Thread:1/9 So, I’ve thought a lot about this before tweeting it as the M and B report is not about me but a section about my work. The Commission has a made a false statements about my work which formed the basis of a Sindo article. Here it goes:
2. I’ll address Sec 58 again - needless to say I don’t think the Fifth interim report addresses the issue satisfactorily. However, Sec 58 claims I did not report certain “caveats” in an unpublished Bessborough report I obtained. This is untrue. But first, these “caveats”
3. The author of the report does not state their analysis was based on a “cursory glance” at the records. Rather, the author states a cursory glance at the limited financial records revealed certain payments. A very different thing.
4. The author does not state that the analysis is “purely conjecture”. Rather, the author states that any examination trying to unpick the links between the State, a religious order and Bessborough without access to all and every record would remain purely conjecture.V different
5. So, now we have the context, let’s address the allegation I did not report these matters. I did. In the v first report on 2 June 2015, I specifically cited the “cursory glance” “caveat”.
6. I didn’t report the “conjecture” “caveat” in the first article as I didn’t feel it was required given the context. However, when the DCYA claimed the report was regarded by the author as “conjecture” I directly addressed this in follow up articles. Repeatedly. Ex: 22 jun 2015
7. In later articles, I was keen to nail this “conjecture” claim so placed it in the context it is cited in the report. Here’s an example from 6 August 2015 where I report it. At length. I also report it on 9 Nov 2015, 4 March 2017 and on RTÉs This Week programme in 2017
8. I address it again, at length and in context, on 19 February 2019 (see below) and again on 17 April 2019.
9. Journalists can be wrong. I have always reported in good faith, honestly and to the best of my ability. But I won’t accept my reputation being questioned by false claims that I didn’t report certain “caveats”. Particularly when those caveats have been taken out of context

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Conall Ó Fátharta

Conall Ó Fátharta Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ococonuts

21 Mar 19
Here's a quick thread on the Magdalene redress scheme. I have been years writing on this now. Anyway, here goes: Since the scheme was widened - just seven of the 97 women who have applied have received a payment. 14 women have yet to receive an offer over a dispute on dates
The scheme was widened in June 2018 following a scathing Ombudsman report which found the DOJ had wrongly refused some survivors access to redress payments and that the scheme had been maladministered.
Key among the findings was that women who registered on the rolls of training centres located on the same grounds and even in the same building as the laundries were refused.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!