A hard one to write - David Norris, Nien Danke

I have always liked David Norris as a person, but as a candidate there are questions that public officials need to answer - And watching the Prime Time interview, I was not happy with the way he deflected and avoided valid questions on correspondence to do with the letters written in support of Ezra Nawi, a former boyfriend of David Norris - and let us not forget this - convicted of statutory rape.

Deflection on the grounds of disclosure or a trial being held in camera are no excuse.
Names, dates and locations can be excised and redacted, but details and context are valid questions.

Its not the first time that he has tried to intervene in a similar case.
In 2008, Norris called for a documentary, Fairytale of Kathmandu, to be postponed. The film documented visits to Nepal by poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh, during which he is alleged to have had sex with young men - about 16 years of age.

It questioned whether he was sexually exploiting the boys.

I have always felt very uncomfortable about the case, its not really clear - but clearly a charity worker having sex with 16 year olds (regardless of gender) is failing in duty of care, and remember here in Ireland the legal definition of a child is someone under the age of 17 for the purpose of the sexual offences (juristiction) act 1996

The sexuality of a person does not matter, but abuse of a minor does.

As an atheist I have to say for all the senators protestations about strong christian values, he would do well to remember Matthew 18:6  

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea 

Certain crimes should not and cannot be forgiven.
An adult who abuses a minor through violation of trust, position etc. is a criminal.
It is especially important to point out both cases involved poor, dependent persons of a foreign culture.

Various bleating by Norris about the pederasty in classical Greece with such echoes to a trial like this is both unwise, and I feel sinister.

We need more transparency in our body politic, not more cover-ups.

On that note from the Irish Independent on the 5th we learned that David Norris received a disability payment for 16 years while out of work as a Trinity College lecturer -- even though he was well enough to be a "full-time" senator for the entire period.

Mr Norris confirmed to the Irish Independent he received the payment, but could not specify exactly how much it was worth. He also initially refused to say what his disability was.

The payment began in 1994 and ended in 2010.

Over the period, while claiming disability he also received a senator's salary of  about €61,073 and an  annual leader's allowance -- the €23,383 Independent senators receive in unvouched expenses every year -- for his Seanad work.

However, he initially would not say what the disability was, and insisted it did not stand in his way of being president, insisting he is in "perfect health".

So at first, Senator Norris refused to comment on the disability payments - this is the clarification (?) recently released.

At his official campaign launch this morning, he has revealed the payment is currently around €2,500 a month. It is non- A, B or C Hepatitis, contracted from drinking water in Central Europe in 1994......left him so tired he was unable to do his job lecturing in Trinity

“I was medically advised it was not possible for me to undertake the stress of the very intensive lecturing and tutorial duties that I had,”
Mr Norris said it was the university authorities who decided to place him on permanent disability and replace him with another academic, giving him time to focus on the Seanad.

So well enough to lecture in the Senate, but not the School?

He did concede that if it were now he may think differently about taking the payment while having another job: He insisted his health would not be an issue for him to become President

Thats nice to know, so he can work then - even though it seems he may still receive disability payments!

“For three years I did not take any alcohol at all, which you’re advised, with the small exception every Sunday at St Patrick’s Cathedral.” What is it with religion again??

Further in that interview in relation to the abuse case  Mr Norris again stressed he was acting on legal advice from Israeli and Irish lawyers .......which stops him disclosing controversial clemency letters he wrote for an ex-partner convicted of statutory rape.

“This case involved real people,” he said.
“It changed their lives and left deep scars.

Real people, real scars?? No Shit Sherlock!!!
Letters can always be released after censorship - and it seems all the correspondence related to gaining clemency for the abuser - so far as we can tell, not having seen the correspondence.

But, as with the disability payments - this was done on advice - as were the disability payments but when asked to comment initially he asked not to go into the disability payment, saying there "was a whole story about that".

Im sure there is!

For the second time in a Presidential campaign we see that this may involve (another) rapid verbal u-turning change of tune - perhaps after "mature recollection"

GUBU speak is alive and well in Joyces Dublin

Free Blog Counter

FF/FG and associates - same old crap

What we need to look at is politics as a business. And business means profits, and profits means you look at who benefits.

For starters a disproportionate amount of Irish politicians come from dynastic political families.
They go to the same schools and colleges, the same restaurants, the same social events, take the same vacations, own holiday homes in the same areas and as we saw recently belong to the same golf clubs.

Politicos rely on developers, business and bankers for political funding.
Politicos rely on control or collusion with the media for political support.

You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. They don't need a meeting, they have like interests and know what is good for them and their ilk - and they are getting it.

The bank bail-out took care of reckless bank speculators who were pals with politicians - Charlie McCreevey and Celia Larkin never had to go through the formal channels at Nationwide, and CJ was afforded special treatment at several banks.

The choices that really matter in this country have been reduced, there are two main political parties, a handful of banks and insurance companies.

Dep. Creighton - who did not cow-tow to Kenny after the failure of the so called heave, and has maintained her integrity at least. However, one feels she is bound for the back benches.

"It is not a good image for any political party to be in receipt of donations from developers who are associated with NAMA"
She insisted that there could be no room in Fine Gael for "cute-hoor" politics, which she said had "defined and tainted Irish public life like an incurable cancer"

She was right in one respect, and to go further, the strains of clienism, gombeenism, dynastic politics and the appointment of utterly incompetent but politically loyal people to government bodies are an incurable disease that has long infected FG as well as FF.

Media coverage and convergence of interests is also an issue.

I have written before about Paul Williams 'reporting' on the Shell to Sea protesters. After his incredible biased reporting for TV3 and a tabloid he has been a corporate guest of Shell at the 2007 England Rugby match at Croke Park, part of what Shell told the Phoenix was their “stakeholder engagement list.”

Shell spends huge amount of money on PR, in 1998 “Shell spent US$30 million on contracts with PR company Fishburn & Hedges alone.”

The article “Irish Times Shell PR” in the May 22 issue of the Phoenix looks at how in Ireland Shell have successfully changed the line of the Irish Times over the last two years to the point where now the Irish Times now frequently send their crime correspondent to cover protests in Erris.

What I did not write about Paul Williams boss.

Protesters are attacked and marginalized in the press, yet no questions are asked about Ray Burke - who is one of the few politicians in this country that went to jail for corruption - and his role in the deal.
Bertie Ahern, whose personal finances have never been fully explained, also further did favors for the big oil companies.

Exxon Mobil was awarded licenses for exploratory drilling in the Porcupine Basin, which is in the Atlantic roughly parallel with Clare and Kerry.
For the exploratory bid Exxon Mobil combined in a consortium with Providence Resources.

Providence Resources are also engaged in exploration off the south east coast of Ireland.

If the Shell deal goes through, that sets a precedent to increase profits to other companies, like Providence Resources.

Forty five per cent of Providence Resources is held by Sir Anthony O’Reilly, and his son is the company’s CEO.

Tony is also, of course, CEO of, and owner of a large shareholding in, the Independent News and Media group.
IN&M owns the Sunday World, the Sunday Independent, the Star, the Irish Independent, the Evening Herald, part of the Sunday Tribune, and many local papers in Ireland.

There are clear grounds for linking the commercial interests of the O’Reilly empire, and the political influence it wields through its major media holdings.
A politician attacked in such a wide range of press is looking at electoral failure.

To look at this in the context of oil and gas consider the wild unsubstantiated slanders which have been directed at the Shell to Sea campaign in Mayo by O’Reilly papers.

Something which they engaged in earlier, and to a much greater extent, than the rest of the national media.
This reached a crescendo of almost parody in August 2007 when one columnist opined “Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows” as ““the rule of law has to be enforced, by apparently harsh measures if need be”.


Free Blog Counter

Banking Scandal -and its not even a headline

If Fianna Fail had one bit of good news in the past few weeks, it was FGs melt down. The media management has been magnificent..
The entire medias eye was off the ball, and FF will get away with the biggest failing in the political history of the Island.
The two reports dealing with a disasterous financial meltdown that lay the blame squarely on the Government.

Dermot Ahearn said the crisis was no ones fault, and the mantra is repeated.
The FF/Green manta is the crisis is outside our control - it was due entirely due to external factors.

This is a lie

The Watson/Reingling report states the crisis was home grown - and due to overly light regulation and political mismanagement.

Governor Honohan said in his report that the collapse of Lehman Brothers did not cause the Irish banking crisis.

The financial regulators were disfunctional, 'intrusive demands" from line staff were set aside when senior regulators were approached.

To quote the Watson Reingling report “internal procedures were overridden, sometimes systematically.”
The regulators did not do their jobs, and on the basis of political and business favours they were overlooked.

Having light touch regulaton is one thing, but the shelving of investigations is to me criminal, and someone needs to answer that.
The excuse that the crash was unforseen is untrue - there were some very serious people who warned of the crisis.
In April 2007 Prof. Morgan Kelly warned we were heading for a recession with a hard crash because we had a classc set up for a property bubble bust.
Bertie in response to this and other warnings said that sitting on the sidelines moaning and cribbing - and was surprised that people who warned of a potential bust did not commit scuicide.
Regling / Watson said that by the middle of the decade, the financial and property boom in Ireland presented features that should have sounded alarm bells loudly.
Domestic financial stability reporting by the Central Bank had failed in this regard.
Brian Lenihan emphasised that the reports were "preliminary, scoping reports", which would point the way to a more detailed examination by a Commission of Investigation.
One wonders who is going to be in charge of it? Perhaps a tame high court judge or Fianna Fáil Senator Ivor Callely?
It will investigate the banks, but not the government, this is pointless - the politicians were as responsible as the bankers.
In the banks already a few token heads have rolled.
But the people who have been bought in to run our banks were alreeady senior members of those boards.

We are leaving foxes in charge of the henhouse
I believe we need someone like Eva Joly, a Norwegian born French judge with an outstanding history investigating corruption by politicians and vested business interests.
She finished her work quickly in Iceland.
We need to know what senior regulators failed to investigate concerns, we need to know what politicians were involved in getting tax breaks for regulators.
We need to uncover and prosecute those guilty of corruption and incompetence - otherwise they will do it again.

Free Blog Counter

Corporations, donations, democracy and Lyin'air.con

PRINCIPLES
I dont feel comfortable when multi-national corporations use their money and influence to promote their own agenda in a country.
Multinational corporations may be 51 out of the top 100 GDP's in the world, but they have lttle 'national' identity left.

Corporate requirements can override the democratic decision making progress of  sovereign nations.
We have seen so often the result of the need for corporations to make money takes presidence the most basic human rights and environmental considerations.

We have seen recently in the US how large corporations such as health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies use professional lobbyists to manipulate public opinion and fight universal health care - a human right - by spreading half truths and confusing the basic issue.
The United States, the worlds leading economy is the last developed nation to not have a national health service.

But from the sick denied healthcare in the US to the increased privatization and degrading of private healthcare in Ireland we know the results of the neo liberal economic model, and we will look at this in relation to Lisbon next Thursday.

Indeed, one of the major supporters of the Lisbon treaty in Ireland, Brendan Halligan, already runs a lobbyist company, CIPA (former employers of Andrew Byrne of Generation Yes) who allegedly act on behalf of the tobacco industry in the EU.

This neo-liberal economic trend is global, bank bail outs, toxic debts nationalised, from the child labour sweatshops producing garments to the logging of the Amazon, from the suppression of dissent in Nigeria to the open strip mines in Argentina.

Corporations are not evil, they are simply amoral. Their primary consideration is to make as much money for shareholders as possible.
That is their job.
Reduction of labour costs by using children in the third world where it is allowed or the bypassing of environmental considerations by outsourcing to countries where laxer controls allow for reduced costs all contribute to that increased profit margin and share value.

Several multi-national corporations with operations in Ireland such as Microsoft, Glen Dimplex and Intel have thrown their weight behind the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland, the last democratic obstacle in the way of its implementation.
Intel, Dimplex or Microsoft could cut labour costs in the morning by transferring production to Eastern Europe or other countries, which they no doubt will do unless Irish workers accept reduced pay and conditions.

They tell us that a more efficient EU would sustain economic growth nationally as well as promote international trade.
I agree – but at what cost. I have long said I have no objection to the European Union, provided it is for the benefit of the People of Europe.

Along with them, Ryanair have come onside in the campaign for a Yes vote – so lets deal with them, at least Ryanair is Irish.

COMMENTS ON FUNDING CONTROL
The Chairperson of PANA, Roger Cole said the Ryanair announcement was not a surprise to him. He has said previously that limits must be placed on the amount that private companies could spend in a referendum or election campaign.

This is particularly needed in our democracy in light of the BCI decision not to give equal treatment to both sides of the debate.
It is not reasonable that the Irish media give such coverage to money was being spent by bodies such as Libertas on a No campaign, but have little to say about similar sums of money being spent by companies such as Ryanair and Intel to promote a Yes vote.

The Standards In Public Office Commission, the independent body which oversees spending in elections and referendums, confirmed yesterday there was no spending limit for individuals and companies.

This essentially means we could have a company from the US, the UK, Germany, Russia, China, Algeria or North Korea coming to Ireland and spending vast amounts of money advocating a Yes vote with few restrictions or control.
A spokesperson said the commission, in its annual report, had called for a redefinition of what constituted a “third party”, subject to limits on spending in a referendum campaign.
It argued that the definition should not be determined on the basis of whether an individual or group had received a donation, but should focus instead on how much they spent. They should be regarded as “third parties” if they intend spending over a certain threshold.

Mr Cole said the Irish people had rejected the Lisbon Treaty last year in a democratic vote. “Now they are being forced to vote again on exactly the same treaty…these same firms.....who have a vested interest.....can spend billions of euro bullying the Irish people into submission.”
Well, at least not all of them want to charge us to use a toilet.

RYANAIR SUBSIDIES AND MONOPOLY
An EU court in 2008 backed Ryanair in a battle with state aid regulators on how far small airports can use public money to attract low-cost carriers.

The ruling from the European Union's appeals court allows Ryanair to keep a very sweet deal, a discount of more than €4 million that it received from the Belgian Walloon regional government to help run flights out of the state-owned Charleroi airport.
The Walloon Region gave Ryanair a half-price deal on landing charges that are usually fixed by regulation and promised to compensate the airline if it lost money on any changes to airport charges.
The airport would also help fund Ryanair's costs and pay it €1 per passenger for ground handling — rather than the €10 it charges other airlines.
In return, Ryanair pledged to base two to four aircraft at the airport and turn each around at least three times a day. The deal was for 15 years.

EU regulators ruled in February 2004 that parts of the Ryanair contract were illegal state aid and must be changed, which Ryanair appealed in an EU court.

But recently an EU Court said the European Commission was wrong to demand Ryanair refund the sum in 2004, and antitrust regulators had made a technical mistake when deciding the payments were an illegal state subsidy by not checking whether private investors would also have offered Ryanair low fees to start using the airport.
Mr. O'Leary now says the court decision also makes meaningless other EU investigations into claims that Ryanair received illegal subsidies at eight other airports in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Slovakia

Co-incidentally, it wasonly after the Court ruling Mr. O’Leary announced he favored Lisbon and would campaign for it. The treaty is being supported by Ryanair to the tune of €500,000.

There is also the fact that Mr. O Leary has long wanted to take over AerLingus - his main rival on the Irish market.
This would lead to a monopoly, as stated in the EC ruling of 2007.

But the more recent court favourable judgment on the indirect subsidies from in Belgium seem to have given Mr. O Leary a reason to support the Lisbon Treaty

Ryanair - Shafting you at home

NATIONAL INTEREST Vs COMMERCIAL INTEREST
Ireland is an Island nation. It is vital to the national interest that we have frequent and economic air transport to Europe and the rest of the world.

Aer Lingus was our national airline, but increased privatization encouraged by the EU with regulations on state subsidies and competition is causing problems.

According to the Irish Times August 27 2009 AerLingus is planning a review of its business after reporting a sharp increase in losses due to downward pressure on fares and a highly uncertain outlook.
Aer Lingus losses after tax in the six months to the end of June had widened a massive 242% to €73.9 million on revenue down 12.2% at €555 million.
This is an operating loss of €93 million compared with a shortfall of €23.4 million for the same period a year earlier.

Aer Lingus were guilty in the past of extremely high prices when they had a monopoly on Irish flights, so this made flights very expensive. The arrival of Ryanair competed with this, leading to a reduction in prices. We have learned in Ireland in particular that free and fair competition in the airline business is good.

Ryanair has become the dominant force in Irish aviation, publicly promoting free markets and attacking any subsidy given by governments to state airlines, regardless that they may be needed for strategic reasons.

Ryanair strongly oppose any government interference in their business, as long as they themselves are not the beneficiary, this is a dual standard.

Despite a very public commitment to consumer choice, competition and a free market Ryanair already owns almost 30 per cent of AerLingus (about 4% more than the Irish Government) and said in a statement in 2008 it wanted a “merger of the two airlines into one strong Irish airline group under common ownership”

In December 2008 Aer Lingus rejected a Ryanair €748 million takeover bid, saying the offer significantly undervalued the carrier.
This is probably true in the current economic situation.
In December 2006 Ryanair withdrew its first €1.48 billion bid for AerLingus, due to an investigation by the EC.

The EC has been concerned that the takeover would reduce consumer choice and increase fares. In June 2007, the European Commission announced their decision to block the bid on competition grounds saying the two airlines controlled more than 80% of all European flights to and from Dublin airport.

Despite its dedication to neo-liberal economics, Ryanair is happy to create a monopoly and accept state subsidy, directly or indirectly.

By providing financial support to ensure the Lisbon treaty goes through in its current format, Ryanair and other corporations like Microsoft and Intel place decision making further from the democratic process.
With the money involved they also ensure that their lobbyists have access to or even places with the unelected decision making committees.

To make sure that government remains of, by and for the People, we need a treaty that enshrines democracy answerable to us - not special interest groups and their lobbyists-whether their influence is sought or unsought - it is a danger Eisenhower warned against.

The adage of Tacitus still holds true - that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Again, as always – thanks for reading.

Even if you don’t agree with me – I hope you give some thoughts to the points made

And please let others now about these blogs.
Citizen Simon - out

Free Blog Counter

Balance of coverage - Freedom of the Press

An independent and free media are cornerstones of a modern and open democracy.

Traditionaly on matters of referendum in the state, both sides of a debate are given equal time and funding on a question put to the people, as constitutional changes are different to politics as usual.
But a Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) conference who are meant to ensure this balance and fairness in state media have been told the rules are a "charter for every awkward squad".

The rules have now been changed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The BCI are meant to be an independent statutory organisation responsible for a number of key areas of activity with regard to television and radio services in Ireland.
Part of that is to ensure fair and balanced poltical coverage - for that reason this decision is unacceptable.

The constitution, the contract between the elected and the electorate, and referenda on that contract are the cornerstone of our democracy.
Any changes to the constitution must be debated openly and fairly.

Just because the result is not to a Governments liking does not them the right to suppress debate and dissent.
Part of democracy is that the Government must listen to dissenting voices who do not promote violence or hatred.
Reduction or restriction on airtime by the states broadcaster is supresson of debate.

Dont forget the 1948 European councils declaration of human rights included article 10, that Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority

In Ireland the state through a licence fee partially covers the cost of our public broadcaster RTE.
Perhaps it is a question of 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'

Broadcasters are no longer required to allocate exactly the same amount of time to both the Yes and No campaign when it comes to editorial coverage.
It now appears each political party will be given equal time.

Considering the fact that a great deal of opposition comes from groups such as PANA and the Peoples Alliance who are not in political parties, this will skew coverage.

The only parties that oppose Lisbon are Sinn Fein and a independents.

The Greens have sacrificed their morals and independence in a desperate bid for political survival.
I find this very disheartning, but with Andrew Byrne on the executive, it seems the party has changed.
Despite their traditionally strong stance on non-alliance and workers rights the current Greens elected or appointed to the Dail and Senate put their personal political survival before the grass roots of the party and the good of the Nation.

Our reminants of Civil War politics, a discredited and unpopular Fianna Fail and an uninspiring Fianna Gael - tweedle dum and tweedle dumber, or two cheeks of the same arse - are also backing this re-run of the same referendum with the meaningless garuantees given by Brussels.

Having lost the debate on the treaty the Yes side now are creating a skewed pitch so they can make unfounded, misleading and alarmist claims about a No vote being a vote for withdrawal from the EU or withdrawal from the Eurozone.

But it is an example of media manipulation by the Government which disturbs me.
We have seen examples of this before, and discussed them on this blog.

We have seen how disproportionate coverage of the idiot Justin Barrett was used to smear the No campaign in the second Nice Treaty.
In the first Lisbon Treaty Declan Ganley had unproven allegations over funding thrown in his direction, however, if you throw enough shit at a wall - some will stick, regardless of the truth.
Similar questions about Andrew Brne in CIPA were never really explored.

There is no official public funding for groups in a referendum campaign, although questions remain about Generation Yes,CIPA, Ireland for Europe and the IIEA.
Lack of funding is a severe disadvantage for less affluent groups.

To balance this, airtime on public stations has normally been split evenly between both sides of the argument, which helps groups with low funds which wouldn’t be able to buy a great amount of airtime.

In past referenda this protocal was followed, RTE took great care to give both camps the equal amount of airtime, but it was often perceived by observers that members of the Lisbon No-Camp were treated with less respect by the hosts than the representatives of the Yes-Side.

The Questions and Answers program was a great platform for debate, but this is not scheduled prior to the Lisbon II vote.
This is hardly surprising when Dr. Paul Anthony McDermott, probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the 'assurances' gotten by Cowen were worthless

McDermott on assurances when they were 'leaked'- June 15 2009
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0615/qan...63057,null,230
Strangely in the show notes he is not listed being on the panel for the epsiode, hence the RTE google application search does not find it.

Also worth seeing McDermott on a second referendum - November 17 2008
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1117/qanda_av.html?2450381,null,230

The budget of the Referendum Commission is public, and Government spending on the campaign should be monitored by the press.
However, editorial policy in the Irish Times and Independent are pro Lisbon.

The use of taxpayers’ money for the Yes campaign by the government in Lisbon 1 was unfair as the No side didn’t have access to public funds.
We will look more at funding and media manipulation in the near future


Free Blog Counter