Thread: Ok here is why I asked Prof Daly about the Commission's claim there are 2 death registers for Bessborough and elicited the bee in my bonnet remark. It was just a question and I hope to be wrong and that there are two. I hope it makes sense. Here goes:
2. The claim in the Fifth Interim Report of 2 registers was used to explain a discrepancy I had pointed out in a story. I had considered that there may be two so I spent a bit of time trying to find out if there was 2. Tusla records are clear on this point
3. Here is the inventory of the Bessborough records which transferred to Tusla (HSE originally in 2011). It clearly indicates that there is just one
4. Not only that, Tusla itself were curious if there was a second register. It noted these concerns in internal documents
5. Tusla went so far as to write to the Sacred Heart Sisters in Aug 2014 on this very point. It clearly states in the letter that just one death register was transferred
6. The nuns responded in January 2015 and clearly stated that the Congregation "does not hold any other Death Register"
7. Yet, the Fifth Interim report claims there are two death registers - one for the Home and one for the Maternity Hospital. I asked for clarity and told me to wait for the final report. However, the final report merely sheds no light and seems to only cite one register
8. I asked Tusla at the time of the Fifth Interim Report in 2019 had a second register emerged in the subsequent years. It said it holds just on and that there is “no specific death register for the [maternity] hospital in Bessborough”. conallofatharta.wordpress.com/2019/07/05/com…
9. So, in the end we are none the wiser. The Commission makes one states there are two death registers and that Tusla holds them. Tusla flatly contradicts this point and their records also seem to. If there are two, then that's fine, but it was a simple question. Sin é!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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 However, Sec 58 claims I did not report certain “caveats” in an unpublished Bessborough report I obtained.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.
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.