Secrecy law remains unchallenged

Mary O’Dea, Consumer Director at the Financial Regulator’s office was asked about the Bank of Ireland lap top scandal on Drivetime (8th minute) yesterday.

“It’s a matter we are investigating so I can’t go into the specific details with you.”

When she was asked how and what they were investigating O’Dea replied.

“I can’t; unfortunately, I’m prohibited by law from going into the details of the investigation.”

It was at this point that RTE presenter, Mary Wilson, should have challenged this civil servant with basic questions such as;

What law exactly are you basing your refusal to provide this information?

Are you absolutely sure that this law forbids you from informing Irish consumers of even the subject matter of your investigation?

Can you email a copy of this particular law to this programme so that we can have our legal team analyse its contents to confirm for our listeners that your interpretation of absolute secrecy is correct?

Is the Financial Regulator happy with this high level of secrecy surrounding its investigative activities?

Is the Financial Regulator happy with the fact that this law poses a serious disadvantage for consumers?

If the Financial Regulator is not happy with this law has there being any attempt to have it repealed?

Are you prepared to come on air again in the near future to defend your position regarding this secrecy law?

Unfortunately, Mary Wilson asked none of these questions and so, in effect, consumers have been let down by two state agencies.

Copy to:
Drivetime
Financial Regulator

Gardai – Still an undisciplined force

The figures published yesterday in the first report of the Garda Ombudsman Commission are staggering and very disturbing (RTE News, 2nd report).

Nearly 3,000 complaints plus 300 referrals from the Garda Commissioner.

750 investigations into allegations of criminal conduct – mostly of assault.

Nine files sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Only very serious cases are referred to the DPP).

Clearly, Judge Morris was correct when he said that the Gardai were losing their status as a disciplined force.

It should also be noted that millions are paid out each year by the taxpayer to compensate citizens who have been assaulted or otherwise damaged by Gardai.

The details of the vast bulk of these cases remain a State secret because the Gardai do not come under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act as is the norm in most Western democracies.

Judging by the attitude of the Garda Representative Association’s new president, Michael O’Boyce, the Commission has a lot more work to do. O’Boyce made a scathing attack on the Commission accusing it of blundering incompetence. Commission member Carmel Foley was strong in her response.

“I really wonder if this is all about Gardai being unable to contemplate the fact that another body can walk into a Garda station with a search warrant and conduct a search of the premises. I think they’re going to have to get used to that.”

Padre Pio – A money making scam

There was a curious editorial in the Irish Examiner last Saturday warning readers not to ‘deride and sneer’ at the putting on public display the body of Padre Pio.

The writer claims that the faithful, by visiting the body, are making a statement about their belief, that they ‘still believe in a faith challenged by scandal and undermined by the mores of the day’.

This, in my opinion, is a weak argument for justifying what is a bizarre and exploitative act. Let’s analyse the motives of those involved.

The pilgrims:

The hundreds of thousands of people who visit the body do so principally for two reasons. Firstly, they have a strong faith and wish to express that faith by paying homage to what is now considered to be one the superstars of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, they are motivated by self interest. Most of them are hopeful that by looking at or touching something connected to the body they will be cured of a medical condition or have some other problem in their lives resolved.

Antonio Zimbaldi (19) whose entire body was burned in a fire is a good example: “He knows what I want from him.” he said.

The Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church teaches that the body is merely a container for the soul and that after death it is just an empty husk. Centuries ago, however, the church realised that most people were superstitious and successfully set out to exploit this natural human tendency.

Let’s be blunt about this; the digging up and putting on display of this dead body is all about money.

Over the years countless millions will be extracted from desperate people who have been fooled into thinking that the Catholic Church can, through the agency of a rotting corpse, defy the scientific laws of nature and provide them with a miraculous cure.

The desperate unfortunates who are exploited by this scam should not be derided or sneered at but the Catholic Church as an organisation certainly should be.

Lisbon Treaty and evil plots

Fine Gael TD, Lucinda Creighton made a strong but somewhat bizarre defence of the upcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum (Marian Finucane Show, Sunday 27th April).

“I wouldn’t advise anybody to form a judgement on the basis of reading the Treaty…It’s a legal text and very, very complex. There are a number of comprehensible summaries available.”

Are you saying that while the peasants can’t understand the document the important people can and that all will be well – suggested Marian.

“It’s a legal text, most right minded people are not qualified as lawyers (She’s right there) to read and interpret it but it must be that way so it can be interpreted by the courts.

That’s the way it has to be and that’s the way it has been and that’s the way it was when we joined the EEC.” (And so it shall always be for ever and ever, Amen).”

Ms. Creighton’s argument seems to be that because the Treaty is a legal document it is by definition a very complex document and voters will just have to believe what the politicians and bureaucrats tell them.

But the Treaty is actually a rehash of the EU Constitution that the French and Dutch threw out. According to businessman Ulick McEvaddy, who is voting No in the referendum, the Treaty represents 95% of the rejected EU Constitution.

Ms. Creighton didn’t say whether the failed constitution was a legal document or not. Neither did she enlighten listeners as to what exactly is contained in the 5% difference between the two documents that makes such a critical difference. I guess we just have to trust her.

Apparently Ms. Creighton has issued a statement on the referendum campaign in which she claims that the United States Homeland Security Department is secretly campaigning against the Treaty. According to Ms. Creighton the United States is opposed to political integration between European states.

She also claims that McEvaddy and another businessman who have business links with the US military are part of the plot.

When the discussion moved on to the question of why all other EU citizens are being denied a vote on the Treaty, Ms. Creighton began to rant on about Hitler and the abuse of plebiscites in the 1930s.

It was then I decided it was time for a cup of tea.

Bertie the sniveller

Haymoon drew my attention to this excellent article by Eamonn Sweeney in the Sunday Independent.

It really is refreshing to read the unvarnished truth about Bertie Ahern. To read what kind of a man he really is without all the guff about Northern Ireland and the economy etc.

The article is worth reproducing in full. Thanks Haymoon.

So long, sniveller

By Eamonn Sweeney

Sunday April 27 2008

I could never warm to Bertie Ahern. Or maybe it would be more correct to say that I simply didn’t get him. The Taoiseach’s appeal, like that of the novels of Michael Ondaatje and the films of Arnold Schwarzenegger, seemed absolutely mysterious. The charisma, warmth and intelligence of the man, so obvious to the nation’s political journalists, just weren’t apparent to me. I had come to wonder if this was a fault in myself and if perhaps our emperor really was decked out in a resplendent suit of new clothes.

Today, I don’t feel so alone. Because, over the past year or so, a great many people’s feelings about Bertie Ahern have progressed from affection through ambivalence to outright antipathy. This is something Bertie brought upon himself. It resulted not from what the Mahon tribunal revealed about the Taoiseach but from what the man revealed about himself in response.

It took just a little bit of pressure for the mask to come off and reveal a Bertie very unlike the easy-going media cliche of yore. When the heat came on, the Taoiseach resorted to three main modes of address: the sneer, the snivel and the snarl.

The sneer has never been far from Bertie Ahern’s lips, but this tendency became more and more pronounced. His outrageous statement likening those who complained about the state of the Irish economy to the suicidally depressed was one example; another was his dismissal (“pub talk”) of the possibility of an amnesty for Irish illegal immigrants in the States. I wondered why the man had to be so mean. If he didn’t agree with Niall O’Dowd and his cohorts, fair enough, but was there any need to rub their noses in it? Apparently, there was.

The snarl got its big outing on the night of the general election count when he stormed into the RTE studios and decided to lambast the media for reporting on the financial irregularities revealed by the tribunal. A bigger man might have regarded the hour of victory as a time to be gracious, but Bertie behaved as though the electorate had not just voted him back into office but had voted the judiciary and the journalists out of their jobs. Looking at it, you couldn’t help feeling that there must be worse to come in the tribunals if the Taoiseach still felt the need to be scoring points. Who knows what would have happened had he been contrite instead of confrontational? It was a moment when he could have come clean and survived. Instead, he behaved like a man spoiling for a fight when that was the very last thing he wanted.

However, it was neither the sneer nor the snarl that defined Bertie’s final months in office, but the snivel, something at which he proved himself a virtuoso, rendering himself pathetic in a manner never approached by any previous Taoiseach.

The snivelling began with the infamous Brian Dobson interview. Bertie might have opted to tackle this in the manner of Roy Keane being quizzed by Tommy Gorman. Instead, he opted for the Princess-Diana- meets-Martin-Bashir approach. Generations yet unborn will cringe at the sight of a grown man attempting to give the impression that he’s on the verge of tears. The Taoiseach did everything except put his hand up to his eyes to check for moisture. This was how he was going to play it.

There was a precedent for this kind of ignoble tomfoolery. When Ray Burke first came under serious scrutiny for the way he did business, the Dublin North man turned on the waterworks in the Dail, bringing his dead father into it and bravely rebutting allegations nobody had ever made against him. The initial response from the political correspondents was that Burke had saved his political life with a masterly performance. They changed their minds when it became clear that the public reaction to this oratorical tour de force was that it would have made a dog laugh. The oul’ gra mo chroi shite didn’t save Ray Burke.

It didn’t save Bertie Ahern either. But the Dobson debacle set a pattern for the way in which the Taoiseach would defend himself against every allegation. He would, to be blunt about it, hide behind women. It wasn’t a particularly manly thing to do and it committed Bertie to the snivel rather than the sneer or the snarl, but presumably someone thought it was a tactical masterstroke.

Initially, the Taoiseach sheltered behind his wife and daughters. References to his marital difficulties almost seemed designed to give the impression that he had been going round with the begging bowl because his wife had skinned him in the separation settlement. Perhaps it was an entirely accidental outcome, but this was the excuse hinted at by many of the Taoiseach’s backers in the media when it looked as though our hero might still spring free with one mighty bound.

It certainly won Bertie a lot of sympathy from the kind of self-pitying men obsessed with the cupidity of women who insist on getting a few quid to look after themselves and their children. One of the characteristics of these sorry souls is their persistent demand for gratitude from the recipients of their largesse. This could be called Look How Good I Am To You Syndrome. He mightn’t have meant it, but it was Bertie who made his separation the stuff of public gossip.

There were more women to hide behind. He made the suggestion that some of the money being called into question had been left to him by his dead mother. When it emerged that Celia Larkin had been given €30,000 of what were supposedly party funds to buy a house, Celia’s elderly aunts were deployed as human shields, with the suggestions that all these inquiries were making life unbearable for the old dears. Grainne Carruth was not the only person to be placed between Bertie and trouble as he acted like a B-movie burglar warning the coppers that if they come any close they would end up shooting the innocent woman in front of him.

The problem was that Grainne Carruth moved out of the firing line and, in doing so, gave the lawmen a clear shot at Big Bad Bert. This was not how that encounter was supposed to play out. I’d have a wild guess that Bertie may even have thought that the questioning of his former secretary would be to the tribunal’s detriment. Look at what they did, his supporters could say. They made a woman cry: finally, the tribunals have gone too far. Let’s wind them up and not ask any more awkward questions.

Unfortunately, people tend to grow impatient with the Sniveller and his perpetual cry of, “Look what they’re after doing to me.” It wasn’t the tribunal people blamed for Grainne Carruth’s tears, but Bertie. Our hero had sheltered behind one woman too many.

There was a fascinating insight into how Bertie felt the scenario should have played out in an excellent interview by Aengus Fanning in this paper a few weeks back. You might have thought that divesting the burdens of office would have left Bertie free to move out of Sniveller mode. Not a bit of it. He caterwauled on about the fact that Ms Carruth is a mother of three, though why this information was in any way germane, nobody knows. And he declared the questioning to have been particularly unforgivable because it took place on Holy Thursday . . .

It’s not the first time Bertie has brought religion into an argument, something which should give pause to those deluded liberals who believed that the fact of the Taoiseach being shacked up with his former secretary was some kind of bold gesture against the hegemony of the Catholic Church rather than a purely personal decision. Whether it was sanctioning a deal that allowed the Church to escape paying its fair share to the victims of institutional abuse or droning on about his connections to All Hallows, Bertie was never slow to wrap the papal flag around himself.

The most revealing part of the interview came when, after Bertie had banged on about how sorry he felt for Grainne Carruth, he was asked if he’d seen her since the ordeal. No, he said, I haven’t had the time. No? Really? Quelle surprise.

It’s interesting how few people have sought to portray the Taoiseach’s downfall in a tragic light. (Except for himself. Do you think all his ministers really did cry when they heard he was resigning? It sounds to me like someone’s been reading too many of his daughter’s books. Next, he’ll be telling us he cheered them up by bringing them shopping, cracking open a few bottles of lambrusco and singing I Will Survive while dancing around Mary Harney’s handbag.) It wasn’t tragedy but farce: the whole caper was far too cheap to be tragedy.

That cheapness was most evident in Bertie’s inability to depart the scene with any modicum of dignity. Even Charlie Haughey was able to summon up some form of gravitas when he had to fall on his sword. By contrast, Bertie snivelled as he went. You had the description of the tribunal as indulging in “low life stuff.” Better again, you had the unconscious comedy of the Taoiseach wittering on about the fact that Grainne Carruth was paid very little money. Well, old son, you were her boss. Perhaps if you hadn’t given Celia that thirty grand there might have been a few bob to pay Grainne Carruth. It’s just a thought.

There was more. He affected to find great significance in the fact that the act governing the conduct of tribunals was actually “a British law”. You almost expected him to suggest MI5 had put it on the statute books in the hope of snaring an as yet unborn Taoiseach. This kind of childish anglophobia was bad enough coming from Bertie’s old mentor CJH, but coming from a man who probably owed his re-election to the big deal his followers made out of his House of Commons speech it was downright ungrateful.

The “British law”, he explained, came from a time when the little man couldn’t get justice in this country. Good old Bertie, leader of the country and still thinking of himself as a little man. Because when you’re a Sniveller, you’ll always see yourself as the underdog. And you’ll reach for anything that might protect you from your pursuers. It’s not just that famous suit that was yellow.

There were also complaints that Enda Kenny had been insufficiently gracious in wishing Bertie all the best in the future. Ungracious? Hang on a second and I’ll give you ungracious. Bertie only became leader of Fianna Fail because Albert Reynolds resigned after inadvertently misleading the Dail. In the light of his successor’s behaviour, it’s questionable whether Albert should have resigned at all. The Longford man had the unusual distinction for a Fianna Fail leader of having perhaps been too scrupulous.

Soon afterwards, Albert sought the Fianna Fail presidential nomination. Had he got it, he would have been elected to the office and given a just reward for a decent, if truncated, time as Taoiseach. Instead, Bertie and his allies shafted him and gave the nomination to Mary McAleese. Not a lot of grace there, and not a lot of gratitude. Bertie will hope he is treated a bit better by his own successor. He probably will be, because there’s no sign so far that Brian Cowen subscribes to the particular Dublin Fianna Fail model of politics whose most notable contemporary practitioners were Ray Burke in the North, the late Liam Lawlor in the West and Bertie Ahern in the centre. They were more than Charlie Haughey’s supporters, they were his disciples.

One positive aspect of the downfall is that we won’t be burdened further by the repetition of that Haughey quote about his factotum being “the most cunning and the most devious of them all”. It was always a stupid quote anyway, used as though it was to Bertie’s credit when the abiding lesson of the CJ era should have been that cunning and deviousness are qualities Irish politics has been disfigured by for too long.

In the end, it turned out not to be true. Confronted by the tribunal, Bertie was neither cunning nor devious enough. Instead, he looked sleazy, slippery, slimy and completely incompetent. Day after day, the news told us that the Taoiseach had endured a bad day at the tribunal as new inconsistencies emerged in evidence. It was all a bit like Whack A Mole, the game where the more you strike the titular animals on the head with a mallet, the quicker others pop up on different parts of the board. You almost wished Bertie would have just one good day, one day when a witness turned up to confirm that he had at least been telling the unvarnished truth about something.

Even those of us who were sceptical about the Manchester dig-out story couldn’t have imagined the bad turns the tribunal would take for the Taoiseach. Anyone who’d suggested back then that Bertie had probably sanctioned the handing over of party money so his girlfriend could buy a house would have been derided as the crudest kind of conspiracy theorist. When all this started out, no-one could have imagined that Bertie operated a private account in his constituency, imagined the amounts of money involved or how blatantly ridiculous some of his explanations would prove to be. And, let’s face it, there’s probably worse to come.

It was striking how, as time went by, the Taoiseach didn’t even bother giving explanations for the money that was being uncovered. Haughey, you felt sure, would have ducked and dived a bit better. He’d certainly have shown a bit more fight. Then again, for all his faults, Bertie’s old mentor was not a Sniveller.

The problem with Snivelling is that it puts you on the defensive. The “look at what these terrible people are doing to me” gambit only works as long as people feel sorry for you. When the sympathy wears out, as it invariably does, noble suffering begins to look like self pity.

The worst thing for Bertie is that his behaviour is going to look a lot worse as we enter a recession. Because when everyone was riding high on the hog it was easier to blink an eye at politicians who put the paw out to developers and businessmen. It will be different when recession bites.

One of the articles of faith of the right-wing economic creed espoused by Bertie and his government is that people have to look after themselves and not expect others to bail them out. It is a noble thing, this code of sturdy self-reliance, and we were assured after the last election that members of “the Coping Classes” had kept Fianna Fail in power.

Which is an irony, because if there’s one thing Bertie is not, it’s a member of the Coping Classes. Whatever story you believe, one thing is indisputable. When Bertie ran into a few financial problems he put the paw out and accepted donations left, right and centre. Some of these people were allegedly his friends and some of them were businessmen who simply liked giving their money away for no reason. Bertie took it all. Even when he had a great deal of money in the bank, he was still collecting the loot.

This runs counter to everything modern Ireland is supposed to be about. Because the Coping Classes are not a myth. They exist and their core belief is that you pay your own way and don’t look for favours. They deserve better than to be represented by politicians who have taken the exact opposite attitude for most of their careers, people who don’t pay their way if they can get someone else to do it. To this class Bertie belongs, to the political class that fastened their fangs into the necks of their victims and sucked for dear life. It was a miserable existence for a miserable bunch of bastards.

In reality, the taking of that money is itself a form of corruption. For all the talk of Bertie’s great empathy with the plain people of Ireland, he wasn’t one of them. Because if property prices keep going down and unemployment continues to rise, the plain people of Ireland will be on their own. There will be no one handing us big sums of cash. That’s how we live our lives. That it’s not how our Taoiseach lived his was his shame and his downfall. He couldn’t fool us forever. The plain people of Ireland are not plain stupid.

As Bertie snivelled his way into imminent obscurity, he declared that his great regret was not to have built a national stadium. No, you heard him right. He’s not losing any sleep over the state of the health service, public transport or education, he’s miffed that he didn’t get to build a white elephant no one asked for and no one’s felt the lack of since. It’s not surprising we don’t have a contemporary equivalent of Scrap Saturday. Bertie made satire redundant.

Goodbye Sniveller. And good riddance.

Eamonn Sweeney

A time of high farce

On the 2nd April last the Taoiseach of this country, Bertie Ahern, was required to provide an explanation to the Irish people, in their parliament, regarding a very serious contradiction in his evidence to the Mahon Tribunal.

Ahern had told the Tribunal, under oath, that he never dealt in sterling. His secretary, Grainne Carruth, also told the Tribunal, under oath, that she never dealt in sterling on behalf of Ahern.

The Tribunal produced evidence in the form of bank receipts personally signed by Ms. Carruth that proved without doubt that she had, in fact, lodged large amounts of sterling on behalf of Ahern.

On production of this evidence, Ms. Carruth admitted that her previous evidence under oath was not true.

Instead of providing answers on this very serious matter to the Irish people, Mr. Ahern announced that he would be resigning on 6th May next. This dramatic and desperate strategy successfully brought to a halt all efforts to bring the most powerful man in the land to account.

The flickering flame of political accountability was extinguished under a stampede of government and opposition politicians, journalists, party members and the general public as they rushed to declare Ahern the greatest Irishman since De Valera.

Enda Kenny, who naïvely but not unreasonably called for a general election, was immediately condemned from all sides. How dare he spoil ‘Bertie’s day’? Journalists, in particular, were scathing of Kenny for not doing the right thing, for making inappropriate suggestions, for making a hames of it.

The very serious matter that a serving Taoiseach had possibly lied under oath was forgotten. There was now no need for Ahern to answer any awkward questions; he was raised to the status of hero.

When he described the legal team that represents the people of Ireland at the Mahon Tribunal as ‘lowlife’ the fawning media sniggered with childish laughter. At least two Government ministers agreed with this assessment and nobody, to my knowledge, has made any serious challenge to the remark.

On Wednesday 23rd April last, The Taoiseach of this country, Bertie Ahern, entered Dail Eireann for the last time as Taoiseach. For over an hour he was eulogized, acclaimed and complimented by speaker after speaker.

It was an event unprecedented in the history of the State; no other outgoing Taoiseach had ever received such lavish praise for his leadership of the country.

Afterwards, Enda Kenny received high praise for ‘getting it right’ on the occasion, for not spoiling ‘Bertie’s day’. Journalists in particular approved of Kenny’s performance, clearly happy that he had learned his lesson.

Caoimhghin O Caolain of Sinn Fein was roundly condemned for sounding a discordant note when he mildly criticised Ahern about the country’s Third World health system.

Journalists, in particular, were scathing of O Caolain’s comments. On radio, television and in print they strongly expressed their disapproval of the comments made by the Sinn Fein representative.

On that infamous day not a single politician made reference to the fact that Ahern was resigning because he had run out of answers to the questions being asked of him by a tribunal established in that very parliament, on behalf of the Irish people, to investigate allegations of corruption in the planning process. Not a single politician made reference to the very real possibility that Ahern had committed the crime of perjury.

The Republic of Ireland and its people were betrayed on that day by the body politic. They were betrayed when politicians willingly and slavishly acquiesced in a disgraceful farce.

Bertie Ahern is free now; he will be allowed to retire in glory. It doesn’t matter what he tells the Tribunal, it doesn’t matter if he’s criticised in the final tribunal report, it doesn’t even matter if he’s found to have committed perjury.

It doesn’t matter because there’s no authority in the land with the power to make him accountable. Nobody will take action against him because Ireland is a country with a weak and compliant media, an incompetent and cowardly opposition and an electorate who have yet to learn that the state they live in is not normal by Western democratic standards, that it is a deeply corrupt and rotten state.

Has RTE repudiated a core value?

As I expected, the RTE weekly radio business programme The Business made no mention whatsoever of the Fyffes/DCC case even though it is one of the biggest financial scandals in the history of the State.

Neither was the scandal mentioned on The Marian Finucane Show on Sunday, a programme that features a panel of commentators specifically invited to discuss the major media stories of the previous week.

RTEs weekly flagship news and current affairs programme, This Week, also kept mum on this major financial scandal.

RTE must be aware that this story is of huge importance, they must be aware that their coverage of the scandal borders on a virtual news blackout.

An objective observer can only come to one conclusion – RTE has joined all other State authorities who have steadfastly refused to take action against DCC or Jim Flavin.

If that is the case, if a decision was made within RTE to keep the reporting of this scandal to an absolute minimum then we are looking at the appalling vista of news manipulation by the national broadcaster.

Even a suspicion that this scenario may be true, and that suspicion now exists, does serious damage to the credibility and professional respect of RTE as a balanced and independent broadcaster.

According to RTE, one of its core values is to:

“Operate in the public interest providing News and Current Affairs that is fair and impartial, accurate and challenging.”

I believe that this core value has been repudiated in favour of some other agenda.

(See previous posts on this matter here and here)

Copy to:
All RTE News and Current Affairs departments

Ahern's sham apology

When I read Christine Buckley’s letter in the Irish Times on Friday 11th April I was a bit taken aback. Ms Buckley was fulsome in her praise of Bertie Ahern for his apology to survivors of institutional abuse in Ireland.

I remember being very angry when Ahern made that apology. I felt he made the gesture, not because of the suffering of the abused but because it was politically expedient to do so and also formed part of a strategy to save his beloved Catholic Church from further damage.

The subsequent Redress Board set up by Ahern’s government is, in my opinion, a bullying monster that operates under Soviet style regulations and secrecy.

I didn’t respond to Ms. Buckley’s letter partly because she herself is a victim of the Catholic Church holocaust of abuse so I was happy when another victim did write in response.

Both letters are reproduced here.

Madam,

In recent days the pivotal role of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in changing Irish life for the better in vital areas such as the peace process and the economy has been rightly recognised. However, there is another and no less significant act for which the Taoiseach shall be forever appreciated and admired by those to whom it meant so much.

In 1999, Bertie Ahern gave an unreserved apology to the survivors of institutional abuse in Ireland. In doing so lifted the veil of secrecy, stigma and injustice which had dogged our lives and impeded our futures. His apology touched our hearts profoundly, because it was clear that he had listened to survivors with a depth of commitment unequalled by any other politician, apart from the then minister of education, Micheál Martin.

This became evident in the swiftness with which he followed up his words with actions that supported the healing process for all of us who had endured the regimes of the various institutions that had destroyed our childhoods.

Despite all his recent troubles, Bertie Ahern will always hold a special place in the hearts of abuse survivors for his compassion and courage in standing with us, his efforts to bring about redress, the respect he gave us all as individuals and organisations. On behalf of all survivors, I thank him.

Yours, etc,

CHRISTINE BUCKLEY, Aislinn Centre, Jervis Street, Dublin 1.

Madam,

Christine Buckley (April 11th) lavishes praise on Bertie Ahern for his management of the economy, for his role in the Northern peace process and his apology to those of us who were institutionalised and abused by various organisations of the State and by members of religious orders, all in the name of childcare.

Ms Buckley seems to forget that the apology given by Bertie Ahern was not something he gave willingly. It was brought about by the revulsion of people who watched the States of Fear programmes on RTÉ.

His apology came about just before the screening of the third programme in the series, when the government and the religious orders were being shown to have covered up the most horrendous abuse of innocent children.

As Taoiseach, Mr Ahern and various members of his Government were aware before the screening of States of Fear that institutional abuse of children in the care of the State was widespread.

My own book, The God Squad, highlighted this issue 20 years ago, yet not one single member of any government or religious order ever apologised to me, or indeed to the many thousands of children who were served with “Orders of Detention”, rendering them criminals.

Perhaps before he leaves office and fades into the background of Irish politics, the Taoiseach will rescind those orders of detention served on children as young as one year and who today are in effect branded as criminals under the 1908-1941 Children’s Act.

According to Ms Buckley, Mr. Ahern’s apology “lifted the veil of secrecy, stigma and injustice which had dogged our lives and impeded our futures. His apology touched our hearts profoundly, because it was clear that he had listened to survivors with a depth of commitment unequalled by any other politician, apart from the then minister of education, Micheál Martin”.

Mr Ahern’s apology did not touch my heart. It didn’t touch the hearts of many thousands of people who were abused while in the care of the State. The “veil of secrecy” to which Ms Buckley refers was lifted long before Mr Ahern uttered a word of apology. There is no evidence I know of that Mr Ahern listened to survivors? I hold the view that, were it not for the sterling work of journalists such as Bruce Arnold and Mary Raftery, no apology would ever have been forthcoming from Mr Ahern.

I can only surmise that the “swiftness with which he followed up his words with actions that supported the healing process for all of us” is a reference to the Redress Board, set up to “compensate” people who had been detained in industrial schools around the country and treated brutally in every sense of the word.

As one who appeared before the Redress Board, I’d like to elaborate on its secret proceedings; but to do so would see me being fined €2,000 in the first instance. Were I or anyone else who appeared before the board to speak about what went on behind its closed doors a second time, we would face a fine of €25,000 and/or two years in prison.

Surely Ms Buckley can’t regard what I view as a perversion of natural justice as being in any way a “healing process for all of us”.

Yours, etc,

PADDY DOYLE, Ardagh, Co Longford.

What is RTE afraid of?

To my knowledge only this website and Vincent Browne in his Irish Times column (Sub Req’d) have covered the real story/scandal in the Fyffes/DCC insider dealing case.

All other media outlets are merely reporting the facts with some referring briefly to the options open to Paul Appleby of the ODCE.

And yet this is the biggest and most serious insider dealing fraud in the history of the State. Browne describes it as

“By far the greatest theft in the history of the country.”

Nobody seems to think it odd that the entire State regulatory/law enforcement sector have turned a blind eye to the whole scandal.

RTE, in particular, seems to have made a deliberate decision not to examine the many serious questions surrounding this major fraud.

In a previous post I described RTEs failure to adequately cover this scandal as ‘curious’. I no longer think it’s just curious, I think it’s disturbing. I believe it raises serious questions about the credibility and editorial balance of the RTE News staff.

I believe any reasonable person examining the minimum coverage by RTE of this, the biggest financial fraud in the history of the State; can only come to the same conclusion.

The story broke on Monday 14th April.

RTE internet headlines – No coverage.

RTE (Radio) One News (6th item – It should have been the first item) – The bare facts of the case were reported followed by a short interview with Richard Curran, deputy Editor of the Sunday Business Post. This is exactly the same minimum coverage provided when the case came up for mention in the Supreme Court last November.

Incredibly, there was a complete radio news blackout on the matter after that. This major event wasn’t mentioned again on any radio news report. And this included RTEs flagship news and current affairs programme Drivetime. I find it very disturbing that the national broadcaster killed this story so quickly.

RTE (Television) One News – No mention whatsoever. I again emphasis this major story had only broken a few hours earlier and it was ignored by this programme – Why?

RTE Six One News – The story was given low priority (8th item) and minimum analysis comprising of a broad outline history of the case. The scandal received the same low level of attention on Nine News.

Morning Ireland (15th April) No mention of the case whatsoever. It should also be noted that, to my knowledge, not one of RTEs business news reports mentioned the scandal.

I will be tuning into RTEs The Business next Sunday morning to see if the story is covered and in particular if listeners are provided with an analysis of why State authorities have completely failed to act against the fraudster Jim Flavin.

Copy to:
All RTE current affairs programmes