Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THERE WAS A considerable amount of correspondence between departments and the British Government in the run up to the state visit of Zimbabwean Prime Minister Robert Mugabe in 1983.
Discussions about whether Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald should bring up the case of six detained Zimbabwe Air Force officers – two of which had Irish connections – was a hot topic.
Air Force
In 1982 a series of explosions at Thornhill Air base in Zimbabwe resulted in 12 aircraft being destroyed . Shortly after incident, several air officers were detained under new emergency powers in relation in connection with the sabotage operation.
Some were released and some were tried for sabotage of the aircraft. However in August 1983, six air crew were acquitted by the High Court in Zimbabwe, but they continued to be detained, with no retrial.
Throughout the trial it had been alleged that some of the men had undergone torture and were given electric shock.
State papers reveal that prior to Mugabe’s visit, the Department of Justice received reports that Wing Commander Peter Briscoe and Wing Commander John Cox and possibly three other air crew were entitled to Irish citizenship.
The brother of Briscoe wrote to the Irish consul in South Africa and requested that an Irish passport be issued to his brother upon his release from prison stating that they would be “indebted” if this was possible.
Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald replied stating there was no “political objection” to an Irish passport being issued to him upon his acquittal. View the letter here, here and here.
The state documents go on to state that the British Embassy had got in touch with the Department of Justice and suggested that the Irish Government “express concerns to Prime Minister Mugabe about the case during his official visit”.
Britain
Despite it being stated by the news wires that Ireland had agreed to raise the issue, a government document reveals that there were concerns about media reports that the Irish Government “did not, repeat not, say that we would raise issue” adding that they had merely indicated that it was possible it might arise.
The document goes on to state:
It would appear that UK is attempting to use Mugabe’s Irish visit to exert maximum leverage.Apparently Mugabe responded ‘fiercely’ to British High Commissioner… We are advising the Taoiseach to be very cautious in way in which he approaches subject…
The document can be seen below:
Another state document reveals that the incident and whether to bring it up with Mugabe was again a topic of discussion, with a note stating that Government may need to intervene if the UK’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald to take up the matter with Mugabe.
When Mugabe did visit, Taoiseach Fitzgerald did raise the matter of the detained air crew with Mugabe. The Department of Foreign Affairs said the issue was “couched very carefully” so as not to upset the Zimbabwe leader.
The state visit was fraught with tension before Mugabe arrived and during the visit, as during a state banquet for Mugabe, FitzGerald took too long to pick the dinner’s wine and more than 30 unaccounted for guests turned up, in a dinner party that was planned right down to the detail, as seen with this seating arrangement for the night.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Too much paperwork. This only adds to the burnout that many child protection workers face. The job of a social worker has become too administrative and less front line
@Alison Maguire: Do you think its the front line(visiting dysfunctional homes were there’s child abuse) or the admin element that causes turnover in staff ……
@Murr Paul: the frontline also deal with a lot of admin
I believe there is room for all, please note that some of the private agencies are social enterprises that re-investing the children in their care.
As a country though we need to really start investing in support of vulnerable families from pregnancy, good preschools good family support. Our legislation also needs a complete overhaul with a much stronger emphasis on what’s in a child’s best interest not the parents. A child in foster care can at any time be returned to the birth parents, how can a child fully commit to a new family if they are aware of this.
@Anne Kearney: A child in foster care can at any time be returned to the birth parents, how can a child fully commit to a new family if they are aware of this.
A child will always want to return to their parents as when turned 18 kick out by foster families regardless.
@Murr Paul: a significant number of foster carers would and do keep the child in their care after the age of 18. I feel some of the issue is the after care work that goes on from 15 or 16 preparing for independence can instill a fear in the child so there is increased acting out that causes the placement to break down. I reject you before you reject me. A lot of children during access are told that they can go home also the foster carers in their own eyes is only temporary. We need to be able to make a home more permanent for some children and carers.
Why do they try and privatise everything???
Never has a good outcome
In no way am I comparing a Child to a dog here but look what’s happened with privatization re Ashton Dog Pound. Neglect, Abuse, and power pulling where everyone in Dublin is in fear of calling for the dog warden.
@Margaret Doyle: You don’t want to compare the two, and yet you do.
€325 not much to cover all the costs involved with children who have been neglected. The government trying to do all the really important stuff on the Cheap again.
@Alan Kelly: what costs do they have more then any other child? They also receive child benefit, social welfare CDA increases etc. I know cases were they claimed the foster children were disabled to get carers allowance, care grant and domicile care allowance all untaxed. A right little money earner.
@Murr Paul: you cannot just CLAIM someone is disabled!!
Do you know the trauma these kids have been through? Do you know the time that goes into making sure all the needs of these kids at met?
@Murr Paul: would you work 24/7 for 1.93 euro an hour and take the child’s expenses out of that too.
@Murr Paul: What is wrong with you? The state is neglecting and allowing lifelong damage to occur to children. They are pouring money into private companies and you point to a baseless, imaginary problem of welfare fraud. Do you think that so you can feel better or are you just bitter or thick or both?
@Alan Kelly: Making foster caring financially too appetizing is far too dangerous. It attracts the worst of people, to the detriment of these especially vulnerable children. Of course low income families with the right intentions shouldn’t be excluded from fostering simply because they can’t afford it. But that’s why the system allows for specific expenses for the particular foster child in question (with receipts and review process with regards to expenses etc). But just a nice lump sum lodged into your account with no questions asked every month will end up attracting too much interest for all the wrong reasons.
The cost factor here must be quantified, the cost given of €1,000 in a private placement includes other support. It includes the cost of social work support available 24 hours a day 7 days a week not currently provided by Tusla. The private fostering agencies also provide support services such as educational supports child care workers etc.
The private agencies also may be asked to locate careers for children with a complex level of care needs.
have your say