Ireland a
model of how we treat our children.
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said the report
revealed a plague of cruelty that we should all
be haunted by, as 'it shames us a state, a
society and a country.'
He added: 'Ireland has become a world black
spot for decades of institutional and State child
abuse.'
Mr Kenny also said Ireland cries silently with
the victims, some of whom were in the Dáil's
public gallery, visibly moved by his speech.
Labour's Ruairi Quinn said he has been asking
how many primary schools each of the Orders owns,
but has not got an answer from the Department of
Education.
He claimed officials there are either members
of societies, such as Opus Dei or the Knights of
Columbanus, or they are incompetent.
Two weeks ago, before it rose in advance of
the local, European and bye-elections, the Dáil
passed a motion apologising to the victims of
abuse for the failure of the political system to
come to their rescue.
There was also an acceptance of the
recommendations of the Ryan report and a call for
the religious congregations to make further
substantial contributions by way of reparation to
the victims.
Victims' groups have been critical of the
delay caused by the confidence motion debate,
especially as a march of solidarity on the Dáil
was organised for yesterday to coincide with the
debate.
Bishops ask for forgiveness
Ireland's Catholic Bishops have called the
Ryan report 'the most recent disturbing
indictment of a culture that was prevalent in
their Church for far too long'.
Following their three-day summer meeting in
Maynooth, they said: 'Heinous crimes were
perpetrated against the most innocent and
vulnerable, and vile acts with life-lasting
effects were carried out under the guise of the
mission of Jesus Christ'.
In a statement, the bishops branded the abuse
described in the Ryan report as 'a serious
betrayal of trust ... placed in the Church'.
Asking forgiveness, they confessed they were
ashamed, humbled and repentant that their people
strayed so far from their Christian ideals.
They said they bore a heavy sadness at the
suffering of so many for so long.