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.
A MAN HAS been shot dead in Clondalkin, west Dublin.
The 27-year-old was shot at the Bridgeview halting site near Cloverhill Road this afternoon.
The alarm was raised shortly after 3pm and a number of Garda units and emergency services are currently at the scene.
The man’s body remains at the site and the location has been sealed off. The State Pathologist and members of the Garda Technical Bureau have been requested to attend the scene.
It is understood only one person was shot in what is understood to be an attack related to the ongoing Hutch-Kinahan feud. The man was shot while sitting in a car near the site, close to Cloverhill Prison.
A second scene has been preserved on Crag Ave where a car was located on fire shortly after the incident.
An incident room has been established at Lucan Garda Station where investigating gardaí will conduct a case conference later this evening.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The ACP should go to hell, never have the actions of so few had such an impact on many, with no regard for their own scriptures. The Murphy report may of named and shamed some perverts but nothing more.
All of them or just the evil-doers Paul ? …just askin’
They weren’t named and shamed enough in my opinion.
It takes a special type of sicko to sexually assault a child and an even worse sicko to cover it up continuously
Representatives of god eh?
“Association for Catholic Priests (ACP) to request a review of the Murphy Report into sexual abuse” Well they would wouldn’t they. Bearing in mind the whole reason for the Murphy report in the first place you would think that the least this clerical lobby group would do was accept that members of their sect done some pretty heinous things to children and the disabled, say sorry and F*** off. These people just don’t get it do they?
These are the arrogant bleatings of a dying ruling class. Unchecked power always corrupts and they had a good run of it. In the context of the crimes committed, the comments of this organisation serve as an example of the rampant disregard for human dignity which was the hallmark of the RCC in Ireland. The kind and sincere were in the minority and evil did prevail, because good men and women did nothing. This is a shared national shame.
The main issue here is that they seem to be complaining about is that the report named and shamed those that were guilty of covering up. “The review accuses the Murphy Report of ‘dismissing out of hand any reasons, explanations or mitigating circumstances put forward by those clerics whom it “names and shames”’”
So basically they’re p!ssed that their “excuses” for covering up attacks on children weren’t taken into account. “Well, yeah, I knew he was a pedophile but sure didn’t he promise he wouldn’t do it again”.
Are these people adults or what!? Take responsibility for your fecking actions!
Why are you getting red thumbs for your comment? Well said!
Actually tricia “are these people adults?” may be the very nub of the problem…. i read Father Flannery’s book “question of conscience” ; a good read met him too had a chat; priests are human like the rest of us but unlike the rest of us they are taken into an all male environment and indoctrinated in a codex of laws while many of them haven’t a clue what real life is really like.
Perhaps it’s that wide – eyed innocence which this indoctrination gives is part of the problem; they don’t actually grow up, and in the case of Tony Flannery they are told in no uncertain terms that any questioning (rational input leading to maturity) is banned !
They are alot like political parties in a way ; whip system etc.
Martin does make some valid observations. The “name and shame” approach can sometimes be problematic, as seen when RTÉ tried it a couple of years back involving the priest in Africa.
However his statements come with a big if. Many of the priests in the Report are deceased and thus justice can never really be achieved for their victims, as a result of the complaints of those victims being ignored in the past by authorities (including the Guards). If the complaints had been properly dealt with between 1975 and 2004, then justice could have been dished out. At least this report helped partially right that wrong in many of these cases.
For years they said “it’s only a few bad apples, don’t blame all priests”
After reading this, I now blame every single priest. They can all rot.
Despite everything, they are still putting the church before everything and everyone else.
They’re almost as bad as the bastards who did the crimes.
Feel sorry for them man ; they are going the way of the dodo ………
Afraid the ACP have gotten this one wrong—why are they concerned that so many of their conreres were found out in wrongdoing?
They are afraid because they are all being tarred with the same brush… And while some should be there are definitely some who knew nothing of the abuse and had nothing to do with it. And I would hazard a guess that those who are left will not stay silent anymore if they have suspicions. Of course some of them were and are gay and in another era they probably thought others being secretive about their sexual behaviour were also gay and simply hiding that rather than their monstrous abuse of kids.
Sean – given their main complaint seems to be the ” naming and shaming of individuals” in the report, I cannot see how this has resulted in them all being tarred with the same brush. Surely they should be welcoming the namings in the report, indeed they should be crying out for a public list of the guilty to be published in every national and local newspaper, which would in turn clear the innocent. If as I suspect, it is the general public who are tarring them all with the same brush then they should not be attacking the report. I do wonder who is advising these institutions.
I just finished reading the Report. It’s not convincing or persuasive.
The Report is essentially a gripe that individual celery specs were named or identified. The Report asserts that, despite the Terms of Reference of the Murphy Commission of Inquiry , the Murphy Report should have been limited to institutional findings, not individual findings.
The Report cavils on a few procedural issues but does not dispute the substantive findings of the Murphy Report.
Of course, the correct procedure, had individual clerics or religious orders believed that there were procedural deficiencies, would have been to take Judicial Review Proceedings. The various priests and Roman Catholcic orders opted not to launch Judicial Review proceedings to quash all of the Murphy Report or parts of it. That did not happen.
My overall reaction to the Report is to say. “So what”. The abuses happened and the cases of abuses were intentionally concealed by the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.
The only substantive defence is that priests and the RC Church did not know what paedophilia was, had not heard of he term, and were on a learning curve about this. Essentially, it was a defence that the priests and the institution of the Church, not having a name for what was happening, did not realise that child sexual abuse was wrong. I find that a rather lame attitude. We should not need to be to,d that child sexual abuse is wrong. Essentially, it seems that the RC Church believes that celibacy does not require chastity.
The entire exercise was a waste of time and money. It reveals something very sinister and disturbing. The Association of Catolic Church is more converted with procedural niceities than with the dreadful harm done to the victims.
When will they [RC Church ] ever learn? Never, sadly.
excellent comment !
“Suffer little children to come unto me!”
It seems organised religion was full of perverts even 2,000 years ago ; very bright Jesus , saw what would happen to his cult if it grew in stature.
While I have you Catholics here; question;
Why do we have a bible with the Jewish Old Testament attached , when Jesus was baptised by his cousin he washed away all that Jewish crap ; No ?
First, Dermot, Catholics are not the only group who can talk about the Bible, in fact some would say they are the least qualified of all Christian origin sects to do so. Second, no he did not do away with all that Jewish crap as you do eloquently put it. He is reported/ purported to have said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Third, the new Testament is intimately linked ti the old by reference to it by those mostly Pauline propagandists who wrote it. Fourthly, if you are going to abuse and attack people of faith, and God knows people of faith need to be attacked, you might take a small piece of advice from the Bible… Know thine enemy. Read it, study it and become a better troll for it.
@Sean, +10 Even if I tried, I could not of put your words of wisdom any better.
Reading the bible ( which the majority of christians have not) for good moral,s
Is like digging through shit for corn
Sure there is some of it there but why bother
Firstly Sean other groups that talk about the bible (talking it as the old and new testament) are followers of Jesus so I take your point and correct it as thus ; catholics and all other organised religions that have sprung up on its back as a result of seeing it as a serious money making venture…evangelists etc.
Secondly;You say He came to fullfill Jewish law ; I am Irish and am a fan of brehon law an older and superior (in my opinion) codex of laws. So if Jesus was selling a new and improved Judaism then He can go take a jump ; I don’t believe that he did by the way.
Thirdly Ireland history is linked to the English throne ; doesn’t mean I have to accept lizzie as queen ; point being history and its great figures establish new and beneficial order out of the old; quite often by destroying the old system.
Fourth ; I did not attack anyone of faith ; I merely asked a question , then again seeing as a major cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church is indoctrinated belief in the word of Rome I can see how people saw it as an attack.
Finally . I have read enough of the bible to know I can freely write that Jesus was the antichrist , the very son of Satan and know that my path to heaven is not altered in any way.
One other thing sean ; perhaps if you studied blogging terms you would know the difference between a troll and someone with a christian opinion.
Thanks for the in put Sean ,I really mean that !
Peace out !
“When the Roman Cult staged their first hostile takeover of Catholicism in the 11th Century, one of the first objectives was to corrupt the sacred office of priest and remould it into a new type of “galli” – instead of physically cutting off their genitals, to deny them a normal life and force them to abstain from sex with women.
Instead the newly trained “galli” priests of the Roman Cult- the false pretenders who took over Catholicism – introduced many of their pagan satanic doctrines into the role of the priest, by the 13th Century tasked with sacrificing the innocence of children to Moloch, instead of physically murdering them as had been tradition at their Vatican temples.
Hence, “to molest” children in a strict sense remains a most sacred religious rite of the Roman Catholic Church- the Roman Cult in sacrificing the innocence of children to Moloch and to Cybele.”
http://one-evil.org/content/entities_title_priest.html
Excellent Catherine . I am impressed !
It’s like Jesus isn’t it ; he had a cherubic face and curly hair and then hey presto he grew a beard and took on the appearance of Jupiter… and his healing staff/wand disappeared as well !
I think the Hittites rooted in Rome after abandoning their ancient Capital …. the systems employed by the R.C.C. and the old Roman Empire are identical !
Dirty rotten Hittites ; ah well they landed on the wrong shore when they pulled in here and that’s a fact !
“explanations or mitigating circumstances” indeed. Firstly I don’t know of ANY mitigating circumstances that would justify putting (or leaving) a child at risk. Secondly, I would like to hear what the ACP think are acceptable explanations for such behavior. Under what circumstances should it be acceptable for a priest ‘hush-up’, ‘cover up’ or blatantly bully (in the case do ‘swearing a child to secrecy) – what explanations would be acceptable eh?
It’s just a little ironic that the ACP should cry ‘foul’, and seek the protection of the law in this instance. They are members of an organisation that believes that their own version if shariah law — canon law — supersedes the civil law that the rest if us live by.
They used the excuse of justification under canon law to justify not reporting rapes to the civil power at one stage, so they need to make up their minds and stop riding two horses.
have your say