From top: Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman; a meeting with Tuam survivor group cancelled

Lawyer and Tuam activist Kevin Higgins writes:

Former Minister for Children Zappone and current Minister for Children  O’Gorman will need to clarify in what capacity members of his Department attended Her Ladyship’s drink party when his office had cancelled – late in the evening just 48 hours earlier – meetings with survivor groups in Tuam (having sought them at short notice to begin with) and yet some of those expected at Tuam – and supposedly quarantining following an alleged outbreak of covid in the office – turned up at Katherine’s Party….

Eamon Ryan’s chief-of-staff and Department of Children secretary general both attended Katherine Zappone’s controversial party (

Earlier: Merrion In Haste, Repent At Leisure


5 thoughts on “RSVP

  1. Cú Chulainn

    Expect nothing less from our current and previous ministers for children… rewarded for burying the abused for a second and now third time.. is there any journalist going to find out who paid and what was the gathering really for..?

    1. ce

      Not sure about the current minister… I think he’s been bamboozled by his officials since he took office, which is a whole other problem… I definitely expect nothing less from his officials who have constantly doo-dooded on citizens for most of the history of the state

  2. george

    It says a member of staff tested positive. It does not say the minister was a close contact of that person. It does not say any members of staff attended the event.

    A basic examination of the facts and a little logic would be preferable to ridiculous spin about “members” of his department attending an event.

    1. goldenbrown


      see as you rightly say “A basic examination of the facts…”

      however facts about an incident are established by conducting an investigation and consideration of the resultant evidence produced

      the stuff coming out in the wash might not suit you or me or be to your tastes, nonetheless if you are genuinely interested in said facts then we need to have full disclosure about what happened here to establish them, don’t we?

      or would you prefer to suppress that process? y’know the one that establishes the facts? presumably not so lets figure it out!

      1. george

        I am just commenting on the nonsense language being used by the lawyer. If he wants to be taken seriously he should be more precise with his language instead of using spurious exaggeration and insults.

Comments are closed.