National lottery: More profit, more arrogance

When Premier Lotteries CEO Dermot Griffin was asked how much extra profit his company would make from the recent massive price increase he, effectively, told the nation to feck off and mind its own business.

This letter in today’s Irish Independent is a good answer to Mr. Griffin’s arrogance.

Against all odds, it’s the lottery

There’s a chance you could win a million or two or even three!

Come September, all it will cost you is €5. Your chance of winning is 11 million to one. You might also have to share with 10 or 20 other winners.

I’m speaking about the new format for the Irish Lotto. They say it will be much better. I think what they really mean is it will be much harder and a lot dearer.

It will be like picking the winner of a 30-runner field in the English Grand National. Plus you must forecast how many horses fall, what fence each horse falls at, what the jockey said as he was falling.

What each jockey had that morning for their breakfast, what colour underpants each jockey wore.

You must also name in correct order the first 10 finishers, you must also name every punter in attendance. Also their age, how much each has in their pocket and lastly their address.

I know it’s a little hard but it’s about the same odds you have of winning the new Irish Lotto.

OK, so do you want to play the new Lotto or answer the few simple questions above?

Fred Molloy
Dublin 15

Gender quotas: One form of discrimination to counteract another?

Letter in today’s Irish Times.

I agree with the writer’s opinion that gender quota legislation is nothing more than using one form of discrimination to counteract another.

Sir,

Emer O’Toole (“So gender quotas are sexist? What nonsense”, August 10th) bemoans gender quota legislation “which ensures that (a mere) 30 per cent of party candidates are women”. What would she suggest? A clean 50 per cent perhaps? Not only would such electoral engineering be hypocritical (the introduction of formal gender quotas to address a system of alleged informal gender quotas), but things are not as simple as that.

Emer O’Toole might consider, for example, a scenario where one of her local Dáil candidates is male, who is “pro-choice” and his rival is female, who is “pro-life”. I presume O’Toole would be inclined to vote for the latter? Perhaps we should introduce gender quotas for “pro-choice” female candidates only?

Despite Emer O’Toole’s arguments in favour of gender quotas, electoral engineering is not as discreet a science as she makes out and one must always consider the law of unintended consequence. Moreover, one cannot ride roughshod over what should (and I emphasise should) be an open, meritocratic competition in the name of what is in reality one form of discrimination to counteract another.

Candidates should be chosen on the basis of ability and merit, irrespective of gender. Gender quotas, by their very nature, facilitate and encourage sexual discrimination. Is this not precisely what advocates of gender quotas are seeking to address? They are a short-sighted and misguided solution to discrimination faced by women in running for the Dáil.

Engineering a change in the gender profile of the Dáil will, of itself, do little to remedy its well-documented deficiencies, for example the lack of ability to hold the executive to account, the whip system, the dearth of relevant expertise, groupthink and guillotining.

Yours, etc,
Rob Sadlier
Dublin 16

Mass cards and avoiding a ten year jail sentence

It is now six years since it became a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

It is also six years since I first applied to the bishop of Cloyne for permission to sell Mass cards. Over the years I have received various reasons why permission was not forthcoming.

The last letter I received from the bishop, in March 2014, gave me permission, sort of, to sell unsigned Mass cards. This, however, is wholly unacceptable as I make clear in my reply to the bishop.

29 July 2015

Dear Bishop Crean,

Thank you for your letter dated 24 March 2014.

Since receiving your letter I have been engaged in research and negotiations in preparation for the launch of my business project – the selling of signed and unsigned Mass cards.

I am now at a point where it is impossible for me to proceed without your express permission as required under Section 99 of the Charities Act, 2009.

In your letter dated 24 March 2014 you express the following understanding regarding the selling of unsigned Mass cards:

It is my understanding that the relevant section of the Charities Act refers to the sale of Mass cards which at the time of sale already bear the signature of a priest and thus indicate that a Mass will be offered for a specific intention.

The Bishop has no role in the sale of Mass cards which are unsigned at the time of sale.

If I was confident in your interpretation of the relevant section I would consider proceeding immedately with the sale of unsigned Mass cards.

However, I believe your interpretation is flawed. The relevant section makes no mention of specifically allowing the sale of Mass cards bearing the signature of a priest at the point of sale.

The relevant section makes no mention of, and therefore no distinction between, signed and unsigned Mass cards. It would therefore be very unwise of me to engage in the selling of unsigned Mass cards without your specific permission.

I have consulted with a legal expert on the issue and he is in agreement with my conclusion.

You will understand that I must be very careful in my actions at this point as the punishment for the illegal sale of even a single Mass Card is extremely severe.

A conviction for selling a non-authorised Mass card carries a ten year jail sentence or a fine of up to €300,000.

Furthermore, you will be aware that the law on this matter dispenses with the long-established legal principle of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ and replaces that principle with a ‘guilty until proved innocent’ provision as follows:

In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probibilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.

In order to be absolutely safe in proceeding with my business project I require, by law, your formal permission.

I therefore again formally request permission to sell signed and unsigned Mass cards as required under Section 99 of the Charities Act, 2009

Yours sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

Labour TD Derek Nolan is a hypocrite

It’s now one week since I challenged Labour TD Derek Nolan to condemn his party colleague Senator Denis Landy for refusing to report bribery allegations he made in 2013 to the Gardai.

My challenge was in response to Nolan’s strong condemnation of Social Democratic TDs for refusing to pay their water charges.

This is Nolan’s opinion of those who refuse to obey the law.

There is no future for our democracy in people picking and choosing which laws they obey.

To my knowledge deputy Nolan has not responded to my challenge and therefore it is reasonable to assume the following:

Nolan’s concern for the rule of law is bogus. He is a hypocrite and therefore is not to be trusted as a public representative.

Sadly, he’s one of the many young politicians who are loyal members of the gombeen culture that’s responsible for the destruction of our country.

Happily, that corrupt political regime is coming to an end.

Corruption: Feeding off the carcass of Irish democracy

The following words, spoken by Barack Obama in Kenya, have never been heard in Ireland.

People were being consistently sapped by corruption at a high level and at a low level and there was a need for visible prosecutions to show Kenyans that action was being taken.

They (Kenyan people) don’t have to be forensic accountants to know what is going on.

Until these words are spoken and acted upon in Ireland we will continue to have endless inquiries and tribunals that are specifically designed to allow the disease of corruption to endlessly feed off the carcass of Irish democracy.

Government making Irish Water too big to fail?

Colette Browne has an excellent piece in yesterday’s Irish Independent in which she outlines and analyses the grotesque amounts of money being pumped (no apology for pun) into Irish Water.

I suspect that part of the reason so much money is being poured into the bottomless pit that is Irish Water is to make its loans and liabilities so big that the Government can claim that its too big to fail and therefore must be saved at any cost (to the taxpayer) – just like the banks.

Here’s a quote referring to Alan Kelly’s ecstatic response to the fact that just 46pc of people are actually paying water charges.

Monty Python’s Black Knight – who insisted his injuries were only a flesh wound even as his opponent hacked off his arms and his legs – Mr Kelly was adamant it was the Government’s plan all along that most people would ignore their water bills.

A direct challenge to Labour Party TD Derek Nolan

Labour TD Derek Nolan recently delivered a political sermon with the heading:

Do the Social Democrats believe in the rule of law?

Deputy Nolan was writing about the decision of Social Democrat TDs not to pay their water charges and didn’t mince his words:

There is no future for our democracy in people picking and choosing which laws they obey.

In July 2013 Labour Senator Denis Landy alleged that a political person attempted to bribe him within the confines of the Oireachtas. He has refused to name the person involved or report the matter to the Gardai despite numerous calls for him to do so.

Senator Landy’s refusal to report the matter seems to be in breach of Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011 which states:

19. (1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he or she has information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in

(a) preventing the commission by any other person of a relevant offence, or

(b) securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a relevant offence and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as it is practicable to do so to a member of the Garda Síochána.

The list of offences under this legislation includes bribery.

The Labour Party, through a spokesperson, responded to this extremely serious incident by declaring that the bribery attempt was a matter for Senator Landy himself.

In effect, the Labour party is saying that Labour TDs who are offered a bribe have no obligation to report the matter to the Gardai; they can simply treat the matter as private and personal.

This disgraceful response also seems to be in breach of Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011.

So here’s my direct challenge to deputy Nolan.

One: Will you publicly condemn Labour Senator Denis Landy, (as you have publicly condemned Social Democrat TDs), for refusing to report to the Gardai bribery allegations he made in July 2013?

Two: Will you publicly call on Senator Landy, even at this late stage, to report the bribery allegations to the Gardai as he is obliged to do under law?

Three: Will you publicly condemn the disgraceful Labour Party response to this extremely serious matter?

Four: Will you publicly call on the Labour Party to issue a statement confirming that Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011 takes precedence over the party’s policy that bribery attempts are a private matter between a politician and the person offering the bribe?

Your response to this challenge will decide whether your condemnation of Social Democratic TDs is based on genuine concern for the rule of law or whether it’s based on traditional Irish political hypocrisy.

One week, I believe is a reasonable length of time for a response.

Yours etc.,
Anthony Sheridan

Copy to:
Deputy Nolan
Senator Landy
Labour Party