‘Immoral, Repulsive and Cold-Hearted’



Children’s Minister Katherine Zappone

The Government has decided it is “not possible” to extend the institutional child abuse redress scheme to those who lived in mother and baby homes because of “huge financial implications to the state”.

The recommendation came from the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes’ second interim report, which was available eight months ago but only published yesterday.

The Coalition of Mother And Baby home Survivors (CMABS) said this morning:

We utterly reject Minister Katherine Zappone’s dishonest dismissal of the Inquiry’s strong recommendation of immediate Redress to an elderly and dying survivor community.

Minister Zappone’s refusal is immoral, repulsive and cold hearted at this time when it is clear that all this refusal does is kick the can down the road while waiting for more and more elderly survivors to die.

Clearly money means more to Zappone and this Government than any sense of common decency or morality.

The Governments behavior in hiding this vital report for several months is a national disgrace and their shameful decision to viciously refuse an Apology and Redress to an aging survivor community is a black mark on many of our politicians and Taoiseach Kenny, Minister Zappone and the Cabinet in particular; an immoral stain they will carry into the history books for all time.

CMABS again calls for an immediate meeting with the Taoiseach despite his previous snubs. Time is running out for us, our community is dying while Minister Zappone fiddles in her ivory towe …

Mother and baby homes’ redress ruled out by Cabinet (Conall Ó Fátharta, Irish Examiner)

49 thoughts on “‘Immoral, Repulsive and Cold-Hearted’

  1. Janet, I ate my avatar

    I wish they’d balls up kick the church out of bed with them and ask for some alimony
    It took two to tango

  2. Barry the Hatchet

    Broadsheet, I am not defending Government policy in this area one iota, but your post is really not an honest account of what the Government has decided.

    The Government has not said “we won’t do this because it’s too expensive, full stop”. It has specifically said it does not believe it would be appropriate to deal with the question of redress in advance of there being any findings made by the Commission regarding abuse or neglect. The Commission’s final report is due in February 2018.

    You are correct to say the Government has pointed out that the previous scheme was very expensive, but again it has specifically stated that the question of redress versus “targeted supports” (whatever they are) will be a matter for public debate in the future.

    I thin this is a rubbish decision, but at least report on it accurately please.

      1. Barry the Hatchet

        Bodger, read the press release. Other reasons have been given for not extending the scheme at this time and the door has been left open to providing a redress scheme at a later date. You can question the legitimacy of the reasons given, you can speculate that no scheme will ever be set up, and you can speculate about true motivations of Government , but at least report accurately what the Government has said. Your post is very misleading.

        1. Bodger

          Barry, the reason this report was sat on for eight months is because delay is part of the legal strategy by the government to avoid paying compensation to the victims, basically waiting for these now elderly people to die. Minister Zappone shouldn’t be a party to this and should resign in solidarity with survivors of the Mother and Baby homes. That press release is a sick joke.

  3. Lord Snowflakee

    Amazing how many looney lefties out there think there is a money tree for every Tom, Dick and Harry to shelter under

          1. Lord Snowflakee

            Yeah make it about me.

            That’s a good tactic.

            Little baby man who can’t accept government leadership?

    1. dan

      Imagine thinking that politicians who constantly give themselves raises, or institutions like the Vatican have money, whadda bunch of dopes.

  4. postmanpat

    Suing Peter because you where robbed by Paul. If the church had paid their share in the past then maybe the tax payer could afford the bill. But we know they wont pay (even though they are the wealthiest organization in human history) so it would be financially irresponsible for the country to pay up more money. This will come off as cold, but, wont a lot of the old women who get this compo be dead soon and probably leave a large chunk of their inheritance back to the local parish church in their will? I wonder what this new “nice” pope Francis will say about it atop his gold throne. Something rhetorical and redundant no doubt. The way people are being taken in by him makes me sick.

    1. Lord Snowflakee

      Ha you’re my new favourite commenter

      Excellent point about the old biddies leaving money to the church in their will


    2. Maria

      Many many of these women were in my homes in the 80’s, they are not ” old women ” there’s a huge cross section of ages

    1. Vote Rep #1

      Indeed, she personally decided that nobody should get a penny and was definitely not, once again, hung out to dry by the people who make the decisions. Idiot.

      1. bisted

        …she is the Minister responsible…are you saying that she is merely a puppet who cannot make any decisions?

        1. Vote Rep #1

          She can’t make a decision which could necessitate paying out amounts in the billions. Bloody hell.

          1. bisted

            …so just another puppet appointment who will sacrifice principle for her nose in the trough…so dav was right all along…

          2. Vote Rep #1

            A minister cannot unilaterally make a decision like that. No minister can. It is a government decision. Surely you understand that?

          3. bisted

            …I suppose the CMABS statement sums up Zappones legacy best…an immoral stain she will carry into the history books…

          4. Kieran Nice Young Chap

            “A minister cannot unilaterally make a decision like that. No minister can. It is a government decision. Surely you understand that?”

            They don’t want to understand. They want to be angry and irrationally lash out.

          5. MoyestWithExcitement

            Yeah! God damn uppity peasants need to know their place and stop complaining about our All Powerful and Benevolent Government. They know what’s best for us.

        2. Fact Checker

          For the record my tendency here is to favour the victims rather than the public finances in this case, to a point.

          However there is (doubtless) HUGE reluctance in more powerful government departments to a scheme which could last a long time and cost a lot of money, given previous experience.

          KZ’s autonomy in this regard is quite limited in the circumstances.

          1. bisted

            …what is the point of Zappone then? Even the FG shills here admit that she is unable to make any decisions. Why have this charade that she has a portfolio when she is really just there to make up the numbers? Surely it would be better and cheaper just to pay her a TD salary and send it to her in Seattle.

          2. Ratatattat

            Thanks Fact.

            I think the point remains however that a more capable or experienced Minister might be better able to influence public sentiment in such a way that the outcome is decided before it gets to Cabinet.

  5. Fact Checker

    That may be the case. I really don’t know.

    You will not get informed opinion on this in the MSM nor, unfortunately, on BS either.

    1. bisted

      …so you’re not ‘informed opinion’ Fact Checker…such a display of modestly…you definitely don’t get that on BS very often…

Comments are closed.