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.
THE BLEAK REALITY of the war in Afghanistan has been brought into sharp relief following what has been called “the biggest leak of military documents in intelligence history.”
Over 92,000 previously classified military documents from US forces, know as The War Logs, were obtained by Wikileaks and published on Sunday.
Wikileaks, a whistle-blowing organisation originally based in Sweden, obtained the documents from an unidentified source and forwarded them to three publications: The Guardian, The New York Times , and Der Spiegel.
The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, said:
The nearest analogue is the Pentagon papers, which were released in the early 70′s. That exposed how the United States was prosecuting the war in Vietnam, that was about 10,000 pages… This situation is different, in that it’s not just more material and being pushed to a bigger audience and much sooner - but rather people can give back; so people around the world who are reading this are able to comment on it and put it in context and understand the full situation. That is not something that has previously occurred and that is something that can only be brought about as a result of the internet.
The contents of the reports show that the situation in Afghanistan (on which the United States has spent almost $300bn to date) is far graver than official accounts portray. It also outlines that the threat from insurgents, most notably the Taliban, are formidable.
The reporting has been damned by US military. The New York Times quotes General James L. Jones, the White House national security adviser, as saying that he “strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.”
The incident comes hot on the heels of a recent blow to US war confidence following the sacking of Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal after he made disparaging remarks about the US government’s handling of the situation in Rolling Stone magazine.
Some of the more alarming mistakes recorded in the log, which covers the war from the periods of January 2004 to December 2009, include details of how:
More general points about how the war is being run also became clear in the report:
The Taliban are gaining strength
The Taliban are said to be at their strongest since 2001. They have also begun to use portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft – which were very successfully used by the Afghan mujahideen against Soviet forces in the 1980′s.
Secret “capture to kill” missions have led to civilian deaths
Task Force 373, a secret US unit of army and navy special forces, has been engaged on missions to “capture or kill” about 70 top insurgents. Mistakes made during these missions have resulted in some civilian deaths. Targets who have been captured were interned without trial.
Increased drone aircraft deployment
“Reaper” drone aircraft, described by a former US Air Force commander as having “a true hunter-killer role”, are increasingly being used.
Unmanned aircraft, controlled by army forces in Nevada, can display notoriously crude target capabilities – which have resulted in civilian deaths.
CIA have expanded paramilitary operations
Increased paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan include ambushes, airstrikes and night raids by the CIA.
Civilian casualties caused by Taliban and Nato forces have gone unreported
Taliban forces have escalated the scale of deadly roadside bombing campaigns, many of which have gone unreported. Nato mistakes have also led to deaths of innocent bystanders.
More than 2,000 civilians to date have been killed in such attacks.
Pakistan and Iran are suspected of fuelling the insurgency
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency is suspected by the US as having armed, trained and financed the Taliban since 2004. Iran is also suspected of having involvement in the training and financing of Taliban insurgents, however US forces appear to be unclear about whether the possible assistance would be coming from the Iranian government or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Who are Wikileaks?
Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing site responsible for releasing the information, was launched in 2006. Wikileaks says that it was established by Chinese dissidents, journalists, and mathematicians.
The report is available here.
Watch Julian Assange speaking at a press conference here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If Kathy Sinnott, John Waters and, ‘Father’ Brian McKevitt are against it, I’m 100% for it. End of!
@petr The least coherent and most ignorant adoption of a stance I’ve ever read.
Havin heard some of the groups that are against this, I’m 100% for it!
petr,kieran ,james, why do you not make up your own minds rather that just say that because somebody else is going one way you’re going another. this change would give a lot of power to the Judiciary who would make decisions based on shot term assessments by social workers and psychologists. it is wrong. Futher , it seems to be wrong to allow legal adoption of children whilst their parents are still alive . What is wong with fostering , if the circumstances warrant it. I am not affiliated to any group and , unlike you , am speaking my own observations/
Petr Tarasov
I am honestly disappointed with your reasoning ,for voting yes .
I will be voting no, I read trhe current constitution and read the
the proposed wording and I do not like what they are leaving out . Family first .
The state never looked after children before , The laws are already there it is lack of implementation
that has children at risk .
Please read and compare and then if you still want to vote no , I will accept it then.
Petr, Kathy Sinnott also used a knife and fork to eat, are you going to stop using a knife and fork to eat also? If that’s what your basing your decision on you fall into that category of people who don’t deserve to vote.
If Eileen Gabbett is voting against, I’m all for it.
A few people need to familiarise themselves with this word, and how to better detect instances of it.
Leo would need to talk to Eamon Gilmore who said in a Dail debate on the Deaths in Care Inquiry that:
“Yesterday, I expressed some surprise at this figure and pointed out that it shows a level of mortality among children in care which is 10 to 12 times the rate in the wider child population.”
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/05/26/00003.asp
It’s not unlikely that the Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore and Leo hardly speak. On this issue I sincerely hope that Leo takes Eamon to task asap given his concern for getting the figures right
Ooops Lol .
Does Leo have any comment to make about Joan Burton’s false claim on The Week in Politics that 1600 children of married parents who want to be adopted by their foster parents but can’t be because of the Constitution – the correct figure is probably about 10. The Children’s Rights Alliance uses a figure of 2000 in its election literature.
“The correct number is probably about ten”
So you’re accusing someone ease of making up numbers but are doing so yourself.
Well of the 4400 children in care with the HSE only 16 were adopted from long term foster care in 2010 (Adoption Board figure), so 10 is a reasonable estimate out of the 1600.
it the children that coun no who says what.look at all the children in care down the years.raped.beaten.killed.and the cover up.can we trust them.all the lies.given to the rich screwing the poor
Haha talk about hypocrisy, scaremongering haha “fiscal treaty, ‘” ring a bell.
At least these people are giving us the truth in how this referendum will affect parents and children.
Read; http://sovereignindependent.com/flyers/APSFlyer.pdf
Seriously ye,ve some cheek like, ye have no authority to talk about scare mongering as that is all this government has done since it came into power.
A disgrace is what it is!
http://www.change.org/petitions/supporting-the-irish-nation-step-down-from-government
Have a look at this to see how John Waters and Kathy Sinnott are putting forward the case for protecting children from the State http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal
This voting only giving the government more power , like they don’t have enough already.
Actually Bláthnaid, this amendment confers no additional powers to the government. What it does is confers, for the first time in the history of the state, a legal right for the voice of children to be heard in matters that concern them. Stops putting the rights of abusive parents over that of their victim child (this being achieved with the wording being put as “in exceptional circumstances”) but at the same time, through the fact that the remainder of Articles 41 and 42 of the constitution will be unchanged, it does not encroach on the position that the family is “the corner stone and basic unit on which that state is based”. This is about recognizing and enshrining children’s right, not about conferring power on anybody.
Eoin , children already have a voice in family court , some of the childrens charities pushing for a yes vote offer GAL services for which they are richly rewarded at 3 – 4k per case , judges also have the authority to speak with the child either in the court setting or in private in their chambers. This referendum has everything to do with removal of parental rights and offers no protection to children.
Deasun, that is not true. I will take the time to transcribe the following directly (and more to the point completely) from Bunreacht na hÉireann here beside me.
“Article 41.1.1
The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Article 41.1.2
The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social law and order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
Article 41.3.1
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
The proposed new Article 42A (The Children’s Rights Referendum) does not in any way shape or form affect nor supersede the above Articles. What it does add is this:
42A.2.1
“In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”
The key words being “exceptional cases”, “prejudically affected”, “proportionate means”, and, “with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child”
As constitutional amendments go, the wording here is pretty straight forward.
@Eoin O Niallin
You conveniently ignored Art. 42A.1 and its implications
42A.1.The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
A law lecturer advocate for a Yes, Dr Conor O’Mahoney, vote spelt out what this means in a recent opinion on humanrights.ie :
“A limitation of the current framework is that Article 42.5 only mentions children’s rights indirectly as something that the State must have due regard for when intervening to supply the place of parents who have failed in their duties towards their children. The existing framework is premised on the concept of State subsidiarity in family affairs, and places the State under no direct obligation to protect the rights of children as long as parents are adequately performing their functions. The obligation is a default one that arises only in exceptional cases.
The amendment, if passed, will shift the emphasis so that the State’s obligation to protect and vindicate children’s rights is a constant duty owed to children, and not a mere default duty. In part, this is intended to reinforce the fact that children have rights as individuals and not merely as a sub-set of the family unit. It is regrettable that reference to children having rights “as individuals” that featured in the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children’s proposal was dropped, but nonetheless, the intention seems clear. How this will play itself out in practice will largely be down to its influence on legislative and policy measures (and maybe also on some litigation), all of which remains to be seen.”
This makes it clear that unlike what Art 42.5 allows – if the parents screw up the the State takes over. 42A.1 is designed, as O’Mahoney, points out to shift the emphasis to the State in families that are intact and functioning normally.
I didn’t make reference to 42A.1 in the above as it is immaterial to the specific argument. Your reading of what Dr. O’Mahoney has said is incorrect. It a simple aspect of constitutional law that if the state try to bring in legislation under the amendment (42A) with a view to making the State the key pawn broacher in family, it will be struck out immediately as such a law would be deemed unconstitutional under Article 41. It really is open and shut. The State cannot, as a result of Article 41, place itself ahead of the Family unit. What this amendment allows is that in “exceptional cases” where there has been sustained neglect or abuse, regardless of marital status of the parents, the State can intervene to assert the Child’s right to life/eduction/etc. and that the Parents’ right to Family does supersede (as the constitution currently outlines) the basic fundamental human rights of the child.
The amendment introduces a new dimension to law inthat it provides explicitly and for the first time that children’s rights are justiciable even when the family unit is intact and fully functioning. http://www.scribd.com/doc/109280995/Legal-Analysis-of-Children-s-Rights-Ref-Proposal
O’Mahoney puts is very clearly (and in plain English):
“The existing framework is premised on the concept of State subsidiarity in family affairs, and places the State under no direct obligation to protect the rights of children as long as parents are adequately performing their functions …………… The amendment, if passed, will shift the emphasis so that the State’s obligation to protect and vindicate children’s rights is a constant duty owed to children, and not a mere default duty. In part, this is intended to reinforce the fact that children have rights as individuals and not merely as a sub-set of the family unit.”
It is designed to break the link between biological parents and children, with the objective of putting the State in the place of the natural parents. This was tested experimentally in the Soviet Union and China under Mao, and was shown not to work.
Sorry but your comment; “The amendment introduces a new dimension to law inthat it provides explicitly and for the first time that children’s rights are justiciable even when the family unit is intact and fully functioning”, is simply not true.
The amendment explicitly states “exceptional cases” and goes on to qualify that as being a sustained period such that “to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected”. In all other cases (read: fully functioning family) Article 41 is in full effect. Simple English amendment. Does exactly what it says on the tin.
You are deliberately ignoring what O’Mahoney said in fairly straightforward plain English and are ignoring the implications of 42A.1 for intact and functioning families.
No I’m saying he’s completely wrong in his interpretation. It shocks me that a constitutional lawyer would infer that one Article of Bunreacht na hÉireann could supersede another in such a manner when the wording is as clear as the light of day. I have gone over the amendment with current and former members of the Law Reform commission who all agree that wording is such that the term “exceptional cases” and “prejudically affected” make it clear that Article 4.1 is in full effect outside of abuse or neglect scenarios. The amendment is in plain English!
Despite the fact that he contradicts himself time and again, sometimes in the same line! For instance: ……….
“and therefore the courts could be routinely intervening between parents and children in order to determine what parents must allow their children to do even when the parents have not failed according to the test laid down in Article 42A.2.1. (Again, the point is that under the current Constitution, rights are given to the family, and only in the exceptional cases when parents fail does the state intervene between parents and children in order to protect the rights of children).”
He’s completely missed the reference in the proposed amendment that clearly states the term; “exceptional cases” and states clearly what it means by that (which incidentally is exactly as he states above). However he is also PLAIN WRONG in saying that the state can intervene at present to remove children from abusive parents when those parents are married. That’s the whole point of the referendum.
Anyway, I’ll have to leave it there and we’ll have to agree to disagree. Busy evening ahead. Pleasure debating with you.
My reasons to vote no are as follows :It is giving more POWER to the state over children who by and large are well looked by their parents . Children who are in peril, can be fostered until any problems are resolved . However , if you read the word- PRACTICABLE -That one word in the new wording then you can see that this administration or any future governments can do away with fostering as a temporary respite for children, who may be going through difficult times, to save MONEY.IN Mountjoy and every other prison there arechildren being brought in to see their Dads and Mams….This contact with their parents was paramount in their lives and at the end of the day it is children’s emotions and psychological balances that we must protect. To rip a child (not baby) a child, from his/ her parents is cruel. Social Workers bring children of inmates in to the prison to see parents , because it is important for both to maintain contact.We know that this contact is crucial for the child.
Furthermore I do not TRUST this Government . This Referendum has NOT addressed the abuses that children can and HAVE suffered at the hands of Church and State. There is NOT a queue of children waiting to be adopted ,because parents / single men/women choose to keep and rear their little ones themselves. Yes there are those who should not have a cat let alone a child , but the state already caters for them . And often times do gety it right but unfortunately we know the state bodies have got it very wrong too.Why is that ? It is not for the lack of laws!
I was not sure which way I should vote ,until the state ie this government and quangos started telling us we have to vote YES. They only showed us the new words but have not compared them with the old . They have not explained why we should vote yes,only told us we must vote yes, and that if we vote no we are BAD . However , compare the wording (42.5) you will see that the family is paramount , Mothers are too, and are entitled to financial help .Read it ,compare it , decide ! Who says who are ”proper” parents .
I am not going to vote no just because the government have told me to vote yes . That would be ignorant and damaging . I will vote No because it is the right / correct thing to do , for children and families.
By the way , if this referendum is passed it will not stop pedophilia or the institutional abuse of children. This Referendum is to save government money :re to cut back on fostering , to cut back on Children’s allowance ,(it is being held before the budget)
and to have forced adoptions, and take the care and control of children from their parents,even down to consenting to injections and vaccinations !To give children to ”PROPER” parents.
You are right ,this is WAY BEYOND political , it is cultural,so why is it this government have made it political.
I wonder where the Church stand on this issue ? Seriously ! They will not DARE say .
Eileen , you might also add that the word “inprescridctable “[ hope spelling is correct] has no meaning.
The word is imprescriptible and it appears elsewhere in the Constitution (see Article 41 on the family). Generally, it means they are rights that cannot be taken away nor given up and they do not change over time.
Call me an unhappy cynic if you like but I do not trust this government .
To be honest, I was intending to vote NO, especially as the state does not have a good record as a pseudo parent. I read the wording and to br honest it does not give the state any extra powers really, based on existing constitution, but does place additional responsibilities to listen to the child. Most likely will vote YES now
What denies the child a voice currently?
p.s. I’m not asking this out of any notion of set-up – I genuinely don’t see how the child cannot have a voice as things are.
Children do have a voice now .
This diabolical referendum must not be passed , amending the constitution will fix nothing as legislation will have to be brought in but the government are not forthcoming as to what these new laws will be , you seriously trust these progressives with the welfare of Irelands children.. Vote No
John “Holy” Waters is repulsive but so is Fergus Finlay this should not distract from the issue to hand.
Children’s voices must be heard is the mantra. Sounds great but how will this work in practice?
“Fitzgerald acknowledged that a courtroom setting could place difficulties on children, particularly those coming from vulnerable circumstances, and the Courts Service would need “to examine how precisely they might” address this.” Frances Fitzgerald, Minister for Children.”
The Minister acknowledges that children will be giving evidence in court if the referendum is passed. It’s a fact even she will not try to deny. She then passes the problem, which she created, over to the Courts Service whom would need “to examine how precisely they might” address this. Embarrassingly the Minister for Children admits that she is unsure how this new children’s right will be dealt with but she does acknowledge that this “could place difficulties on children”.
The Minister has admitted that even she, apart from acknowledging the fact that children will be giving evidence in court, is unaware as to how this will be dealt with. The proposal compounds the dilemma of children caught up in bitter custody cases rather than help them.
In the case of younger children, to satisfy the “having regard to the age and maturity of the child” element evidence will probably be provided via social workers etc but children of say 10 years old and upwards will have to give evidence in person in court to satisfy this new constitutional requirement. Parents can then coach the child to say whatever they want them to.
Judges will be painfully aware that any failure to “hear the child” would automatically leave the door open to appeal by either parent on the grounds that any future judgement that fails to respect the child’s constitutional “right to be heard” could and would in all likelyhood be found to be unsafe.
Forcing children to give evidence in court is an advancment of children’s rights? I’m voting No against this child trauma charter.
Actually those who argue that there is no need for a referendum are correct….if the current laws were actually implemented correctly all situations are covered !
I am disappointed with Leo Varadker. We live in a democracy. Leo should apologise. the electorate are entitled to hear all points of view in order to make an informed decision.
Leo does not live in a democracy , nor do any of the current FG tds .
So if they don’t live in a democracy what exactly do they live in?
Sinnott has absolutely no shame when it comes to lying to the public. None whatsoever. She’s making this stuff up and he’s calling her on it. Someone should, lord knows the broadcasters won’t.
I agree that you need to have a proper debate on the issue and it’s important that the electorate is informed over what exactly the amendment entails but to go around and make wild assertions that are not backed up by credible figures is incredibly misleading and ultimately damaging not only to the ‘No’ side but the debate in general. It’s difficult enough making an informed and what you would hope correct decision for future generations without being subjected to this type of misinformation.
Wow, that comment by Petr sounds like something a bishop in the 1950′s would say. His comment is scary.
You must be easily scared. Poor flower. Are your nerves shot from all the bangers going off?
Take a sedative and have a lie down.
What’s this got to do with a referendum of Children’s Rights?
Pert, disappointed in you that you could not stay with the point.
There is (as there always is in a referendum) scaremongering going on on both sides.
I really wish people would have the sense to vote for this after careful consideration rather than voting Yes because of who is in the no camp and ignoring that there is the same reasoning for voting No.
@Petr, how can you justify a Yes citing your reasoning as positioning yourself opposite 3 individuals and then go on in another comment to be vehemently anti FF? You do realise that FF are advocating a Yes vote don’t you?
You must feel pretty conflicted…
It really doesn’t matter who is pushing what if you’re willing to open your mind to what is being proposed instead of keeping the party line blinkers on.
Tomy
Ok, if you want to stay with you’re “logic” I’ll just ask (and not expect any logical answer) how you can be going along with FF?
I never said you were a member of any party.
I just can’t understand how people can decide a vote on such flimsy ideals. It’s like when families used to vote a certain way because their parents told them – no independent thought at all in voting a certain direction just to go against people you don’t agree with on so many other issues.
I’ll be voting No for my own reasons – and I decided I’d look long and hard at the issues despite wondering how I could end up agreeing on this topic with those on the No campaign. You don’t have to agree with their reasoning to see value in a No or Yes vote.
youâre âlogicâ
As expected, thanks for your “contribution”
Itâs rare that I get that particular piece of grammar wrong
Petr, you’ve done a “Varadkar” on it and made it personal rather than addressing the point. Keep trying for that last word, I’m sure you’ll get it.
My issue with voting yes to this is, If it passes and all the debate or insults traded on here or everywhere else. It will come out after the adoption of the new laws, that no funding or services will be available to back up these laws. We’ll get the old line, Due to cutbacks, etc. and lack of staff, we’re unable to provide the services needed. Then we’ll all be saying, What was the bloody point of voting If the services can’t be backed up for children?
Because when we can afford to do it we’ll actually be allowed to. Maybe we’d have been able to provide these services during the boom if the laws had been in place. They’ve been arguing over this since the early nineties for goodness sake.
Why is Varadkar attacking the person instead of her/his argument, is he worried about another backlash or is his argument weak?
Varadker pointed out that Sinnott was essentially lying to the electorate with those bogus statistics. Not exactly an ad hominem attach to be honest.
I see a consistent pattern here, the paranoia of the screaming irrational debate vs. the objective rational. As a rational person I know what way I will be voting.
Good . So you will be voting NO.
Stephen , I do not doubt your sincerity, but the laws already exist for children to be rescued , however it is lack of motivation on the part of social workers ? their managers ? Maybe there are not enough staff to cater for the people who need help.But this referendum is not one for children’s rights , it is anti family. Look , just read what they are taking out , Compare the two wordings .
I am sincere too.
@Eileen I do not doubt your sincerity. I had not decided which way I was voting until I read the proposed wording. On reflecting I took into consideration both sides of the argument, I can see where most people on the No side are coming from. There is a good argument there to say that a child’s rights are adequately protected with the current wording, OK, but are they? Now what I base my opinion on is my own personal experience as a child growing up in this country in the 1970s. I am not going to go into my personal circumstances, so I will just say my experience was not good. Those that were responsible for me and my siblings welfare could do as they liked, I as a child of this country, did not matter. Are things any better today, I would like to think so, but there is still that part of me that wants to ensure that the child’s voice is not only heard, but listened too. So my mind is made up, its clear as day for me. If it is passed it is the duty of the legislators to ensure the proper safeguards are provided for and if they fail in that duty they are held to account.
Well I am hardly going to argue with your personal experience . We all have had them ! And as a result of my own and because I have read the wordings , I will be voting No and remember , this new wording will not stop institutional abuse .
@Eileen it was never intended to deal with institutional abuse.
Petr, I see you made a reference to the word facetiousness. Just as an aside, the word facetious is one of only two words in the English language that contain each of the five vowels just once, and in their correct order. The other word is abstemious. Not informed enough to pass any comments on the issue at hand so I won’t even try.
So basically you’re saying we should all vote yes?
Synott should remember….if her statistics are true…that children who died in care had probably been battered by their parents ?
What an outrageous comment to make . Have you got statistics for this or are you making it up to suit your arguement
The Point Michael is that who decides what grounds and by what standards they use to take children from their parents?
I would rather wording that shows explicit grounds like sexual abuse or also physical abuse causing serious injury.
We could have judges going around taking kids into state care based on their own personal ethics.
@Eileen very tragic case http://www.thejournal.ie/mental-health-655789-Oct2012/ I could go back over the years and draw up a long list of such cases and that would just be the ones hitting the headlines. A bit of an extreme example, I know, but it is a sad fact that though we do not like to think about it, some parents do not behave in the best interests of their children. You will have to talk to social services if you want to obtain figures. There is nothing outrageous about it, just a sad fact of human nature. Deny it if you wish.
My point was:
Instead of voting based upon what your party tells you, consider voting what you really think.
What are the “rights” of the child? are these to be just decided by judges in arbitrary decisions or by the expansive and totalitarian UN convention on the rights of the child?
These are the things we need to know.
Have you ever considered that the people you refer to actually think that a Yes vote here is in the best interest of Children and that (having read it for myself) the No side guff about breaking up families exposes the scare mongering? Particularly when you put it in the context of the entirety of Bunreacht na hÉireann [with note to the wording of Articles 41 and 42 taken in context together].
Student
You’re wasting your time. Eoin is a member of FF; the most corrupt shower incompetent cute hoors that Ireland ever had the misfortune to spawn. Anyone who supports FF after 2008 is not to be reasoned with.
I thought the rights of the child were already enshrined in the Constitution? But adults, and ergo the State, couldn’t be bothered to enact the laws properly….. Happy to be corrected on this..
Jeez lads you might have said thanks for the correction rather than deleting the comment.
Hi Martin,
Someone had already alerted us through the ‘send a correction’ button so we were just changing it as your comment came in. Deleted yours because it wouldn’t have made sense to other readers at that stage.
Please note that the ‘send a correction’ button is an easier and quicker way to alert an author to something that needs to be tweaked, rather than leaving a comment.
Thanks, Susan
and less embarrassing I assume. I notice a lot of sites list the corrections they make to published articles at the bottom.
@censored – Typos? I doubt it. Anyway, not to boggle you with too much detail, but if you hit that button, we get a clear alert and it’s easier to attend to than to sift it out from scores of comments. You don’t have to use it if you don’t want to, but if the intention is to get something corrected as quickly as possible, it’s the best method.
As for mistakes that are to do with facts, additional info etc. you will notice that the reporters on here interact frequently with commenters who bring something to their attention and always express their gratitude!
Thanks, Susan
Ah see that now. Alas doesn’t seem to make an appearance on the mobile site.
… which otherwise BTW is admirable.
Now try it, you just try to run all that is proposed here without reference to the special case of the Traveller families, you can’t , not even with a solid YES vote on Saturday November 10th – and this is why this referendum is a complete and total Confidence Trick because no legislation that will work , without provision for the Traveller families can actually work, and such provision can’t work either as everybody must be equal under law.
So if Frances Fitzgerald gets her Yes Vote she still cannot legislate as laid out for the purposes of this referendum with no mention of the Travellers anywhere, but even if she now produced legislation to make them exceptions to the rule it can’t be done anyway as we all have to be treated the same under law.
Any or all legal eagles here must by now realise that it is all a Sham and a Confidence Trick of being asked to vote for something that can’t be done without that Traveller exception , that can’t be done either!
Come on the Travellng People your existence has not now only shattered the Government but all Irish political parties in Dail Eireann as well and exposed them all as Fakers and Charlatans.
Thanks for your help, Lads:-)
I don’t think the state has a good track record when it comes to caring for children and I don’t think they should be given the right to remove children from their families. Leo “vlad” varadkar proved he’s a lying bastard after the election s so I won’t be listening to him anymore!!
So disagree with the above Petr? You’ll be voting No I take it or is it that you haven’t addressed the issue and went straight after the commenter and avoided the debate at hand again! Typical!!!
The Amendment doesn’t actually define what constitutes parents to “…fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare…….is likely to be prejudicially affected.” This seems to have been left conveniently ambiguous. If I decline the MMR vaccine for example or if I was 10-minutes late picking my child up from school does that mean that I am compromising my child’s safety? If it is construed as such under these amendments, then the state can legally “appropriate” or take my child into care. From what I can see in these amendments, all it is really doing is forcing parents to sign over their child/children to state control at a whim, much like a commodity. This is frightening stuff and yet another step closer to the Orwellian 1984.
I will be voting no in the referendum. At best is it is a sloppy piece of work designed to give the impression that the government is actually doing something and at worst it is a cynical attempt to further undermine democracy by taking power away from parents and giving it to the state under the guise of empowering children–another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. Either way it gives more power over children to the state, a state that has an appalling record of care for children. From the debates that I heard, the ‘yes’ camp seem to be more concerned with facilitating adoption than with the welfare of children. As it is, any parent unlucky enough to be so handicapped as to be unable to properly care for their children to the extent that they must allow them to be fostered, will come under relentless pressure to go further and allow adoption. After adoption the pressure will be to allow a change of name to that of the adopting parents. In a worst case scenario the natural parents, good people but incapable, can loose all rights to and all contact with their children. And this is without any change in the constitution. I will not be giving more power to such an administration.
have your say