Cameron’s legacy: Irish Times gets it wrong

 

 

 

img

By Anthony Sheridan

 

His legacy will be defined and blighted by how he left office. Above all he will be blamed for Brexit.

The above is how an Irish Times editorial described the resignation of David Cameron.

Let’s try to figure out how the Brexit referendum ‘blighted’ Cameron’s legacy.

He decided to ask the people of the UK if they wanted to remain or leave the European Union. Now, admittedly, he did so under pressure from UKIP but that’s realpolitik for you. From what I observed Cameron conducted the campaign in a statesmanlike and honest fashion. Within hours of losing he delivered an impressive speech announcing his resignation – how does this blight his legacy?

Compare this to Irish politicians when they lose referendums. The democratic will of the people is ignored, the result is not accepted, and there are no resignations. The people are patronisingly told that they must have misunderstood the issue and are forced to vote again. Democracy is, in effect, suspended until the government gets its way.

Now lets compare this ludicrous assessment of Cameron’s legacy with how the legacy of the criminal politician Charles Haughey was assessed by former editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, in 2006.

Keep in mind that Haughey was a national traitor responsible for infecting the body politic with the disease of corruption. He plundered the state’s resources for decades and lived on bribes from rich businessmen who were richly rewarded by the criminal at the expense of Irish citizens. He was a ruthless bully and serial perjurer; he was a man who betrayed his wife and family for decades by openly whoring with every slut that came within range of his sleazy presence.

This was Kennedy’s assessment:

On this day, however, it is worth acknowledging that Charles Haughey was the most charismatic figure in Irish politics in living memory. Though small in stature, he had a great presence. He was an astute parliamentarian. He possessed his own particular sense of nationhood. And for good or ill, Mr. Haughey’s character, ambitions, beliefs and flaws are an integral part of the development of this modern State.

Irish Water/RTE and numbers

 

th

By Anthony Sheridan

This from Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan on how much Irish Water has paid RTE in advertising costs.

Today I received confirmation through a Freedom of Information request to Irish Water how much the utility has spent on advertisement costs with the national broadcaster, RTÉ.

The figures released to me showed that the net cost of advertisement with RTE excluding VAT was €717,286 from the period of 2013-2015.

I wonder is there any correlation between this massive number and the tiny numbers of water protesters regularly reported by RTE News – just asking.

Sean Fleming TD: A jellyfish in charge of PAC

Sean Fleming TD: A jellyfish in charge of PAC

 

 

Accountable-Government-Cartoon

By Anthony Sheridan

The mainstream/establishment media commonly refer to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) as a watchdog relentlessly working on behalf of the public to bring wrongdoers to account.

The brutal truth is that the PAC is a fake (See here for the truth of fake Irish regulatory authorities). It has no effective powers to actually bring anybody to account, it is nothing more than a waffling chamber where over-paid politicians listen endlessly to the echo of their own worthless gibberish.

And this is no accident; the PAC, in common with all so-called Irish regulatory authorities, is specifically designed to give an impression of accountability.  With no real accountability the corrupt have a clear road to continue with their activities without hindrance. We see the proof of this every day throughout the media.

In recent times however some members of the PAC such as its previous chairman Fianna Fail TD John McGuinness and Sinn Fein TD Mary Lou McDonald committed the cardinal sin of Irish politics – they began to take their role as public representatives seriously, they actually began to ask real questions, make real demands for accountability.

This would not do, some very powerful people were very upset at this development, their interests were being put at risk by this outbreak of democratic accountability.

And so, as part of the negotiations to form the current government, the PAC was not only put back in its box, there was a heavy padlock fitted and the key thrown away.

And to make double sure that this so-called watchdog knows its place and does what it is told a new chairman, Fianna Fail TD Sean Fleming, was appointed.

Fleming has the backbone of a jellyfish as demonstrated by his response to the new restrictions imposed on the committee he is, allegedly, in charge of.

So the power has now been taken… they don’t want them (committees) operating independently of the commission with free reign.

And his personal view on the stripping away of any vestige of power his committee might have wielded?

Use the powers you have to the best ability without having to use the powers you don’t have.

More on this later…

Copy to:

All PAC members

Is this why the charity sector is not regulated?

maxresdefault

By Anthony Sheridan

The Irish charity sector has a massive turnover of over 8 billion annually with over 3 billion of that coming directly from the pockets of taxpayers and yet, the sector is completely unregulated.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

For decades, government after government, was asked to bring in legislation to establish an effective charity regulator, they never did.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

Then, years later and after some particularly nasty scandals, the government was forced to draft legislation and establish a charity regulator but decided not to enact the legislation or allow the regulator to begin operations. This decision was made on the grounds that it was too expensive to spend five or six million a year to regulate an industry with a turnover of over 8 billion.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

Then, after even more nasty scandals, the government was forced to allow the Charity Regulator to begin operation but only with very restricted funding and without the power to actually investigate any alleged wrongdoing.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

Now we have the latest scandal involving the charity Console. Here’s what’s (not) happening.

The Charity Regulator has no power to act.

The Public Accounts Committee is going to discuss the matter but, like the Regulator, has no power to act.

The HSE has been aware for the last ten years that something was wrong but took no effective action.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, apart from having a ridiculously pompous title, is a toothless tiger.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

Meanwhile, countless thousands of very vulnerable people are suffering untold agonies because the state and its agencies don’t care enough to look after their needs.

Why is this?

The most likely reason is that effective regulation would interfere with the interests of some very powerful people.

Copy to:

All agencies mentioned

Console: Just the latest in long line of charity scandals

scam

By Anthony Sheridan

Letter in today’s Irish Times. The first paragraph of the letter was edited out; I include it here in brackets.

(The scandal exposed by RTEs Primetime involving the charity Console is just the latest in a long line of scandals surrounding the charity industry.)

Sir,

Following a spate of scandals in 2014, the then government established the Charities Regulatory Authority. The effectiveness of this new organisation can be summed up in just one sentence taken from its website:

“We are not currently empowered or resourced to conduct statutory investigations of charities.”

Yours, etc,

Anthony Sheridan

Cobh,

Co Cork.

Irish Examiner compares water protesters with Provisional IRA

 

media-bias

By Anthony Sheridan

This is what the editor of the Irish Examiner thinks of water charges protesters:

Those who campaigned against the (water) charges might disagree and imagine, like the Provos, that they won the war when nothing more than a ceasefire has been called.

Make no mistake about it water charges will be imposed under one heading or another no matter how loudly the minority who oppose them shout.

Comparing citizens who engage in the democratic right of peaceful protest with the Provisional IRA is an indication of how far ethical/professional standards have fallen in mainstream media.

Copy to:

Irish Examiner

RTE: A mouthpiece for a corrupt regime?

 

vote_no_to_rte_bias_and_groupthink_by_christiantruthteller-d8qk1f5

By Anthony Sheridan

There is no evidence or even a claim that the murdered MP Jo Cox was the subject of abuse on social media. The only mention I am aware of is that she received ‘malicious communication of a sexual nature’ at her parliamentary office. This could have been by phone, letter, email, in person or social media.

But this lack of evidence has not stopped many Irish politicians and mainstream media jumping on the hypocrisy wagon to cynically exploit Ms. Cox’s brutal murder.

One particularly disgraceful example of this exploitation of a murder to promote an obvious agenda occurred on RTEs The Week in Politics.

The panel, as usual, was heavily weighed in favour of the government/establishment.

Representing the establishment view was Dara Murphy Fine Gael and Thomas Byrne Fianna Fail. Journalist Elaine Byrne and the presenter of the show, Aine Lawlor, represented mainstream media.

Against this stacked panel was Mick Barry of AAA/PBP, representing left wing politics and the anti-establishment view.

The bizarre line of questions put to Mr. Barry clearly exposed the biased agenda of RTE and is worth analysing to demonstrate that truth.

Aine Lawlor: Staying with the Irish response to immigration, we have a short clip of the controversial UKIP poster that attracted a lot of attention shortly before Jo Cox was murdered.

Viewers were shown a news clip of a British right wing politician promoting a right wing poster in favour of Brexit shortly before a right wing extremist murdered Jo Cox then, bizarrely; Lawlor put the following question to left wing politician Mick Barry.

Why is the politics of fear travelling particularly, as it seems, with a lot of working class voters, Labour voters, left wing voters in Britain?

Mr. Barry, while in the process of condemning extreme right wing politics in Britain and America, was interrupted by Lawlor.

But you know here in the past turbulent, painful years there were many people on the far Left who did target politicians personally. Do you regret that, I know there’s a lot of anger out there but has there been too much personalised anti politicians campaigning?

So Lawlor moved from discussing extreme right wing politics in the UK and the right wing murder of Jo Cox to asking Barry to express regret for the angry reaction of Irish citizens to the wholesale destruction of their lives by mainstream politicians.

The Fianna Fail politician on the panel, whose party was principally responsible for the catastrophe, was not asked to express any regret for his party’s actions. Neither was the right wing Fine Gael politician whose party ruthlessly continued and added to the suffering of Irish citizens.

This biased strategy of showing a news clip and then demanding a condemnation or an expression of regret has become common practice within RTE current affairs and seems to target only Sinn Fein and left wing politicians.

Clearly puzzled by Lawlor’s line of questioning Barry asked her what she was referring to.

I’m referring to a number of incidents which I think everybody else on the panel would… I’m not going to single out specific incidents because I don’t want to get into the ins and outs.

I’m talking about the way politicians were harassed at their homes, I’m talking about the online abuse that they got, I’m talking about a level of protest that has been endured by politicians here and certain politicians in Britain. You’re condemning it on the far right, I’m simply asking do you regret and deplore it on the far left as well.

Lawlor’s comment ‘I think everybody else on the panel would…’ suggests she was about to declare that everybody else on the panel agrees with her comments and her line of questioning.

The Fianna Fail and Fine Gael politicians were then allowed to join the attack on the so-called far left with little interference from Lawlor and again were not asked to condemn or express regret for the catastrophic damage their respective parties have inflicted on Ireland and its people.

When they finished their hypocritical and largely inaccurate comments Lawlor once again attacked Barry and left wing politics.

You’ve heard the two politicians beside you saying there are issues with some people on the Left and the way they have been harassing politicians – do you deplore that kind of individual harassment?

Keep in mind that the issue under discussion was the activities of UK right wing politicians and the murder of MP Jo Cox by a right wing extremist.

Here are some facts:

Ireland suffered more than any other country in the world as a result of the global economic collapse in 2008. The reason Ireland suffered so much is that, over decades, our corrupt political system created an environment of zero regulation that allowed bankers, property developers, lawyers and other elites to do as they pleased.

The response of the Irish people to the catastrophe visited upon them by corrupt politicians was the most peaceful, most responsible in the world – without exception.

RTE, while always conservative, was once a relatively professional and well balanced broadcaster.

Since 2008, and particularly since a significant percentage of Irish citizens began to rebel against political corruption, the broadcaster has become little more than a mouthpiece for the corrupt political regime.

Copy to:

RTE/Aine Lawlor

Dara Murphy

Thomas Byrne

Elaine Byrne

All political parties

Newstalk responds to complaint

 

 

570e2b875ec69.image

By Anthony Sheridan

Newstalk has responded to my complaint regarding comments by George Hook.  I include the response below and my reply.

Anthony,

Apologies once again for the delayed response to your complaint.

Having reviewed the programme in question and considered your complaint I do not believe that the segment referred to is in breach of our obligations under the Codes of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs.

The Right Hook, the programme from which the segment is taken is not a news programme and George Hook is not a news reporter/presenter. The remit of his programme is broad current affairs. Section 21 of the Code does therefore not apply.

Section 22 as you note contends that  ‘It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme to ensure that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the subject of the programme or item; to facilitate the expression of contributors‘ opinions – sometimes by forceful questioning; and to reflect the views of those who cannot, or choose not to, participate in content. This being so, a presenter and/or a reporter on a current affairs programme shall not express his or her own views on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate such that a partisan position is advocated’. 

In the segment under discussion George Hook did not express his opinion such that a partisan position was being advocated. He expressed a perspective on the subject in question, a perspective that while suggested by many interactions of the programme may not otherwise have been heard.

Furthermore his expression of this perspective was in the context of a regular editorial delivered by him every evening at 4.30pm. As section 23 of the Code specifies such ‘personal view’ or  ‘authored’ current affairs segments ‘can be appropriate, subject to normal editorial controls …. [especially]  if part of a series of related segments/programmes which, taken together, will discharge the statutory obligations’. Listeners to this programme would have been very aware of this context and the content I believe did discharge the statutory obligations.

In summary, I do not believe that the programme in question breached our obligations under the Code.

Kind Regards,

—————

Thank you

I do not agree with your conclusions. I have already forwarded my complaint to BAI and will forward your response to the authority today.

Regards

Anthony

 

Newstalk: Contempt for listeners and broadcasting regulations

 

100_1178

By Anthony Sheridan

On 19 May last I made a formal complaint to Newstalk in response to comments made by George Hook on 11 May (Beginning of section one) about a number of politicians on the issue of water charges.

Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) regulations requires the station to acknowledge my complaint and respond within 20 days.

On 23 May I received an acknowledgement but, 33 days later, there has been no response.

This dismissive attitude by Newstalk to complaints is not only unprofessional, it also demonstrates contempt for listeners, broadcasting rules and regulations and the authority of the BAI.

I suspect that Denis O’Brien, the owner of Newstalk, would have released his lawyers within minutes if the comments made by Hook were directed at O’Brien.

I have now forwarded my complaint to the BAI for investigation.

Copy to:

Newstalk

BAI