Hundreds of dead babies found on Catholic property.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Owlswing]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Enki]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Owlswing]

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

[Owlswing]

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!

[Owlswing]

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!

 

[Anchorman]

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

[Rhiannon]

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.'

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Udayana]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.