“Survivors Who Stand Together”; are going to take on (Right of Place Second Chance) in a bid to have them either closed down fully of have ROPSC run under New Management and new rules. The new rules will only been drawing up when all Survivors are asked what kind of help and support do they require. (Right of Place Second Chance) is funded by the HSE to tune of 2, 50 Thousand Euros per Year to act as an information centre for Survivors, this is unreal giving we have the “ Free Citizens Information Centres” all around the Country who freely supply ALL information for FREE to every member of the PUBLIC. Survivors are been Conned here big time.
The HSE have a hell of a lot of questions to answer along side ROPSC, we will question how much of this Corruption the HSE know about and turn a blind eye to in a bid to control Survivors, we are entering dirty water ahead because we have a funny feeling that ROPSC are Working for the HSE and the Department of Education, meaning Survivors NEVER had any independent transparent body to Represent us Survivors from the word go! So from the (Ryan Report) to the (Redress Board) to the (Statutory Fraud Fund) to the (Monument) we the Survivors never had any body to FIGHT our SIDE? “How can any of the above be LEGAL? ……………..
“Survivors Who Stand Together” is not a GROUP we don’t do membership, we don’t ask for donations, we don’t fundraise, we don’t want followers, our goal is not to draw in the crowd and brain wash them in to following us so that we can use and control them, we are not a cult, our mission is to stop ALL of those Groups from using and abusing Survivors and stealing their funds, we want to see to it that all Survivors get their fair dues from the Church and State.
We would ask any Survivor or any other Persons out there that might be reading this; We ask for information about ALL Groups, any information at all, negative or positive, as we want to do a fine comb job on all the Groups, any information collected will be used to build a case against ROPSC and ALL Groups State Funded or otherwise, and the HSE. We will be also taking and looking “Witness Statements” we are going to prepare our own case file in to the Corruption at ROPSC and the HSE’s failure to act as a watchdog over the Groups that they fund, and if the HSE pay the Staff at ROPSC a salary well then we prove SOLID PROOF that the Survivors never had a Support Group to Represent us!
A Person asked (((Michael Walsh Right of Place Second Chance!))) two questions, question 1) was to do with the use of Survivors funds been spent on a Christmas party while we have some Survivors homeless and in food poverty, the second question was 2) to do with Survivors looking answers as to where our funds are been spent, the two comments below are Michael Walsh’s answer to the questions; I find his answers bullshit with a capital “B” he claims close to 5,500 Survivors contacted him last year, now look at where he says a survey is going to be done on about 150 services users? Doesn’t he mean SURVIVORS? Why the low number of only 150 survivors? 150 is too little when he claims to represent the (((MAJORITY))) of Survivors which is around 15,000 Survivors? Mr. Walsh is shooting himself in the foot as his bullshit does not add up good bad or other wise, we are been told a pack of lies.
Here are the questions we should be asking him as in ROPSC, who elected or selected him as Chairman of ROPSC? When only Survivors are entitled or allowed be on the Committee? What training has he had? (Cert’s must be supplied original copies only) What qualifications has Michael Walsh and “ALL” his staff of ROPSC? Are he and his staff paid a salary? Would he and his staff be willing to continue to do his so called work if all funding were stopped? “lol” to that;) … what actual (PROOF) have ROPSC of their Membership that they claim to represent over 2,500 members which is a figure I see other so called groups using also, I wonder what element of truth is there to this so called stolen database our of ROPSC? Noel Barry ex Chairman of ROPSC claims he was threatened in to getting out of ROPSC and a knife was stuck in his desk, is it Michael Walsh that did this? Because if it is Mr. Walsh who threatened Mr. Noel Barry out of office, it brings in the question “Is Michael Walsh ROPSC fit to be the Chairman of a group of the most vulnerable in Society?” I think having asked that last question I would rest my case if this were a Court Case.
If any one has any question about any thing I’ve wrote please feel free to contact “Survivors Who Stand Together”
Right of Place Second Chance Hi ******** let me begin by correcting some inaccuracies in your post. The Christmas party that we held in Cork was to offer 40 Survivors (many of whom are Socially excluded and isolated and alone at Christmas time) an opportunity to enjoy a FREE four course meal with fellow Survivors and to have a Christmas that they would not be alone. It was a huge success. Additionally to this we offer 10 Apartments where we house Homeless Survivors within our own services. We are an organisation that is funded, specifically to provide information, referral and an Outreach Service to support Survivors look at long term support and care. Unfortunately funding we receive has to be spent on what we agreed it to be and direct financial support for Survivors is something we cannot provide. The type of organisation that we are is more akin to Focus Ireland, Citizens Information etc. Unfortunately we do not have the same level and type of funding as St. Vincent De Paul where we can provide direct financial help. You can access our website if you are still unsure of the types of support we offer, but considering in 2012 (as explained in our publicly available Annual Report) close to 5,500 contacts from Survivors and their families (with 2013, even busier) – it obviously shows that the service is needed.
Right of Place Second Chance Hi ********** thats the thing, if you ever have a question please just ask, as it is only ever through communication that questions can be answered. Additionally to this, our service agreement with our funding partners means that there is a quarterly review of our services, a yearly appraisal, meetings with them to discuss our ongoing work. Additionally to this, our funding partners have a policy of announced and unannounced visits into our Centres to actually see the work being carried out on the ground with our service users. Finally to this, ROPSC are in the middle of carrying out an external review of our services, our structures and our information. This meant that an external company have had complete access to how we run our services (and will be doing a Survey with around 150 Service users) to look at how we operate. Most importantly a strategic 5 year plan based on the information supplied by our clients (survivors) will be developed to ensure we focus on the major issues, as informed by Survivors, into the next 5 years. So not only do we run our services, in conjunction with our funding partners, we actually are proactive at having our organisation and supports critically examined by people with external expertise.
I am glad that it is out in the open because i am not a member of any of these survivor’s groups.
I wonder is there another meeting to be followed up after this???
Source: (Paddy Doyle website) for longer version of it.
Follow-Up to Ryan Report (it’s an edited version as the original report of this was too long as this forum would not allow it over 15000 max.)
3. The Taoiseach then invited each group represented to respond.
4. Tom Hayes, Alliance, said there was a lack of accountability and transparency from Government and Government Agencies such as the Redress Unit. Because of these issues, Members of Alliance could not support a Fund run by the Government. The issues were:
– Some survivor groups were overfunded, had salaried staff, etc.
– no answers had been received as to the audited accounts of the ad-hoc Education Fund from 1997.
– no action had been taken as a result of the Report into the Outreach Services in England, which says that many survivors will not use these Centres because of their religious connections.
– no action had been taken vis-à-vis Right of Place in Cork or the Aislinn Centre in Dublin to regulate their funding. The Alliance wanted an investigation into the activities of Right of Place in Cork and the HSE’s handling of what is going on there.
– Funding to groups had been a contentious issue and one that must be addressed now. The Alliance “expenses” amount from the Department of Education and Science for 2010 amounts to only €6,000, which was simply not sufficient, despite the fact that the Committee had complied as far as it could with all requests from the Redress Unit. Alliance Accounts continue to be audited annually with copies sent to the Department of Education and Science and the Redress Unit. Expenses are always based on the previous year’s activities, as are this year’s requests.
– The Department of Education and Science only funded individuals who were willing to support Department policies, and while it gave the impression that it was engaging with other survivor groups, it never took their concerns on board. Also, it consistently used funded individuals to create the public perception that those individuals spoke on behalf of the majority of survivors.
– Alliance had always recognised that there would be no more money for Redress. If there was to be a Fund, it was not education and counselling services that were needed now: victims’ needs had changed.
John Kelly, Irish SOCA said he was deeply disappointed that prosecutions of individuals guilty of abuse in institutions had not happened. Irish SOCA was very concerned re the protection of the children of today and improving their lot. He doubted whether the State would in fact obtain a 50:50 contribution from the religious Congregations. He also questioned how the State would manage to liquidate the school playing fields offered by the Christian Brothers and indeed the properties offered generally, and suggested that the Congregations be invited into a buy-back scheme for the properties, an idea about which he said he had spoken to the bishops.
As regards the Department of Education and Science, it had tried to limit each group to two representatives at today’s meeting but had then invited several extra groups, including two politicians – one a UK Labour party Councillor – and a salaried person. The Department would not give Irish SOCA a penny in funding. Later during the meeting, Mr Kelly said that he had no confidence in the Redress Unit of the Department. The Taoiseach rejected this view of the Unit.
Marie Seo, also Irish SOCA, said that the consensus at Irish SOCA meetings had been against a Fund and that the Government should give the victims the money and let them look after themselves. She said that discussions on the proposed memorial should be stopped until the contributions from the religious congregations are sorted out and that they wanted the State to consult with the church regarding redress for the Magdalene women. Cardinal Brady was very supportive of the women that were placed in the laundries. She wanted to know how soon the discussions about the Fund would start.
Gerard Lyons and Sean Leonard, Justice and Healing for Institutional Abuse said their Group questioned why the State was defending defenders in abuse trials and criticised the redress process. They felt that the State had taken advantage of people and shafted the victims. Also, there is no 50/50 contribution split as the State was 100% negligent and the religious congregations were 100% guilty of abusing them. They wanted no Fund and the playing fields being offered by the religious congregations had already been paid for by the local communities. The apology rang hollow, there is nothing for them in the present offer and the State did not and does not care. They had not got proper awards and only few people had got awards equivalent to High Court. Finally, it was disingenuous to expect them to read all the documents being released today.
Michael O’Brien, Right to Peace said the Government was afraid to take on the religious and noted that Cardinal Brady had not been approached for a contribution from the bishops. In removing the social welfare Christmas bonus, the Government had removed it from victims. The Government would not put him into a home. He held up the Court document referring to him when he was being put into an institution as a child and said he wanted it corrected. He complained that Redress Board awards had been reduced when appealed and said he would bring taxpayers out to march for victims again as had been done last year. His organisation wanted no Trust Find, and he accused the Government of not caring for the victims and hoping they would die off. He noted that staff are paid out of the Education Fund. He also criticised the payment of money to groups. He wanted the bishops, religious, the government and victims’ representatives all brought together. He said there were victims dying in the streets in the UK and that victims are the most vulnerable people in the country.
Christopher Heaphey, also of Right to Peace, said that the Government, the Church and the Religious Orders were all equally culpable for the crimes committed against victims. On top of this, the Government had entered into an indemnity deal with the Congregations for €128 million, or some €8,500 per victim. The deal was grotesquely wrong. The survivors had never been consulted about it. To add insult to injury, it was decided that €12.7 million would go to educate victims, but only 23% of survivors avail of the Education Fund. A further €10 million was set aside to give victims counselling but survivors did not want the Congregations to pay for their counselling. It was unclear where the balance of the €128 million had gone.
Also, the Redress Scheme had included, without victims’ understanding or consent, a waiver that gave the Congregations a get-out clause for the crimes they had committed. Unless victims signed that waiver, they got no redress. Few survivors who signed it understand or understood its implications.
The Government should take the necessary money from the Congregations and give it to the victims, €60,000 each.
Tom Cronin, Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, noted that the victims’ groups would have no say re the property in the congregations’ offers, and so were left with the €110m cash offer. After last year’s meeting, there had been a terrible backlash from survivors, who argued that the representatives had had no standing to do a deal for 15,000 people, so the present offer was not going to be helpful. Very few people had got big awards from the Redress Board and many were in the 0- €50,000 bracket.
He felt that the Education Finance Board was too restrictive and should be broadened.
Paul Cronin, also Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse, said it was a pity that they hadn’t got the reports of the assets of the religious congregations in advance of the meeting. He had suggested that the idea of pensions for former residents should be considered but wasn’t disappointed as he had felt the Government’s mind was made up.
Carmel McDonnell Byrne from Aislinn, responding to criticism of groups made by earlier speakers, said that neither she nor Christine Buckley receives a salary. Aislinn’s funding from the State goes on heat, stationery, etc. Aislinn has two paid staff, of whom neither is a survivor. Christine Buckley had got a salary for four years out of twenty-six. She went on to make the following points:
Aislinn very much welcomed the Fund proposal and the Memorial proposal.
the Redress Board hearings had been very adversarial and the requirement that a victim must not reveal information about their award was very undesirable.
Christine Buckley, Aislinn, thanked the Taoiseach and Ministers for listening. She was in total agreement with the Fund proposal. She was glad that the Congregations had been called in to contribute to the cost of redress. She said the Redress Board hearings were very adversarial, to judge from the experiences of the people Aislinn had accompanied to the Board, and she referred to ongoing research into related suicides. There should be a review of the Redress Board, with every case looked at – perhaps by an independent panel, as she knew from MoS Andrews that for legal reasons a review would be very difficult. She considered the proposed Fund a very important step forward. Also, education was very important: thanks to it, in her view,
Here the Taoiseach pointed out that the question of Magdalene women was not part of the present discussion, which was about people who had been abused as children in residential institutions, and the position of Magdalene women was no analogous with that. In relation to women who had been in Magdalene laundries, the relevant Departments will help individuals with information where they can, but it was not part of today’s discussion.
Frank Traynor (Right of Place) said the Ryan Report had enabled victims to be known as survivors, and no longer to be embarrassed about their past. Obviously, there was anger and distrust both among groups and with the Government, and it would not be right to dismiss that anger. Survivor groups could benefit from professional liaison group to work with them to figure out what survivors want. He was not a spokesperson for Right of Place but wanted to say that he had no issue with the governance of Right of Place.
Funding for the survivor groups was important: the groups are undervalued and underfunded. A report on the groups, how they are structured, who they represent, so as to give them respect for what they do, would be a good idea.
As regards the proposed Fund, survivor groups need to find out if its the only show in town. It was important that the Government make that clear, because some people think there’s another windfall coming their way. If there is to be no windfall, the Government should clear that up, so that people can focus on victims’ real needs.
Noel Barry, Right of Place said the State couldn’t do everything. His group would like to see the Magdalen women qualify for Redress. Also, the legal profession should be removed from the process. Solicitors deserved their fees but not the barristers, and they should be excluded. As regards the proposed Memorial, its purpose is to remind future generations about Ireland not being an island of Saints and Scholars, and it is very important.
Andrew Brennan, SOCA UK thanked the Government for their efforts. He said he found it hard to separate Magdalenes from the victims’ situation. His mother was in a Magdalen, and his family had then been put into an institution.
Michael Waters, SOCA UK thanked the Taoiseach for his invitation. He wanted to wish Michael O’Brien well. He felt the SOCA Centre in Camden Town did a good job. Returning to 3 June last, he said that there was an expectation of further substantial financial contribution from the religious and that this offer will not be welcomed by many survivors.
He raised the possibility of a ballot among all survivors (using the Redress Board list), to see what they wanted done about the offer, because, he suggested, the people in the room today represented only a small number of survivors.
Quality care for today’s children with disabilities was very important. Three hostels for children recently closed in Dublin, he said, and he couldn’t find what alternative has been put in place. Had any lessons been learnt?
Also, the situation in the UK should be considered: many survivors were living rough etc, and the Redress Board awards had not changed their lives. He instanced the suicide of a person who had been in contact with him. It was crucial to be able to support victims. Money wouldn’t solve the problem.
Phyllis Morgan of the Outreach Centre, London said the Centre always helped all who came through its doors.
Sally Mulready said she was the Local Councillor in London that had been referred to earlier. She had a number of questions:
– the Trust Fund: Would there be an opportunity to contribute on the Legislation? What was the timetable? It would be useful to get down to detail quickly.
– 32%, or some 4800 people, at the Redress Board were from the UK and they should have a voice.
– how would the Fund be administered? Public finance skills would be necessary.
She also said that the Education Finance Board was a good idea – but there was a problem with take-up and greater promotion and advertising were necessary. Also, it would be useful to widen the criteria for it so that group applications can be made. She would consult with UK survivors and revert. Finally, she echoed the point already made re windfalls – tonight’s meeting would put an end to that speculation.
Paddy Doyle said he was not representing any group but felt tremendous sadness at the end of the meeting, for two reasons. First, the real issue was being lost sight of. Money hadn’t so far sorted out much for people and it was time to move away from how much victims were going to get. Rumours that each victim was going to get €300,000 were ridiculous nonsense. To do so would cost well over € 5 billion and it was time those rumours were put a stop to: people were even trying to borrow on the strength of such a windfall. He was also sad at the evident tensions between groups claiming to represent survivors, and reports of those tensions were getting into the media. Groups should come to their senses and stop tearing each other apart. There was a need to work together.
The carry-on of the Department using one group against others, if that’s what they have been doing, is disgraceful beyond belief.
The carry-on of the Department using one group against others, if that’s what they have been doing, is disgraceful beyond belief.
You might think that indeed, but playing one group off another is standard operations by experienced politicians. The disunity of the survivors groups is a gift beyond price for the catholic church and their accomplices in the govt.