Anti Sinn Fein campaign: The penny begins to drop

Irish Independent journalist Eamon Delaney used most of his 900 word article on the visit of Prince Charles to say something that can be summed up in the following sentence.

Sinn Fein made a political mistake in not meeting the Queen when she visited Ireland in 2011.

But Delaney did make a reference, even if only very obliqulely, to the massive elephant in the room – the ongoing anti-Sinn Fein propaganda campaign by the establishment parties and their many media supporters.

And it is strange that the main political parties here were reportedly opposed to such a meeting, (Adams meeting Prince Charles) given that four years ago they would have dragged Adams up the carpet to meet the queen.

Let us hope that the electoral threat of Sinn Féin has not made our political parties think only of themselves these days and not of the overall good of the peace process.

Ah I really love it when I hear the sound of a penny dropping.

Delaney is the first establishment journalist that I know of who is, slowly, beginning to realise that the attacks on Sinn Fein have nothing whatsoever to do with any unfinished matters surrounding the war in the North.

It is exclusively to do with the abject fear of the establishment parties/ruling elite of this country witnessing the entry of a powerful, well organised, non-establishment political force entering the previously exclusive domain of that privileged ruling elite.

Breaking: Gerry Adams foiled by anti-terrorist team

I’m shocked, absolutely shocked I tell you. I’ve just heard that Prince Charles is in the country and neither Gerry Adams nor Mary Lou McDonald have been arrested.

How could this be, how could the current leader of the still in existence Provisional IRA be allowed roam free while one of the terrorist’s prinicpal targets is on holiday here?

What…what did you just say – Adams is going to meet the prince, Jesus Mary agus Joseph who’s in charge of security? Whoever it is I want his balls cooked in a microwave forthwith.

Get me Michael Martin on the line immediately. He has all the facts about how Adams is still organising the IRA, he’ll know how to handle this security crisis.

At last, some good news. I’m told that Martin will accompany Adams when meeting the prince. Very clever, journalists with Independent Newspapers have known for years now that the bulge in Adams’ pants is really a pipebomb.

No doubt our hero Michael will leap in at the vital moment and grab the deadly weapon from between Adams’ legs thus preventing a sinister explosion.

What, what’s that your saying? A special undercover team of hard-hitting anti-terrorists experts has been formed to protect the prince from the terrorist and cult leader Adams.

Let me see that list, I want to make sure they’re hardened anti-terrorist operators of the highest calibre.

Independent Newspapers special forces personell.
Willie Kealy
Jody Corcoran
Eilis O’Hanlon
Jim Cusack

RTE special anti-terrorist team
Cathal Mac Coille
Sean O’Rourke

Irish Times anti-terrorist co-ordinator
Stephan Collins

Phew…ok folks, everybody relax. We have a best in the world anti-terror/anti Sinn Fein team on the ground ready for action if the evil Mr. Adams makes even a hint of a sinister move towards his crotch.

Sean O’Rourke: Missing the climax

Sean O’Rourke was interviewing a gay Catholic man who will be voting No in Friday’s referendum. The man was explaining how he revealed his sexuality to his mother.

He sat in front of her for half an hour before getting up the courage to say the words. Don’t tell dad, I don’t think he’s ready for it yet, he pleaded. Just then his father unexpectedly entered the room.

I was pinned to the radio to hear what happened next but alas, Sean O’Rourke, was not as interested.

Now, let’s talk about the vote on Friday…

Catholic Church loses another piece of its negative power

The Constitution could not be clearer.

The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

So, I ask, why has the State been funding Catholic marriage courses? Answer – history. The funding of such courses is a hangover from a time when the Catholic Church wielded great and abusive power in our country.

The decision to cut funding to such courses is a welcome step in the continuing secularisation of Irish society.

But the bishop of Elphin, Dr. Kevin Doran, is not happy.

It seems to me that if the State does have a commitment to marriage, as the Constitution requires it to do, it is a rather strange move to be withdrawing funding from pre-marriage preparation courses.

There may indeed be a commitment to marriage in the Constitution as the bishop claims but I couldn’t find any mention of it.

As a country/republic we really need to get our act together on the issue of favouring one religion over another or, indeed, favouring any religion.

If the Catholic Church wants to run pre marriage courses it should be allowed to do so but taxpayers should not be required to pay for the service. The State should provide such courses but on a religiously neutral basis

Now, what about the millions wasted on military, hospital and schools chaplins?

Renua makes yet another disastrous decision

I see Lucinda Creighton continues to make disastrous decisions as she struggles to build some credibility for her party.

She has just appointed the former political editor with the Sunday Independent, John Drennan, as director of communications and political strategy.

So why is Drennan’s appointment a disaster? Well, he firmly believes that Tanaiste and Labour Party leader Joan Burton is a great political leader.

By uttering this opinion Drennan has destroyed any credibility he may have as a political advisor/strategist.

But then again anyone who thinks that the criminal politician Haughey was a great man never had much credibility to begin with.

Here are some quotes from an article Mr. Drennan wrote for Magill magazine in 2005.

Why Haughey was never found to be corrupt:

Mr. Haughey was merely following precedents set by such illustrious figures as O’Connell and Parnell.

Reason for perception that Haughey was corrupt:

Haughey’s ‘corruption’ is the fantastical creation of a petit bourgeoisie of Tim Healy-style hysteria mongers, whose insipid viciousness explains their expertise in the price of everything and their ignorance about the value of anything.

On taking money from businessmen:

Of course Mr. Haughey did take money from Ben Dunne and other public-spirited businessmen. However, this was for life-style as distinct to political purposes.

On Haughey’s ‘insourcing’ (theft) of the FF leader’s allowance:

It was in payment for putting his home at Kinsealy at the service of the nation.

On Haughey’s tax problems:

Mr. Haughey did have some minor tax problems. However, unless you are in love with the lifeless technicalities of accountancy it would be easy to believe a gift is not a salary.

On Haughey’s refusal to cooperate with tribunals:

Some would argue that a refusal to obey those semi-legal, amoral instruments of oppression that collude with simpering creeps like Frank Dunlop as both try to save their respective skins was a genuine act of patriotism.

So…best of luck with that appointment Renua.

Olivia O’Leary: Waiting for the penny to drop

I have never, ever understood why governments have allowed public housing stock to be sold off.

This is the incredible admission of ignorance by Olivia O’Leary, one of Ireland’s most experienced, most respected journalists.

Speaking on the subject of social housing Olivia O’Leary demonstrated a disturbing inability in joining up dots.

Here are just some of the dots even the most greenhorn journalist should be capable of joining.

Decades long record of rampant corruption in the planning process.

Very obvious corrupt links between political parties and property developers.

Avalanche of planning corruption revealed by the 14 year long Mahon Tribunal.

And in case Ms. O’Leary’s memory is not the best – the cancellation by the current Fine Gael/Labour government of inquiries into planning allegations at six local authorities.

Or, if all that digging is too much for Ms. O’Leary she could, in a reflective moment, ask a very, very simple question.

Who benefits when politicians farm out social housing contracts to property developers?

Penny dropping?

No, oh dear.

Irish Water: Hey, where’s me money?

During a discussion on inheritance tax on today’s Liveline a lady caller diverted from the topic to relate the following story regarding her first water bill. Really hilarious stuff.

My water bill came in on the 30th April, I paid it that day. I had to make a phone call yesterday evening (to Irish Water) to make an inquiry for one of my sons and when I put in my details it said – you owe €64.10.

Hold on a minute, I said, how could I owe that? So I had to go through the whole thing again. Then (on advice) I checked my bank account and discovered that my money was taken out.

I’ve been on to four different people in Irish Water and they don’t know where my money is.

HSE qualifications

So, Mr. X, why do you think you’re the best man to fill this high level position in the Health Service Executive?

Three reasons:

First, I have a first class PhD degree in spin. There is no situation, no matter how indefencible, no matter how horrific, no matter how damaging to patients that I cannot present as a progressive development in the health service that all right thinking people will applaud.

Incidentally, my PhD thesis focused on how to deliver apologies that can reduce the most well informed, most ardent opponent of HSE policies, to tears.

Second, my loyalty is completely and utterly to the organisation. I am prepared to do anything, say anything to ensure that the organisation is protected above all other considerations.

Third, I have abandoned my moral compass to remove any possibility of hindering the ruthless and efficient realisation of the above two skills.

You’re hired.

RTE rejects bias complaint

RTE have made a decision regarding my recent complaint against Sean O’Rourke regarding bias against Sinn Fein.

Predictably, the station has rejected my complaint. I will now submit it to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

Here’s the RTE reply/decision.

Dear Mr Sheridan,

Thank you for your email concerning The Sean O’Rourke programme of Friday April 17th.

In the 22 minute section of the programme – The Gathering – the programme set out to deal with Seanad Reform, the death of 400 migrants in the Mediterranean, insolvency, a bus strike, along with Mary Lou McDonald and Dail privilege. The presenter also introduced the subject of grants for first time buyers towards the end of the discussion.

We reject your assertion that the discussion was anything less than fair, objective and impartial. During the discussion all the panellists were given time to give their views on the various subjects.. It is not unusual for the presenter to move rapidly from guest to guest as he moves from one topic to another : indeed, over the years this has been a mark of Sean O’Rourke’s presenting style.

The discussion was robust and that again is to be expected considering the issues involved. The presenter was cognisant that none of the individuals named in the Dail, under privilege, or their representatives – since some of them are deceased – were present. His questioning of Deputy Tóibín was completely in keeping, therefore, with that section of Rule 22 of the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs which states: “It is an important part of the role of a presenter of a current affairs programme . . . to reflect the views of those who cannot, or choose not to, participate in content.”

The presenter put forceful questions to Deputy Tóibín in an attempt to elicit whether or not Deputy McDonald – in the first place – or Sinn Féin accepted the bona fides of those named individuals. In our view this was fair and would be expected of the programme by its listeners, and again in keeping with Rule 22 , where it states: “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.”

Finally, your claim that the presenter breached Rule 22 by “strongly and emotionally expressed his personal view” is incorrect. The presenter was, on behalf of listeners, carrying out his professional role of forcefully questioning a panellist whose party colleague was at the centre of public debate concerning her actions in Dáil Éireann. There is a clear distinction between challenging questions and the expression of a partisan view and there was no such expression on this occasion.

If any member of the public is of the opinion that a programme or segment of a programme broadcast on RTÉ has breached a provision of Section 39(1)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 or failed to comply with a provision of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Codes and is not satisfied with RTÉ’s response they are entitled to make a complaint to the BAI.

Yours sincerely,