Child Abuse Commission Report - Legal Profession

[Sunny]

It was not a Court of Law therefore you can't compare a Criminal Case for Rape with these hearing. The hearings were stated in advance to be amongst other things "as informal as possible" and the number of people in the room were stated to be "up to 3" being the Judge, a Stenographer and a Councellor I believe, but in fact this did not materialise from the reports given recently in the Media by those who went to the Redress Board. If you are unsure as to the proposed proceedures at the redress board I suggest you read up on them on their official site www.rirb.ie, it would help you reach a more informed opinion. The Victims had to give up a lot in order to take part in this proceedure, its shameful how they were treated.

Why don't you look at what we are talking about before commenting about other people's informed comments. This is about the workings of the Child Abuse Commission, not the Redress Board. The child abuse commission had a Statutory standing and clearly allowed legal representation for all parties and cross examination of all claims that came before the investigations committee.

 

[Vanilla]

I don't recall any cases where there were false claims made during this proceedure. More smoke and Mirrors?

What do you mean by 'smoke and mirrors'? Kindly remind yourself of the guidelines of posting, attack the post, not the poster.

Have we forgotten Nora Wall, Fr.Kilpatrick, Paul Farrell?

'Kathy's Story', Paul Anderson and others jumped on a bandwagon. Not all religious were involved and some were falsely accused.

Because there is a danger of one innocent person being accused wrongly the state must ensure all claims are investigated.

The manner of the investigation should be questioned, not the fact that it was investigated at all.

We don't know who the '7' barristers referred to were acting for. But I think it is highly unfair to direct criticism at the barristers rather than the instructing client or the method and atmosphere of the inquiry which was state led.

 

[MandaC]

I don't recall any cases where there were false claims made during this proceedure. More smoke and Mirrors?

No, there were false claims made. Some of the records kept at the time were quite poor and as always there are people jumping on the Bandwagon.

 

[roland]

'many of the solicitors...'

In the event, despite the huge media hype, there were- out of over 14000 cases, only 180 complaints to the law society of which approx 45 were upheld. Of those 45 I believe the majority related to a tiny number of firms.

It's probably safe to assume that for every one person who actually took up the courage to dare the might of the Law Society, there are probably ten others who didn't. Of course Vanilla, I can't actually prove that... but I take little comfort from your cold read of bald statistics. But let's just say that 'only 180' is of itself depressing, not comforting. Your rhetoric about 'doing their job' is worse. The real underlying picture here seems to be nothing short of exploitation.

 

[DrMoriarty]

Solicitors and barristers in the employ of the religious orders are being paid (handsomely) by private clients to do a job of work. What do you expect them to do?

[broken link removed]. It looks like the bulk of their handsome rewards will be paid not by their private clients but out of public money.

 

[Chocks away]

[broken link removed]. It looks like the bulk of their handsome rewards will be paid not by their private clients but out of public money.

Hopefully not DrM. This would surely be another type of abuse, ie that of taxpayers' labour. How does the person that determines these issues come up with this kind of reasoning? For too long the criminals have been shielded. The powers that be were guilty of aiding and abetting. Is this not an offense in itself? Why should the public pay for their malpractices.