The stats of a failed state

3,050 children are currently waiting on cardiac outpatient appointments (Irish Times).

4,200 children are waiting to be seen at outpatient clinics nationwide for eye problems.

One doctor said her department should have a dozen or so paediatric cardiologists – they have just five.

Some public patients have to wait two years just for an appointment.

No child of a politician, banker, barrister, property developer or senior civil servant has been, or will be, harmed in the creation of this situation.

Irish Examiner: Getting it right on corruption

Last Tuesday I posted an article entitled Flaccid editorials and political corruption in which I was critical of editors in general for their tame response to political corruption.

My criticism was too general particularly in respect of Irish Examiner editorials which invariably pull no punches.

The following hard-hitting and accurate editorial in today’s paper makes the point.

Fighting corruption – Inaction is destroying our country

Senior Government figures may not have been heartbroken that the final chapter in our €300m planning report was published just after the lights were turned off in Leinster House for the summer recess.

After a gruelling few months dominated by the economy and abortion, the issues around corruption and maladministration raised by the final chapter of the report, an astounding 16 years in the making, might have provoked some passing embarrassment.

Government ministers or deputies, each elected on a platform of reform and renewal, might have been less than comfortable if questioned about what proposals they have brought forward to try to confront the corruption eating away at the integrity of this increasingly shabby and discredited Republic.

It is natural to recoil, or at least it should be, from that description of our country, but how else can a place where a tribunal, after 16 years of deliberations, concludes that there was widespread, almost institutionalised, corruption in our planning process but only one person — the poisoners’ messenger boy Frank Dunlop — has been jailed over the issue?

How else can you describe a country where some of those found to be corrupt may have the legal bills they incurred at that tribunal paid by the State?

How else can you describe a country and a society seemingly content to be a spectator at its own implosion?

How else can you describe a country where a month short of the fifth anniversary of our banking collapse not one person — banker, regulator, auditor, bondholder, or director — has had to defend their behaviour in a courtroom?

Of course this situation is not new and it is not entirely surprising that the response to the latest outrage is not as strong as it should be.

Stretching all the way back to May 1991, when the Beef Tribunal was established, the absolute lack of consequences for wrongdoing has been recognised as a part of our national life.

Inured by this failure of government — and specifically our justice system — outrage seems a pointless, self-destructive response, so why bother?

It is possible to reach even further into the past and suggest that the property interests who ensured that the report presented to the then local government minister Bobby Molloy on the price of building land, by Judge Kenny in 1974, did no more than gather dust are culpable in today’s crisis.

They certainly are to some degree culpable in the situation described by the CSO yesterday when it said that almost half of households struggle to pay bills.

Equally their fingerprints are all over the mortgage crisis described yesterday in AIB’s annual report. The number of that bank’s loans which are more than 90 days in arrears rose to 22.7% in June compared with 20.7% at the end of December.

When the Dáil resumes well into the autumn, the Government is committed to a campaign to have the Seanad abolished.

In the grand scheme of things this is about as relevant to the crisis, and its causes, facing this country as the whereabouts of Shergar.

This Government is more than halfway through its term in office and it is well past the time we had the kind of legislation and cultural change needed to confront the corruption detailed in outrageously expensive report after report.

Why else were this lot elected?

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved

State corruption subverting the Constitution?

The fact is that our parliament is functioning in a manner which in all likelihood subverts the Constitution.

This statement by outgoing Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly is, effectively, agreeing with what we here at Public Inquiry have been saying for many years – Ireland is an intrinsically corrupt state.

If such a damaging statement were made in a functional democracy by someone of the stature of Ms. O’Reilly there would be a national outcry and either immediate condemnation of the person making the claim or emergency action to remedy the grave situation.

Here’s what Taoiseach Enda Kenny thinks:

We will strive . . . and work even harder so that we will become the best small country in the world for business, to raise a family and to grow old with dignity and respect. This will be the republic of 2016.

This indeed will be the republic of 2016 – for politicians, bankers, the legal profession, senior civil servants, property developers and all the other individuals and groups who enjoy state protection as they plunder the State’s resources, legally and illegally.

For ordinary citizens 2016 and beyond will mean continuing to pay the cost of such state corruption.

Lol

Very funny letter in today’s Irish Times

Cannes heist

Sir,

One of your Front page stories (July 29th) deals with the €40 million jewel heist at the Carlton Hotel in Cannes. We are told that the hotel had been hosting a “temporary” exhibition of jewels.

It’s hard to argue with that.

Yours etc,

Pat O’Brien
Dublin 6

Enough said

Letter in today’s Irish Times

A French comparison

Sir,

Just back from a visit to western France during which family members required visits to a doctor and dentist.

The charges paid bear comparison to what would be levied here.

Private GP practice consultation: France €27. Dublin €50-60. Dentist (consultation, X-ray and extraction): France €41. Dublin approximately €130.

Enough said.

Yours, etc,
Frank Khan
Dublin 16.

Flaccid editorials and political corruption

On Friday last (July 26) the Irish Times published an editorial concerning the continuing abuse of the law on donations by political parties.

Over the years I have read hundreds of such editorials across a wide range of publications concerning a vast range of political abuse, scandal and corruption.

They all share a common trend: An outline of the corruption/abuse, a description/analysis of proposals to counter the corruption/abuse and the hope that the (corrupt) political system will, on this occasion, obey the law.

This Irish Times editorial is no different. It’s almost as if the various publications have a file marked – ‘Standard editorial on political corruption/abuse’, which they pull out when needed.

It was refreshing therefore to read the hard hitting and right to the point comment in response to the flaccid editorial by a Mr. Martin Roche.

MartinRoche

Standards and Ethics in public life?

Is this some form of sick joke played on the people who pay the excessive salaries and perks of the elected representatives.

After 20 years of tribunals and making millionaires of a certain members of the legal profession, nothing has been resolved, the findings gather dust in some government building, covering up massive deficiencies in the government of the day and the civil service in the running of the country.

A country where the leader of the government has been found guilty of corruption instead of going to prison is given a state funeral.

At present a junior minster is under scrutiny for standards and ethics, and in fact is an exact mirror image of the Callely saga.

Mandarin found to be incompetent, instead of being given the push, is promoted to a European post with a greater salary and perks.

Until the electorate state in no uncertain terms that the civil service and the politicians work for the state and not the other way round this cancer of corruption, as it has since 1916, will carry on eating into the fabric of our society.

Now that’s an editorial.

Michael McDowell: The greatest party leader the world has ever known – Lol

Letter in today’s Irish Examiner

Can’t see why Finlay is still lauding McDowell

Columnist Fergus Finlay, without the slightest hint that his tongue was anywhere near his cheek, has announced to the world that former Progressive Democrats Party leader Michael McDowell was perhaps the greatest party leader the world has ever known (Irish Examiner Opinion, Jul 23).

The following is a brief outline of some of the ‘great’ man’s activities: He claimed ‘soft’ judges were partly to blame for his failure to stop gangland killings. One legal professional described McDowell’s statements as bordering on the impeachable

He insinuated that most asylum seekers were not entitled to stay in Ireland and regretted his inability to deport them forthwith because of due process;

He fully supported Bertie Ahern during his ‘money troubles’ and blindly followed the Fianna Fáil leader as the country headed towards financial ruin;

He effectively led the Progressive Democrats into oblivion and, after losing his seat in the 2007 election, fled the world of politics in panic without consulting his party colleagues.

Let’s be kind and assume Mr Finlay’s bizarre assessment of Mr McDowell was brought on by spending too much time out in the midday sun during the recent bout of good weather.

Anthony Sheridan
Cobh
Co Cork

Mary O'Rourke and the Lenihan's: A family of traitors

On 29 June last I published a post entitled ‘The O’Rourke’s: A family of traitors’.

I have received a number of comments that require clarification.

Madeleine Cleary pointed out that my headline was incorrect. It should have read ‘The Lenihan family’ rather than ‘The O’Rourke family’.

I completely agree. My error can, I think, be attributed to the fact that the post was prompted after listening to comments by Mary O’Rourke. The headline has been corrected.

Fergus O’Rourke makes the odd claim that the post insults his family. He then goes on to accept that I was not referring to his family.

The only O’Rourke mentioned is a Lenihan by birth, and it is clearly Lenihans whom you intend to smear.

So why is Fergus insulted if he knows I was not referring to his family?

My intention was not to smear the Lenihan/O’Rourke family but rather to state a fact.

The definition of traitor, in the context of the term as I use it, is:

A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Irish citizens are of the belief that their politicians have betrayed them.

I believe that our political system is hopelessly corrupt and totally incapable of reforming itself.

I believe that politicians who openly and shamelessly support that corrupt system are traitors.

Mary O’Rourke, Brian Lenihan Snr., Brian Lenihan Jnr., Haughey, Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowen, John Gormley, Mary Harney, Michael McDowell and all the rest of the same flawed pedigree are traitors to Ireland and its people.

We only have to look around at the financial damage and personal suffering inflicted on the Irish people to see the proof of their betrayal.

First complaint in response to draconian broadcasting legislation

On 1 July last legislation came into effect that bans broadcasters from expressing a personal opinion on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

I have submitted my first complaint as a result of this draconian legislation.

As it is almost impossible to conduct a public discussion on matters that are of public controversy without expressing a personal opinion it is likely that there will be many, many more such complaints.

29 July 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against Liveline presenter Damien O’Reilly for a breach of sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs, which came into effect on 1 July 2013 under Section 42 of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

On 18 July last, while speaking with a caller on such matters as austerity, the IMF bailout and bankers, Mr. O’Reilly expressed a personal opinion contrary to sections 21 and 22 of the Code.

The relevant section of the discussion is as follows:

Caller: We’re in a bailout programme because we were conned by the banks, Allied Irish Bank, Anglo Irish Bank.

Mr. O’Reilly: We know that and hopefully there will be an inquiry.

Caller: Well there won’t be an inquiry because these people are sitting on their big fat pensions.

Mr. O’Reilly: Your anger is palpable and is reflected all over the country and understandable but you can’t turn back the clock, you can’t keep saying the banks, the banks, the banks, that’s done and dusted.

Caller: But it’s not done and dusted, that’s the problem, you people in RTE want to tell it’s done and dusted, it’s not done and dusted.

Mr. O’Reilly: Listen to me Sean, Sean listen to me. There will be court cases but we’re not going to get the money back ok so it doesn’t matter if we have court cases tomorrow.

Caller: We need some of these criminals prosecuted…

Mr. O’Reilly: Yes, well that is the main point and I’m glad you… What we need in this country is indeed some justice to make people feel better.
It might not butter the bread to feed the children for breakfast but at least, as you say, it might make people feel a little less angry.

Clearly Mr. O’Reilly is expressing a strong personal opinion on a matter that is publicly controversial and of current public debate and is therefore in breach of the code.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Sections 21 and 22 of the Code of Fairness, Objectivity and Impartiality in News and Current Affairs.

21. A news presenter and/or a reporter in a news programme may not express his or her own view on matters that are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate.

22. 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.