Bitch nun

There was a bitch nun on Liveline (Thu, 21st).

Sr. Anne Murphy of the Sacred Heart of Mary Order was moaning about how tough things were for the nuns, that it wasn’t just the Magdalene women who suffered.

Her main complaint was that the now elderly cohort of nuns who ran the brutal Magdalene launderies shouldn’t be blamed for their crimes.

Blaming them would, according to this individual, make them the new Magdalene women.

So who is this bitch nun? Was she kidnapped, sold into slavery, abused or raped during her career? No. In fact the bitch had a great career as a nun and is still very happy in her freely chosen life.

Here’s a brief outline of her very happy career as she related it on Liveline.

She was educated by the Sacred Heart of Mary Order and had no complaints. She enjoyed every minute of her childhood/education and at age eleven decided to join the order.

She joined at 17 of her own freewill and with the full agreement of her father who assured her that if she ever decided to leave she would be welcomed home with open arms.

She knew exactly what she was getting into. She knew it would be tough, she knew her hair would be chopped off but didn’t mind because it was the life she wanted.

She didn’t mind giving up her name and loved her new name, Immanuel, which she chose from a list of three.

Although life was tough She was well treated in every way and had the best of medical attention.

After twelve years of happy service she decided, of her own free will, to leave and return home. There was no problem and her father welcomed her with open arms.

Two years later she decided, of her own free will, to return to the order and has been there, happily, ever since.

Now Sr. Murphy didn’t serve in a Magdelene laundry but she was prepared to come on live radio and defend those nuns who did serve in these institutions that were little more than slave camps.

So let’s compare the experience of a Magdalene laundry victim and Sr. Murphy’s happy experience.

The day before Sr. Murphy’s spoke with Joe Duffy a women called Geraldine related her story on Liveline (Wed, 20th).

In 1963, Geraldine and her sister, aged 13 and 14 were kidnapped by the Catholic Church, imprisoned and forced to work as slaves.

Geraldine’s parents paid a substantial amount of money to the nuns at Stanhope Street residential launtry to have their daughters educated.

The parents were told that the institution was a school, the best in Ireland, so their daughters would receive a good education.

The girls never received an education there. Their hair was brutally chopped off and they were immeditately put to work in the laundry. All letters to and from their parents were intercepted, even pocket money sent by their parents was robbed.

Unlike Sr. Murphy the girls were not offered the choice of selecting a new name, instead their names were robbed and replaced by a number.

The replacing of a name with a number is common practice in slave camps because it helps to destroy the self-worth of individuals reducing them to a virtual sub-human status. People in this mindset are much easier to control and exploit.

When holiday time came the nuns wrote to the parents saying the girls were behind in their studies and so had to be kept back.

On one occasion, and showing great courage, Geraldine challenged the matron asking her why she and her sister were not receiving an education. She was promptly told to get back down to the laundry where she belonged.

It was only when the girls mother became seriously ill that they managed to get home and tell their story of horror.

Most of the girls in the laundry were kidnapped and enslaved in the same manner.

So Stanhope Street was no flash in the pan. It was not a place of happiness and enlighment, it wasn’t even a place of charity.

It was a well organised, ruthlessly run slave camp where Catholic nuns, in full knowledge of what they were doing, committed crimes against humanity.

In common with her diseased church Sr. Murphy made many excuses for the crimes of her religion. In particular she peddled the most common lie, that it was only a minority who were guilty of such horrors.

We know this is a lie from the Murphy and Ryan reports which demonstrated beyond question that these crimes were endemic, well organised and known about at every level of the Catholic Church.

So not only is Sr. Murphy a bitch, she’s a lying bitch.

It may be argued by some that my language is too strong in this case, I would disagree.

I have never attacked any individual member of the Catholic Church just because they are members of that organisation.

But I have no problem challenging, in the strongest terms possible, any member or supporter of the Catholic Church who attempts to justify or lessen the crimes of that diseased organisation.

Sr. Murphy is deserving of the title ‘lying bitch’ because of her obnoxious attempt to equalise the relatively happy and voluntary entered life of a nun with the horrors suffered by the inmates of the Magdalene slave camps.

Dog doping? Fraud? – What?…Where?

Investigative Correspondent with the Irish Examiner Conor Ryan has recently been writing about some very dodgy practices in the greyhound racing industry.

Dog doping, fraud, falsification of documents are just some of the very serious allegations involved in the scandal.

One dog under scrutiny belongs to Noreen McManus, wife of JP McManus.

There are three articles covering this story and they are all well worth reading. See here, here and here.

The bigger picture view of this scandal proves, once again, that things are done differently in Ireland in comparison with functional/accountable democracies.

This case is a shocking, but in no way surprising, example of how adept Irish officialdom (including the Guards) has become in looking the other way when it comes to allegation of serious corruption, no matter how strong the evidence.

Why the Magdalene women need to be protected from the legal profession

The most common theme running through all discussion regarding what compensation should be paid to the Magdalene women is:

For pity’s sake, make sure the women are protected from the vultures that infest the legal profession.

This justified fear that greedy solicitors will exploit the women is a measure of how low the legal system and its representatives have allowed themselves sink in their ruthless pursuit of money.

In particular, people are remembering how dozens, if not hundreds, of greedy solicitors swooped on abuse victims appearing before the Redress Board and robbed them, literally, as they emerged with their compensation money.

This wholesale theft by members of the legal profession was the third brutal abuse of the victims following their experiences at the hands of the Catholic Church and the State.

I wrote extensively about this scandal in 2005. I provide below just a sample of how some of the victims were robbed.

The following facts should be kept in mind as the sample is read.

Before the Redress Board began its work the State had already agreed to pay all legal expenses incurred.

It is illegal for a solicitor to deduct money from a client’s compensation award.

THE Solicitors Amendment Act which became law in 1994 Section 68 (3).

A solicitor shall not deduct or appropriate any amount in respect of all or any part of his charges from the amount of any damages or other moneys that become payable to a client of that solicitor arising out of any contentious business carried out on behalf of that client by that solicitor.

By law, solicitors are required to provide clients with an itemised bill or at least a fair estimate of fees.

Rita: €13,000 demanded as percentage of award minutes before facing redress board, eventual ‘settlement’ €7,000. Told there was a shortfall. Money deducted directly by solicitor before victim saw the cheque. No itemised bill provided.

Norman: €11,000 demanded minutes after getting his award. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided.

Marie: €3,000 demanded. Money deducted from cheque. No itemised bill provided.

Nora: 4% of award demanded. No itemised bill provided.

Jack: €5,000 demanded. Money deducted after solicitor lodged cheque in bank. No itemised bill provided.

Maura: €5,000 demanded and deducted. Told there was a shortfall. Solicitor refused to give itemised bill. Maura’s cheque had her solicitors name on it. She was provided with a photocopy of her original cheque.

Margaret: €3,000 demanded and deducted minutes after getting award. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided.

Mary: €12,000 demanded and deducted on day of award. Solicitor claims he had her permission to take the money. Work involved 15 letters and one phone call.

Mark: 10% of award demanded just after getting his award. Mark challenged the demand, solicitor ran away.

Peter: €7,000 demanded and deducted. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill.

Chris: €5,000 demanded immediately after award. Chris challenged the demand, solicitor ran away.

Joan: €7,600 demanded. Told there was a shortfall. No itemised bill provided. She was told that envelopes cost €300. She received two letters in all.

I ended this particular piece by writing:

Because these thieves operate in a state that is itself corrupt means that not one of them will face real justice.

Needless to say, none of them did.

Tallaght Hospital scandal: No need for accountability

I wrote recently about the missing link that marks the difference between how things are done in Ireland and how they’re done in functional democracies.

When suspicions of corruption are raised in functional jurisdictions there usually follows an investigation by an independent authority.

If the suspicions are confirmed consequences follow such as sackings, heavy fines or perhaps a trial followed by appropriate punishment.

All this is done under the principle of justice being seen to be done and the whole matter is usually followed up with new rules/regulations to prevent such events from happening again.

All these stages of accountability are also carried out in Ireland with the notable exception of holding anybody to account.

The recent scandal at Tallaght Hospital, as reported in the Irish Examiner, is a great example.

Background:

The hospital is unable to explain why five senior officials received almost €700,000 in non-salary ‘top-up’ fees between 2005 and 2010.

Ernst and Young carried out a financial investigation last year as a result of concerns raised by the Health Information Quality Authority (HIQA).

The investigation found:

The hospital was unable to provide any documents showing why the large payments were made.

The hospital was unable to explain why the supplementary payroll, under which the payments were made, was set up or what approval procedures were followed.

Board members at the time provided inconsistent recollections as to the existence and approval of the fund.

One individual received €225,833 in extra pay. Four other staff members received €104.667, €61,250, €24,000 and 259.000 respectively.

This was all taxpayer’s money at a time when Tallaght Hospital was making severe cutbacks to its budget.

We have now reached the critical point where, in a functional democracy, stronger action would ensue – police investigation, courts etc.

In Ireland this stage is skipped completely and replaced by an excuse stage.

Significant management structure changes have been carried out at the hospital – we’re told.

The new management has ‘noted’ the findings of the investigation.

The external payroll system responsible for the payouts has been abolished.

The new board has appointed a new remuneration and terms of services committee.

The new board said they were disturbed and upset by what happened.

So, no further action, no police, no investigation, no courts.

And, we can ask, is the new board a genuine improvement on its predecessor. Will this ‘new broom’ sweep all the old habits away and act in a professional and responsible manner when it comes to accountability?

No, is the emphatic answer.

When asked if the five members at the centre of the scandal were still working at the hospital and whether any of the paid out money can be retrieved they declined to comment.

Or, in plain English – Take a hike, we’re saying nothing.

The only reason, I suspect, the board of Tallaght Hospital can feel confident in refusing to answer this most basic of questions is because of the missing link in Irish accountability.

It there’s no system of accountability – there’s no need to be accountable.

New prison wing for Leinster House?

From the Attic Archives.

Letters to the Editor. Irish Times September 29 2003.

Madam,

Another good week for the Oireachtas (on holidays, of course).

A sitting TD in jail for contempt of court, a sitting TD convicted of tax offences, a sitting TD involved in a drink driving offence, an ex TD facing possible perjury charges.

It really strengthens one’s respect for our parliamentarians: aren’t they just worth the salary increases and benchmarking.

One has to worry if there will be enough left to fill the benches by the end of the year.

Maybe it’s time to add a prison wing to Leinster House to make sure that we can make up the numbers for the vote!

Yours etc.,

Michael Jeffers
Co Kildare

I wonder who that ex TD was facing possible perjury charges? The only thing we can say with absolute certainty is that no such charge was ever brought forward.

In Ireland the crime of perjury only applies to the peasantry.

And that prison wing idea – there’s plenty of idle builders around these days?

Invest in a pension? You would want to be stark raving mad

The Government is concerned about the relatively low take-up of private pensions (Irish Independent).

Finance Minister Michael Noonan said that it is imperative that the pension industry encourages low and middle-income earners to invest.

This is hilarious for a number of reasons.

First and foremost it is this very government that is in the process of helping itself to €500 million from private pensions.

Many citizens and commentators have described this action as outright theft. The pension levy will continue until, at least, 2014.

In addition to plundering the private pension fund the Government is also behaving in a sly and dishonest manner by not including the impact of the levy in a recent report on pension charges.

An official said the pension levy was not included because it was a temporary measure.

So let’s guess how Sean citizen would respond to this situation while considering whether or not to make a decades-long commitment to a pension scheme.

Oh, I don’t mind making up for that €500 million hole in the pension fund and I believe politicians when they say that the levy will end in 2014.

I also believe that politicians will resist the temptation to rob my pension fund again in the coming decades.

Now, where do I sign?

Anyway, back to brutal reality.

The next hilarious reason is the finding in the report that there are serious problems with high charges imposed on pension savers by life companies and brokers.

For example, Up to €120,000 of a €400,000 pension fund of an individual can be eaten up in charges.

Now, for decades, people have been pleading with politicians to clean up this whole murky area, to get rid of the vultures that infest the Irish financial sector but for reasons unknown no action has ever been taken so the rip-offs continue unabated.

So, back to Sean citizen.

Well, I’m confident that this time the Government will act to protect me from the greedy vultures that, to date, have been allowed a free hand to do pretty much as they please. I’m going to trust the political system to come through for me.

Ah yes, the political system.

Would that be the same system where traitors like Bertie Ahern, Mary Harney and Charlie McCreevy are exploiting a tax loophole to greatly increase their already grotesque pensions?

Would that be the political system where the liar Ahern promised to give back part of his €150,000 pension and then, predictably, reneged on his word.

A final word to Sean citizen.

Well, yes, it is the same system but I’m still prepared, at great sacrifice to me and my family, to invest a major portion of my lifetime earnings in the hope that politicians will remain true to their word.

Com’n now Sean, back to your cell. It’s time for your medicine.

Fine Gael routed in legal eagle war

Well darn it anyway, that legal advice thing has once again stopped our great leaders reforming crusade in its tracks.

There was Enda and his warriors armed and ready to fight the good fight for the weak and defenceless tenants who were being ripped off by evil landlords.

We’ll stop them and their evil ways of upward-only rent reviews promised Enda as he sharpened his sword and checked his grenades.

But those evil landlords were too quick. Legal eagles swooped on Enda’s camp dropping legal bomb after legal bomb, the crusade was over.

Darkness and despair once again fell over tenant-land.

One of Enda’s trusted warriors, Richard (the not so great) Bruton explained:

We looked at the rent issue but the legal advice was very clearly that if there were to be a change, taxpayers would have to pay compensation to the landlords involved.

Clearly that is not on at a time like this.

From the cold wasteland of ripped off tenants and devastated small businesses, a faint cry was heard:

What about the referendum you promised to over-rule the existing property rights of landlords?

I don’t see it as being an issue that there will be a constitutional amendment.

We have legal advice (aaaahhhh, another legal explosion) that this isn’t a doable approach and we have to work on other instruments that will make it easier for the retail trade to make a difficult transition.

The last, just audible, cry of despair could be heard before the silence of betrayal enveloped tenant-land.

Who….who….benefits?

There was no reply.

Copy to
Fine Gael

O'Brien's victory likely to result in a media cowering before the shadows

I’m truly astonished that a jury found an article in the Irish Daily Mail had defamed Denis O’Brien.

In what appears to be a contradictory decision the jury accepted that the article was based on the honest opinion of the writer but that it was not an opinion based on fact and was not in the public interest.

Not in the public interest – Feck.

O’Brien is a man who had very serious adverse findings made against him in the Moriarty Tribunal report, findings that could potentially cost Irish taxpayers several millions in compensation. It was in connection to this tribunal report that the article was written.

In response to the jury’s decision O’Brien said that while freedom of expression was part of our democracy everybody had a right to his or her good name.

So what are we to make of the comments by O’Brien after the Moriarty Tribunal report was published?

There’s a ring of steel around Moriarty because they knew, the judiciary knew, that he was never up to the job, he’s a Circuit Court judge.

You’ve got to separate the wider judiciary from Justice Moriarty. I believe I was stitched by Justice Moriarty but I’m not in any way critical of the wider judicial community.

Look, do you know a lot about the legal profession, the judiciary and the Law Society. There’s a code amongst them all that they don’t take each other on, they don’t criticise each other.

Are these comments based on fact?

Judge Moriarty was never up for the job? This is O’Brien’s opinion of which, I’m sure, Justice Moriarty would not agree.

I was stitched by Justice Moriarty. Is this fact or just O’Brien’s opinion? Would a jury conclude that it was just opinion or defamatory?

Here’s how legal expert Professor Gerry Whyte of Trinity Law School responded to O’Brien’s criticisms:

If criticism of the judiciary went so far as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice then we’re talking about an offence called scandalising the court.

This case has potentially serious consequences for press freedom.

Every editor, every journalist will be looking over their shoulders to check for the shadows of very powerful individuals before they express an opinion.

It is very likely that many will decide to cower before the shadows.