Government Arrogance Forces Laffoy Resignation

by Champagne socialist Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:34

posting yesterday's press releases on this website. This shite story has been all over the mainstream news for the past 24 hours. Delete please.

by Magneto Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:38

This is the sort of sectarianism that occurs whenever a LP article is published here. Of course the SP hack will deny that he is a member.

by pat c Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:42

This deserves to be discussed on Indymedia no matter who started up the thread. There has been no previous posting regarding the resignation on indy. Why would anyone want it deleted?

I'll back with a considered contribution later.

by Champagne socialist Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:45

The same difference between journalism and propaganda.

by Magneto Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:48

Of course you will be the one who decides which is propaganda! There are plenty of press releases on Indymedia, there is even a section in the post heading for them. Why havent you objected to press releases before?

Why dont you debate the issue? Have you a vested interest in hushing up child abuse???

by curious Thu Sep 04, 2003 14:51

Since I don't read the mainstream corporate-propaganda press anymore, I am unaware of this story. Can someone provide a very short summary as to the background to it.

by David Thu Sep 04, 2003 15:09

The judge in charge of the enquiry into child abuse by state and religous run institutions has resigned because she claims the department of education and the catholic church are not co-operating and especially that the department of education decided to ammend the terms of reference for the commission (even though they themselves are being directly investigated)

The government have since denied that they were not co-operating saying that they had furnished the enquiry with all the relevant documents (over 500 thousand of them) (though what exactly is a document?) But "justice" laffoy complained that it had taken over 18 months for these documents to be handed over. (liam lawlor anybody?)

The government had also refused to grant the commission more resources so thay would be able to interview more than one of the 1400 abuse survivors at a time thereby cutting down on the time it would take to complete the enquiry, meanwhile Noel Dempsey has argued that the reason for changing the terms of reference in the first place (diluting the power of the commission) was because the time frame for completion was too long (up to 11 years)

by me Thu Sep 04, 2003 15:13

You are the ones who post the most propaganda on this site. if Labour didn't post here you'd be moaning that they thought they were above indymedia and do not agree with inclusiveness.
At the rate you are going you'll still be a cult in 10 yrs time. Is it true you pray to joe higgins at night?

by The Insider Thu Sep 04, 2003 16:05

At least Labour are tackling the issue - is it beneath the SP or something, that they won't comment on the issue? I see nothing on socialistparty.net about Laffoy.

by Malachy Thu Sep 04, 2003 17:20

This person was also linked to the Kincora scandal. Lets have an investigation, if the Church can be held accountable then so can Socialites.

by me Thu Sep 04, 2003 17:22

In reply to is any sick of the labour party:
I think an easy deduction from this thread is People are more sick of the millies than labour wow that is bad- when a mixture of anarchists and socialists find you lot as a bad as the labour party

by sp member (personal capacity) Thu Sep 04, 2003 21:25

I would point out that there is no evidence that the person asking for this post to be removed is a sp member.

by ??? Thu Sep 04, 2003 22:44

Is there a chance that people would stick to the point? This is about clerics poking about with altar boys, and the failure of the state and its agencies to deal with the problem.
It is not about the merits or demerits of one political faction or another.

by observer - general leftie Fri Sep 05, 2003 03:04

while every one is squabling the point is being missed. The dep. of education prevented the tribunal from getting to the facts, and we as tax payers are supposed to pay for the churches abuse.

coming respectfully as an old labour supporter (up to 92 after that I couldn't any more) its no good attacking other parties when we all know they'll jump in bed with them as soon as the chance comes. When labour breaks from finna fail and Fine Gael they'll get support back until then I'm afraid I'll vote for joe higgins. But my vote is on loan as soon as labour becomes independent i'm back. but until then i'm voting for joe because he's more labour than labour themselves. so waiting for you labour.

by Champagne socialist Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:57

I'm not in any way linked with the Socialist Party. I'm not even a socialist. The paranoia of some of the Labour Party supporters on this site is remarkable.

PS: If Fianna Fail started publishing their day-old press releases on this site, would they be deleted or left here? If the answer is left here, then I admit that I shouldn't have called for the removal of the Labour propaganda. However, I doubt that regular indymedia users would come back if the site was polluted with FF propaganda, so why is Labour PR allowed to remain?

by Champagne socialist Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:02

It's not about clerics fiddling with altar boys. It's about the abuse (physical and sexual) of children in state-owned institutions like Daingean and Letterfrack. These detention centres were owned by the state, but run by religious orders like the Christian Brothers. Trying to reduce a complex and important news story to "clerics fiddling with altar boys" is the work of the tabloid press. It has no place on an (ostensibly) respectable site like Indymedia.

by Curious Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:05

Why are the SP afraid of other peoples opinions? I'm not fooled by Champagne socialist, its typical of the attacks some members of the SP launch on Labour. I'm still waiting for a SP press release on the issue.

by ... Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:48

if the SP had not released a press statement. However, I don't think they would bother wasting their time posting it here, particularly given the level of abuse that normally passes for comment on indymedia.

by )))) Fri Sep 05, 2003 13:33

So itsd okay to attack Labour PRs but its nasty to attack SP PRs!

Four legs good!
Two legs bad!

by hs - sp Fri Sep 05, 2003 17:45

I don't think a press release from the Sp is very important in this case. I think that kind of opportunism would just be a little nasty. Walking on peoples pain like that. Because in the end a press release sent out just to prove we are anti child abuse is well to be honest ridiculas. Its a shame the debate on indymedia has come down to this level. We released a press release and you didn't - therefore you are...which is whats being said.
My point to labour is:
labour stop supporting Finnia Fail and I will take you seriously as a left party untill you stop supporting FF and FG every chance you get, to me every attack you make on them is sheer hypocrasy. Sorry if this sounds bad but that at the end of the day is what it boils down too. Don't critize those you will hop into bed with at the next election. I'm waiting for the press release that tells us Labour won't go into coalition with FG and FF, that would be news.

by Magneto Fri Sep 05, 2003 18:35

Why do the SP have to attack a Labour statement on Child Abuse??????????

Is it not something we can oppose and work together against? Why must the SP use every thread to attack the Labour Party?

by sp member (personal capacity) Fri Sep 05, 2003 22:27

I think it is fair to say that Champagne Socialist is not a member of the SP ( thanks to CS for making it clear)
On the issue of press releases it seems to me that they should be carried on indy media, if, it is a new story that is not covered in the main stream media or if it adds a particular slant to a story.
Political parties fire out press releases at a huge rate so to carry them all may well pose a problem.
On the issue that began this thread and the prospects for working together on the issue I do not see a problem. The SP and the LP have important differences in programme and tactics but this does not rule out working towards a common aim on issues.