One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Given there were thousands of orphans housed at this care home over the years 1 person dying in 1961 does not prove much.
As I have said most of these deaths were recorded of dying of death and disease, it is you who have assumed mass murder went on with no evidence to support it
Where on earth have I said 'mass murder', you blithering idiot? It's the callous way the bodies were disposed of that's the point. It's symptomatic of what went on in too many homes.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Yes, I think some people need to read up on history
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Given there were thousands of orphans housed at this care home over the years 1 person dying in 1961 does not prove much.
As I have said most of these deaths were recorded of dying of death and disease, it is you who have assumed mass murder went on with no evidence to support it
Where on earth have I said 'mass murder', you blithering idiot? It's the callous way the bodies were disposed of that's the point. It's symptomatic of what went on in too many homes.
Yes it would be been better to have had headstones etc but these were orphans with no immediate family on the whole, there were far worse things than that going on at the time
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Yes, I think some people need to read up on history
I am well aware of history. I think you should take your own advice and try to understand the mid-twentieth century is not the time of Dickens.
I am also aware of morality and the effects the lack of care in such institutions had on people for the rest of their lives. The callous disposal of bodies in such a manner is symptomatic.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Given there were thousands of orphans housed at this care home over the years 1 person dying in 1961 does not prove much.
As I have said most of these deaths were recorded of dying of death and disease, it is you who have assumed mass murder went on with no evidence to support it
Where on earth have I said 'mass murder', you blithering idiot? It's the callous way the bodies were disposed of that's the point. It's symptomatic of what went on in too many homes.
Yes it would be been better to have had headstones etc but these were orphans with no immediate family on the whole, there were far worse things than that going on at the time
Were there 'far worse' things going on? Have you actually read testimony of what was going on? But even if that's the case, the church (whether Catholic or Protestant) is supposed to be better. Instead they were, if anything, worse.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Yes, I think some people need to read up on history
I am well aware of history. I think you should take your own advice and try to understand the mid-twentieth century is not the time of Dickens.
I am also aware of morality and the effects the lack of care in such institutions had on people for the rest of their lives. The callous disposal of bodies in such a manner is symptomatic.
As SeanF stated there were workhouses in this country until 1948, well into the mid-twentieth century.
If it were not for these bodies most of those in them at the time would have had no care or home at all, now that does not excuse wrongs done there but that is a fact
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Yes, I think some people need to read up on history
I am well aware of history. I think you should take your own advice and try to understand the mid-twentieth century is not the time of Dickens.
I am also aware of morality and the effects the lack of care in such institutions had on people for the rest of their lives. The callous disposal of bodies in such a manner is symptomatic.
As SeanF stated there were workhouses in this country until 1948, well into the mid-twentieth century.
If it were not for these bodies most of those in them at the time would have had no care or home at all, now that does not excuse wrongs done there but that is a fact
Yes, and the last Magdelene laundry was closed in 1996.
So abuse is fine as long as the children are cared for? It's a view, I suppose.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Yes, I think some people need to read up on history
I am well aware of history. I think you should take your own advice and try to understand the mid-twentieth century is not the time of Dickens.
I am also aware of morality and the effects the lack of care in such institutions had on people for the rest of their lives. The callous disposal of bodies in such a manner is symptomatic.
As SeanF stated there were workhouses in this country until 1948, well into the mid-twentieth century.
If it were not for these bodies most of those in them at the time would have had no care or home at all, now that does not excuse wrongs done there but that is a fact
Yes, and the last Magdelene laundry was closed in 1996.
So abuse is fine as long as the children are cared for? It's a view, I suppose.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
Child rape (and covering up for it) is vile in any time and place.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
So even in the worse case you can find, while inexcusable, 60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse.
I am sorry about your friend but you are just looking at one side of the coin
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
Child rape (and covering up for it) is vile in any time and place.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
Indeed and with little welfare state at the time for most the main source of charity and assistance was provided by the Church
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
Child rape (and covering up for it) is vile in any time and place.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
It's false - and IMO sick - to distinguish between them.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
So even in the worse case you can find, while inexcusable, 60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse.
I am sorry about your friend but you are just looking at one side of the coin
Jimmy Saville also did a lot of good works for charity. Are you saying that those who castigate him for the abuse he performed are 'looking at one side of the coin' ?
If you read below, you will see I acknowledge religion does a lot of good. But that cannot be used to excuse it when it does evil.
And blithely saying "60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse." is frankly staggering. It also misses a larger point: abuse on such a scale could not be covered up, and was known about. The fact nothing was done about it by the higher echelons of the church (who, in some cases, had been involved with abuse) shows the whole institution was rotten.
The same turning of a blind eye led to continuation of the abuse in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale. The situations are not totally analogous, but there is much in common.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
Child rape (and covering up for it) is vile in any time and place.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
It's false - and IMO sick - to distinguish between them.
I think you have to, though.
My parents grew up in poor conditions, mid century, not because my grandparents were bad people, but because they could afford no better. And, they were the lower middle classes.
So, life would have been even worse for children in orphanages, at the time.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
Child rape (and covering up for it) is vile in any time and place.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
It's false - and IMO sick - to distinguish between them.
I think you have to, though.
My parents grew up in poor conditions, mid century, not because my grandparents were bad people, but because they could afford no better. And, they were the lower middle classes.
So, life would have been even worse for children in orphanages, at the time.
It may have been worse (although it needs not have been), but that does not in any way excuse what went on. Especially in so-called religious institutions.
Physical and sexual abuse on a massive scale is a result of sick perversions and 'management' who turned a blind eye, not necessity.
No I never said that and while wrong these were still a minority of cases but the fact remains that if not for these care homes many if not most of the children would have been without a home, without a regular meal and many more dying well before their time
'were still a minority of cases' ?
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
So even in the worse case you can find, while inexcusable, 60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse.
I am sorry about your friend but you are just looking at one side of the coin
Jimmy Saville also did a lot of good works for charity. Are you saying that those who castigate him for the abuse he performed are 'looking at one side of the coin' ?
If you read below, you will see I acknowledge religion does a lot of good. But that cannot be used to excuse it when it does evil.
And blithely saying "60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse." is frankly staggering. It also misses a larger point: abuse on such a scale could not be covered up, and was known about. The fact nothing was done about it by the higher echelons of the church (who, in some cases, had been involved with abuse) shows the whole institution was rotten.
The same turning of a blind eye led to continuation of the abuse in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale. The situations are not totally analogous, but there is much in common.
Jimmy Saville was one individual as were wrongdoing individuals within the Catholic Church ( an institution with over a billion members worldwide).
I have already said child abuse was wrong but as far as I can see this case is not about abuse of living children so much as failing to record the deaths of dead children properly and appropriately mark their gravestones, those children dying so far as I can see from natural causes
Jimmy Saville also did a lot of good works for charity. Are you saying that those who castigate him for the abuse he performed are 'looking at one side of the coin' ?
If you read below, you will see I acknowledge religion does a lot of good. But that cannot be used to excuse it when it does evil.
And blithely saying "60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse." is frankly staggering. It also misses a larger point: abuse on such a scale could not be covered up, and was known about. The fact nothing was done about it by the higher echelons of the church (who, in some cases, had been involved with abuse) shows the whole institution was rotten.
The same turning of a blind eye led to continuation of the abuse in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale. The situations are not totally analogous, but there is much in common.
Jimmy Saville was one individual as were wrongdoing individuals within the Catholic Church ( an institution with over a billion members worldwide).
I have already said child abuse was wrong but as far as I can see this case is not about abuse of living children so much as failing to record the deaths of dead children properly and appropriately mark their gravestones, those children dying so far as I can see from natural causes
The abuse was by people in powers of authority within the church.
There are plenty of examples of cover-ups within the Catholic (and other) churches. As an example, on many occasions priests caught abusing children were moved to other parishes, where they abused other children. In at least one case this occurred twice. As another, police who were told of abuse by victims told the perpetrators and let them sort it out because of the power of the church ...
Yes, there are certain echoes with more recent events.
As for your first paragraph: again, read the stories from these very institutions.
Jimmy Saville also did a lot of good works for charity. Are you saying that those who castigate him for the abuse he performed are 'looking at one side of the coin' ?
If you read below, you will see I acknowledge religion does a lot of good. But that cannot be used to excuse it when it does evil.
And blithely saying "60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse." is frankly staggering. It also misses a larger point: abuse on such a scale could not be covered up, and was known about. The fact nothing was done about it by the higher echelons of the church (who, in some cases, had been involved with abuse) shows the whole institution was rotten.
The same turning of a blind eye led to continuation of the abuse in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale. The situations are not totally analogous, but there is much in common.
Jimmy Saville was one individual as were wrongdoing individuals within the Catholic Church ( an institution with over a billion members worldwide).
I have already said child abuse was wrong but as far as I can see this case is not about abuse of living children so much as failing to record the deaths of dead children properly and appropriately mark their gravestones, those children dying so far as I can see from natural causes
The abuse was by people in powers of authority within the church.
There are plenty of examples of cover-ups within the Catholic (and other) churches. As an example, on many occasions priests caught abusing children were moved to other parishes, where they abused other children. In at least one case this occurred twice. As another, police who were told of abuse by victims told the perpetrators and let them sort it out because of the power of the church ...
Yes, there are certain echoes with more recent events.
As for your first paragraph: again, read the stories from these very institutions.
You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage, the only issue there definitely was in this case was graves improperly marked.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage, the only issue there definitely was in this case was graves improperly marked.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
"You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage"
What sort of evidence would you accept? But as you apparently cannot read, from the f'ing original article:
"Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered."
But you'll probably believe the nuns, who appear to have lost the relevant records ...
The abuse within the Catholic church, and the cover-ups, are *not* a separate issue. In such a perverted environment within the church, how could a child complain about abuse?
You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage, the only issue there definitely was in this case was graves improperly marked.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
"You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage"
What sort of evidence would you accept? But as you apparently cannot read, from the f'ing original article:
"Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered."
But you'll probably believe the nuns, who appear to have lost the relevant records ...
The abuse within the Catholic church, and the cover-ups, are *not* a separate issue. In such a perverted environment within the church, how could a child complain about abuse?
They discovered an unmarked section of the Cemetery yes, does that prove there was abuse? No, it proves there was a section of the Cemetary with unmarked graves and all the nuns have been dead for years in all likelihood given it closed in 1981.
You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage, the only issue there definitely was in this case was graves improperly marked.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
"You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage"
What sort of evidence would you accept? But as you apparently cannot read, from the f'ing original article:
"Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered."
But you'll probably believe the nuns, who appear to have lost the relevant records ...
The abuse within the Catholic church, and the cover-ups, are *not* a separate issue. In such a perverted environment within the church, how could a child complain about abuse?
They discovered an unmarked section of the Cemetery yes, does that prove there was abuse? No, it proves there was a section of the Cemetary with unmarked graves and all the nuns have been dead for years in all likelihood given it closed in 1981.
Okay. I understand. Nothing happened, there's nothing to see here. Please move on.
Are you calling them liars when they said many former residents suffered abuse? Do you think it's an itsy-bitsy suspicious that the bodies were buried in that manner, and that the church authorities have lost relevant documents? Does it show a caring environment?
Yes, the accusations might not be true. But given everything else that we know went on, it seems very likely to me.
You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage, the only issue there definitely was in this case was graves improperly marked.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
"You have no evidence of any abuse as yet by any nuns at this orphanage"
What sort of evidence would you accept? But as you apparently cannot read, from the f'ing original article:
"Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered."
But you'll probably believe the nuns, who appear to have lost the relevant records ...
The abuse within the Catholic church, and the cover-ups, are *not* a separate issue. In such a perverted environment within the church, how could a child complain about abuse?
They discovered an unmarked section of the Cemetery yes, does that prove there was abuse? No, it proves there was a section of the Cemetary with unmarked graves and all the nuns have been dead for years in all likelihood given it closed in 1981.
Okay. I understand. Nothing happened, there's nothing to see here. Please move on.
Are you calling them liars when they said many former residents suffered abuse? Do you think it's an itsy-bitsy suspicious that the bodies were buried in that manner, and that the church authorities have lost relevant documents? Does it show a caring environment?
Yes, the accusations might not be true. But given everything else that we know went on, it seems very likely to me.
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Don't you think the unmarked graves is a teensy bit suspicious? How about the witness evidence?
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Don't you think the unmarked graves is a teensy bit suspicious? How about the witness evidence?
'He heard a rumour that' although clearly wrong if true nothing that did not happen at many of our less enlightened boarding schools until only a few decades ago
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Don't you think the unmarked graves is a teensy bit suspicious? How about the witness evidence?
'He heard a rumour that' although clearly wrong if true nothing that did not happen at many of our less enlightened boarding schools until only a few decades ago
Yeah, my old boarding school had a burial plot with hundreds of graves of the children who had attended ...
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Don't you think the unmarked graves is a teensy bit suspicious? How about the witness evidence?
'He heard a rumour that' although clearly wrong if true nothing that did not happen at many of our less enlightened boarding schools until only a few decades ago
Yeah, my old boarding school had a burial plot with hundreds of graves of the children who had attended ...
ffs.
Even the BBC news has just said the majority of those graves contained children who died of natural causes. Certainly if you looked at boarding school rolls 50-100+ years ago a number of pupils would have died of TB etc and discipline was imposed with an iron rod
Well if you want to think that fine but nothing has been proved in relation to what went on at this care home from the mid 19th century until 1981 other than some unmarked graves, if and when further evidence comes to light I will reassess but until then I prefer to go on the conclusive evidence we actually have
Don't you think the unmarked graves is a teensy bit suspicious? How about the witness evidence?
'He heard a rumour that' although clearly wrong if true nothing that did not happen at many of our less enlightened boarding schools until only a few decades ago
Yeah, my old boarding school had a burial plot with hundreds of graves of the children who had attended ...
ffs.
Even the BBC news has just said the majority of those graves contained children who died of natural causes. Certainly if you looked at boarding school rolls 50-100+ years ago a number of pupils would have died of TB etc and discipline was imposed with an iron rod
'Even the BBC'
LOL. I am not denying that the majority of those graves contained chldren who died of natural causes.
But leaving aside the myriad of other issues, just think of what you've just said: the majority, not all. That meant that some might not have died of natural causes. But that appears to be okay in your mind because, well, just because.
Comments
I am also aware of morality and the effects the lack of care in such institutions had on people for the rest of their lives. The callous disposal of bodies in such a manner is symptomatic.
How about this:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psychotic-nuns-ran-childrens-home-like-nazi-concentration-camp-abuse-inquiry-is-told-29959634.html
or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/children-derry-care-homes-inquiry
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
If it were not for these bodies most of those in them at the time would have had no care or home at all, now that does not excuse wrongs done there but that is a fact
So abuse is fine as long as the children are cared for? It's a view, I suppose.
Evidence, please? It seems that it was very common, given the institutions it was found at, and the way staff were transferred between them. The scale of abuse around the world is sickening:
"In one order 40% of religious brothers are believed to have abused children"
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/06/4444-victims-extent-of-abuse-in-catholic-church-in-australia-revealed
What occurred in these places was against the law at the time the abuses were happening. This matters, as it has echoed through the decades: the same turning of a blind eye by officialdom occurred in more recent years.
You may wonder why I'm being so firm in my views. As some may know (at least those who have remained on here since the new thread opened), a friend of mine committed suicide a few years back, decades after being abused in an Australian Catholic institution.
What I think HYUFD is trying to distinguish is between such abuse, on the one hand, and poor living conditions for children caused by the fact that the UK was simply much poorer, in mid 20th century, than it is today.
I am sorry about your friend but you are just looking at one side of the coin
If you read below, you will see I acknowledge religion does a lot of good. But that cannot be used to excuse it when it does evil.
And blithely saying "60% of brothers were not involved in child abuse." is frankly staggering. It also misses a larger point: abuse on such a scale could not be covered up, and was known about. The fact nothing was done about it by the higher echelons of the church (who, in some cases, had been involved with abuse) shows the whole institution was rotten.
The same turning of a blind eye led to continuation of the abuse in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale. The situations are not totally analogous, but there is much in common.
My parents grew up in poor conditions, mid century, not because my grandparents were bad people, but because they could afford no better. And, they were the lower middle classes.
So, life would have been even worse for children in orphanages, at the time.
Physical and sexual abuse on a massive scale is a result of sick perversions and 'management' who turned a blind eye, not necessity.
I have already said child abuse was wrong but as far as I can see this case is not about abuse of living children so much as failing to record the deaths of dead children properly and appropriately mark their gravestones, those children dying so far as I can see from natural causes
There are plenty of examples of cover-ups within the Catholic (and other) churches. As an example, on many occasions priests caught abusing children were moved to other parishes, where they abused other children. In at least one case this occurred twice. As another, police who were told of abuse by victims told the perpetrators and let them sort it out because of the power of the church ...
Yes, there are certain echoes with more recent events.
As for your first paragraph: again, read the stories from these very institutions.
As for the issue of abuse within the Catholic Church by a minority of priests, sometimes covered up by those higher up in the Church hierarchy that is a separate issue which I have already said was inexcusable as indeed has the current Pope
What sort of evidence would you accept? But as you apparently cannot read, from the f'ing original article:
"Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered."
And more:
http://www.carlukegazette.co.uk/news/nuns-could-find-no-evidence-of-abuse-at-smyllum-lanark-1-4482570
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/it-never-same-without-frank-10387413
https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/scotland/south-lanarkshire/smyllum-park-lanark/
But you'll probably believe the nuns, who appear to have lost the relevant records ...
The abuse within the Catholic church, and the cover-ups, are *not* a separate issue. In such a perverted environment within the church, how could a child complain about abuse?
Are you calling them liars when they said many former residents suffered abuse? Do you think it's an itsy-bitsy suspicious that the bodies were buried in that manner, and that the church authorities have lost relevant documents? Does it show a caring environment?
Yes, the accusations might not be true. But given everything else that we know went on, it seems very likely to me.
And something else:
"John’s youngest brother Francis actually died at Smyllum after being struck in the head with a golf club in circumstances that are not entirely clear to this day."
http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/1865562/the-tears-of-smyllums-children/
ffs.
LOL. I am not denying that the majority of those graves contained chldren who died of natural causes.
But leaving aside the myriad of other issues, just think of what you've just said: the majority, not all. That meant that some might not have died of natural causes. But that appears to be okay in your mind because, well, just because.