The Shame of Ireland
The RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002 States This
34.—A person who is guilty of an offence undersections 7(6) and
28(9) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding \3,000
(£2,362.69) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
6 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding \25,000
(£19,689.10) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2
years or both.
7(6) A person who makes an application under this Act and who
gives false evidence to the Board or the Review Committee in such
circumstances that, if the person had given the evidence before a
court, the person would be guilty of perjury, the person shall be
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment
to the penalties applying to perjury.
28(9) A person who contravenes subsection (1 )or subsection (6)
shall be guilty of an offence.
28(1) A person (including the Board and the Review
Committee) shall not, subject to this section, disclose information
other than the information specified in subsection (4) or (5) that is
provided to the Board or the Review Committee and obtained by
that person in the course of the performance of the functions of the
person under this Act.
28(6) A person shall not publish any information concerning an
application or an award made under this Act that refers to any other
person (including an applicant), relevant person or institution by
name or which could reasonably lead to the identification of any
other person (including an applicant), a relevant person or an insti-
tution referred to in an application made under this Act.
See Chapter 6 of the Attached Document about the Redress Board!
As usual I have more Questions than Answers??
discussing all or some of it here could help clarify.
I have read up to part 2 section 9
(7) The Fund may engage, from time to time, consultants and advisers and other service providers (including any public authority), whether resident in the State or elsewhere, to provide services, on behalf of the Fund, where the Fund considers it necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions.
I see the Act is designed to use the fund to run the Act and fund all it's buddies. They obviously want to use any public authority from any Jurisdiction, and other service providers. The people who ran these slave and torture camps are also service providers; they are already well funded by the government as we have seen recently with how much they donated to the orders for charitable services.
I'm not liking what I am reading so far.