Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: john on March 05, 2017, 07:18:35 AM
-
http://freethinker.co.uk/2017/03/03/gruesome-find-at-catholic-home-for-unmarried-mothers/
Following this report about hundreds of children bodies being found in a Mother and Baby unit run by the Catholic Church at Tuam in Ireland and the allegations contained in that report that more bodies are likely to be found on other church properties, should the Irish Government obtain a warrant to carry out searches on all the RCC's premises?
Society needs to know exactly what went on in these places and deal with the people involved. We also need to know just how far up the management chain of the RCC knowledge and authorisation of these practices went.
-
What I find truly horrifying about this is that the remains aren't just of stillborn/premature babies, or even healthy neonates. They include toddlers aged 2-3.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-baby-remains-tuam-galway-home-unmarried-mothers-deaths-abortion-a7609486.html
-
Yes there are so many atrocities linked to the Catholic Church's practices (known to be true or rumoured) all around the globe.
The only way the church can restore it's image is for a thorough investigation to bring things out into the open and then to deal with any offences under secular laws.
The RCC itself shows no sign at all of opening itself up to investigation and indeed seems prepared to go to great lengths to cover up it's misdemeanours.
So my suggestion is that civil authorities throughout the world now have sufficient evidence to enter and search RCC premises in the attempt to find evidence and bring offenders to book.
-
Surely it's too late for the RC Church to ever fully redeem itself in the eyes of the outside world?
-
How come this sort of thing is no longer surprising, it's truly horrendous.
ippy
-
I think all Catholics should hang their head in shame that they belong to an evil organisation which has apparently turned a blind eye, for so many years, to child murder as well as paedophile priests.
I think some of them are conditioned from birth not to be critical of church authority.
I don't think they need to hang their heads in shame, because they are the victims.
Non Catholics aren't victims, so it's a bit much really for them to condemn the victims, and Catholics are the victims.
The Catholic Church deserves to lose its authority in the eyes of people.
Ive never been brought up in my home, that a church has an unchallengable authority, so it's easy for me to say I suppose.
Some Catholics cannot bring themselves to criticise the Pope because they have been brought up to this idea of authority.
The Pope and priests are speaking for God to some of them.
I've noticed to some, criticising the Pope or church, would be tantamount to criticising God.
Not all Catholics are like that of course, but a fair few have been brought up that way.
I had heard that there was a lot of anger amongst Irish Catholics towards things that have happened, but most of the Catholics I have known don't seem to think it's the churches fault.
Plus you have that bit about St Peter being given the keys to heaven and what is decreed as ok by the church is actually ok by God.
I suppose many Catholics feel the Pope saying it was wrong to have happened, retrospectively is ok.
They have no where else to go, if they believe their church holds the keys 🔑
I'm just glad I wasn't raised with the idea of the authority of the RC Church.
-
I think all Catholics should hang their head in shame that they belong to an evil organisation which has apparently turned a blind eye, for so many years, to child murder as well as paedophile priests.
Plus Floo, I don't think we know the RCC did murder the babies, I thought they just disposed of the bodies in an inappropriate fashion over many years.
What makes you think they were murdered?
Do you think nuns murdered the full term babies?
That isn't what the article says, it was the disrespectful disposal of the remains and the high mortality rate that was the issue.
Claiming they were murdered is a step further
-
I think all Catholics should hang their head in shame that they belong to an evil organisation which has apparently turned a blind eye, for so many years, to child murder as well as paedophile priests.
Where is the evidence of murder?
-
As far as I know, no results on the caus(es) of death have as yet been circulated. We cannot yet charge anyone with murder till we know murder has happened. When we can be assured that murder took place, then throw everything the law has at the potential perpetrators.
-
Treating the unmarried mothers as slaves as apparently happened in these ghastly dens of iniquity would ensure that many of the babies didn't survive their birth, that is tantamount to murder in my eyes.
Where is your actual evidence? "Apparently" isn't good enough. Also, your definition of murder does not necessarily accord with the true one as used by the courts. All we have at the moment is a mass grave. We don't know anything about the circumstances of the deaths of those babies yet.
I agree that it is likely that some shocking crimes have been committed, but you don't know yet and screaming murder while frothing at the mouth isn't going to get us closer to the truth.
Also, accusing all Catholics of being complicit doesn't help. I'll wager most of them knew nothing of this at the time and many would have tried to stop it if they had known.
-
I think some of them are conditioned from birth not to be critical of church authority.
I don't think they need to hang their heads in shame, because they are the victims.
Non Catholics aren't victims, so it's a bit much really for them to condemn the victims, and Catholics are the victims.
The Catholic Church deserves to lose its authority in the eyes of people.
Ive never been brought up in my home, that a church has an unchallengable authority, so it's easy for me to say I suppose.
Some Catholics cannot bring themselves to criticise the Pope because they have been brought up to this idea of authority.
The Pope and priests are speaking for God to some of them.
I've noticed to some, criticising the Pope or church, would be tantamount to criticising God.
Not all Catholics are like that of course, but a fair few have been brought up that way.
I had heard that there was a lot of anger amongst Irish Catholics towards things that have happened, but most of the Catholics I have known don't seem to think it's the churches fault.
Plus you have that bit about St Peter being given the keys to heaven and what is decreed as ok by the church is actually ok by God.
I suppose many Catholics feel the Pope saying it was wrong to have happened, retrospectively is ok.
They have no where else to go, if they believe their church holds the keys 🔑
I'm just glad I wasn't raised with the idea of the authority of the RC Church.
Just a thought Rose, how can a new born baby possibly be a catholic and some of the other stuff you are describing is the usual indoctrination that all of the religions do to any vunrable very young children they can get their hands on, they're all seen as potential new recruits.
ippy
-
Just a thought Rose, how can a new born baby possibly be a catholic and some of the other stuff you are describing is the usual indoctrination that all of the religions do to any vunrable very young children they can get their hands on, they're all seen as potential new recruits.
ippy
How can a new born baby be Catholic? By being born from Catholic parents. At that point belief doesn't come into it, but from the moment that baby is welcomed into the RCC it is considered a Catholic.
I don't think it is the same in other denominations, the RCC seems much more authoritarian than say the c of e.
The vicar hasn't quite got the authority in the ( c of e or Protestant) Christian community that a priest has, no one has to confess their sins to a vicar.
It's different.
-
How can a new born baby be Catholic? By being born from Catholic parents. At that point belief doesn't come into it, but from the moment that baby is welcomed into the RCC it is considered a Catholic.
I don't think it is the same in other denominations, the RCC seems much more authoritarian than say the c of e.
The vicar hasn't quite got the authority in the ( c of e or Protestant) Christian community that a priest has, no one has to confess their sins to a vicar.
It's different.
-
It's a theology rather than a church governance thing.
The RC accept seven sacraments - the Reformed only two. Confession is supposed to be an RC sacrament where the priest acts as confessor.
The rest of us dial direct and go to God!
-
-
It's a theology rather than a church governance thing.
The RC accept seven sacraments - the Reformed only two. Confession is supposed to be an RC sacrament where the priest acts as confessor.
The rest of us dial direct and go to God!
The Orthodox have confession too, although it is done slightly differently.
-
How can a new born baby be Catholic? By being born from Catholic parents. At that point belief doesn't come into it, but from the moment that baby is welcomed into the RCC it is considered a Catholic.
I don't think it is the same in other denominations, the RCC seems much more authoritarian than say the c of e.
The vicar hasn't quite got the authority in the ( c of e or Protestant) Christian community that a priest has, no one has to confess their sins to a vicar.
It's different.
I'll stick with my world Rose, you're welcome to that lot, they're so desperate they even prey on newborn children it's obscene.
ippy
-
Where is your actual evidence? "Apparently" isn't good enough. Also, your definition of murder does not necessarily accord with the true one as used by the courts. All we have at the moment is a mass grave. We don't know anything about the circumstances of the deaths of those babies yet.
It is true that we don't yet know anything definite about the origins of this mass grave, but we do have autobiographies of unmarried mothers who were condemned to such institutions as that run by the Magdalen Sisters. And they paint a quite horrifying picture for which the phrase 'held as slaves' would not be too strong a description.
-
It was the same here in unmarried mothers homes. CofE, Sally Army, charities, independent.....all horrific places. Improved 1970s.
Rose the Anglo-Catholic branch of CofE do confession. Are more Catholic than Catholics in some respects.
What Rose says about Catholics having nowt to be ashamed of is correct unless they were the ones who did it. Don't tar all with same brush it only takes a few bad apples.
-
It was the same here in unmarried mothers homes. CofE, Sally Army, charities, independent.....all horrific places. Improved 1970s.
Rose the Anglo-Catholic branch of CofE do confession. Are more Catholic than Catholics in some respects.
What Rose says about Catholics having nowt to be ashamed of is correct unless they were the ones who did it. Don't tar all with same brush it only takes a few bad apples.
The RC's seem to have more than their fair share of bad apples, going by their past record I guess there will be some unsavoury discoveries come out of the woodwork at the end of this lot.
ippy
-
It was the same here in unmarried mothers homes. CofE, Sally Army, charities, independent.....all horrific places. Improved 1970s.
Happened to my grandmother in the war, I thought for years she was in a Catholic home but I discovered recently it was run by the Sally Army. She was spared ill treatment because she was married, unlike the unmarried girls, but the babies were dying because of substandard care. In the end she got herself on a train to London when in labour to get to her husband and a proper hospital. The midwife that saved her and my mum was Catholic.
-
Poor woman, thank goodness she managed to get away from the place & go to a hospital.
I've heard stories of unmarried pregnant girls in those homes not having essential medical care when their pregnancy wasn't straightforward. Basically they were punished! It is tragic but was the way of the world then. Girls could be put in mental hospitals because they were considered to be of loose morals.
-
During the war married mothers ended up in homes too if they were evacuated. Their treatment was at least better if not the quality of medical care - my nan told us about one unmarried girl who was pregnant with twins and who was made to scrub the floors each day. The father was a Canadian airman who she was adamant would come for her but the people running the place laughed at her. Then one day some baby clothes arrived from his mother in Canada, followed by the airman himself. Apparently my nan told him to get her the hell out of there, which he did.
-
That was a heartening happy ending.
I didn't know married girls who were pregnant had to go into those homes if evacuated. Wonder why and whose idea that was and if they had any choice at all.
-
All I know is that my granddad had to stay in London because he had a reserved occupation. My nan was evacuated only once pregnant - before that she was a telephone operator -and presumably it was felt that mother and baby homes were the best place for women to await the birth.
-
Catholics should all be seriously questioning the evil that has been perpetrated in the name of that faith. Goodness knows why popes, priests, monks and nuns have been placed on a pedestal and looked up to when many of them were scum, either because they committed terrible crimes, or failed to bring to book the people who were responsible for them.
I think most RCs don't think it is done in the name of the faith they hold. This is little more than the all Muslims should apologise for terrorism.
-
Catholics should all be seriously questioning the evil that has been perpetrated in the name of that faith. Goodness knows why popes, priests, monks and nuns have been placed on a pedestal and looked up to when many of them were scum, either because they committed terrible crimes, or failed to bring to book the people who were responsible for them.
You keep coming back and saying that!
Do you seriously believe people perpetrate heinous crimes in the name of their faith? By the grace of God?
If I did somethng wrong I'd hardly be saying'i'm doin this in your name Lord'.
Honestly ::).
I wonder how many priests, nuns, monks you know personally or even lay catholics.
There are people who will use Religious statu as cover for dirty deeds but that isn't the fault of the religion.
Now their is little status in the Religious life thank goodness, so evil people will have to join something else to hide behind.
-
It's pretty naive to think that this wasn't in some way done to please God or punish on his behalf.
-
There hhave been times, Crusades for example, during the Reformation and with Islamic extremists but we're talking about dead babies on catholic properties and wider issues of abuse.
So you think if the children were murdered that catholic people murdered them in faith's name. If they did, would their religion approve of it?
I thought i might have been harsh in my last post but read first page of this thread and that is the impression you gave more than once. Other posters tried to get through to you and it didn't work.
Speak to catholics you know about it, and listen.
-
I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.
If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?
Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.
-
I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.
If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?
Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.
Agree, though i can imagine that some might have effectively only been obeying authority figures, and may not done it out of just RC faith but a generic acceptance of authority.
-
I have Catholics of Irish descent in my family.
If we take the view that these atrocities were *not* committed as an act of faith then we are assuming that nuns, priests and others committed and covered up acts of infanticide knowing that they had broken God's law on a terrible scale. Really?
Some people had a sick faith. Some still do. That doesn't say anything about the nature of God or even the existence of him/her/it, but it reflects perfectly well the nature of human beings.
Yes it does reflect the nature of humans. The worst aspects of human nature which is terrifying.
I honestly believe that some perpetrators of such atrocities had no real faith, they probably joined up to whatever because they wanted some security and status.In places like Ireland religion was cultural, families considered it a great honour to have one or more of their children become a Religious. The Catholic Church had a vice like hold on society. Priests and nuns etc. were revered and it was considered sacreligious to criticise them but they were humans and sometimes not very nice ones.They could do what they wanted.
There are people who will convince themselves of anything. I did know someone in England who was abused by a clergyman who had also abused others over many years; he was able to lie to himself and justify everything to himself but it all came out eventually and he was disgraced.
Ireland is healthier now without the domination of the church. The Church must be healthier too with more openness and a decent pope, I'd have thought so anyway.
I'm very glad not to be religious!
(I have Irish relatives too, Northern Ireland. Not Catholic but nominal CofE :). They are all quite well educated, in business or professional. Even at the height of the Troubles they weren't affected at all, didn't live in Belfast. A couple of them went to boarding school in the Republic but, again, not catholicschool so they had little idea about religious domination.
Some seem to have charmed lives wherever they live.I don't grudge them at all but a thread like this one brings it home.)
-
I think most RCs don't think it is done in the name of the faith they hold. This is little more than the all Muslims should apologise for terrorism.
I missed your post earlier! You have summed it up concisely.
-
Years ago the mindset around unmarried mothers and " bastards" was totally different.
That's how these things happen.
It seems incredible now, because we think differently.
Just because your mum and dad are not married, doesn't mean nowadays that you are worth less as a human being, then it did.
People hid things like not being married, because of the social stigma and people's reaction.
I lived in a small village and I can remember as a child seeing old women abusing a girl because she was an unmarried mother, calling her a slut and a scrubber.
Their attitude was appalling!
I can see exactly why those terrible things happened, it was because the people doing it had a mindset that these girls and their babies were worthless. It's what society tended to think at the time, people's attitudes were reinforced by each other. The law at one time was that a bastard couldn't inherit and it was something that followed someone throughout their life.
It was a matter of shame.
Years ago, people thought they had a right to pass judgment on other people's relationships and life and I can remember a time when landlords and guest houses were concerned about details like if their guests were married or not, because if not they could be accused of having a house of ill repute.
People gossiped if you were " mr and mrs Smith"
It wasn't just the RCC, it was society as a whole.
If you were an unmarried woman you were considered to be an unworthy person who should be grateful you got a roof over your head at all.
Think workhouses, people were really frightened of ending up in there, the attitude towards unmarried mothers was even worse, they were the lowest of the low, their babies even lower.
It was a horrible attitude, and is much better nowadays.
That's why no one hi-lighted such things, because those women and babies had no value
-
It's the same on the IoM. They are currently debating changing abortion laws there too. Currently women have to travel to Liverpool or take smuggled drugs bought over the internet just as women in Ireland do.
-
The 'Lime Pits' as they were called built under the Roman Catholic Churches and residents of Nuns and Priests.
It was long rumoured that pregnant nuns gave birth to the children of the priests.
Upon birth the mother superior would hold her hand over the childs mouth and nose till life extinguished and the
body of the infant placed under the build in a lime pit which would usually dissolve the body.
Is it the evidence of such evil and depravity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk
It first appeared in the 1800's was she telling the truth?
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors
Is the truth finally coming out?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Monk
Is the truth finally coming out?
This is interesting, Sassy, but - according to the article you quote - there is no evidence that it is anything but anti-catholic fiction dressed up as reportage. A propagandising extreme American sect with a touch of the future Westboro about it. Does not the alliterative name - including the surname Monk - ring warning bells? Fake news is not new. Nor is credulity.
...............................................
As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, the word "culture" has been mentioned a couple of times, but nobody appears to have mentioned the role of the Irish state.
Devalera allowed the RCC to behave as an almost independent entity within the state of Ireland. It could behave as it wanted virtually without let or hindrance. The state would have been well aware of some of the atrocities being committed but chose to do nothing about it.
-
It is about time devout Catholics woke up to the 'truth' about their unpleasant dogma. Forbidding the use of contraception caused women to suffer if forced to have more children than they wanted or could afford. Girls who got themselves pregnant without a ring on their finger, ended up ostracised or in one of those evil homes where they were abused and their babies either killed or adopted.
A faith which has also covered up sexual abuse by members of its clergy, and is possibly still doing so, should surely give them cause to question its provenance.
I'm not a catholic but even I recognise this as a tripe fest.
-
But its all true!
No...That what went wrong and the wrong committed is decreed by order of catholic dogma or is part of their faith isn't true.
-
RCC teaching on sex comes from the musings of Thomas Aquinas who died in about 1275. He is regarded by the RCC as the greatest of all theologians and the world of non-theological philosophy also generally holds him in high esteem. He was a Dominican monk.
Much of Aquinas' thinking was influenced by Aristotle - in particular the idea of "natural law". One Aristotelian view in natural law is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction. Applied - sort of - to Christian life it was thought it was God's intention that, wherever possible, coitus should result in conception and that any attempt to prevent conception was therefore trying to thwart God's will. At this time, the female's role in reproduction was not understood - the belief was something like man's semen = seed, woman's body = greenhouse.
It is interesting to note that "natural law" did not have a biblical origin but came from ancient Greece. Presumably the thinking was that if it was "natural" then it came from God anyway.
Modern physiological and behavioural science generally shows that sexual behaviour in homo sapiens is very different from that in almost all other species. My own view is that in homo sapiens sex has evolved to cope with the extremely long maturation period and that the primary purpose of sex now is to reinforce the pair bond between the parents.
Before the RCC can recognise this view of sex it has to dismantle about 750 years of Thomian misinformation.
-
Before the RCC can recognise this view of sex it has to dismantle about 750 years of Thomian misinformation.
Yet it already has dismantled some aspects of Thomian misinformation, partly as a direct consequence of modern scientific understanding of the process of human reproduction, as you've implied. Unfortunately, this has led to an even more draconian attitude to contraception and abortion. The Thomian view was, as you say, that semen consisted of 'tiny little people', whereas the function of the womb was merely an incubating chamber. In addition to that, the Thomian view was that the point of 'ensoulment' came at the time of the 'quickening', a fair way into the pregnancy.The modern Catholic view, reinforced by John Paul II, is of course, that'ensoulment' occurs at the moment of conception.
I don't see how dismantling Thomian misinformation is going to overcome ideas about 'ensoulment', since they seem intrinsic to the matter.
-
Yet it already has dismantled some aspects of Thomian misinformation,
The trouble with great historical thinkers is that they are infested with intellectual pygmies with the gift of hindsight. Know wha' ahm sayin'?
I think I have got a far better approach than you Undercarriage. My policy is I don't go to Thomas Aquinus for biology and I don't go to Dawkins for philosophy.
-
I don't see how dismantling Thomian misinformation is going to overcome ideas about 'ensoulment', since they seem intrinsic to the matter.
I think that you are correct about "ensoulment", but I think that the RCC could relatively easily change its stance on the purpose of coitus. I would have thought that the size of the world population and its demand on limited resources could stimulate a rethink on birth control. Quality of life, surely, is as important as simply being alive.
When I was very young, I heard a story about a priest holding up a condom and telling his audience (I don't know whether it was a congregation) that when they threw this away they were throwing away a baby. I suppose, given normal fertility in a young man, he could have argued that they were throwing away sufficient spermatozoa to fertilise every appropriately receptive woman on Earth!
Going back to the subject of this thread, it would seem that - to some people - conception is a more important activity than nurturing!
-
The trouble with great historical thinkers is that they are infested with intellectual pygmies with the gift of hindsight. Know wha' ahm sayin'?
I think I have got a far better approach than you Undercarriage. My policy is I don't go to Thomas Aquinus for biology and I don't go to Dawkins for philosophy.
Aw bless! The prince of the knee-jerk jerks off again. Did you really think I was castigating Aquinas for not having the information provided by modern biology? The point of my post (as should have been obvious from the last sentence) was over the question of 'ensoulment'. Aquinas saddled himself with all the difficulties of ontological dualism (which he inherited the Greeks), but having done so, decided that the 'soul' had to be inserted somewhere, and within his framework of ideas, his final pronouncements were fair enough. My point was concerning the Vatican's updating of the matter, with the benefit of modern scientific knowledge. The modern Catholic explanation makes a sort of sense within its own parameters, since if you must get a soul into a human, then the point of conception seems a 'logical' point for the insertion, though it all seems a bit ad hoc. It seems to offer a simple solution to many problems of dogma, only to be beset by far more when faced with everyday realities and actualities.
As for Dawkins, I prefer other writers on the life sciences such as Stephen Jay Gould, as I've already told you (though Dawkins is definitely your man if you want to know something about genetics). I certainly don't go to Dawkins for philosophy and definitely not for any comprehensive views on religion - I consider his views altogether too simplistic. This too you ought to have known, but then given your inability to read what anybody writes without getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, I'm not altogether surprised. If anybody presents views which don't fit in with your binary, procrustean view of the world, your little brain seems to go into meltdown.
As for the whole corpus of Aquinas (both he and his works were large), I wouldn't try to give any decision at all. (Some modern non-theist philosophers have some good words to say about him). I do know that his 'Proofs' of the existence of God have more holes in them than a rusty colander lurking for a century at the bottom of the village pond. And his dictum that one of the pleasures of the 'blessed' in heaven would be to contemplate the tortures of the damned in hell, doesn't encourage one to think that he had insight of a tremendously high order. Now, it may have been an off-day when he wrote those words, but no doubt such an expression of Schadenfreude would be right up your street.
-
The prince of the knee-jerk jerks off again.
Brilliant turn of phrase. :D
-
.....
As for the whole corpus of Aquinas (both he and his works were large), I wouldn't try to give any decision at all. (Some modern non-theist philosophers have some good words to say about him). I do know that his 'Proofs' of the existence of God have more holes in them than a rusty colander lurking for a century at the bottom of the village pond. And his dictum that one of the pleasures of the 'blessed' in heaven would be to contemplate the tortures of the damned in hell, doesn't encourage one to think that he had insight of a tremendously high order. Now, it may have been an off-day when he wrote those words, but no doubt such an expression of Schadenfreude would be right up your street.
Oddly enough just before reading your rather excellent post, I was reminded by Facebook of a quote I had put up last year, and it was the very Thomas
'In order that nothing may be wanting to the felicity of the blessed spirits in heaven, a perfect view is granted to them of the tortures of the damned'
-
This is interesting, Sassy, but - according to the article you quote - there is no evidence that it is anything but anti-catholic fiction dressed up as reportage. A propagandising extreme American sect with a touch of the future Westboro about it. Does not the alliterative name - including the surname Monk - ring warning bells? Fake news is not new. Nor is credulity.
...............................................
As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, the word "culture" has been mentioned a couple of times, but nobody appears to have mentioned the role of the Irish state.
Devalera allowed the RCC to behave as an almost independent entity within the state of Ireland. It could behave as it wanted virtually without let or hindrance. The state would have been well aware of some of the atrocities being committed but chose to do nothing about it.
Cherry Picking??? What about the second reference?
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors
-
I note AB has not responded to this thread. As a devout Catholic his input would be interesting.
If AB's true to form he'll be dogmatic, catmatic and any other kind of unrealisticmatic, he can come up with.
ippy
-
I note AB has not responded to this thread. As a devout Catholic his input would be interesting.
I think he doesn't post on many threads.
-
Cherry Picking??? What about the second reference?
http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=reli_honors
Hi Sassy
Since you did me the honour of waiting two months before responding to a post, I thought that I would return that honour. (Anyway, it gives me something to do on a rainy day in SW France).
I am surprised that someone with TWO English "O" levels did not realise that the paper referred was about folk tales - there is no indication that the stories are true.
I am also intrigued by your antipathy towards Roman Catholicism. You have a great aptitude for mining incomprehensible chunks about Pharoah caught sheep shagging in the second Book of Bollocks and infusing it with great meaning, but you are totally at sea about the message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
-
Dammit. I missed that bit when I was trying to translate. Bummer.
-
Hi Sassy
Since you did me the honour of waiting two months before responding to a post, I thought that I would return that honour. (Anyway, it gives me something to do on a rainy day in SW France).
I am surprised that someone with TWO English "O" levels did not realise that the paper referred was about folk tales - there is no indication that the stories are true.
I am also intrigued by your antipathy towards Roman Catholicism. You have a great aptitude for mining incomprehensible chunks about Pharoah caught sheep shagging in the second Book of Bollocks and infusing it with great meaning, but you are totally at sea about the message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
My brother died in January and I have been having my own health issues as well as being carer full time. Also helping a friend whose kidneys are failing. I guess you just have to take pot luck about me giving an answer these days. As for the rest of the post...grow up.You are not clever and you never will be good at being sarcastic. But I am sensible to know play ground humour is called play ground humour because like your reply it is childish and for children done in ignorance of youth, What is your excuse?
I was actually asking you " What about the second reference?"
Otherwise I would have just said:- "What about the second the reference!" But the question mark gave it away. I was asking you what about it?
-
Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?
-
Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?
What 'sort of thing'?
-
Yet another example of multiple dead babies being found buried.
-
They'll probably release a statement telling everyone about their deep sorrow and regret.
-
Yet another example of multiple dead babies being found buried.
That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.
-
They'll probably release a statement telling everyone about their deep sorrow and regret.
which given any one issuing the statement will have had nothing to do with it will make it pointless as well as worthless, rather like Tony Blair apologising for the Irish famine. That efforts were made to look after orphans at a time when they would be abandoned by society makes this a case that isn't simplistically black and white. Given I am a native of Scotland should I apologise that it happened in Scotland?
-
Far better if they buried their harmful doctrine where the sun don't shine.
what doctrine do you think led to this, and what do you think this is?
-
The assumption is that they were covering up a regime of neglect, cruelty, abuse and possibly manslaughter or murder whilst projecting an outward image of charity, compassion and general saintliness.
-
The assumption is that they were covering up a regime of neglect, cruelty, abuse and possibly manslaughter or murder whilst projecting an outward image of charity, compassion and general saintliness.
Ah the assumption!
And obviously not a doctrine based on your post.
-
An assumption which has not been without justification in many instances, especially in Ireland.
So what's your evidence in this case here for murder as Udayana mentioned? And any chance of explaining what doctrine you were referring to and linking to what happened, and evidencing what you think happened?
-
I think it right to assume the worst unless proven otherwise. The Catholic doctrine, which doesn't allow contraception or abortion is flawed. I suspect many of the children in that 'care' home were born to unmarried mothers. Hopefully the enquiry will eventually discover exactly what went on, and if the worst case scenarios had any basis in fact.
So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence
I have no doubt that there could be cruel shocking actions carried out here, i just think that the idea that cultural and religious aspects are complex and that rather indulge in knee jerk judgement evidence and context has importance.
-
So no evidence just assumption of guilt.
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the legal system in most cases and a fine thing it is too.
It does tend to work against human nature, however. If cash goes missing in a home or a workplace wherein there's a known thief, no matter the protestations of reform and repentance, people will form conclusions. They may, on the basis of subsequent evidence, be justified or unjustified. But form them they will. As Thoreau put it, some evidence is very suggestive, such as a trout in the milk*.
And the Catholic Church is guilty of far worse than lifting readies.
* This goes back to the olden days when those who sold milk directly from the churn or the pail would make the milk go further by watering it down via dipping the container in the river. Finding a trout in your milk doesn't prove your milkman has been up to no good ... but it's a reasonable suspicion.
-
If girls who got themselves pregnant, because the RCC doesn't approve of contraception, ended up in this home, they might not have done so if the church permitted its use. But until we know exactly what went on it can only be an assumption. I will eat humble pie if I am wrong.
Why would they be in an orphanage? What contraception was being denied in 1870 to 1930? Have you actually read your link?
-
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the legal system in most cases and a fine thing it is too.
It does tend to work against human nature, however. If cash goes missing in a home or a workplace wherein there's a known thief, no matter the protestations of reform and repentance, people will form conclusions. They may, on the basis of subsequent evidence, be justified or unjustified. But form them they will. As Thoreau put it, some evidence is very suggestive, such as a trout in the milk.
And the Catholic Church is guilty of far worse than lifting readies.
So because these were women in charge of the orlganage , we can in the basis of your assumption of guilt, suspect women of murder? Maybe you want to try that point again, this time with even a smidgen of logic?
-
Not sure what biological sex has to do with anything, but hey ho.
-
Is anybody surprised by this sort of thing any more?
Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.
-
Not sure what biological sex has to do with anything, but hey ho.
You seem to like assuming guilt by association, so just pointing out your illogicality by a reductio.
-
You seem to like assuming guilt by association, so just pointing out your illogicality by a reductio.
You could always try comprehending not merely reading my earlier post, of course, but your Sunday afternoon is yours to spend how you please.
-
You could always try comprehending not merely reading my earlier post, of course, but your Sunday afternoon is yours to spend how you please.
So in what way were you not indulging in guilt by association?
-
Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.
Completely agree. In addition the cruelty seems to me, if you are atheist, to arise out of human nature since any doctrine must be one from human nature logically.
There is undoubtedly tragedy and cruelty in what happened here, and undoubtedly much caring and compassion, but why bother with a recognition of logic or history when you can indulge in a little masturbation of your prejudice.
-
So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence
Why are you restricting the time range from 1870 to 1930?
-
Why are you restricting the time range from 1870 to 1930?
Because according to the article that was when the majority of the burials occurred, so therefore in Floo's generalisation that would be the most significant time as otherwise the generalisation would be ignoring the majority.
-
So no evidence just assumption of guilt. By the way how much of the doctrine against contraception was related to the burials of orphans betwen 1870 and 1930 in this orphanage in Lanark? And again please present evidence
I have no doubt that there could be cruel shocking actions carried out here, i just think that the idea that cultural and religious aspects are complex and that rather indulge in knee jerk judgement evidence and context has importance.
Are you defending this because you are Scottish and it happened in Scotland or because of your frequently demonstrated attachment to pedantry in just about any/every circumstance?
-
Because according to the article that was when the majority of the burials occurred, so therefore in Floo's generalisation that would be the mist significant time as otherwise the generalisation would be ignoring the majority.
Most, but not all - the new articles specifically refer to a 13 year old who died in the 1960s. Apparently his brother had no idea what had happened to him nor had been told where his brother had been buried.
Now I can see how you can dismiss issues from 1920 on the basis that the world worked in a very different way then, but not so easy for deaths in the 1960 or even 1970s, noting that the home only closed in 1981.
Now it may be that the majority of the bodies are from much earlier times and died of natural causes, but that doesn't mean that all were - clearly there needs to be careful investigation of the bodies to determine whether there is evidence that some did not die of natural causes - noting that former residents of the care home reported serious abuse going on there.
-
Most, but not all - the new articles specifically refer to a 13 year old who died in the 1960s. Apparently his brother had no idea what had happened to him nor had been told where his brother had been buried.
Now I can see how you can dismiss issues from 1920 on the basis that the world worked in a very different way then, but not so easy for deaths in the 1960 or even 1970s, noting that the home only closed in 1981.
Now it may be that the majority of the bodies are from much earlier times and died of natural causes, but that doesn't mean that all were - clearly there needs to be careful investigation of the bodies to determine whether there is evidence that some did not die of natural causes - noting that former residents of the care home reported serious abuse going on there.
Which us why I talked about Floo's generalisation. It would be good if you didn't indulge in strawmen and claim I am dismissing anything in regards to this rather than questioning the generalisation. Once you have retracted that and actually dealt with what I was arguing perhaps we can progress.
-
Are you defending this because you are Scottish and it happened in Scotland or because of your frequently demonstrated attachment to pedantry in just about any/every circumstance?
Nearly Sane's record on objectivity and is both noted and respected by many of us on this forum.
-
Nearly Sane's record on objectivity and is both noted and respected by many of us on this forum.
NS has been and never will be objective, rather I am informed by my subjectivity. But thanks, all the same.
-
Are you defending this because you are Scottish and it happened in Scotland or because of your frequently demonstrated attachment to pedantry in just about any/every circumstance?
I'm not defending anything. I simply think that things need more evidence than a prejudice and a BBC article that is then misrepresented to make generalisations and accusations.
-
The Catholic Church's record of its management of institutions for unwed mothers and the handling of both the mothers and the infants has enough cases proven against it to make it very hard to suppose that this case is any different if only toward the babies; how many were 'orphans' only in that thjeir unwed Catholic mothers dumped them at the door and ran!
Another reason for this is the Church's habit of shifting and hiding of those accused of such negligence and brutality and (possibly) murder in order to ensure that investigations by the appropriate authorities were as difficult as possible, if not, in actuality, totally impossible.
It might actually help the Church's case against these and similar accusations if it were not for the fact that accusations from outside the Church against Church functionaries are still handled in the same way - hide 'em for a while and then let 'em loose somewhere else.
-
I agree, but he also has a record of pointing out and arguing minor points.
I also agree that the Catholic Church's record of its management of institutions for unwed mothers and the handling of both the mothers and the infants has enough cases proven against it to make it very hard to suppose that this case is any different.
Another reason for this is the Church's habit of shifting and hiding of those accused of such negligence and brutality and (possibly) murder in order to ensure that investigations by the appropriate authorities were as difficult as possible, if not, in actuality, totally impossible.
It might actually help the Church's case against these and similar accusations if it were not for the fact that accusations from outside the Church against Church functionaries are still handled in the same way - hide 'em for a while and then let 'em loose somewhere else.
How many unwed mothers were in the orphanage? Do you usually agree by guilt by association?
BTW I would suggest you refrain from the ad hominem fallacy as it makes your argument worthless.
Signed A Right Pedant
-
I'm not defending anything. I simply think that things need more evidence than a prejudice and a BBC article that is then misrepresented to make generalisations and accusations.
I accept that Loo's comments can easily be criticised for making assumptions and engaging in generalisations.
But you are guilty too - focussing on the 'majority' of cases being historic - 1870-1930 and that many appear to have been deaths from common natural causes provides the impression that you are assuming that all were - i.e. generalising.
So you both appear guilty of the same 'crimes'.
If what we have read is correct there appear to be about 400 bodies, while the care home itself only indicated that, according to their records, only about 150 bodies were buried there. That's a big difference and if nothing else we need to understand why there is such a huge discrepancy. There also are strong accusations of physical abuse in the home and many of the deaths don't appear to have been appropriately recorded or investigated. That includes the 1961 death discussed in the article.
It may be the case that none of the deaths was suspicious but given what we know we cannot assume that to be the case and a serious investigation needs to take place to determine whether or not serious crimes may have been committed at the home.
-
I believe that the Smyllum Park Orphanage is already the subject of an ongoing Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, indeed, it was one of the reasons the enquiry was set up. According to the 'Sunday Post' these "revelations today have provoked calls for those sessions to include an attempt to detail the children who died at Smyllum and discover how many are buried in the graveyard at St Mary’s."
So, wouldn't it be sensible perhaps to wait for the inquiry's findings before rushing to judgement?
-
I accept that Loo's comments can easily be criticised for making assumptions and engaging in generalisations.
But you are guilty too - focussing on the 'majority' of cases being historic - 1870-1930 and that many appear to have been deaths from common natural causes provides the impression that you are assuming that all were - i.e. generalising.
So you both appear guilty of the same 'crimes'.
If what we have read is correct there appear to be about 400 bodies, while the care home itself only indicated that, according to their records, only about 150 bodies were buried there. That's a big difference and if nothing else we need to understand why there is such a huge discrepancy. There also are strong accusations of physical abuse in the home and many of the deaths don't appear to have been appropriately recorded or investigated. That includes the 1961 death discussed in the article.
It may be the case that none of the deaths was suspicious but given what we know we cannot assume that to be the case and a serious investigation needs to take place to determine whether or not serious crimes may have been committed at the home.
you do like your straw, don't you. I as stated used the idea that the majority (unsure why you put that in quotations other than your love of straw) were from 1860 to 1930 because that is what was stated in the article.
I haven't assumed anything, merely argued that Floo's generalisation, us not sensible generally or based on anything in the article. Again,we might manage a sensible discussion if you didn't indulge in thus misrepresentation.
-
I believe that the Smyllum Park Orphanage is already the subject of an ongoing Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, indeed, it was one of the reasons the enquiry was set up. According to the 'Sunday Post' these "revelations today have provoked calls for those sessions to include an attempt to detail the children who died at Smyllum and discover how many are buried in the graveyard at St Mary’s."
So, wouldn't it be sensible perhaps to wait for the inquiry's findings before rushing to judgement?
You and your sensible approach!
-
It doesn't do the dead children justice to jump to conclusions. Clearly we can't say that there is no abuse, but equally we can't say more than that at the moment.
I don't see how the Order can apologise and atone until it is known what for.
-
It doesn't do the dead children justice to jump to conclusions. Clearly we can't say that there is no abuse, but equally we can't say more than that at the moment.
I don't see how the Order can apologise and atone until it is known what for.
No one as far as I can see has assumed no abuse. The only assumption has been abuse.
-
No one as far as I can see has assumed no abuse. The only assumption has been abuse.
When the R C's past record is taken into consideration, it's hardly surprising that people are inclined to think there might be various forms of child abuse involved.
ippy
-
When the R C's past record is taken into consideration, it's hardly surprising that people are inclined to think there might be various forms of child abuse involved.
ippy
Thank you for proving the point.
-
Are you defending this because you are Scottish and it happened in Scotland or because of your frequently demonstrated attachment to pedantry in just about any/every circumstance?
I'd echo much of what NS says, here - not because I' too, am Scots, but because the reports confirm that the majority of deaths (as per the registrar of Death for Scotland) were dur to disease and the circumstances of the age.
And, no, I'm not defending the nuns, Owlswing: my grandfather and uncle - both RC - were educated at a local RC School run by a similar order - and the stories of wanton cruelty and sheer sadim defy any defence.
-
No one as far as I can see has assumed no abuse. The only assumption has been abuse.
There is no problem with such an assumption as long as you are clear that it is an assumption. Of-course every individual case must be judged on the facts pertaining to it., but investigation, to gather the facts, is dependent on suitable assumptions and generalisations.
Again, on the basis of solved cases, generalisations must be made to put in place legislation or suitable processes to prevent future abuses. Children or other vulnerable people in situations away from normal family support have always been targets for abuse; given the various religion related scandals, Jimmy Savile, street grooming gangs, abuse in various schools and other institutions or organisations including homes for the elderly, it seems to have taken too long to recognise threats and put in preventative measures.
-
There is no problem with such an assumption as long as you are clear that it is an assumption. Of-course every individual case must be judged on the facts pertaining to it., but investigation, to gather the facts, is dependent on suitable assumptions and generalisations.
Again, on the basis of solved cases, generalisations must be made to put in place legislation or suitable processes to prevent future abuses. Children or other vulnerable people in situations away from normal family support have always been targets for abuse; given the various religion related scandals, Jimmy Savile, street grooming gangs, abuse in various schools and other institutions or organisations including homes for the elderly, it seems to have taken too long to recognise threats and put in preventative measures.
On the basis of solved cases, most abuse is by men, ergo on the basis of your 'methpd' the nuns were men. These are individual cases as you point out, your 'assumption' is worth what you paid for it.
-
On the basis of solved cases, most abuse is by men, ergo on the basis of your 'methpd' the nuns were men. These are individual cases as you point out, your 'assumption' is worth what you paid for it.
"most" not all. In any case using assumptions and generalisations or any method, is an aid to, not an alternative to, actually thinking!
If we just assumed what we want to be true, then we wouldn't investigate anything.
-
How many unwed mothers were in the orphanage? Do you usually agree by guilt by association?
BTW I would suggest you refrain from the ad hominem fallacy as it makes your argument worthless.
Signed A Right Pedant
Please see amended #101
-
I accept that Loo's comments can easily be criticised for making assumptions and engaging in generalisations.
But you are guilty too - focussing on the 'majority' of cases being historic - 1870-1930 and that many appear to have been deaths from common natural causes provides the impression that you are assuming that all were - i.e. generalising.
So you both appear guilty of the same 'crimes'.
If what we have read is correct there appear to be about 400 bodies, while the care home itself only indicated that, according to their records, only about 150 bodies were buried there. That's a big difference and if nothing else we need to understand why there is such a huge discrepancy. There also are strong accusations of physical abuse in the home and many of the deaths don't appear to have been appropriately recorded or investigated. That includes the 1961 death discussed in the article.
It may be the case that none of the deaths was suspicious but given what we know we cannot assume that to be the case and a serious investigation needs to take place to determine whether or not serious crimes may have been committed at the home.
If you are in the right position you can attribute a child death to any cause that takes your fancy!
And the authority in this home was well and truly in the right position to do so - and to not bother recording the other 250 deaths at all!
-
I'd echo much of what NS says, here - not because I' too, am Scots, but because the reports confirm that the majority of deaths (as per the registrar of Death for Scotland) were dur to disease and the circumstances of the age.
And, no, I'm not defending the nuns, Owlswing: my grandfather and uncle - both RC - were educated at a local RC School run by a similar order - and the stories of wanton cruelty and sheer sadim defy any defence.
So who told him what the cause of death was?
Unmarked graves containing nearly three times as many bodies as stated to have been recorded?
What was the Registrar of Deaths listed cause of death for the 250 or didn't they die on his watch?
250 kids died, orphans or not orphans - there is no record to say - how long is the R C C going to be given to think up an excuse!
-
The latest, according to the Crown Office, is that there is no evidence of any crime having been committed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41242514
-
Apart from the ongoing investigation into the abuse in children's homes. From the article:
'Smyllum Park Orphanage is one of the institutions being examined by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.'
-
Apart from the ongoing investigation into the abuse in children's homes. From the article:
'Smyllum Park Orphanage is one of the institutions being examined by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.'
How does 'Apart from' link to Anchorman's post? That something might be found, indeed might likely be found, has no impact on nothing being found so far as Anchorman's post stated?
-
Was there any new information in the File on 4 broadcast? I didn't listen as it just seemed to drone on miserably at the start I'm afraid.
-
How does 'Apart from' link to Anchorman's post? That something might be found, indeed might likely be found, has no impact on nothing being found so far as Anchorman's post stated?
Yeah, I knew it wasn't a great post when I made it and couldn't be arsed to change it. Th headline makes it look like 'no crime has been committed, line drawn' but actually there are still ongoing enquiries into abuse, just not murder.
-
Yeah, I knew it wasn't a great post when I made it and couldn't be arsed to change it. Th headline makes it look like 'no crime has been committed, line drawn' but actually there are still ongoing enquiries into abuse, just not murder.
oh feckin hell, that is the second reasonable post in a day from people. Pooo!
-
The latest, according to the Crown Office, is that there is no evidence of any crime having been committed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41242514
Perhaps you didn't read beyond the headline, but I think you missed out the critical word 'currently'. The article clearly states that:
'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.' - my emphasis.
Given that this is an ongoing investigation you cannot assume that no evidence of criminal activity will emerge during later stages of that investigation.
-
Perhaps you didn't read beyond the headline, but I think you missed out the critical word 'currently'. The article clearly states that:
'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.' - my emphasis.
Given that this is an ongoing investigation you cannot assume that no evidence of criminal activity will emerge during later stages of that investigation.
Anchorman isn't. Why is it you feel the need to misrepresent him?
-
Anchorman isn't. Why is it you feel the need to misrepresent him?
I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.
I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.
-
I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.
I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.
He clearly said it was the 'latest' which means currently. His statement is correct and contains no assumption about the future. I suggest you apologise to him for this continued misrepresentation.
-
Good grief!
I post a link from the Beeb showing the straight fact tha, at the present time, there is as yet no evidence of criminal activity, and people draw conclusions that I assume any innocence.
I don't know.
Niether does anyone else, for that matter.
Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
-
He clearly said it was the 'latest' which means currently. His statement is correct and contains no assumption about the future. I suggest you apologise to him for this continued misrepresentation.
I'm sorry, but language and it's use is extremely important. In this context latest and currently do not imply the same thing, the former being a reference to the news, the latter to the investigation. Also Anchorman's statement very clearly detached latest from the allegations, while the article included currently directly in relation to the investigation.
So try it this way
Titanic hits iceberg.
Latest: Titanic has not sunk
Is clearly different in inference to;
Titanic hits iceberg.
Titanic currently has not sunk
The former implies a final outcome, the latter merely a snapshot on an ongoing situation, clearly subject to change.
-
I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.
I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.
Nobody is assuming anything: and since it is an on-going investigation it would be foolish to jump to any conclusions.
-
I'm sorry, but language and it's use is extremely important. In this context latest and currently do not imply the same thing, the former being a reference to the news, the latter to the investigation. Also Anchorman's statement very clearly detached latest from the allegations, while the article included currently directly in relation to the investigation.
So try it this way
Titanic hits iceberg.
Latest: Titanic has not sunk
Is clearly different in inference to;
Titanic hits iceberg.
Titanic currently has not sunk
The former implies a final outcome, the latter merely a snapshot on an ongoing situation, clearly subject to change.
That doesn't work: in both your cases there is a single known fact (that the Titanic has struck an iceberg) whereas in the case of the on-going investigation into this setting there may yet be either new facts to be considered that are as yet unknown, or no facts that would be consistent with a particular interpretation (that there was foul play).
Best to wait and see.
-
Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
I think you are completely confusing presumption of innocent when an individual has been charged with a criminal offence and investigating whether a crime has, or has not been committed.
In the latter case the investigation is unbiased, there is no presumption that a crime has, or has not been committed. The purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence to allow a judgement as to whether a crime has been committed. If the Police (or other investigating bodies) presumed that a crime hadn't been committed no investigation would even proceed. The presumption of innocence only refers to an individual being charged with an offence and we aren't at that stage yet.
Also remember this is Scotland which has a slightly more complex legal option in which there isn't only 'guilty' and 'not guilty' (consistent with innocent until proven guilty), but 'not proven' as well, which weakens the innocent until proven guilty as 'not proven' isn't a statement of innocence.
-
Nobody is assuming anything: and since it is an on-going investigation it would be foolish to jump to any conclusions.
I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.
-
I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.
Leaving aside your caricature of them, I don't think they are.
-
Good grief!
I post a link from the Beeb showing the straight fact tha, at the present time, there is as yet no evidence of criminal activity, and people draw conclusions that I assume any innocence.
I don't know.
Niether does anyone else, for that matter.
Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Firstly you imply that you aren't assuming innocence, then you say that we should presume innocence.
Remember that the investigation is to determined whether or not a crime has been committed, so which is it AM - are you saying that we shouldn't assume that a crime has been committed or has not been committed (which seems to be the inference of your first statement), or are you saying that we should presume that a crime has not been committed (which seems to be the inference of your second statement).
-
Leaving aside your caricature of them, I don't think they are.
But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.
-
But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.
No it doesn't: it just means we presume that those involved haven't been shown to be guilty of any crime since there is, as yet, no confirmed crime for anyone to be guilty of. This doesn't presume that no crime has been committed, and there is an on-going investigation, but until there is evidence of a crime having been committed then those involved can be presumed innocent pending grounds to presume otherwise.
-
But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.
That's because that's the way the law works. This is basic stuff.
-
That's because that's the way the law works. This is basic stuff.
No it doesn't - didn't you read my earlier post.
There is no presumption that a crime has not been committed when the Police or other agencies are investigating an allegation. Their role is neither to presume a crime has been committed nor that one has not been committed; it is to gather evidence to allow a judgement to be made.
Only then would you move onto the next question - if a crime has been committed, is there sufficient evidence (note not beyond reasonable doubt) to charge an individual or more than one individual with that crime.
Only then - thought the court process does the presumption of innocence kick in.
Yes you are correct, it is basic stuff - which it would appear you don't understand.
-
I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.
What has Grouch got to do with anything?
-
What has Grouch got to do with anything?
"what - in our house?'
-
Sorry, I thought we were dealing with facts, or the lack therof, hence the reference to Macbeth's queen, rather than the ficticious comedy written by a Brummie.
You try to comment on the Scottish legal system, Scots law, Scots judicial inquiry, by quoting tripe dressed as 'tragedy' from someone who knew as much about Scotland and Scots history as he did about chicken farming on Pluto?
-
I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.
No one has said anything like this. Stop lying.
-
No one has said anything like this. Stop lying.
'That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.'
Copyright - NS.
'Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.'
Copyright - AM
-
'That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.'
Copyright - NS.
'Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.'
Copyright - AM
Posting stuff that shows you are lying as you have done here seems foolish.
-
Posting stuff that shows you are lying as you have done here seems foolish.
In what way does it show I am lying.
Read my post - I said:
"the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'."
I never said you, or AM for that matter, actually used those exact words - merely that the tenor of your posts (as indicated in the direct quotes I actually gave) are heading in that direction.
-
The Lady Macbeth's what or whom? Her family, her servants? I thought she was a fictional character and if that is true, she would hardly have any descendants posting on here.
Returning to the origins of the thread, on googling I cannot find anything later than April 2017 about the case.
-
Nah, that well known fantasy writer Shakespeare, had so little knowledge of the real history of Scotlandd (or was such a political toady - you decide) that he invented the story.
The real lady was Grouch - and she was such a capable, trusted person that she governed her husband's kingdom while he went on pilgrimage to Rome. The only early medieval king of Alba/Scotland who felt secure enough on the throne to do so.
Far from being a nice old man, Duncan was probably younger than Macbeth when he died, not by a dagger, but in battle, Macbeth granting him a burial in Iona.
When Macbeth was killed in battle near Lumphinan (not 'Birnam wood') he was succeeeded, not by Malcolm, but by Grouoch's son, Lulach.
And there was hno Banquo or Fleance, and the witches were a sop to please James VI and I - whom Shakespeare wanted to toadt up to
All in all, total rubbish worthy of David Eddings.
-
I'm sorry, but language and it's use is extremely important. In this context latest and currently do not imply the same thing, the former being a reference to the news, the latter to the investigation. Also Anchorman's statement very clearly detached latest from the allegations, while the article included currently directly in relation to the investigation.
So try it this way
Titanic hits iceberg.
Latest: Titanic has not sunk
Is clearly different in inference to;
Titanic hits iceberg.
Titanic currently has not sunk
The former implies a final outcome, the latter merely a snapshot on an ongoing situation, clearly subject to change.
So the 'latest' score in a football match implies the final outcome? Maybe you didn't really think that out there.
-
I think you are completely confusing presumption of innocent when an individual has been charged with a criminal offence and investigating whether a crime has, or has not been committed.
In the latter case the investigation is unbiased, there is no presumption that a crime has, or has not been committed. The purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence to allow a judgement as to whether a crime has been committed. If the Police (or other investigating bodies) presumed that a crime hadn't been committed no investigation would even proceed. The presumption of innocence only refers to an individual being charged with an offence and we aren't at that stage yet.
Also remember this is Scotland which has a slightly more complex legal option in which there isn't only 'guilty' and 'not guilty' (consistent with innocent until proven guilty), but 'not proven' as well, which weakens the innocent until proven guilty as 'not proven' isn't a statement of innocence.
What does the existence of the Not Proven verdict, a post case finding, have to do with whether anchorman, not an investigator in the case, should work to the presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence?
-
In what way does it show I am lying.
Read my post - I said:
"the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'."
I never said you, or AM for that matter, actually used those exact words - merely that the tenor of your posts (as indicated in the direct quotes I actually gave) are heading in that direction.
And who said you stated those were the exact words? More straw, vicar?
Neither Anchorman nor I have said anything with a tenor, a bass, or a mezzo soprano saying this should be ignored, swept under a Persian, or may not be something where after proper investigation there is a serious case to answer. Indeed we have said the opposite, but you seem to feel the need to misrepresent that.
-
What does the existence of the Not Proven verdict, a post case finding, have to do with whether anchorman, not an investigator in the case, should work to the presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence?
The notion of innocent until proven guilty (i.e. presumption of innocence) is only really clear cut when there are only 2 verdicts, guilty or not guilty. The 3rd not proven means that you may not be found guilty but not presumed to be innocent (if not proven is the verdict).
As interesting as this is, it has no relevance with an investigation as to whether a crime has, or has not been committed - which is never conducted on the basis of an assumption or presumption that a crime has not been committed.
Presumption of innocence only applies to individuals charged with an offence.
-
And who said you stated those were the exact words? More straw, vicar?
Fine - and in which case, therefore, you should probably retract your accusation that I was lying which is only sustainable if you believed I was quoting you directly.
-
So the 'latest' score in a football match implies the final outcome? Maybe you didn't really think that out there.
Latest News: Arsenal win 2-0
Arsenal currently winning 2-0
I think we all understand the implied difference between those two statements.
The point is that the 'latest' in the former applies to the news, not the score - while the currently in the latter applies to the score. When you detach 'latest' from 'score', as AM did when he detached 'latest' from 'crimes being committed', is changes the clarity of the meaning. I'm happy to accept that AM didn't mean it that way (if he says so who am I to argue) but I do wonder why he didn't use the actual quote, which was very clear that all we have at the moment is a snapshot in an ongoing investigation:
'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.'
-
Fine - and in which case, therefore, you should probably retract your accusation that I was lying which is only sustainable if you believed I was quoting you directly.
No, for the reasons made made clear in the bit of the post that you removed in quotemining. Creating a straw man and then saying you will retract it if someone removes a justifiable comment would be underhand if it wasn't so obvious.
-
Latest News: Arsenal win 2-0
Arsenal currently winning 2-0
I think we all understand the implied difference between those two statements.
The point is that the 'latest' in the former applies to the news, not the score - while the currently in the latter applies to the score. When you detach 'latest' from 'score', as AM did when he detached 'latest' from 'crimes being committed', is changes the clarity of the meaning. I'm happy to accept that AM didn't mean it that way (if he says so who am I to argue) but I do wonder why he didn't use the actual quote, which was very clear that all we have at the moment is a snapshot in an ongoing investigation:
'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.'
Except Anchorman's post doesn't make the difference between win and winning as you just,dishonestly, represented it as doing
-
Except Anchorman's post doesn't make the difference between win and winning as you just,dishonestly, represented it as doing
But clearly detaches latest from criminal activity, so completely different from your 'latest score' analogy. Surely, even you can see the difference between:
'there is no evidence of criminal activity'
and
'there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
The latter is what the Crown Service actually said, the former is what AM implied they said (to be perfectly accurate he implied that the Crown Service said that 'there is no evidence of any crime having been committed'), but that makes no difference to the point.
-
The notion of innocent until proven guilty (i.e. presumption of innocence) is only really clear cut when there are only 2 verdicts, guilty or not guilty. The 3rd not proven means that you may not be found guilty but not presumed to be innocent (if not proven is the verdict).
As interesting as this is, it has no relevance with an investigation as to whether a crime has, or has not been committed - which is never conducted on the basis of an assumption or presumption that a crime has not been committed.
Presumption of innocence only applies to individuals charged with an offence.
I note that you entirely ignored the point about Anchorman's position here ut given your dishonesty in misrepresenting him, your use of strawmen, and quote mining on this thread, surprise is absent.
That the not proven verdict exists in Scotland does not affect the assumption of innocence at the start of any case.
-
But clearly detaches latest from criminal activity, so completely different from your 'latest score' analogy. Surely, even you can see the difference between:
'there is no evidence of criminal activity'
and
'there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
The latter is what the Crown Service actually said, the former is what AM implied they said (to be perfectly accurate he implied that the Crown Service said that 'there is no evidence of any crime having been committed'), but that makes no difference to the point.
And here you dishonestly remove the impact of 'latest', lying once again about what Anchorman said.
-
I haven't read all the way through this thread but the thought of this, another one of those catholic unplesant mysteries has been uncovered I wonder how many there are, it'd be good if this was one of the last, but I've got a feeling.
ippy
-
And here you dishonestly remove the impact of 'latest', lying once again about what Anchorman said.
There is no dishonesty going on whatsoever - specifically because the impact of 'latest' is non-existent. So let's put 'latest' back in shall we.
'The latest, from the Court Service'
is not
'that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
it is
'that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
So let's put it all together - 2 statements for you to peruse
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
and
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
While the difference might appear subtle, language is important and the difference has a big effect on implied meaning. Surely even you can see that the implied meaning is different with the two statements - and, of course, only the latter is correct reporting of the latest statement from the Court Service on the matter. Now unlike you I don't throw around accusations of lying and dishonesty, so I am fully willing to accept that AM never intended to misrepresent what the Court Service had said in the statement reported in the article - but that is what he did.
-
The is no dishonesty going on whatsoever - specifically because the impact of 'latest' is non-existent. So let's put 'latest' back in shall we.
'The latest, from the Court Service'
is not
'that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
it is
'that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
So let's put it all together - 2 statements for you to peruse
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
and
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
While the difference might appear subtle, language is important and the difference has a big effect on implied meaning. Surely even you can see that the implied meaning is different with the two statements - and, of course, only the latter is correct reporting of the latest statement from the Court Service on the matter.
No, the difference is you lying that language is this simply black and white. When Anchorman said the latest was that there was no evidence of wring doing, he was correct and you are lying about it.
Latest and currently in your second example would be redundant.
-
No, the difference is you lying that language is this simply black and white. When Anchorman said the latest was that there was no evidence of wring doing, he was correct and you are lying about it.
Latest and currently in your second example would be redundant.
Oh get over yourself - the two statements do not have the same implied meaning - there is no redundancy.
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
And there is no redundancy in that latter, as 'latest' and 'currently' apply to different things. I suspect you recognise that perfectly well, but aren't prepared to admit it.
-
Oh get over yourself - the two statements do not have the same implied meaning - there is no redundancy.
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
And there is no redundancy in that latter, as 'latest' and 'currently' apply to different things. I suspect you recognise that perfectly well, but aren't prepared to admit it.
As already illustrated the latest score in a football match is the current score, so of course there is redundancy. Your own sentence examples illustrate that. Stop lying.
-
No, the difference is you lying that language is this simply black and white. When Anchorman said the latest was that there was no evidence of wring doing, he was correct and you are lying about it.
I'm sorry you are simply wrong.
The latest from the Court Service is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity. That is not what AM stated.
And at least get it right on accuracy - criminal activity and wrong doing aren't the same thing either, so it is perfectly possible for there to have been wrong doing but no criminal activity.
If you are going to be a pedant, at least try to be good at it.
-
I'm sorry you are simply wrong.
The latest from the Court Service is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity. That is not what AM stated.
And at least get it right on accuracy - criminal activity and wrong doing are the same thing either, so it is perfectly possible for there to have been wrong doing but no criminal activity.
If you are going to be a pedant, at least try to be good at it.
As opposed to a very bad liar, like you? What has my use of the phrase wrong doing by me have to do with your lying about Anchorman's statement being correct? Whenever you calm down, and stiyo lying, I will expect your apology to Anchorman.
-
As opposed to a very bad liar, like you? What has my use of the phrase wrong doing by me have to do with your lying about Anchorman's statement being correct? Whenever you calm down, and stiyo lying, I will expect your apology to Anchorman.
Why would I apologise to AM given that I have already accepted that his misrepresentation of report from the Court Service was not deliberate. But the fact remains that the correct reporting is:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
And by the way I haven't lied regardless of the insults you may throw - I could demand an apology from you for claiming I have - but I won't waste my breath.
Anyhow I'm off out now as I have better things to do. But just to reiterate one more time:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
-
Why would I apologise to AM given that I have already accepted that his misrepresentation of report from the Court Service was not deliberate. But the fact remains that the correct reporting is:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
And by the way I haven't lied regardless of the insults you may throw - I could demand an apology from you for claiming I have - but I won't waste my breath.
Anyhow I'm off out now as I have better things to do. But just to reiterate one more time:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
Because you have continued to talk about the tenor of posts to misrepresent his views, and as you have once again illustrated you don't understand the redundancy in the above.
-
.. once again illustrated you don't understand the redundancy in the above.
There is no redundancy.
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
If 'currently' was redundant then it could be removed without changing the implied meaning of the statement - but it cannot.
-
For those interested in what happened at Smyllum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade
-
There is no redundancy.
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
If 'currently' was redundant then it could be removed without changing the implied meaning of the statement - but it cannot.
Why the avoidance of your continued misrepresentation of Anchor man's position. The two sentences are equivalent here. It's only you making up stuff about Anchirman's motivation that leads to your issue.
The latest score is nil nil.
The latest score is currently nil nil
-
Why the avoidance of your continued misrepresentation of Anchor man's position. The two sentences are equivalent here. It's only you making up stuff about Anchirman's motivation that leads to your issue.
The latest score is nil nil.
The latest score is currently nil nil
Why are you using a different example which isn't comparable (hint, think about what 'latest' and 'currently' are referring to in this example and in the real one).
So let's focus back on the actual example. Once again:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
-
Why are you using a different example which isn't comparable (hint, think about what 'latest' and 'currently' are referring to in this example and in the real one).
So let's focus back on the actual example. Once again:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
is not the same in implied meaning as:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!
-
For those interested in what happened at Smyllum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade
Hard to see how this is consistent with either:
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'
or
'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'
-
oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!
:o
-
oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!
Lets try another example, phrased in exactly the same manner as the real statement (unlike your completely different football example).
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'
Compare that with;
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'
I think you must accept that the implied meaning is different as the second statement deliberately provides greater emphasis on the possibility of change compared to the first. So were you to hear the second statement I think you'd be rather more likely to pack an umbrella compared to hearing the first.
And, to reiterate, 'latest' and 'currently' refer to different things. 'Latest' refers to the latest in a series of reports from the Met Office; 'Currently' refers to what that report contains, in this case information about the status of the weather and the likelihood of change.
-
And, to reiterate, 'latest' and 'currently' refer to different things. 'Latest' refers to the latest in a series of reports from the Met Office; 'Currently' refers to what that report contains, in this case information about the status of the weather and the likelihood of change.
I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you: if a weather report is just issued then at that point surely it is both 'current' and the 'latest', and only when the details in latest weather report are overtaken by changed current and projected weather events would they differ, prompting the need for a new 'latest' update (which will reflect the current and expected conditions at that point in time).
In the case of this care home then the 'latest' update is all that is publicly available so there is no basis for the public to be aware of changes that differ from the last update: since the last update was that there was no evidence of any criminal activity then we can presume that the relevant staff can be presumed to be innocent since there is as yet nothing they could be guilty of.
In essence Jim's summary was and remains correct until such times as we are updated with any new information to the effect that there is evidence of criminal activity.
-
I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you: if a weather report is just issued then at that point surely it is both 'current' and the 'latest', and only when the details in latest weather report are overtaken by changed current and projected weather events would they differ, prompting the need for a new 'latest' update (which will reflect the current and expected conditions at that point in time).
I don't think that you would see:
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'
and
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'
As identical in terms of their implied meaning. The second deliberately places much greater emphasis on the likelihood that the situation may change.
In the case of this care home then the 'latest' update is all that is publicly available since there is no basis for the public to be aware of changes that differ from the last update: since the last update was that there was no evidence of any criminal activity then we can presume that the relevant staff can be presumed to be innocent since there is as yet nothing they could be guilty of.
In essence Jim's summary was and remains correct until such times as we are updated with any new information to the effect that there is evidence of criminal activity.
But the point remains that the 'latest' update specifically chose to use the word 'currently' in relation to whether criminal activity had been identified. This is, presumably (as with my example above) that they wanted specifically to directly emphasise that the situation might change.
The presumption of innocence or otherwise is, as you suggest, moot as there is 'currently' nothing to be charged with. However it is worth noting that in sex and other abuse cases the guidance to police is that the victim (or anyone else) reporting or making an allegation that an offence has been committed is to be believed in the first instance. In other words there is a starting presumption that a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. It may be the case that following investigation there is insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution, or even that the claim is subsequently determined to be vexatious, but the starting point remains that police should start their investigation on the presumption that a crime has been committed, i.e. that the victim is believed.
-
I don't think that you would see:
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'
and
'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'
As identical in terms of their implied meaning. The second deliberately places much greater emphasis on the likelihood that the situation may change.
But the point remains that the 'latest' update specifically chose to use the word 'currently' in relation to whether criminal activity had been identified. This is, presumably (as with my example above) that they wanted specifically to directly emphasise that the situation might change.
The presumption of innocence or otherwise is, as you suggest, moot as there is 'currently' nothing to be charged with. However it is worth noting that in sex and other abuse cases the guidance to police is that the victim (or anyone else) reporting or making an allegation that an offence has been committed is to be believed in the first instance. In other words there is a starting presumption that a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. It may be the case that following investigation there is insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution, or even that the claim is subsequently determined to be vexatious, but the starting point remains that police should start their investigation on the presumption that a crime has been committed, i.e. that the victim is believed.
You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.
-
I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you
I suspect you're addressing the wrong person.
-
I suspect you're addressing the wrong person.
Indeed
-
You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.
I only read back one page of this argument before I lost the will to go on. There's an important difference between "there is no evidence of criminal activity" and "there is currently no evidence of criminal activity". The former implies that the inquiry is complete, the latter implies that it is on going, but no evidence so far.
The distinction is important because the the former says we don't need to take legal action and the latter leaves open the possibility that somebody did something that means they should go to prison.
-
I only read back one page of this argument before I lost the will to go on. There's an important difference between "there is no evidence of criminal activity" and "there is currently no evidence of criminal activity". The former implies that the inquiry is complete, the latter implies that it is on going, but no evidence so far.
The distinction is important because the the former says we don't need to take legal action and the latter leaves open the possibility that somebody did something that means they should go to prison.
Thank you - strange how some people here fail to recognise (or rather more likely refuse to admit) the distinction.
-
You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.
Quite the contrary.
The reason for me starting to post on this thread was because I was concerned that some posts from a couple of posters came across to me as being rather dismissive of the significance of the allegations and findings.
Indeed it seemed to me that a whole range of the classic elements from the 'apologists' textbook were being trotted out. Specifically:
1. It all happened such a long time ago
2. Sure bad things happened but that was the norm back then
3. That the indications that a majority died of natural causes is somehow relevant to the possibility that some didn't
4. Assuming that crimes hadn't been committed, rather than believing victims as the starting point
5. Mistakenly assuming that a presumption of innocence (which applies to individuals) also somehow applies to investigating whether a crime has been committed or not
6. That really the main issue is one of record keeping
7. That making legitimate points about broader culture within an organisation based on numerous examples of institutional failures to protect children in their care of that organisation somehow amounts to tarring all individuals in that organisation as guilty
-
Quite the contrary.
The reason for me starting to post on this thread was because I was concerned that some posts from a couple of posters came across to me as being rather dismissive of the significance of the allegations and findings.
Indeed it seemed to me that a whole range of the classic elements from the 'apologists' textbook were being trotted out. Specifically:
1. It all happened such a long time ago
2. Sure bad things happened but that was the norm back then
3. That the indications that a majority died of natural causes is somehow relevant to the possibility that some didn't
4. Assuming that crimes hadn't been committed, rather than believing victims
That isn't how I see it: I'd offer this sequence.
1. Previous residents of this home have made complaints of child abuse against the relevant staff members.
2. These complaints merit an investigation to see whether or not they are justified by evidence that would support a prosecution. It is always possible, however unlikely it may seem, that the investigation could reveal that these complaints of child abuse are spurious (and if so this may constitute a separate criminal act but not one involved the relevant staff being accused of child abuse).
3. The investigation would commence on the basis that there could be criminal activity but, I'd imagine, there would also be a recognition that the complaints could be unfounded (however unlikely): the findings of the investigation would determine whether there were grounds to prosecute.
4. At the outset of the investigation there could be no presumption of culpability in respect of the staff until such times as there were grounds to conclude that; a) there had been instances of criminal child abuse, and b) which staff members could be implicated (which may not be all those working there at the relevant times).
5. Therefore, at that point, which seems to be the current point, these staff would be presumed innocent of the accusations since, as yet, there are no grounds to feel confident that criminal activity had occurred or, if it had, that all the staff implicated were culpable.
6. Even so this presumption of innocence doesn't presume that no criminal activity took place - just that this has yet to be confirmed with details sufficient to challenge the presumed innocence via the legal processes (in this case the Scottish legal processes).
That is how I see it as things stand.
-
That isn't how I see it: I'd offer this sequence.
1. Previous residents of this home have made complaints of child abuse against the relevant staff members.
2. These complaints merit an investigation to see whether or not they are justified by evidence that would support a prosecution. It is always possible, however unlikely it may seem, that the investigation could reveal that these complaints of child abuse are spurious (and if so this may constitute a separate criminal act but not one involved the relevant staff being accused of child abuse).
3. The investigation would commence on the basis that there could be criminal activity but, I'd imagine, there would also be a recognition that the complaints could be unfounded (however unlikely): the findings of the investigation would determine whether there were grounds to prosecute.
4. At the outset of the investigation there could be no presumption of culpability in respect of the staff until such times as there were grounds to conclude that; a) there had been instances of criminal child abuse, and b) which staff members could be implicated (which may not be all those working there at the relevant times).
5. Therefore, at that point, which seems to be the current point, these staff would be presumed innocent of the accusations since, as yet, there are no grounds to feel confident that criminal activity had occurred or, if it had, that all the staff implicated were culpable.
6. Even so this presumption of innocence doesn't presume that no criminal activity took place - just that this has yet to be confirmed with details sufficient to challenge the presumed innocence via the legal processes (in this case the Scottish legal processes).
That is how I see it as things stand.
Much of that I don't disagree with. But I would take issue on 2 grounds.
First you do not seem to be recognising the requirement in investigations of abuse that the victim is believed as a starting point.
Secondly you haven't mentioned one of the key elements in the time line - that an estimated 400 bodies are believed to be in an unmarked mass grave, while the home only appears to be able to account for about 150 of those bodies.
-
Much of that I don't disagree with. But I would take issue on 2 grounds.
First you do not seem to be recognising the requirement in investigations of abuse that the victim is believed as a starting point.
Yes I have, since that is what my points 1 & 2 are about: the accusations merit investigation. However, and no matter how unlikely, the accusations could be spurious so just believing the accusations seems presumptive to me: I'd have thought the credibility of those making the accusations would be an important aspect of the investigation.
Secondly you haven't mentioned one of the key elements in the time line - that an estimated 400 bodies are believed to be in an unmarked mass grave, while the home only appears to be able to account for about 150 of those bodies.
That finding would surely would be a key aspect of the investigation, such as establishing the reasons for the discrepancy, but only as the result of the investigation could there be any presumptions of culpability related to this discrepancy. Even then consideration would have to be given to the strengths and weaknesses of the information recording processes of the time.
Don't get me wrong: the accusations of abuse, that so may of these young people died and the apparent discrepancy in records does need investigation.
-
Yes I have, since that is what my points 1 & 2 are about: the accusations merit investigation. However, and no matter how unlikely, the accusations could be spurious so just believing the accusations seems presumptive to me: I'd have thought the credibility of those making the accusations would be an important aspect of the investigation.
The point is that, as per IPCC guidance, investigators should believe the victim when an accusation is made. Whether or not the accusation is able to proceed to charges and ultimately conviction is, of course, dependent on the evidence acquired during the investigation but that doesn't change the presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed.
Sure there is the chance of a spurious or vexatious allegation, and presumably that will become apparent as the investigation proceeds, but should never change the starting point presumption. More likely is that the allegation goes no further, not because there is any suggestion that it is spurious, but because enough evidence cannot be obtained to sustain the possibility of conviction (noting that when charges are made the person being charge is presumed innocent until demonstrated in a court of law to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt). Further with historic cases the allegation might not proceed to charge as the alleged perpetrator may be dead.
That finding would surely would be a key aspect of the investigation, such as establishing the reasons for the discrepancy, but only as the result of the investigation could there be any presumptions of culpability related to this discrepancy. Even then consideration would have to be given to the strengths and weaknesses of the information recording processes of the time.
Don't forget that the victim in the video clip upthread was at the home in the 1970s, so not all of the cases are likely to be so historic that inadequate, or lost records, can be used as an excuse. I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if failure to adequately record deaths in the home may in itself be an offence, although probably civil rather than criminal.
Don't get me wrong: the accusations of abuse, that so may of these young people died and the apparent discrepancy in records does need investigation.
Glad to hear it.
-
The point is that, as per IPCC guidance, investigators should believe the victim when an accusation is made. Whether or not the accusation is able to proceed to charges and ultimately conviction is, of course, dependent on the evidence acquired during the investigation but that doesn't change the presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed.
I think that presumption is risky.
Sure there is the chance of a spurious or vexatious allegation, and presumably that will become apparent as the investigation proceeds, but should never change the starting point presumption.
That presumption still worries me.
More likely is that the allegation goes no further, not because there is any suggestion that it is spurious, but because enough evidence cannot be obtained to sustain the possibility of conviction (noting that when charges are made the person being charge is presumed innocent until demonstrated in a court of law to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt). Further with historic cases the allegation might not proceed to charge as the alleged perpetrator may be dead.
That the evidence might be insufficient is, of course, dependent on the scope of the investigation: it may be that reliable evidence isn't accessible even where it is suspected. Have to say I still worry about the risks of presuming the accusations are always credible.
Don't forget that the victim in the video clip upthread was at the home in the 1970s, so not all of the cases are likely to be so historic that inadequate, or lost records, can be used as an excuse. I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if failure to adequately record deaths in the home may in itself be an offence, although probably civil rather than criminal.
I don't know enough about the recording arrangements to comment.
-
I think that presumption is risky.
Take it up with the IPCC
That presumption still worries me.
Take it up with the IPCC
Actually the point here is about fairness to both sides. Firstly, over decades people who suffered abuse as children felt unable to come forward as they were routinely disbelieved. Secondly, in many cases these types of crime took place behind closed doors, without witnesses and with any other evidence long gone. That makes it very difficult to gain a conviction when, quite rightly, there is a presumption of innocence when someone is actually charged. If police do not take, as a starting point, that someone making an allegation is credible and to be believed, then that stacks justice further in favour of the alleged perpetrator and against the victim.
Same goes for rape case.
I see no issue with police starting their investigations with a presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed. If that proves not to be the case that will come out in the wash as the investigations proceed.
Whatever - it is supposed to be the approach in our justice system, so it isn't really reasonable to bang on about presumption of innocence, but then quietly ignore the staring-point presumption that a person bring forth an allegation of abuse is credible and to be believed.
-
Have to say I still worry about the risks of presuming the accusations are always credible.
Presumed credible and to be believed until or unless proven otherwise.
Why is that so difficult as a concept than presuming someone is innocent until or unless proven otherwise - the cornerstone of our legal system when someone is charged and brought before the courts.
-
Presumed credible and to be believed until or unless proven otherwise.
Then I still worry about accusations being necessarily believed as a start point to any investigation on any matter.
Why is that so difficult as a concept than presuming someone is innocent until or unless proven otherwise - the cornerstone of our legal system when someone is charged and brought before the courts.
Presuming innocence places the emphasis on the supporting evidence presented by the accuser in an attempt to overcome the presumption of innocence, whereas presuming there may be guilt by believing the accusations at the outset seems (to me anyway) to risk bias.
-
Then I still worry about accusations being necessarily believed as a start point to any investigation on any matter.
Presuming innocence places the emphasis on the supporting evidence presented by the accuser in an attempt to overcome the presumption of innocence, whereas presuming there may be guilt by believing the accusations at the outset seems (to me anyway) to risk bias.
I think the reasoning is that it provides the best opportunity to ensure justice for victims (presuming they are credible and to be believed as a starting point of investigations) while still minimising the chances of miscarriage of justice for those accused (who still are presumed innocent when changed and during court proceedings).
Remember this is largely for crimes where it is likely to rest on the word of one person against another - e.g. child abuse cases and rape.
-
I think the reasoning is that it provides the best opportunity to ensure justice for victims (presuming they are credible and to be believed as a starting point of investigations) while still minimising the chances of miscarriage of justice for those accused (who still are presumed innocent when changed and during court proceedings).
Remember this is largely for crimes where it is likely to rest on the word of one person against another - e.g. child abuse cases and rape.
To add to this - I think one of the reasons for the change in policy a few years was a recognition that the issue, for example with child abuse, wasn't people being wrongly convicted, but that the conviction rate was so low, meaning that vast numbers of victims were failing to receive justice as no-one was even charged let alone convicted.
-
Some interesting points here. If I have understood correctly(and I may not have done, of course)the idea is that 'a victim is presumed credible and to be believed'. Surely then a person accused could possibly claim that he/she is the victim and therefore also has the right to be 'presumed credible and to be believed'. The only answer, it seems to me, is to conduct a thorough investigation without fear or favour to attempt to establish the truth of the matter, and then, dependent on the findings or lack of findings, decide whether a criminal prosecution should be brought.
-
Some interesting points here. If I have understood correctly(and I may not have done, of course)the idea is that 'a victim is presumed credible and to be believed'. Surely then a person accused could possibly claim that he/she is the victim and therefore also has the right to be 'presumed credible and to be believed'. The only answer, it seems to me, is to conduct a thorough investigation without fear or favour to attempt to establish the truth of the matter, and then, dependent on the findings or lack of findings, decide whether a criminal prosecution should be brought.
That sounds exactly right - that, as far as I know, is the current policy.
The historic problem was that too many victims of rape and child abuse were simply not believed by police when they reported it. The effect being that many simply didn't report and even for those that did the police's lack of starting point belief in their credibility meant that the investigation went no-where or worse treated the victim like a criminal.
-
To add to this - I think one of the reasons for the change in policy a few years was a recognition that the issue, for example with child abuse, wasn't people being wrongly convicted, but that the conviction rate was so low, meaning that vast numbers of victims were failing to receive justice as no-one was even charged let alone convicted.
I can see that, perhaps for cultural reasons, allegations made by the comparatively powerless against the powerful (such as authority figures) might be easily suppressed by power/authority. My view would be not that the powerless should be believed by default but that any investigation should not be unduly swayed by the status, influence or capabilities of those with power or authority who are accused.
-
I can see that, perhaps for cultural reasons, allegations made by the comparatively powerless against the powerful (such as authority figures) might be easily suppressed by power/authority. My view would be not that the powerless should be believed by default but that any investigation should not be unduly swayed by the status, influence or capabilities of those with power or authority who are accused.
Like the Westminster Parliamentary Ring?
That seems to have been hushed up long enough for all those supposed (I use the word advisedly - on legal advisedly) to have perpetrated the abuse and even murder of young boys were either totally gaga or dead.
-
I can see that, perhaps for cultural reasons, allegations made by the comparatively powerless against the powerful (such as authority figures) might be easily suppressed by power/authority. My view would be not that the powerless should be believed by default but that any investigation should not be unduly swayed by the status, influence or capabilities of those with power or authority who are accused.
But to the victim the perpetrator is almost always a powerful authority figure. That's the whole point, it is the power relationship that allows the abuse to take place. The perpetrator might not be someone that we, as outsiders, see as an authority figure but to a 10 year old child (for example) the local priest, the coach of the football team, the nun running the care home or the teacher is a powerful authority figure.
That's why it is important that they are treated as being credible and are believed as a starting point when they raise concerns because otherwise they will routinely feel that they (as an insignificant little person) will never be believed over someone who they see as an authority figure. If they don't feel they will be believed then they simply won't come forward, as happened over decades before the policy was changed to the current one.
-
Quite the contrary.
The reason for me starting to post on this thread was because I was concerned that some posts from a couple of posters came across to me as being rather dismissive of the significance of the allegations and findings.
Indeed it seemed to me that a whole range of the classic elements from the 'apologists' textbook were being trotted out. Specifically:
1. It all happened such a long time ago
2. Sure bad things happened but that was the norm back then
3. That the indications that a majority died of natural causes is somehow relevant to the possibility that some didn't
4. Assuming that crimes hadn't been committed, rather than believing victims as the starting point
5. Mistakenly assuming that a presumption of innocence (which applies to individuals) also somehow applies to investigating whether a crime has been committed or not
6. That really the main issue is one of record keeping
7. That making legitimate points about broader culture within an organisation based on numerous examples of institutional failures to protect children in their care of that organisation somehow amounts to tarring all individuals in that organisation as guilty
Let's start that your posting about the IPCC guidance is a huge irrelevance to your position, first of all the IPCC cannot make a fundamental change to the presumption of innocence in terms of court cases, it's guidance on how you carry out specific investigations.
Secondly as already pointed out a couple of tines and ignored by you, Anchorman is not in the position of the police here, so the guidance doesn't apply, the supposition of innocence does.
Third, and not damagingly for your point, you have conflated the statements about the mass burial with the claims of physical abuse by living individuals. Since Anchorman has been talking the mass burial, your reference to the physical abuse cases is irrelevant. This lead to your confusion in your reply 175 to not being able to understand that the no criminal activity indication so far as regards the mass burials is not in conflict with the testimony of living individuals about the physical abuse.
The rest of your points above simply arise from your continued misrepresentations. Note since they are clearly and consistently denied by those you have addressed here, your position is that those individuals are lying. This is something that elsewhere you seem to disagree with. You don't really manage what might be called consistency.
-
Ah right .. defending yourself against lying is also lying - what's inconsistent about that?
-
Ah right .. defending yourself against lying is also lying - what's inconsistent about that?
No, arguing that people shouldn't say people are lying, and then saying people are lying is inconsistent.
But back on topic, I am wondering if the investigation which is wider than Smyllum is geared up for the breadth of the subject. The complexity of looking at something on this scale covering many different institutions seems beyond any indication of the team on it
-
No, arguing that people shouldn't say people are lying, and then saying people are lying is inconsistent.
you're not seeing an infinite regression developing there?
But back on topic, I am wondering if the investigation which is wider than Smyllum is geared up for the breadth of the subject. The complexity of looking at something on this scale covering many different institutions seems beyond any indication of the team on it
Sorry, you'll have to remind me which investigation that is ... my understanding has been that the only investigation into the unmarked and unrecorded graves at Smyllum is by the BBC and Sunday Post. The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry has a completely different scope/remit.
-
you're not seeing an infinite regression developing there? Sorry, you'll have to remind me which investigation that is ... my understanding has been that the only investigation into the unmarked and unrecorded graves at Smyllum is by the BBC and Sunday Post. The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry has a completely different scope/remit.
From Anchorman's link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41242514
'Childcare minister Mark McDonald told the Scottish Parliament that the inquiry and the prosecution services were the proper channels for taking the matter forward.'
Further the remit of the inquiry is historic abuse
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1080683/what-is-the-scottish-child-abuse-inquiry/
-
From Anchorman's link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41242514
'Childcare minister Mark McDonald told the Scottish Parliament that the inquiry and the prosecution services were the proper channels for taking the matter forward.'
Further the remit of the inquiry is historic abuse
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1080683/what-is-the-scottish-child-abuse-inquiry/
That looks like shoulder brushing by MacDonald.
The inquiry has its own website clearly stating objectives and terms of reference, a quick read inspires no confidence that this issue will be looked into. Most of the timescale assumed for these graves does not even come into the period "within living memory" that the inquiry covers.
We will never know what happened; unnamed dead orphans make no complaints and submit no evidence to inquiries or prosecutors.
-
That looks like shoulder brushing by MacDonald.
The inquiry has its own website clearly stating objectives and terms of reference, a quick read inspires no confidence that this issue will be looked into. Most of the timescale assumed for these graves does not even come into the period "within living memory" that the inquiry covers.
We will never know what happened; unnamed dead orphans make no complaints and submit no evidence to inquiries or prosecutors.
For which, of course, both inquirers and prosecutors and the hierarchy of the RCC are truly gratefull!
-
That looks like shoulder brushing by MacDonald.
The inquiry has its own website clearly stating objectives and terms of reference, a quick read inspires no confidence that this issue will be looked into. Most of the timescale assumed for these graves does not even come into the period "within living memory" that the inquiry covers.
We will never know what happened; unnamed dead orphans make no complaints and submit no evidence to inquiries or prosecutors.
Not sure it is shoulder brushing, there isn't an easy method to investigate this, as you have made clear, and given there is an inquiry it makes some sense to say that it falls within the remit.
I agree with you that there is an issue of whether the inquiry will, or indeed can, cover the size of what is being looked at, hence my comment that I don't think they are geared up for the scale of this.
-
Not sure it is shoulder brushing, there isn't an easy method to investigate this, as you have made clear, and given there is an inquiry it makes some sense to say that it falls within the remit.
I agree with you that there is an issue of whether the inquiry will, or indeed can, cover the size of what is being looked at, hence my comment that I don't think they are geared up for the scale of this.
. . . or for the probability that the RCC will be of absolutely no help whatsoever toward discovering the truth.
-
. . . or for the probability that the RCC will be of absolutely no help whatsoever toward discovering the truth.
It's worth noting that this is a wider enquiry than Smullyan, this order or the RCC.
-
Hard to see how this is a workable defence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-42803236
-
Update on Smyllam - arrests today
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45282865
-
It looks to me there's a need for quite a few prosecutions of those in high places in the catholic church and some heavy sentences handed out.
These sorts of things are all part of, it looks to me, a never ending list, there's hardly a day goes by before we hear of something else of this nature perpetrated by various sections of that terrible RC organisation.
ippy
-
Chilling
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16981694.reading-about-the-suffering-of-these-children-is-hard-but-we-must/
-
Can I just say that the point about birthdays is so important. I dated a bloke who had been raised in an orphanage; he was adopted when he was ten and every year his new family would forget his birthday. Which was on Christmas Day. The 'you aren't worth loving' message was one of his entire childhood.
As for the rest...well there are no words, are there?
-
Can I just say that the point about birthdays is so important. I dated a bloke who had been raised in an orphanage; he was adopted when he was ten and every year his new family would forget his birthday. Which was on Christmas Day. The 'you aren't worth loving' message was one of his entire childhood.
As for the rest...well there are no words, are there?
Oh there are words, lots of words, but, if Lady Smith a lady be, she will not use them though she may well have been thinking them as she was writing!
-
Not sure it is shoulder brushing, there isn't an easy method to investigate this, as you have made clear, and given there is an inquiry it makes some sense to say that it falls within the remit.
I agree with you that there is an issue of whether the inquiry will, or indeed can, cover the size of what is being looked at, hence my comment that I don't think they are geared up for the scale of this.
Was reminded of this thread when reading the update below that the inquiry is moving into its ninth stage.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/education-and-learning/primary-education/ninth-phase-of-scottish-child-abuse-inquiry-to-open-next-spring/ar-AA1w6bTn