Author: Anthony

Mad Gaybo tries to enforce law

It’s only now that the nation is beginning to recover from one of its most traumatic crises in recent years. It all started off innocently enough with the launch of the new Road Safety Strategy.

Nobody seriously believed that this strategy would be any different from its predecessors. It was launched in the usual glorious blaze of back slapping publicity for politicians and the Road Safety Authority. Everybody knew it wouldn’t make any difference to the grim work of slaughter on the roads.

This time, however, somebody put a spanner in the works by insisting that a new law contained in the strategy was actually enforced. This new law required holders of a second provisional licence to be accompanied at all times by a fully licensed driver.

What? Enforcing a law? What’s going on? We don’t mind enacting laws but since when did we start enforcing them? This is outrageous, it’s certainly not the Irish way of doing things and we simply won’t stand for it. Somebody has to pay for exposing us to this dose of reality.

And somebody did pay: Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey a man who was only doing what hypocritical and incompetent Irish politicians have been doing for decades, was forced into a humiliating climb down. He was forced to revert to the status quo which is as follows:

303,354 learner drivers are forbidden by law to drive without being accompanied by a driver with a full licence. However, under the all powerful, all pervasive Irish cultural law of ‘wink wink nod nod, these drivers are effectively allowed to break the law.

The remaining 121,871 learner drivers are legally allowed to drive without a qualified driver and so have no need of the ‘wink wink, nod nod’ law – yet.

This arrangement is convenient for an overstretched and under resourced police force. It is also convenient for a lazy and incompetent body politic and civil service.

The price for this ‘convenience’ is countless thousands of dead and injured on Irish roads over recent decades and until very recent times, judging by the inaction of officialdom, an acceptable price.

And then along comes Gay Byrne. Yes, good old Gaybo is the man responsible for daring to afflict a dose of reality on our ‘wink wink, nod nod’ culture.

When he first took up his job in the RSA, he made it clear that he wouldn’t be a patsy for anybody; he wasn’t going to be a fall guy for inept politicians, he was going to take his job seriously.

What Gaybo didn’t reckon on was the power of the ‘wink wink, nod nod’ culture, he didn’t realise how deeply dependent Irish society is on a culture that allows it to exist at several removes from reality.

The crisis was only brought to an end when this life saving law was deferred until next June on the pretext that the 121,871 drivers affected needed the time to apply for and sit their test.

Noel Dempsey has assured us that all the problems associated with learner drivers will be resolved by next June and that all laws relating to such drivers will be strictly enforced. Noel may be physically living on planet Earth but it has yet to be established what planet his brain is on.

No, the real reason for this lead in period is to allow Irish society time to recover from the trauma caused by Gaybo’s mad attempt to actually enforce a law.

An imbecilic people

In response (5th item) to the claim that his latest pay rise would see his salary rise above that of the leaders of France, Britain and America, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said;

“I’m glad I don’t own Chequers and I don’t have No. 10, I don’t have the Elysee Palace, if you want to build those in then you would know what the figures would be and I certainly don’t want the White House.”

Only an imbecile would suggest that the leaders of France, Britain and America actually own the buildings where they work and that such ownership adds substantially to their wealth.

Only an imbecilic people would accept such a sneering and arrogant excuse from their Prime Minister.

Proud to be a loser

I’m a great fan of black comedy, especially when it’s performed by somebody who is being serious and has no idea how funny the material is (Playwright, Shea Lenihan, RTE ‘The Living Word’, 23rd Oct.).

I’m getting a T-shirt made with the logo, ‘Proud to be a loser’.

We Irish used to sympathise with the underdog. As a community we felt diminished when one our own was diminished, we were aggrieved. Our natural instinct was to consider it either bad luck or injustice or a bit of both.

Now we are proud to be winners and fearful of being called losers as though one category could possibly exist without the other. I don’t think you can own anything worth owning in this life until you’ve lost it first and found it again or at least found a part of it.

The fact is you don’t appreciate anything, even life itself, until it starts to slip away and slip away it surely does. You never really escape anything. The knocking in the engine never really just goes away, the twinge in the knee isn’t a pulled muscle, the tightening in the chest isn’t wind. There’s a reckoning that awaits us all.

We’re not winners and losers, we’re all losers. That’s what defines us and unites us and ought to make us proud to be us. We should all be fighting to wear that T-shirt.

We struggle to be born, we struggle to die and in between, if we’re lucky, we struggle to maintain a little dignity in a hard world. And somehow, amazingly, all this makes us better people and that’s the way life is and that’s the way we are.

And those who think they live another kind of life, a synthetic life not governed by these laws. Well, maybe they’re the real losers, the biggest losers, the ones who, temporarily at least, have lost their way.

To understand where Mr. Lenihan got his (hilariously) dark attitude to life, listen to his equally funny contribution on the 24th Oct., where he describes his father’s attitude to death.

Great material for any aspiring comedian

Facing the most appalling reality

In my previous post concerning the conflict between the Mahon Tribunal and the Irish Times I mentioned the tendency in Ireland to fudge difficult situations in order to avoid facing uncomfortable realities.

This is a crucial factor in a dysfunctional democracy like Ireland. Our entire way of doing things is finely balanced on the pretence that we are just like any other accountable Western democracy.

Within hours an expert media lawyer was providing just such fudge on the RTE Six One News (2nd item).

Michael Keeley, after first explaining how European law was way ahead of Irish law in allowing journalists freedom of expression, suggested that perhaps there was some ‘wriggle room’ to resolve what he described as this major constitutional crisis.

He suggested that if the journalists gave an assurance that the leak didn’t originate from the Mahon Tribunal then perhaps a compromise could be reached.

If this or any other fudge is utilised and accepted then the High Court, the tribunal, the journalists, the Government and Irish society in general can all pretend that the law wasn’t really broken and happily return to the fiction that we live in a real democracy.

In a real democracy the High Court would insist on the law being respected in its entirety, the tribunal would insist that the source of the leak be revealed and the journalists would be thrown in jail if they persisted in standing by their principles.

This would force the Government to deal with the reality of the situation by bringing Irish law into line with European law where journalists are given extra protection to protect their sources thus making them more effective in exposing corruption.

But then again, if journalists were allowed to be more effective in exposing corruption, Irish society would be in danger of having to face the most appalling reality of all – that Ireland is a corrupt state.

Journalistic principles v The law

The High Court has ordered the editor of The Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy and its Public Affairs Correspondent, Colm Keena, to comply with the Mahon Tribunal.

In September 2006 The Irish Times published an article giving details of Mahon Tribunal investigations being made into payments made to Bertie Ahern in 1993.

The tribunal summonsed journalist Colm Keena and Editor Geraldine Kennedy before it and asked them questions about the source of the information they printed.

Their refusal to answer led the tribunal to seek High Court orders compelling them to do so.

The critical aspect of this case seems to be the deliberate destruction of documents that would have identified the source of the leak after the journalists had received a summons to produce them to the tribunal.

It’s likely that if they had destroyed the documents before being ordered to produce them the traditional Irish fudge could have been ultilised in order to avoid facing the reality of the situation.

As it was not even an Irish court could accept such a challenge to the law. The court said:

“The deliberate decision taken by the journalists to destroy the documents at issue in the case after they had received a summons to produce them to the tribunal was an astounding and flagrant disregard for the rule of law.

“In doing this the defendants had cast themselves as the adjudicators of the proper balance to be struck between the rights and interests of all concerned, a role reserved by the Constitution and the law exclusively for the courts and it said that such a manner of proceeding is anathema to the rule of law and an affront to democratic order and if tolerated is the surest way to anarchy.”

According to an RTE report ( 2nd item); “the decision to destroy the documents was a relevant consideration in deciding what weight should be give to the arguments on both sides.”

Clearly, Geraldine Kennedy and Colm Keena passionately believe that the uncovering of corruption is sometimes more important than obeying the law. Kennedy said;

“We had an important story which we wanted to publish in the public interest. We exist as journalists to serve the people’s right to know.”

They may now have to serve time in jail to preserve their high journalistic principles.

The law outside the law?

Yet another solicitor is under scrutiny for allegedly robbing his clients. Michael Lynn, solicitor and property developer is under investigation by the Law Society for what they sheepishly describe as ‘acts of dishonesty’ possibly involving millions of euros.

On Liveline last Thursday (18th Oct.) a caller related how his mother and father were robbed by another solicitor, a case that demonstrates just how well protected this privileged group is from real justice.

In 1981, the couple bought a property in Nassau Street Dublin. Unfortunately, they employed a corrupt solicitor by the name of Johnathan Brooks.

He never disclosed to them that he was the owner of the property and on the day they bought the property Brooks changed the leases on the two shops on the ground floor so that they reverted to him after a number of years. This crooked solicitor also robbed the registration and stamp duty on the property.

When the corruption was discovered in 1985 a complaint was made to the Law Society but they didn’t want to know. This is not unusual behaviour for this august body.

After over a year of stalling the matter eventually came before the disciplinary committee of the High Court. This court has the power to strike off a solicitor.

The caller related how badly he was treated by the three sitting judges and claimed that they were sitting in judgement of him rather than the corrupt solicitor. Eventually, Brooks admitted that he had ‘forgotten to do the paperwork’. (A case of tribunalitis?).

He assured the judges that he had paid all the fines, settled with Revenue and stamped all the deeds. The learned gentlemen never asked for proof of these claims and some years later the caller discovered that Brooks had lied to the court.

In all, Brooks robbed about €15 million from clients in his short criminal career, he committed suicide in 1992.

Joe Duffy naively asked about reimbursement for the victims of this rogue solicitor from the Law Society. In fact, the Law Society did everything they could to keep this very valuable property for themselves. It was only when they were threatened with the High Court and given a sum of money that they relented.

It took this family 24 years to get what was rightfully theirs back from this criminal solicitor and the greed of the Law Society. The caller said that of about 100 solicitors he had dealt with in his life, only about five were honest – he’s lucky.

He also said that solicitors should be put in stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables – I agree.

Reckless hero

Sometimes it’s the small things that highlight our lax attitude to the law and how we seem to be totally ignorant of why obedience to law is good for us.

Last Tuesday (16th), Pat Kenny was interviewing a taxi man who refused to hand over his cash to a gun waving thief. The (foolish) ‘have a go hero’ was describing how his seat belt prevented him from getting out of his cab to confront the gunman.

Pat Kenny:

A lot of drivers don’t wear seat belts and I think you’re allowed by law not to wear it.

Foolish Hero:

No, that changed, Pat. We have to wear it and to be honest with you I don’t wear it a lot myself. Maybe on longer spins but around town I’m inclined to just strap it around my shoulders.

Pat:

Yeah, but on this occasion it was clicked in?

Foolish Hero:

Unfortunately, it was, and fortunately, I don’t know what I’d have done if I’d got straight out.

There’s a good chance the thief would have panicked and shot our hero if he hadn’t been restrained for that vital moment. In effect, the seat belt probably saved his life.

Pat Kenny was very impressed by the reckless bravery of the taxi man so he’s probably also impressed that he constantly puts his life in danger every day by driving around without a seat belt.

Brutal reality

This excellent letter in today’s Irish Times cuts right to the core of why Susie Long died.

Madam,

The death of Susie Long has provoked understandable expressions of sympathy and concern from many people. The Taoiseach expressed his own anguish in Dáil Éireann on Tuesday. These sentiments seem to be a genuine mark of his humanity.

He implied that the system had failed her. We disagree. The system actually worked exactly as it is designed to do. She was a public patient and therefore had to go on a waiting list – for seven months. Another patient with the same condition was treated within a few days because he had private health insurance.

This is the two-tier health system, working perfectly as designed.

Yours, etc,

ELIZABETH WATERS, TONY KENNY, Connaught Street, Phibsboro, Dublin 7.

Protecting the vultures

On July 13th last I wrote about the many excuses given by the Financial Services Ombudsman, Joe Meade, to avoid identifying the greedy vultures that infest the Irish financial sector. Joe added one more excuse today on RTEs News at One (5th item).

The latest case involved an 86 year old farmer. The man had just sold his farm for €1.4 million and was advised by his bank to invest in two long term insurance bonds. The capital was guaranteed provided they were kept in for four and six years.

The man died seven months later by which time the bonds had dropped by €50,000. Joe told the bank that it was inappropriate to sell these bonds and directed that the €50,000 be refunded.

Hilariously, Joe appealed to the banks to look into their hearts and review all accounts to see if they are appropriate.

When asked why he won’t name the low life bank, Joe said he didn’t have legal coverage.

Let’s remind ourselves of the extensive legal powers that Joe does have. He has the power of entry and seizure, he can require employees to provide information under oath, he can enter premises and demand documents and the High Court is the only external party that can overturn his decisions – but yet, according to Joe, he doesn’t have the simple legal power to name the vultures. The obvious question is – Was this a deliberate omission when the legislation was being drawn up?

Bizarrely, Joe justified his stance by reference to a recent High Court decision that went against him on a matter completely unrelated to the ripping off of the elderly.

So what hope does Joe offer the many vulnerable customers out there that his office is allegedly protecting?

Well, he wants to start a public debate on the matter. Just think about that suggestion, a public debate on whether the financial vultures that prey on the elderly should be named and shamed.

Joe then suggests that perhaps the Minister for Finance and the Dail could pass legislation on the matter. Let’s see; public debate and then action by a Government minister and the Dail, give it about ten maybe fifteen years. Meanwhile, the greedy vultures continue to enjoy the great benefits of state protection.

The reality is that, from a consumer point of view, the Financial Services Ombudsman is a useless organisation. It operates on the same basis as the equally useless Financial Regulator.

When the financial vultures are caught picking over the bones of a customer’s account they are merely required to pay back their ill gotten gains. No police, no fines, no names.

A pervasive and systemic disease

I’ve just bought “The Bitter Pill”, a book that exposes the brutal reality of our so called health system. The junior doctor who wrote the book felt it necessary to do so anonymously for fear of reprisal – a damning indictment of our low quality democracy.

I’ve only read the first 30 pages and already I’m angry. Here are some quotes.

Page 9:

“For the past few years I have had access to the health services from the inside. It is this insider’s perspective that is so often lacking in the media-driven analysis of the problems plaguing the heath system.

The horrific stories we read every day in the newspapers and hear on the radio – people left on trolleys in A&E; gross mismanagement of patients in ludicrous circumstances; a young mother turned away from hospital, only to be discovered later, drowned in the river with her two young children – these stories, while undeniably inexcusable, are not actually the problems, but rather the symptoms.

They are the horrifying results of a deeper, pervasive and systemic disease that has colonized the Irish health system and threatens to disable it entirely.”

Page 21:

“I was working in a job where the level of disrespect toward patients was intolerable.”

“When you see a person’s basic human rights violated without cause, it makes you evaluate things in a different light.”

“I saw the basic foundations of good medical practice ripped apart on a daily basis, and I came to the point where I was no longer able to tolerate it.”

Page 22:

“I began to realise that the biggest problem with the health service was the lack of candid information available to the public about its failures.”

“I have known doctors whose careers have been jeopardized as a result of speaking out about bad practice in the workplace.”

“I am in no doubt that were my identity to be revealed, it would greatly diminish my future prospects and possibly even force me to go to another country if I want to continue practicing medicine.”

“I can no longer stand idly by and watch the simple things ignored, watch patients, nurses and doctors pay the price for bad policies that serve the interests of everyone but the public.”

The comment at the end of page 9 is the most telling:

“They are the horrifying results of a deeper, pervasive and systemic disease that has colonised the Irish health system and threatens to disable it entirely.”

I would apply the comment to the administration of Ireland as a whole, changing it accordingly:

“The many horrifying acts of incompetence and corruption that reflect a deeper, pervasive, and systemic disease that has colonised every level of Irish society.”