The Future of Irish Primary School Education
Sophistry Made Simple
poised to actually take over the running of the Irish national school system
once the catholic church begins to relinquish those schools that they no
longer have an interest in.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1223/1224261153284.html
EX_OWM
<quote>
THE CLASS register reads like a membership list of the UN: �I�m Lithuanian
but I was born in Ireland. I�m Romanian and Irish. I�m from Hong Kong. I�m
Libyan and my mum�s Irish. I speak Twi (the main language in Ghana). I�m
from here. My mother�s Malaysian and my Dad�s Irish. I�m Danish but I�m more
Irish. I�m from the Congo but French Congo. I�m from Lucan.�
</quote>
What makes you (or the author of the piece) think that is particularly
different from the situation in many Church run schools ?
Sophistry Made Simple
"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pi0l7...@mid.individual.net...
> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>> The Educate Together national school umbrella organisation are the
>> only ones poised to actually take over the running of the Irish
>> national school system once the catholic church begins to relinquish
>> those schools that they no longer have an interest in.
>>
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1223/1224261153284.html
>
> <quote>
> but I was born in Ireland. I�m Romanian and Irish. I�m from Hong Kong. I�m
> Libyan and my mum�s Irish. I speak Twi (the main language in Ghana). I�m
> from here. My mother�s Malaysian and my Dad�s Irish. I�m Danish but I�m
> more Irish. I�m from the Congo but French Congo. I�m from Lucan.�
> </quote>
>
> What makes you (or the author of the piece) think that is particularly
> different from the situation in many Church run schools ?
It may or may not be, you're missing the point - it is more than likely that
it will be Educate Together who will take over many of the schools, and
indeed it is Educate Together who are being asked by the government to open
new schools. Increasing numbers of parents don't want to send their children
to a religious school, or specifically don't want to send their children to
a catholic school, and many quite possibly don't care either way, and in
turn the catholic church has little interest in taking these children either
and have already signalled this. Combine this with recent revelations and
the whole fitness of the catholic church to run anything concerned with
children is now being called into question.
Howard
> "EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7pi0l7...@mid.individual.net...
> > Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
> >> The Educate Together national school umbrella organisation are the
> >> only ones poised to actually take over the running of the Irish
> >> national school system once the catholic church begins to relinquish
> >> those schools that they no longer have an interest in.
> >>
> >> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1223/1224261153284.html
> >
> > <quote>
> > THE CLASS register reads like a membership list of the UN: "I'm Lithuanian
> > but I was born in Ireland. I'm Romanian and Irish. I'm from Hong Kong. I'm
> > Libyan and my mum's Irish. I speak Twi (the main language in Ghana). I'm
> > from here. My mother's Malaysian and my Dad's Irish. I'm Danish but I'm
> > more Irish. I'm from the Congo but French Congo. I'm from Lucan."
> > </quote>
> >
> > What makes you (or the author of the piece) think that is particularly
> > different from the situation in many Church run schools ?
>
> It may or may not be, you're missing the point - it is more than likely that
> it will be Educate Together who will take over many of the schools, and
> indeed it is Educate Together who are being asked by the government to open
> new schools. Increasing numbers of parents don't want to send their children
> to a religious school, or specifically don't want to send their children to
> a catholic school, and many quite possibly don't care either way, and in
> turn the catholic church has little interest in taking these children either
> and have already signalled this. Combine this with recent revelations and
> the whole fitness of the catholic church to run anything concerned with
> children is now being called into question.
Here here !!!
H
Calum
> Here here !!!
Where where?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
JD
You're lost Calum. You need to pray harder :-)
Howard
> On 25/12/09 15:28, Howard wrote:
>
> > Here here !!!
>
> Where where?
Here here ... as in ... I agree !!
H
Fergus O'Rourke
"Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1jbaxo4.obm8068ijskoN%Howar...@home.com...
Then you mean
"Hear ! Hear !"
(even in American English)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1jbaxo4.obm8068ijskoN%Howar...@home.com...
> > Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25/12/09 15:28, Howard wrote:
> >>
> >> > Here here !!!
> >>
> >> Where where?
> >
> > Here here ... as in ... I agree !!
>
> Then you mean
>
> "Hear ! Hear !"
>
> (even in American English)
Oye... it's a bit early in the aftermath of Christmas day to start
correctling spelling :-(
H
EX_OWM
> Here here !!!
I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out what the
cost will be to the state of either taking over or replacing the existing
structure.
Ulick Magee
This is bollocks. The state pays for everything as it is. If you think
the Catholic Church does anything out of the goodness of its blackened
heart, you are naive in the extreme.
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
Howard
In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
State pays the full cost already.
H
Howard
We should also be looking at the whole subject of the Catholic Church
and connected Orders selling off lands for millions every year. These
lands were given by the state or individuals to the Church for use by
the Church and not to be flogged off years later to fill the coffers of
the Orders or the Church.
Howard
EX_OWM
What's with this "we" - what business is it of anybody outside the Catholic
Church.
EX_OWM
No it doesn't.
You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings got paid
for and were the money will come from to buy them.
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Howard wrote:
>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here here !!!
>>>
>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>
>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>> State pays the full cost already.
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings got paid
>for
Bought and paid for in pennies earned by peasant farmers, mostly.
>and were the money will come from to buy them.
Time to renegotiate that Michael Woods deal, perhaps?
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
EX_OWM
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:44:33 -0000, "EX_OWM"
> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard wrote:
>>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>
>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>
>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>>> State pays the full cost already.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings
>> got paid for
>
> Bought and paid for in pennies earned by peasant farmers, mostly.
Is it really that hard to accept that it was members of the Catholic Church
who paid for them?
>> and were the money will come from to buy them.
>
> Time to renegotiate that Michael Woods deal, perhaps?
It may have escaped your notice but the religious orders have already made
considerable moves in that regard, albeit rather belatedly.
Sophistry Made Simple
"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pph7h...@mid.individual.net...
> Howard wrote:
>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here here !!!
>>>
>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>
>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>> State pays the full cost already.
>
> No it doesn't.
The only thing provided by the church is the parish priest as the chairman
of the board of management, they don't even teach anymore, and them that did
were paid by the State to do so.
> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings got
> paid for and were the money will come from to buy them.
By and large the buildings were provided by the State - up until recently a
new school 'only' had to raise 10% of the cost of the building and the State
then gave the rest. Since about 10 years ago the State has provided the full
cost of all lands and buildings.
What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated the
entire area of primary education to religious sects.
EX_OWM
> "EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7pph7h...@mid.individual.net...
>> Howard wrote:
>>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>
>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>
>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>>> State pays the full cost already.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> The only thing provided by the church is the parish priest as the
> chairman of the board of management, they don't even teach anymore,
> and them that did were paid by the State to do so.
>
>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings
>> got paid for and were the money will come from to buy them.
>
> By and large the buildings were provided by the State - up until
> recently a new school 'only' had to raise 10% of the cost of the
> building and the State then gave the rest. Since about 10 years ago
> the State has provided the full cost of all lands and buildings.
Wrong. Church owned schools still pay a contribution to both building costs
and running costs. That contribution has declined sharply over the years but
what proportion of our schools do you reckon are less than 10 years old, for
example?
> What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated the
> entire area of primary education to religious sects.
If you are going to discuss how we arrived at the current situation, that is
indeed the question you need to address. The Catholic Church became the
major provider of education because nobody else was willing or able to take
it on.
Howard
Howard
Howard
> If you are going to discuss how we arrived at the current situation, that is
> indeed the question you need to address. The Catholic Church became the
> major provider of education because nobody else was willing or able to take
> it on.
And the people were under the sad misguided idea that they could trust
the Church instead of abusing their children.
We need to cut the Church out of all education and implement a special
tax on any lands sold by the Church.
H
EX_OWM
Well I'm sure the hard-pressed Irish people will just love your idea if
taking on extra financial costs to change what is regarded as one of the
best education systems in the world, just because you don't like the
Catholic Church being involved in it.
EX_OWM
And your justification for this special tax?
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:44:33 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard wrote:
>>>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>>
>>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>>>> State pays the full cost already.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings
>>> got paid for
>>
>> Bought and paid for in pennies earned by peasant farmers, mostly.
>
>Is it really that hard to accept that it was members of the Catholic Church
>who paid for them?
Is it that hard to accept that their trust was betrayed?
>>> and were the money will come from to buy them.
>>
>> Time to renegotiate that Michael Woods deal, perhaps?
>
>It may have escaped your notice but the religious orders have already made
>considerable moves in that regard, albeit rather belatedly.
No, really, they haven't..
F�achad�ir
<din...@yourplace.com> wrote:
>
>
>"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7pph7h...@mid.individual.net...
>> Howard wrote:
>>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>
>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>
>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>>> State pays the full cost already.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>The only thing provided by the church is the parish priest as the chairman
>of the board of management, they don't even teach anymore, and them that did
>were paid by the State to do so.
They also get an entire year to indoctrinate kids before first
communion, and another year for confirmation. Paid for out of the
public purse.
And best of all, immunity from employment law, so they can fire people
whose morals they disapprove of. considering the multitude of sins
hidden behind 'mental reservation', that's rich.
>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings got
>> paid for and were the money will come from to buy them.
>
>By and large the buildings were provided by the State - up until recently a
>new school 'only' had to raise 10% of the cost of the building and the State
>then gave the rest. Since about 10 years ago the State has provided the full
>cost of all lands and buildings.
And yet the State doesn't own the school, or the land it's built on.
>What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated the
>entire area of primary education to religious sects.
Because until recently the church had them by the balls.
Sophistry Made Simple
"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pq4o6...@mid.individual.net...
> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>>
>>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ? The
>>>> State pays the full cost already.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> The only thing provided by the church is the parish priest as the
>> chairman of the board of management, they don't even teach anymore,
>> and them that did were paid by the State to do so.
>>
>>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings
>>> got paid for and were the money will come from to buy them.
>>
>> By and large the buildings were provided by the State - up until
>> recently a new school 'only' had to raise 10% of the cost of the
>> building and the State then gave the rest. Since about 10 years ago
>> the State has provided the full cost of all lands and buildings.
>
> Wrong. Church owned schools still pay a contribution to both building
> costs and running costs.
What bit exactly was wrong? Schools never had to pay any more than 15% of
the building costs.
> That contribution has declined sharply over the years but what proportion
> of our schools do you reckon are less than 10 years old, for example?
We are talking about the future of Irish schools, not what went on in the
past.
>> What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated the
>> entire area of primary education to religious sects.
>
> If you are going to discuss how we arrived at the current situation, that
> is indeed the question you need to address. The Catholic Church became the
> major provider of education because nobody else was willing or able to
> take it on.
The state was well able to do so, but so the question is why it wasn't
willing to.
Sophistry Made Simple
news:lt1gj5h140a03682j...@4ax.com...
It does now, for the new schools that it pays 100% for.
>>What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated the
>>entire area of primary education to religious sects.
>
> Because until recently the church had them by the balls.
That's pretty much the size of it.
This is a bit out of date in respect of more recent developments like the
1998 Education Act, but it's of interest to all sides in this debate.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~dejames/ConstRevGrpArt42.htm
Sophistry Made Simple
news:IeVZm.95$I8...@news.indigo.ie...
> "F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
> This is a bit out of date in respect of more recent developments like the
> 1998 Education Act, but it's of interest to all sides in this debate.
>
> http://www.esatclear.ie/~dejames/ConstRevGrpArt42.htm
>
Actually lots of interesting stuff there:
EX_OWM
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:39:31 -0000, "EX_OWM"
> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> F�achad�ir wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:44:33 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Howard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here here !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I trust you will still be saying the same thing when you find out
>>>>>> what the cost will be to the state of either taking over or
>>>>>> replacing the existing structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way could the running of the schools be more expensive ?
>>>>> The State pays the full cost already.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> You might also give some thought to how did the land and buildings
>>>> got paid for
>>>
>>> Bought and paid for in pennies earned by peasant farmers, mostly.
>>
>> Is it really that hard to accept that it was members of the Catholic
>> Church who paid for them?
>
> Is it that hard to accept that their trust was betrayed?
No, and I don't know anybody in the Catholic Church who denies that trust
was betrayed.,
>>>> and were the money will come from to buy them.
>>>
>>> Time to renegotiate that Michael Woods deal, perhaps?
>>
>> It may have escaped your notice but the religious orders have
>> already made considerable moves in that regard, albeit rather
>> belatedly.
>
> No, really, they haven't..
Woods capped their contribution at 128 million, at the latest count they
have voluntarily incresed it to somethng over 500 million. I think most
rational people would regard that as a considerable increase but rationality
seems to go out the window in discussions about the Catholic Church.
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It may have escaped your notice but the religious orders have
>>> already made considerable moves in that regard, albeit rather
>>> belatedly.
>>
>> No, really, they haven't..
>
>Woods capped their contribution at 128 million, at the latest count they
>have voluntarily incresed it to somethng over 500 million. I think most
>rational people would regard that as a considerable increase but rationality
>seems to go out the window in discussions about the Catholic Church.
Don't trust those numbers. They're about as reliable as NAMA's long
term economic valuations.
Ulick Magee
>
> Well I'm sure the hard-pressed Irish people will just love your idea if
> taking on extra financial costs
WHAT financial costs? You continue to dodge this question
> to change what is regarded as one of the
> best education systems in the world
Now I know you are taking the piss.
Ulick Magee
They made vast profits in the 80s, 90s and early 00s from the sale of
church lands for residential development, even though that land had
often been bequeathed to them for a particular purpose - it was theirs
to use but not theirs to sell
Of course, nobody asked any questions
Howard
They were mostly lands given free of charge to the Church for religious
reasons to be used for church uses and never ever envisaged to be sold
off.
H
Fergus O'Rourke
news:1jbfr0x.9lb19zmksi5qN%Howar...@home.com...
You've seen the legal documents, then ?
My own understanding of the position is that the "religious properties"
could be sold without breaking the original trust. In many cases, though,
the question of what can legally be done with the money received for the
land has proved to be problematic. Paying-off victims of rogue priests would
sometimes be a breach of the conditions of the original gift, or so I have
been told.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Westprog
>> What we should all give some thought to is why the State delegated
>> the entire area of primary education to religious sects.
> Because until recently the church had them by the balls.
If the church had the state by the balls, it's entirely because they handed
them over.
--
J/
SOTW: "One Life Stand" - Hot Chip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101286758
http://galaxies-sf.monsite.orange.fr/page1.html
Howard
You're missing the point ... as often is the case. It's not a matter of
legality. It's an issue of principle. That was the spirit in which they
were given, not as a money machine for the Church.
In my opinion th Church also should be prevented from using not only
these land assets but also weekly collection money to pay for these
abuses.
H
Fergus O'Rourke
You're not making yourself clear.
First of all, I am not clear as to how you can be so sure that it was never
ever envisaged that the properties would be sold off.
Secondly, I am not clear on what you think the religious bodies should
actually do with any money that they receive whether from land sales or in
other ways.
Thirdly, I am mystified as to where you think the clerics should get the
funds to compensate the victims of abuse.
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1jbg5fi.1bsr9sgqxnj8N%Howar...@home.com...
> > Fergus O'Rourke <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
> >> You've seen the legal documents, then ?
> >>
> >> My own understanding of the position is that the "religious properties"
> >> could be sold without breaking the original trust. In many cases, though,
> >> the question of what can legally be done with the money received for the
> >> land has proved to be problematic. Paying-off victims of rogue priests
> >> would
> >> sometimes be a breach of the conditions of the original gift, or so I
> >> have
> >> been told.
> >
> > You're missing the point ... as often is the case. It's not a matter of
> > legality. It's an issue of principle. That was the spirit in which they
> > were given, not as a money machine for the Church.
> > In my opinion th Church also should be prevented from using not only
> > these land assets but also weekly collection money to pay for these
> > abuses.
>
> You're not making yourself clear.
On the contrary I have been quite clear, even simplistic perhaps.
>
> First of all, I am not clear as to how you can be so sure that it was never
> ever envisaged that the properties would be sold off.
I had this discussion about ten por fifteen years ago at a school
reunion where some of the priests from my old school attended as well as
an old school mate who is a big wig in one of the catholic magazines. It
was they who raised the subject and they indicated that they knew quite
a lot about how these lands were gifted to the Church. I have heard the
same thing from other sources, hence my opinion.
> Secondly, I am not clear on what you think the religious bodies should
> actually do with any money that they receive whether from land sales or in
> other ways.
I think a) they shouldn't be allowed sell the lands without Gov
permission. b) they should hand the money over the Gov or else there
should be a windfall tax of at least 80% on it.
> Thirdly, I am mystified as to where you think the clerics should get the
> funds to compensate the victims of abuse.
I am mystified that you are mystified.... the Catholic Church has
resources in the billions world wide - are you not aware of this ?. They
have no shortage of funds out of which to pay compensation...
H
Paul Carr
"Sophistry Made Simple" <din...@yourplace.com>
??????:IeVZm.95$I8...@news.indigo.ie...
> "F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
Very useful webpage and website. I suppose if one wants to understand
education in the Republic of Ireland, one needs to understand something of
the history of education in the Republic of Ireland. That webpage above
appears to give a good overview.
I think the only difference between the yobbos who threw stones at police
and set vehicles alight outside the Bella Centre over the period of the
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and the men and women who mounted a
violent rebellion to British rule during the Easter Week of 1916 was that
the rebels of 1916 were slightly more unhinged.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/16/copenhagen.summit.protests/index.html
Later, those same men, who coalesced under the banner of two political
parties, Fianna Fail and Cumann NaGaedhael/Fine Gael, turned out to be a
shower of incompetents who had no vision or ideals to move the country
forward in peacetime. They were good at pulling triggers but not much else.
I understand the above webpage is a 1996 report of the Constitutional Review
Group. It stuck me from reading the above website how education in Ireland
stayed the same after our independence was recognized in 1922.
For example:
"There is no substantive legislation underpinning the national school
system. The recently published White Paper on Education (1995) states.
'there has been no substantive legislation enacted in relation to first and
second level education in the twentieth century, other than the Vocational
Education Act 1930. The School Attendance Act 1926 is the only legislation
relating to primary school children passed this century.".
I understand that subsequently there was the 1998 Education Act which sought
to give more of a legislative and regulatory grounding to our
let's-just-wing-it-and-see-what-happens approach to education previously.
http://www.kildare.ie/Education/primary/Summary-Education-Act-1998.asp
Irish governments, post 1922, took a hands-off or clueless approach on the
vital national issue of education. Their approach was one of just
blundering through.
Regarding Primary Schools, " There is no legislation underpinning the
founding of these schools but their origins date back to the Stanley Letter
of 1831. The national school system was intended to be a system of
religiously mixed schools. However, during the nineteenth century the three
main churches (Catholic, Church of Ireland and Presbyterian) refused to
co-operate in the provision of religiously mixed education and the system
became increasingly denominational. By the early twentieth century only a
relatively small number of schools were under religiously mixed management."
So, it seems to me that up until the foundation of the Irish Free State,
primary schools in Ireland were de jure multi-denominational but de facto
denominational. This continued, of course, after independence. Apparently,
even the Victorians were more modern-thinking than the current membership of
Dail Eireann. Not one, *not one*, member of Dail Eireann, according to a
recent article written by Eamonn McCann, has called for the removal of the
Catholic bishop patron from the 1000 or so Catholic primary schools despite
the horrors revealed by the Murphy report of criminal cover-ups by bishops
of paedophile priests in the archdiocese of Dublin.
Regarding Secondary schools " then known as intermediate schools, first
became eligible for State financial aid under the Intermediate Education Act
1878. Under this Act schools could apply for grant aid from the Intermediate
Board through a system of payment by results, in other words, schools were
paid on the basis of the success of their students at the end-of-year
examinations conducted by the Intermediate Board, which was a statutory
board set up under the 1878 Act. State aid was initially quite limited and
no financial support was available for building or furnishing secondary
schools. Such financial aid did not become available until 1964.".
So like primary schools, the situation of secondary schools stayed pretty
much the same after the foundation of the Irish Free State. Our new leaders
hunkered down on their arses and did nothing.
In many ways, things got worse after the foundation of the Irish Free State
and after we adopted our present constitution in December 1937. Take
Industrial schools for example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNk_3iWiq8
They were originally set up in Victorian times to look after "neglected,
orphaned and abandoned children".
In 1908- " The Children Act defined reformatories as responsible for
feeding, clothing, housing and teaching young offenders and instigated
annual visits by an Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools.". So,
Industrial schools were redefined as places to keep young offenders.
In 1924, the new Irish Free State's Department of Education noted that
there were more children in industrial schools in the Irish Free State than
in all of the United Kingdom.
Then, in 1929, The Children Act allowed destitute children to be sent to
Industrial schools, even if they hadn't committed a crime. (shades of
fascism anyone?)
In 1933, Industrial schools were abolished in the UK, but not in the
Republic of Ireland.
In 1933, The Commission of Inquiry Into Widows' and Orphans' Pensions found
only 350 of the children in industrial schools were orphans (5.3 % of the
total)
The Easter Rising of 1916 was one of the worst revolutions to be ever put
through anywhere in the world. Another disastrous revolution was the
Romanian Revolution of 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989
After a brief one hour trial, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena were
executed. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc country to overthrow its
government forcefully or to execute its leaders. And, yet, according to a
recent BBC report, about 90% of Romanian millionaires today were former
Communist party members.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Paul Carr
> news:lt1gj5h140a03682j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> Because until recently the church had them by the balls.
>
> That's pretty much the size of it.
>
> This is a bit out of date in respect of more recent developments like the
> 1998 Education Act, but it's of interest to all sides in this debate.
>
> http://www.esatclear.ie/~dejames/ConstRevGrpArt42.htm
Another interesting thing to note from this page is how the 1937
constitution was a regression on the 1922 constitution when it came to
education.
For example, "The 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State contained the
following provision (Article 10): 'All citizens of the Irish Free State
(Saorst�t �ireann) have the right to free elementary education'".
A no-nonsense statement.
But Dev got all mealy-mouthed on this fundamental right when he composed
Article 42.4 for his 1937 Constitution.
which reads: 'The State shall provide for free primary education and shall
endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate
educational initiative, and when the public good requires it, provide other
educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the
rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral
formation.'.
We still have that today.
Yeah, we don't want to be overly-generous to those poor people now, do we?
We didn't fight that revolution in 1916 to be protecting the vulnerable,
giving a voice to the voiceless and lifting up those who are lying on the
ground. We put in place a right Latin revolution. Viva Le Banana
Republic!!!
Paul Carr
> news:lt1gj5h140a03682j...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> Because until recently the church had them by the balls.
>
> That's pretty much the size of it.
>
> This is a bit out of date in respect of more recent developments like the
> 1998 Education Act, but it's of interest to all sides in this debate.
>
> http://www.esatclear.ie/~dejames/ConstRevGrpArt42.htm
And one more thing.
Article 42.1 acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child
is the family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of
parents to provide, according to their means for the religious and moral,
intellectual physical and social education of their children.
On the other hand, Article 42.3.2 states, '...the State shall, however,
require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain
minimum education, moral, intellectual and social'.
So a parent can give physical education to his/her child but the State
can't. What does this mean? Did Dev believe it was okay for a parent to
spank his/her child? Where did we dig up this old fossil? The guy never
ceases to amaze me.
Howard
> Did Dev believe it was okay for a parent to
> spank his/her child?
I should hope so !
H
Paul Carr
$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
<snip>
> So, it seems to me that up until the foundation of the Irish Free State,
> primary schools in Ireland were de jure multi-denominational but de facto
> denominational. This continued, of course, after independence.
> Apparently, even the Victorians were more modern-thinking than the current
> membership of Dail Eireann. Not one, *not one*, member of Dail Eireann,
> according to a recent article written by Eamonn McCann, has called for
> the removal of the Catholic bishop patron from the 1000 or so Catholic
> primary schools despite the horrors revealed by the Murphy report of
> criminal cover-ups by bishops of paedophile priests in the archdiocese of
> Dublin.
A mistake. I should have written that there are 3000 primary schools
in the Republic of Ireland with a Catholic bishop patron.
Westprog
> Another disastrous revolution was
> the Romanian Revolution of 1989.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989
>
> After a brief one hour trial, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena
> were executed. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc country to overthrow
> its government forcefully or to execute its leaders. And, yet,
> according to a recent BBC report, about 90% of Romanian millionaires
> today were former Communist party members.
Romania was a thoroughly messed up country that had a violent revolution
because it had a violent government. They ended up with a country that was
worse than Poland, East Germany or the Czech Republic, but they started from
a worse position. Did they have the right revolution? Almost certainly not.
Are they as well off as they should be? Definitely not. Are they better off
than they were? Undoubtedly. It's possible to talk to ordinary Romanians
about what life used to be like in their country. One reason is that
ordinary Romanians can now travel back and forth to Ireland. That's one
concrete benefit. Romania may even end up fit for purpose soon. Being a
laggard member of the EU is a lot better than being a recalcitrant member of
the Warsaw Pact.
--
J/
SOTW: "One Life Stand" - Hot Chip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101286758
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6873179/China-to-execute-mentally-ill-Briton-next-week.html
http://cpj.org/2009/11/huang-qi-sentenced-to-three-years-in-jail-in-china.php
Sophistry Made Simple
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote in message
news:hhaios$5t2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Any property gifted or willed absolutely is the full property of the person
or entity that receives it, they can therefore do what they want with it.
Property with conditions attached is unwieldy and either unusable or the
conditions are unenforceable once registered in the persons name. Property
held in trusts can be dealt with as the trustees desire unless expressly
stated to be retained. By and large, properties and cash are willed to
individuals in the church, usually the parish priest and usually retained in
his own name and almost always with a request for masses to be said in
return as the only condition attached. What he does with this property or
cash is really his own business, but it should be noted that donations to
churches are completely free of gift or inheritance tax as they are seen by
Revenue as a charitable donations.
Fergus O'Rourke
That looks like an assertion that the Catholics of the rest of the world
have to pay for the misdeeds in the Irish church.
But I would to be convinced that the Church - an expression that we may need
to define soon - has unlimited cash resources
world-wide.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Howard
It is all one organisation, rules by one coherent management structure
with clear and unquestioned authority from the top. As such it shares
the guilt and has been found guilty of the same crimes in many other
jurisdictions. Why should it's collective wealth not be used ?
Look at the Vatican and the Artwork alone .... it's value is probably
in the billions. And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
H
Howard
> Howard wrote:
>
> > And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
> > access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
>
> The fact that Howard can't cite even one such expert is neither here nor
> there, of course.
>
> <rolls eyes>
You must be very very naieve if you think that thre Catholic Church, one
of the most secretive organisations in the world, publish their
accounts...
Oye...
EX_OWM
So where are all these experts you are making claims about?
EX_OWM
> And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
> access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
The fact that Howard can't cite even one such expert is neither here nor
Fergus O'Rourke
> Fergus O'Rourke <barr...@tinet.ie> wrote:
>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:1jbhsou.kp3i8g17im1k4N%Howar...@home.com...
>> > Fergus O'Rourke <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
>
>> > I am mystified that you are mystified.... the Catholic Church has
>> > resources in the billions world wide - are you not aware of this ?.
>> > They
>> > have no shortage of funds out of which to pay compensation...
>>
>> That looks like an assertion that the Catholics of the rest of the world
>> have to pay for the misdeeds in the Irish church.
>>
>> But I would to be convinced that the Church - an expression that we may
>> need
>> to define soon - has unlimited cash resources
>> world-wide.
>
> It is all one organisation, rules by one coherent management structure
> with clear and unquestioned authority from the top.
Don't think so. My parents are members, and take no guff from Papa Rats.
(Well, maybe a little, but not without question).
>As such it shares
> the guilt and has been found guilty of the same crimes in many other
> jurisdictions.
Cites, please.
>Why should it's collective wealth not be used ?
> Look at the Vatican and the Artwork alone .... it's value is probably
> in the billions.
Confusing assets with income, Mr Accountant ? Tut, tut.
>And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
>access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
"Most experts" are unreliable, but any truly global organisation is likely
to have cash balances of that order from time to time.
Howard
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1jbut3e.1ah6lo11s039ukN%Howar...@home.com...
> > Fergus O'Rourke <barr...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> >
> >> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1jbhsou.kp3i8g17im1k4N%Howar...@home.com...
> >> > Fergus O'Rourke <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > I am mystified that you are mystified.... the Catholic Church has
> >> > resources in the billions world wide - are you not aware of this ?.
> >> > They
> >> > have no shortage of funds out of which to pay compensation...
> >>
> >> That looks like an assertion that the Catholics of the rest of the world
> >> have to pay for the misdeeds in the Irish church.
> >>
> >> But I would to be convinced that the Church - an expression that we may
> >> need
> >> to define soon - has unlimited cash resources
> >> world-wide.
> >
> > It is all one organisation, rules by one coherent management structure
> > with clear and unquestioned authority from the top.
>
> Don't think so. My parents are members, and take no guff from Papa Rats.
> (Well, maybe a little, but not without question).
They are not members unless they are priests or above.
>
> >As such it shares
> > the guilt and has been found guilty of the same crimes in many other
> > jurisdictions.
>
> Cites, please.
Google it.
>
> >Why should it's collective wealth not be used ?
> > Look at the Vatican and the Artwork alone .... it's value is probably
> > in the billions.
>
> Confusing assets with income, Mr Accountant ? Tut, tut.
No. "Wealth" includes both.
>
> >And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
> >access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
>
> "Most experts" are unreliable, but any truly global organisation is likely
> to have cash balances of that order from time to time.
Good. Let's have it.
H
Fergus O'Rourke
> Fergus O'Rourke <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:1jbut3e.1ah6lo11s039ukN%Howar...@home.com...
>> > Fergus O'Rourke <barr...@tinet.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1jbhsou.kp3i8g17im1k4N%Howar...@home.com...
>> >> > Fergus O'Rourke <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I am mystified that you are mystified.... the Catholic Church has
>> >> > resources in the billions world wide - are you not aware of this ?.
>> >> > They
>> >> > have no shortage of funds out of which to pay compensation...
>> >>
>> >> That looks like an assertion that the Catholics of the rest of the
>> >> world
>> >> have to pay for the misdeeds in the Irish church.
>> >>
>> >> But I would to be convinced that the Church - an expression that we
>> >> may
>> >> need
>> >> to define soon - has unlimited cash resources
>> >> world-wide.
>> >
>> > It is all one organisation, rules by one coherent management structure
>> > with clear and unquestioned authority from the top.
>>
>> Don't think so. My parents are members, and take no guff from Papa Rats.
>> (Well, maybe a little, but not without question).
>
> They are not members unless they are priests or above.
That's not what they think, or what "the rules" say. I would tend to prefer
the answers given by either test to your view.
>> >As such it shares
>> > the guilt and has been found guilty of the same crimes in many other
>> > jurisdictions.
>>
>> Cites, please.
>
> Google it.
>>
I have. I find no useful support for your claim.
>> >Why should it's collective wealth not be used ?
>> > Look at the Vatican and the Artwork alone .... it's value is probably
>> > in the billions.
>>
>> Confusing assets with income, Mr Accountant ? Tut, tut.
>
> No. "Wealth" includes both.
>>
>> >And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
>> >access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
>>
>> "Most experts" are unreliable, but any truly global organisation is
>> likely
>> to have cash balances of that order from time to time.
>
> Good. Let's have it.
When you have established liability, we can discuss that.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Harry Merrick
BUT - you are making an assumption!
>>>
>>>> And most experts estimate the Church in Rome to have
>>>> access to billions of euros in cash in banks in Switzerland.
No proof though. Only wishfull thinking.
>>>
>>> "Most experts" are unreliable, but any truly global organisation is
>>> likely
>>> to have cash balances of that order from time to time.
>>
>> Good. Let's have it.
>
> When you have established liability, we can discuss that.
The Church of Rome within Ireland are the only guilty party. They are the
one's who should pay, even if it bankrupts them. However, the State is also
to blame for allowing these crimes to be committed, so we should all be made
to pay.
--
Harry Merrick.