Add Comment

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission if it were to be set-up has to be fully independent with leading intenational Human Rights members who advocate on behalf of victim-surviovors and independent members of the Judiciary. For such a Commission to succeed. The Paeophiles and the abusers convicted in the Scottish Courts of abusing children in Quarriers Homes would have to fully accept their responsibility and guilt which to-date they have not! No Truth and Reconciliation Commission if implemented should circumvent the current Legal Judicial System Court. The historical institutional abuse issues should not be diluted in any shape or form either. The past care professionals and the established systems which should have protected children in-care in Scotland clearly failed down the Generations. The current professionals in the Scottish Care system and Government do not own these issues the survivors do and we have every right to determine what is right for us as individuals and as survivor groups representing those abused in care homes such as Quarriers Homes. Compensation comes in many shapes and forms only individual survivors including me will and should determine what is right and acceptable to the them no one else. The law is clear if it has been determined in Court that a crime was committed on your person, as the victim you have every right to seek redress in which ever shape or form is acceptable to you.. Given that Quarriers and their agents (Norwich Union) have todate failed to reconcile the issues to the benefit of their own victims but have used every method under the sun including employing so called false memory experts to undermine the victims who cases have been up held in the Scottish Appeal Courts. Quarriers continuing to deny the crimes in the process and support convicted paedophiles by allowing Quarriers properties to be used for filming and production in a campaign in support of a convicted paedophile a former employee( BBC Scotland, Frontline Scotland, Secrets or Lies, 2003. We the victims await individually full unreserved apologies from Quarriers with no Ifs or buts! Many have died with out recieving such an apology for the abused perpetrated on them including my sister. Yours Sincerely David Whelan FBGA (Former Boys and Girls Abused in Quarriers Homes)

I entirely agree with David Wheelan in all he says above. From my perspective:- 1. In Ireland there was an alternative system to the courts set up for survivors of abuse which had 2 functions: a. Compensation - it was recognised that the state, which accepted much of the responsibility for past abuse, should recompense the survivors for the losses they had incurred and psychological damage that had irrepably been done. Additionally it was recognised that the survivors, in some cases, were not psychologically able to pursue their own cases without professional support. Thus lawyers were encouraged to act for the survivors and paid for their work. In many cases specific losses were claimed such as therapy costs, loss of employment opportunity etc. It was also recognised that the claim [bold]against[/bold] the organisation concerned was part of the healing process of the survivor who needed an outlet for the anger so naturally felt. b. Evidential - it was recognised that survivors also needed the opportunity to tell their story in private if necessary to a tribunal of inquiry who would listen and recommend punitive remedies upon what it heard. It was also recognised that survivors needed legal representation for this part of the process. Speaking their truth is very important for any survivor. Often this proves not possible when cases are settled before trial. Thus the Irish model proved reasonably successful. Thus the two fold process which the Irish government wholeheartedly supported catered for most of the needs of the survivor in a better way than either the English or Scottish court systems. Indeed it was recognised that the Irish court system simply could not cope with the number of cases. The law was also ill equipped to deal with historic cases because of time limit barrs, in a similar way to Scottish law. Irish civil law on time limits has since been amended to improve the situation for victims of sexual abuse. My experience of the court system is that it fufills vital roles that a "truth and reconciliation" idea would not achieve. a. The disclosure of the evidence causes lessons to be learned in the organisations where the abuse took place, as risk based insurers are often involved. b. The process acts as a catalyst for change. c. We always ask for and usually get an apology as a condition precedent to the case settling. d. In truth and reconciliation situations the accused sometimes demand and sometimes get "anonymity" from prosecution before they will give evidence. I seem to remember this happening in South Africa. e. Often the survivor does not want to reconcile with his/her abuser or indeed the authority which employed him/her. Indeed this is often the last thing on his/her mind. f. I agree that is this process is to be considered then a condition precedent should not be to renounce all rights to go to court. Whilst this is the way the Irish system works it does offer a direct alternative to the court system, but without having to prove fault. g. If Local Authorities are involved the legal cases cause important political questions to be asked and acted upon. One hopes that the truth and reconciliation system is not a way of preventing valid claims of survivors and an effort to save money. Thus in conclusion, I would advocate something akin to the Irish system if anything at all is to be considered. This seems much more sophisticated and less restrictive than the proposed Scottish system, which seems designed to negate obvious Human rights under European legislation - most obviously the Right to a fair trial (Section 6).

Thanks to David Whelan and Peter Garsden for their eloquence in opposition to a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission such as that set out in the newspaper article. I doubt that any of us who participated in the Historic Abuse Review anticpated that such a commission would be the end result. Personally, I was hoping the Review would spur a decision from the Scottish Executive that a Full Public Inquiry was the only just course of action given the scope of the abuse over many decades. That would be all the "Truth and Reconciliation" I would need. Chris Miller Member of Former Boys & Girls Abused of Quarriers

[quote][bold]Peter Garsden[/bold] wrote: I entirely agree with David Wheelan in all he says above. From my perspective:- 1. In Ireland there was an alternative system to the courts set up for survivors of abuse which had 2 functions: a. Compensation - it was recognised that the state, which accepted much of the responsibility for past abuse, should recompense the survivors for the losses they had incurred and psychological damage that had irrepably been done. Additionally it was recognised that the survivors, in some cases, were not psychologically able to pursue their own cases without professional support. Thus lawyers were encouraged to act for the survivors and paid for their work. In many cases specific losses were claimed such as therapy costs, loss of employment opportunity etc. It was also recognised that the claim [bold]against[/bold] the organisation concerned was part of the healing process of the survivor who needed an outlet for the anger so naturally felt. b. Evidential - it was recognised that survivors also needed the opportunity to tell their story in private if necessary to a tribunal of inquiry who would listen and recommend punitive remedies upon what it heard. It was also recognised that survivors needed legal representation for this part of the process. Speaking their truth is very important for any survivor. Often this proves not possible when cases are settled before trial. Thus the Irish model proved reasonably successful. Thus the two fold process which the Irish government wholeheartedly supported catered for most of the needs of the survivor in a better way than either the English or Scottish court systems. Indeed it was recognised that the Irish court system simply could not cope with the number of cases. The law was also ill equipped to deal with historic cases because of time limit barrs, in a similar way to Scottish law. Irish civil law on time limits has since been amended to improve the situation for victims of sexual abuse. My experience of the court system is that it fufills vital roles that a \"truth and reconciliation\" idea would not achieve. a. The disclosure of the evidence causes lessons to be learned in the organisations where the abuse took place, as risk based insurers are often involved. b. The process acts as a catalyst for change. c. We always ask for and usually get an apology as a condition precedent to the case settling. d. In truth and reconciliation situations the accused sometimes demand and sometimes get \"anonymity\" from prosecution before they will give evidence. I seem to remember this happening in South Africa. e. Often the survivor does not want to reconcile with his/her abuser or indeed the authority which employed him/her. Indeed this is often the last thing on his/her mind. f. I agree that is this process is to be considered then a condition precedent should not be to renounce all rights to go to court. Whilst this is the way the Irish system works it does offer a direct alternative to the court system, but without having to prove fault. g. If Local Authorities are involved the legal cases cause important political questions to be asked and acted upon. One hopes that the truth and reconciliation system is not a way of preventing valid claims of survivors and an effort to save money. Thus in conclusion, I would advocate something akin to the Irish system if anything at all is to be considered. This seems much more sophisticated and less restrictive than the proposed Scottish system, which seems designed to negate obvious Human rights under European legislation - most obviously the Right to a fair trial (Section 6). [/quote] [bold]bold[/bold] Right . Southern Ireland had the guts to do something about childhood abuse. When are Northern Ireland going to do something about it. From used & abused by members of the catholic church.

could you tell me if the truth and reconciliation would only be used for people abused while in care as this has not been made clear as i was abused by my father and left at his mercy while under a social work supervision order he was allowed to return to the family home so am wanting to know if the forum would be open to all aspects of abuse as i was left at home at all times and never removed to a place of safety