Senator Landy complaint rejected by Clerk of the Seanad

I received a letter today from the Clerk of the Seanad rejecting my complaint regarding an alleged attempt to bribe Senator Denis Landy (See letter below).

As I wrote previously, it’s a catch 22 situation. If a complaint is not specifically made against a member of the Dail or Senate the State will not act.

In other words, corruption and all other kinds of skullduggery can take place within the confines of our parliament without any response from the State, unless a ‘member’ can be indentified as being involved.

Oh wait, that actually has been the reality for many decades now.

I will now submit a complaint against Senator Denis Landy.

Copy to:
Clerk of the Seanad
Senator Landy
All political parties

Letter from Clerk of the Seanad.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your our previous correspondence and your letter of 8 August 2013.

As you are aware there is a statutory complaints procedure available to members of the public under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001 (“the Ethics Acts”).

Section 8 (2) states “a person…who considers that a member…may have contravened sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act may make a complaint…to the Clerk…” (emphasis added)(by the Clerk of the Seanad).

Thus, as can be seen from s.8 (2) it is a fundamental requirement of the Act that a complaint is made against a member (which is defined in the Acts as a member of Dail or Seanad Eireann).

The member, who should be named or otherwise identified, must be alleged to have contravened s.5 or s.7 or have done a specified act. While you name Senator Landy in your correspondence, it is still not clear that you seek to make a complaint in line with the Ethics Acts. about him or indeed any other Senator.

In the absence of a complaint which meets the requirements of the legislation, including that the complaint should be against a member, I cannot deal with your complaint under the Ethics Acts.

Therefore no further action will be taken by my Office unless a complaint which meets the requirements of the Acts is submitted.

If at any point you do wish to make a complaint in accordance with the Ethics Acts about a Senator, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Clerk of the Seanad

E-voting machines: Everything must be destroyed

I see the e-voting machines have finally been shredded (Irish Examiner).

In June 2012 when the machines were sold to KMK Metals the owner of the company, Kurt Kyck, planned to sell 100 of the 7,500 machines and donate the funds to charity

Unfortunately, the Dept. of the Environment intervened and insisted that every machine must be destroyed.

At the time I rang the company anyway in the hope of purchasing parts of the machines, specifically motherboards and other electronic elements for an art project.

The manager, who clearly had the Department’s warnings still ringing in his ears, was adamant.

I’m sorry Mr. Sheridan but we have been instructed to destroy everything, even down to the smallest component.

It may be an unfair comparison but I was reminded of the Nazi’s destroying records as it became obvious that their crimes were about to be uncovered.

The most deadly animal of all: The raging elephant of corruption

Two recent events serve to demonstrate just how far this country is away from facing reality.

Labour Senator Denis Landy publicly announced that someone had attempted to bribe him within the confines of our parliament.

The media response to this sensational event was moderate at best. There was no state response whatsoever.

A mother and child were attacked by a Tapir in Dublin zoo.

The media response was wall to wall and even now, days after the event, it is still being reported.

Take RTE for example: The incident was reported and analysed at length on Morning Ireland, Today with Myles Dungan, News at One, Liveline and Drivetime.

It made headline news for several days in all the newspapers and some even felt the need to make editorial comment.

On Liveline we heard Joe Duffy asking a caller such penetrating questions as:

Would a sheep make such an attack?

Oh yes, replied the caller, but sheep are weak so wouldn’t do as much damage.

Another caller went into forensic detail about how she was savagely attacked by a cat fourteen weeks ago.

Was it painful, asked Joe?

I never felt pain like it said the savaged woman.

Describe the cat, prompted Joe.

After a detailed description of the deadly cat the woman pleaded with the nation to be on the lookout for the monster.

She finished by warning the nation of just how deadly cats can be.

Cats are more dangerous than dogs because they constantly clean themselves. It’s the salvia, you know, all the germs are collected in the salvia and if they bite you, well, you’re doomed.

Notwithstanding the horror and pain suffered by the victims in Dublin zoo, this event is a non-story. The mother tapir, like all mothers, acted to defend her offspring – end of story.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party, elected to power principally to deal with the rampant political and financial corruption that effectively destroyed the lives of a majority of Irish citizens, announced that the bribery allegations made by Senator Landy had nothing to do with them. It was a private matter for the Senator and they were going to do nothing.

As a country we have not moved ahead by one inch in tackling the disease of political/financial corruption since the days when the criminal politician Haughey made such activity an integral part of our national heritage.

Instead, we grasp at any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to avoid talking about the most deadly animal of all – the raging elephant of corruption that’s dancing all over our lives.

AIB: Grotesquely hilarious

Letter to the Irish Examiner (August 8).

Sir,

It is grotesquely hilarious to witness Allied Irish Bank chief executive David Duffy castigate so-called strategic defaulters for their alleged refusal to fulfill mortgage contracts (Irish Examiner 2 August).

Without a shred of evidence Mr. Duffy has effectively accused 20% of his mortgage customers of deliberately defaulting on their responsibilities.

This attack on Irish citizens is all the more obnoxious when it is remembered that Allied Irish Bank is itself one of the most notorious strategic defaulters in the history of the state.

Yours etc.,
Anthony Sheridan

Labour Party continues the betrayal of Ireland and its people

That’s a matter for himself.

With this short sentence the Labour Party has confirmed and condemned itself as part of the corrupt political/administrative system that has destroyed this country.

When asked if the party was concerned that one of its senators had alleged he was bribed a spokesperson said:

That’s a matter for himself.

So let’s be crystal clear about what’s happening here.

Labour is refusing to act on this extremely serious matter because it is presently holding power within our corrupt political/administrative system.

It hardly needs to be said that if Labour was in opposition and a senator from another party claimed he had been bribed they would be jumping up and down for a political and police investigation.

The first decision every person elected to our Dail or Senate must make, either consciously or subconsciously, is:

Will I challenge the corrupt system or will I say nothing and keep my head down?

The vast bulk of TDs and Senators decide, either consciously or subconsciously to support and, if necessary, defend the corrupt system.

Every such decision does enormous damage to Ireland and its people particularly since the economic collapse of 2008.

Every such decision puts off the day when the Irish people can enjoy the benefits of living in a functional democracy where the rule of law applies to all and not just to those without power and influence.

Every politican who courageuosly challenges the corrupt system is immediately attacked by its members and ejected from its ranks.

Roisin Shortall and Nessa Childers are among the very small number of politicians who had the courage and integrity to challenge the system.

Because courage and integrity are strictly prohibited within our corrupt political system they had to go in order for the system to survive.

Nessa Childers chillingly described what can happen to even the most idealistic politician:

I felt I was being corrupted by the system.

Unfortunately, the vast bulk of initially idealistic politicans allow the system to infect them, to one degree or another, with the disease of corruption.

Senator Landy’s refusal to report the very serious crime of attempted bribery is an indication of how the corrupt system can warp the principles and integrity of even the most patriotic politician.

The Labour Party’s absolute refusal to act on the matter is an indication of just how corrupt the entire political system has become.

And let me be clear, Labour are not alone in abandoning truth, honesty and intergrity when operating within the corrupt political system.

To date every Irish political party, when faced with scandal and corruption, have opted to defend the rotten system and thus preserve their power rather than standing up for Ireland and its people.

Here’s former Progressive Democrats TD, Fiona O’Malley’s response to scandal and corruption.

It’s something that has always annoyed me, that the PDs are watchdogs. We have our own standards. Every other political party is responsible for their own standards within their own party. We are not watchdogs for any other party.

Green Party leader and then Minister for the Environment John Gormley when he had to decide whether to challenge the corrupt system or remain in power.

We never assigned ourselves that role because it’s a role which you cannot fulfill properly and do your work as well. We’re not the moral watchdog of any political party…we look after our probity and our standards…we cannot be responsible for events that took place before our entry into government.

And current Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton effectively rejecting the ethical standards of Roisin Shortall in favour of Minister Reilly’s stroke politics.

The fortunes of individual politicians and political parties comes after the issue of restoring the fortunes and the businesses and the employment that’s been lost in this country, and that’s our objective.

These politicians are, effectively, denying that they have any responsibility to challenge, defeat and root out the disease of corruption that has inflicted so much pain and suffering on Irish citizens.

Labour’s short but extremely damaging response to the latest allegations of corruption continues the betrayal by the body politic of Ireland and its people in favour of retaining power and influence within a hopelessly corrupt system.

That deeply depressing situation will not change until the people of Ireland are blessed with a politician or political party that never sees corruption as a personal matter for individual politicians but rather as a dangerous disease that requires immediate extermination.

Copy to:

Senator Landy
All political parties

Formal complaint to Gardai and Clerk of the Seanad in response to Senator Landy's allegations of bribery

On 1 August last I submitted a formal complaint in writing to Cobh Gardai in response to allegations of bribery made by Labour Senator Denis Landy (See full complaint below).

I also submitted a formal request to the Select Committee on Members’ Interests Seanad Éireann to investigate the matter.

This submission was made to the Clerk of the Seanad by email.

The Clerk of the Seanad rejected my request on the following grounds.

One: It was made via email. Apparently, all such submissions must be made in hard copy and physically posted to the Clerk of the Seanad.

While endearing, this insistence on using an ancient communications system does not auger well for those who argue that the Senate is a viable institution that should be retained.

Two: I requested an investigation into the matter rather than making a complaint. Apparently, I should have made a formal complaint under Section 8 (2) of the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.

Crucially, this legislation only allows for a member of the public to make a complaint against a member (of the Houses of the Oireachtas) who may have contravened Sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act.

In plain English, this means that a complaint must be made under Section 8 (2) of the Act and therefore must be made against a member.

The Catch 22 is, of course, that I am not making a complaint against a member. I am making a complaint regarding allegations of a very serious crime that took place within the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The strict adherence to the letter of the law/legislation by bureaucrats and the absence of any mechanism by which a complaint can be made regarding allegations of criminal activity within the confines of the Houses of the Oireachtas means that my complaint is likely to be rejected on the grounds that I am not making a specific complaint against a specific member.

The following exchange between myself and a senior official at the office of the Clerk of the Seanad makes this very clear.

Me: Should I submit it as a complaint?

Official: Yes, a complaint is the word used in the Act. You may make a complaint in respect of a specified act, as in an action. The Act says that a person who considers that a member (emphasised) of the Oireachtas may have contravened Sections 5 or 7 of the Act or done a specified act, something that is not permitted may make a complaint to the Clerk, so your complaint must relate to a member.

Me: In other words, my complaint must be against a member?

Official: Yes.

Me: So what you’re saying is that my complaint is going to be rejected because I will not be making a complaint against a member?

Official: I’m not saying that but I can see how that is a logical conclusion.

Me: I can’t see any other conclusion given what you’ve said to me.

Official: Yes.

Irish citizens who will be voting to abolish or retain the Senate later this year will be wise to consign this archaic, expensive and totally useless institution to the history books.

After all, that’s the bubble in which its members, regulations and procedures actually exist.

Copy to:
Clerk of the Seanad
All political parties
Michael McDowell

See below:
Complaint to Cobh Gardai
Request for investigation to Clerk of the Seanad
Reply (rejection email) from Clerk of Seanad
Second complaint to Clerk of Seanad

Cobh Garda Station
Cobh
Co Cork

1 August 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to formally report allegations of bribery made by Labour Senator Denis Landy as reported in the Irish Independent on 21 July 2013.

Senator Landy claimed that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy was reported as saying:

“I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.”

I have included below the full Irish Independent report.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Signed:

——————————————————————————————————-

First submission to Clerk of the Seanad

29th July 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a formal request to the Committee on Members Interests (Seanad Éireann) to investigate a claim by Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush foreign holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government or, that he was effectively offered a bribe.

I include a report on the matter published in the Irish Independent on 21st July last.

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

Reply from Clerk of the Seanad

Dear Mr Sheridan,

I refer to your email of 29 July 2013 in which you make a request in the following terms:
“This is a formal request to the Committee on Members Interests (Seanad Éireann) to investigate a claim by Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush foreign holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.”

While members of the public can correspond directly with Committees on any matter, I would note that there is no statutory procedure to request the Committee on Members’ Interests to commence an investigation.

There is however a statutory complaints procedure available to members of the public under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001. Section 8(2) states “a person…who considers that a member… may have contravened sections 5 or 7 or done a specified act may make a complaint …to the Clerk …”.

Under the same section, The Clerk of the Seanad refers complaints to the Members’ Interests Committee of Seanad Éireann unless s/he forms the opinion that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or that there is “not sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in relation to the complaint”.
If the complaint is rejected, the Clerk is obliged to send the complainant, the member concerned and the Committee a statement of reasons for so doing.

Therefore, please confirm if you wish for me to treat your correspondence as a formal complaint in line with the procedure under the Ethics Acts. If you confirm that you do not want to make such a complaint, your correspondence will then be forwarded to the Committee.

If you choose to follow the complaints procedure outlined it is crucial that you provide to me all evidence available to you which is relevant to your complaint.
This information will assist me in considering whether the complaint must be sent to the Committee. If you do choose to make such a complaint I should be obliged if you would also sign your letter and return the signed copy to me.

You may rest assured that on receipt of this further information, this matter will be dealt with promptly in so far as I and the Clerk are concerned.
Please find attached an appendix with certain relevant sections of the Ethics Acts enclosed.
Yours sincerely,

Second submission to Clerk of Seanad (By post)

8th August 2013

To: The Clerk of the Seanad.

This is a formal complaint made under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, Section 8 (2) regarding a reported incident that occurred within the Houses of the Oireachtas on a date between the 1st and 19th July 2013.

The complaint concerns a claim by Labour Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy is reported as saying:

“I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.”

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government.

According to the report Senator Landy has refused to name the person who approached him but he did describe the person as a political figure.

The incident was first reported in the Sunday Independent on 21st July 2013. I have included the complete report below.

The response of some politicians, as reported in the Irish Independent of 24th July, may be helpful in considering the matter.

Labour Seanad chief whip Aideen Hayden is reported as saying:

“It is obviously a very serious matter if someone has attempted to subvert the workings of the house in this way.

Seanad leader Maurice Cummins called on Mr Landy to report the matter to the Gardai. The Fine Gael senator told the Seanad that allegations of bribery and corruption were an extremely serious matter.

Rebel Fine Gael senator Fidelma Healy Eames also called on Mr Landy to give the “truth” about what had happened.

“If someone attempted to bribe him to absent himself from votes in this house last week, then that is very serious.”

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

RTE rejects complaint made under new broadcasting code

RTE have made a decision regarding my complaint against Liveline submitted under the recently enacted Code of Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality in News & Current Affairs.

While the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) is responsible for enforcing the code all complaints must first be submitted to the broadcaster involved.

RTE have rejected my complaint principally on the grounds that Liveline is not a news broadcast (See below).

I do not accept RTEs conclusion. I believe Liveline is a news and current affairs programme and is therefore subject to the new code.

I spoke with an official from the BAI and she agreed that Liveline is a news and current affairs programme.

I will now submit my complaint to the BAI.

The following is the full RTE decision.

Dear Mr Sheridan,

Thank you for your mail. I wish to acknowledge your complaint of 29 July in respect of Liveline of 18 July last.

As Liveline is not a news broadcast, Section 21 of the BAI Code of Fairness, Objectivity & Impartiality in News & Current Affairs does not apply to the programme.

Section 22 of the Code states 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.

The BAI Guidance Notes for the Code) state in relation to Section 22 that:

It is acknowledged that some current affairs output can be synonymous with personalities, where the manner in which the presenter presents or interviews contributors can be keenly anticipated by audiences. Often the nature and style of the presenter is a key factor in what engages audiences and draws them into consideration and debate on matters of public controversy and current public debate.

The audience will also often trust that the presenters’ approach may be instrumental in getting to the heart of the issues at hand.

These factors contribute to some of the key reasons why news and current affairs coverage is trusted to such an extent by Irish audiences.

However, with this level of trust comes a significant level of responsibility on the part of the broadcaster and in the case of these particular rules, the presenter. The Code seeks to prevent a partisan position being advocated by the presenter and to guard against a presenter using his/her programme to pursue an agenda, via comments, choice of guest etc., such that a biased view on an issue is articulated.

When Liveline invites listeners to express their opinions on topics of the day, to encourage participation and discussion the presenter of Liveline certainly gives voice to thought-provoking views from time to time; these are not, however, presented as his personal opinions but as a professional technique required by the format.

In doing so, the presenter is acting in keeping with Section 22 of the Code in ensuring that the audience has access to a wide variety of views on the topic.

He or she is also working a format where, as recognised by the BAI in its Guidance Notes to the Code, the nature and style of the presenter is a key factor in engaging audiences and is also instrumental in getting to the heart of the issues at hand. On this occasion, in the interests of such full debate, the presenter put alternative views to those expressed by the caller.

It is particularly vital in the context of this format that Section 22 of the Code does not simply prohibit the expression of the presenter’s own views but prohibits expression “such that a partisan position is advocated.”

This is in order, as stated in the Guidelines, “to guard against a presenter using his/her programme to pursue an agenda, via comments, choice of guest, etc, such that a biased view on an issue is articulated.”

No such biased or partisan view was expressed by the presenter on this occasion: his responses to the caller were entirely in reaction to that caller’s statements, in the interests of debate, and gave no evidence of any agenda being pursued.

I hope that you will agree that this section of the BAI Code has not been breached in the exchange you quote in your complaint.

However, if members of the public who complain are not satisfied with the response they have received there is a review process available to them within RTÉ. The request for an internal review should be sent to:

David McKenna
Head of Broadcast Compliance
RTÉ
Donnybrook
Dublin 4

Thank you again for your mail. RTÉ takes very seriously its obligations under this and other BAI Codes and welcomes the opportunity to review our output in this respect.
Yours sincerely,

Siobhán Hough
Series Producer
Liveline

Fergus Finlay and the way Mary O'Rourke smells

I wrote a letter to the Irish Examiner recently suggesting that Fergus Finlay had spent too much time out in the midday sun after he described Michael McDowell as perhaps the greatest party leader the world has ever known.

In today’s Irish Examiner he attributes the sweet scent of Mary O’Rourke as a sense of hope for Ireland’s future.

Of course on this occasion, unlike his McDowell comments, Finlay has his tongue firmly in his cheek but beneath his wanderings there is a serious message.

Opinion makers like Finlay seem to suffer from a unique blindness in their ability to recognise what people like O’Rourke really represent.

They seem to be totally unaware (or are in denial) that this woman represents the rotten political system that has wreaked so much damage on Ireland and its people.

Mary O'Rourke's story and what really happened

Some months ago I ordered Mary O’Rourke’s book Just Mary in my local library. On principle I would not wish to add to this individual’s wealth by buying her story.

After a number of weeks I returned to enquire if the book was available but was told there was a long waiting list so it could be some time before it was available.

I’m in no hurry. I’m not in the least interested in O’Rourke’s story on a personal basis. I’m interested in comparing what she has to say with what actually happened during her time as a politician. I have no doubt that the facts will be millions of miles away from her account of events.

What I find incredible is the popularity of such rubbish publications.

O’Rourke is a loyal member of the most corrupt political party in the country, the party that is principally responsible for the immense damage done to Ireland and its people.

She’s also a faithful supporter and admirer of the criminal politician Haughey, the man who was principally responsible for infecting Irish public life with the disease of corruption.

I find it disturbingly ironic that people who cannot afford to buy the book because of the financial devastation caused by a corrupt Fianna Fail are eagerly queuing up to read all about one of the party’s most influential members.

Healy-Rae's gombeen influence

While going through some old newspapers in the Attic Archives I came across an article in the Irish Times (October 31st 2000) reporting how Jackie Healy-Rae sought and was granted an extension for tax relief for a multi-storey car park in Kenmare.

Healy-Rae was making the representation on behalf of Cork businessman Mr. Dermot Murphy who was building the contentious car park and apartment complex in Kenmare.

Can I appeal to your good office (Charlie McCreevy, Minister for Finance) to make certain that the time here for this tax incentive would be extended in the case of Kenmare.

McCreevy’s advisers supported the extension.

We feel there is a strong case for relaxing this deadline.

Well, of course there was a strong case. Healy-Rae was one of four independent TDs on whom the Government depended on for survival.

The liar Ahern had bought himself power by paying millions in taxpayer’s money in a secret deal with the independent TDs.

When asked by a reporter for details of the deal the liar, effectively, told the taxpayer’s of Ireland to take a hike.