Aruba? Where the feck is Aruba?

According to Colm O’Gorman of Amnesty International, the US department of Homeland Security is coming to Ireland.

Speaking on The Last Word (Thursday), O’Gorman claims that the Government is in talks with the Americans to allow the establishment of units of Dept of Home Security and Secret Service to operate in Shannon airport.

The units will have the power to board private aircraft, vet crew and passengers and check for radioactive material.

O’Gorman makes the reasonable point that it is extraordinary that the Irish Government is considering allowing the US government to check planes at Shannon while at the same time seeing no need to check CIA operated private aircraft known to be involved in the commission of significant crimes in violation of international human rights

Actually, I don’t think it’s extraordinary at all. Imagine you’re George Bush dealing with a gang of cowardly, double dealing, unscrupulous Irish political chancer’s who will do anything if the price is right. You already know they’re turning a blind eye to American activities so what’s to stop them adopting the same attitude to say, the Iranian Government, if the right deal is offered.

No wonder George is putting his own team in to keep an eye on the slippery Irish.

Fine Gael spokesman for foreign affairs, Pat Breen TD, confirms the point. On the same show he argued that Shannon needs the business to compensate for the loss of Open skies and the Heathrow service. He said dozens of other European countries were looking for the ‘facility’ but only Ireland was getting it because of our special relationship with the US.

Well, not just Ireland. Apparently Aruba is also in negotiation with the Americans for the same ‘facility’. Aruba? Where the feck is Aruba? Check it out here; it’s a small 21 mile long island off the coast of Venezuela.

Ah yes, I imagine all those other countries that opt for self respect in matters of security are just green with envy when they see how easy it is to sell for a few dollars.

Shock and horror – on hearing the truth

An absolutely outrageous event occurred in this country last Tuesday. The incident shocked hardened journalists and appalled a member of academia. The event was so abhorrent that a warning was issued before it was re-broadcast.

Fine Gael TD, Leo Varadkar was the culprit and he was expressing the view that Bertie Ahern’s evidence to the tribunal played a part in the referendum defeat. Here’s what he had to say.

“And of course we should not forget the issue of the tribunals, which is a serious matter…And I don’t think it’s just about the cost of the tribunals. I think people would be prepared to bear the cost of the tribunals if they actually saw consequences but there are no consequences.

We have a former Taoiseach who has gone into the tribunal essentially giving the John Gilligan defence, that he won the money at the horses. Now this is a defence for drug dealers, this is a defence for pimps, this is not the kind of thing that should be tolerated from a former Taoiseach and a former (sic) member of this house but we do nothing, we wash our hands, we say it’s a matter for the tribunal and there is no accountability, there is no ethics and we ask ourselves why people have such a low opinion of politicians.” (Morning Ireland, 3rd report 1st item).

The RTE presenter who introduced the report spoke in a solemn and concerned voice normally reserved for reports of mass murder or the assassination of a head of state.

To avert any possibility of legal action he emphasised that Varadkar was speaking under privilege in Dail Eireann. At he end of the report the presenter felt compelled to comment – “Fairly strong stuff.”

Varadkar’s views were discussed on Today with Pat Kenny (Friday) by journalists Michael O’Regan, Michael Clifford and DCU lecturer Marie-Louise O’Donnell.

O’Regan – “I thought that was utterly unfair, I thought the language he used was unfortunate to be quite honest with you and I thought he’s want to get his act together. He’s in the door, he’s wet behind the ears, and he’d want to think before he speaks.”

O’Donnell – “And he’s out of control.”

O’Regan – “And his party leader might want to speak to him. The fact of the matter is we’ve all commented, media and indeed some ministers, TDs and senators have commented on Mr. Ahern’s evidence and it is as Michael Clifford said, you know, unbelievable etc. but we have to await ultimately the judgement of the tribunal…”

“…I have some sympathy for Fianna Fail ministers who had a Taoiseach who was giving evidence to a tribunal and the tribunal had yet to give its definitive judgement on it. If it was any other party it would have been the same.”

O’Donnel – “And you have to talk about loyalty there too, you’re right Michael, I mean you have to talk about loyalty.”

So, why were these people angry, why was the RTE presenter so worried about re-broadcasting Varadkar’s comments? They would claim, and most would agree, that it was because they were outraged to hear Bertie Ahern being described in such terms.

But they’re wrong – These people were angry because Varadkar spoke the complete and unvarnished truth. This kind of brutal truth is unacceptable in corrupt Ireland; it is unacceptable to journalists who have evolved a seamless and unhealthy bond of friendship with politicians, journalists who have lost all objectivity, journalists who can instantly recognise, condemn and objectively report on corruption so long as it is happening outside Ireland. (See here for a good example of this double think).

O’Donnell, like the Taoiseach, obviously sees loyalty to the leader as the greatest virtue. She obviously believes such loyalty takes precedence over loyalty to the State, to its people and to the law of the land.

She obviously believes that the massive damage done to the State and its people by low pedigree politicians is of little consequence when compared to the need to show blind and unquestioning loyalty – even when they resort to the tactics of pimps and drugs dealers as Varadkar rightly claims.

White collar crime in Ireland? – Where?

Crackdown, fraud, hundreds of arrests, greed, fraud charges. These are some of the words used by RTE in a report (6th report) on the action taken by US law enforcement agencies against those involved in the sub-prime scandal.

In the same report we see film of two executives from Bear Stearns bank who were charged with fraud being led away in handcuffs.

It really is fascinating to compare this report with how RTE (1st report) covered the resignation of Jim Flavin when he resigned from DCC recently.

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court found that Flavin fraudulently engaged in insider trading involving sums of over €83 million.

Not once in the report are the words fraud; greed, charges or arrest mentioned. RTE economist George Lee is also interviewed on the scandal and again no mention whatsoever of fraud, greed or crime.

RTE, in common with the rest of official Ireland, simply refuse to accept that white collar fraud exists in Ireland.

Meanwhile, Flavin remains a free man with not the remotest chance that he will ever be charged much less filmed being led away in handcuffs.

Copy to:
RTE News

Mansergh – A dangerous fool

Minister of State for Finance Martin Mansergh is a dangerous fool.

He’s a fool because he’s a great admirer of the corrupt Haughey and numbers himself among those who have publicly admitted that they believe Bertie Ahern’s fantasy tales.

The Minister is dangerous because he’s one of those politicians who find democracy to be very inconvenient.

During the Dail debate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum Mansergh strongly suggested that perhaps it’s time to ‘re-interpret’ the Crotty Judgement, not as an attack on democracy you understand but because it would save the peasants, er citizens from having to deal with complex matters and would make things easier for our fellow EU partners.

“It is with good reason that all our other European partners chose to seek parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty and the ruling party in France won a mandate to do that last year.

Referendums on something as general yet as complex as this treaty are vulnerable to all sorts of cross-currents, some quite unconnected with it. While many people passionately cherish the right to vote directly on such treaties now and in the future, I encountered many others who implicitly and sometimes explicitly resented a matter this complex being referred to them.

While I am certain the decision to hold a referendum was based on both clear legal advice and sound political considerations, it could be argued that since 1987 we have taken an expansive interpretation of the Crotty judgment.

While no longer relevant in relation the referendum just past, it is an issue that needs to be looked at carefully if we are not continually to be hampered in the future vis-à-vis all other member states. While our strict constitutional requirements must be respected, we do not necessarily have to go well beyond them.”

Ahhh Mr. Schulz…

Martin Schulz MEP is not happy with Charlie McCreevy (RTE, 1st report 3rd item).

Schulz, who is chairman of the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament, wants McCreevy fired from the Commission because of his remarks during the Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign.

“He has one of the highest responsibilities in the European Commission and then to tell people – ‘I don’t care about this treaty, I have not even read it’ is not only a mistake it is a catastrophe because the message is clear – I don’t care about the legal framework in which I have to act.’ That’s inadmissible for such a high responsibility.”

“I don’t care about the legal framework in which I have to act.” ?

Ahhh Mr. Schulz you are so innocent. Do you not know that working outside the legal framework is the default position for most Irish politicians and officials.

“And the responsible minister is McCreevy who prefers to go to a horse race than come to the European Parliament; that is the behaviour of a lord of the 19th century.”

Ahhh Mr. Schulz, are you not aware that McCreevy is merely aping the low standards of another Charlie who acted like a lord over the people for decades?

Schulz was asked should Charlie McCreevy be in the Commission at all

I’m not an employment institute, we could find certainly another dossier. Multilingualism is another dossier, perhaps it would be good for him because if you listen to him when he’s speaking English I have always the need to speak to the Commissioner of multilingualism to help me to understand Charlie.”

Ahhh Mr. Schulz, now you’ve hurt our Charlie’s feelings but also given us all a good laugh.

Skiing in the jungle

Questions were asked on RTE this morning (6th report) as to why Irish troops serving in Chad were wearing dark, heavy jungle fatigues instead of the more appropriate light desert blending uniforms that all other nations wear in such conditions.

An RTE reporter visiting Chad was told:

“The Irish Defence Forces wanted to stand out, they wanted everybody to know who they were and on that basis they would be in some way different. What was unstated was they wanted to be different from the French but for the men and women serving out there it’s going to be very rough indeed.”

It certainly is going to be very rough. South Lebanon is nowhere near as hot as the deserts of Chad but when I served there with the UN we were issued with very light, very comfortable uniforms and were very happy with not having to wear the heavier Irish Defence Forces uniforms.

To wear jungle fatigues in the desert is just as ridiculous as wearing polar uniforms and skis in the jungle and must be deeply embarrassing as well as very uncomfortable for Irish troops.

Bord na gCon report – A cleverly written whitewash?

A special investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General into the activities of the Greyhound Board (Bord No gCon) has found evidence of mis-management and financial irregularities over a ten year period up to 2006.

Despite these findings the C&AG also found that in general the funds of Bord na gCon were properly applied.

It should be noted at this point that the C&AG was appointed auditor of Bord na gCon in 2001. In his report the C&AG states; “In my annual audits of Bord na gCon I have satisfied myself that the broad framework of financial administration and internal control was appropriate.”

So the state agency responsible for both auditing and investigating Bord na gCon was satisfied that the broad framework of financial administration and internal controls were appropriate during a period when very serious irregularities occurred.

The core work of the C&AGs office should also be kept in mind as we analyse this very questionable report.

The core work of the Office is the conduct of financial audits which culminates in an annual opinion on all accounts of State and State-sponsored bodies falling within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG). This work entails examining the accounts and underlying records and transactions of those entities in order to ensure that
• the accounts properly reflect the transactions
• the transactions recorded in the accounts are regular – have been applied for the purposes intended and in accordance with rules governing them.
For each account an examination is also made of the internal financial control arrangements.

We at Public Inquiry would ask – Why was a state agency that has responsibility for signing off on the finances of a semi state body also investigating that same body? At a minimum there is a serious conflict of interest.

We would also call into question the C&AGs conclusion that “in general the funds of Bord na gCon were properly applied.” A look at just some of the more serious irregularities clearly contradicts that conclusion.

A building overseer was given authority over a €12 million redevelopment of Shelbourne Greyhound Park between 2000 and 2002 in the absence of the managing director due to illness.

When this overseer was in charge, control over the project was not being exercised by either Bord na gCon or its subsidiary, Shelbourne Greyhound Stadium Limited.

The same overseer was given a contract to manage security at Shelbourne Park without advertising or a recruitment process.

The same overseer organised a fraud (See Paschal Taggart’s comments at Appendix D) involving the purchase of a ‘new’ generator that cost €124,704 but which was subsequently found to be 20 years old.

The overseer had instructed the services consultant retained to manage the tender process to add to the list of those tendering for the contract a company of which he, the overseer, was a director. Not surprisingly, that company got the contract.

After discovering this fraud, Bord na gCon sought legal advice and were told that it would be futile to take the matter any further as there was insufficient evidence.

Despite the central part played by the overseer in this scandal the contractual relationship he had with Bord na gCon remains unclear.

Obviously, the overseer is the central character in all these activities but when I questioned a spokesperson at the C&AGs office I received a somewhat muddled response.

Why weren’t names named, the overseer, for example?
It’s our policy not to include names in our reports.
Who makes that policy?
It’s an office decision, an internal decision.
If I ask for names can I get them?
There are names at Appendix C.
But it doesn’t give the name of the overseer.
The overseer wasn’t examined, the overseer can’t be found.
He can’t be found? You must be joking?
We had no one to correspond with.
But this man played a major part in the fraud.
We were examining Bord na gCon; the overseer is not and never was an employee of Bord na gCon. As auditor of Bord na gCon, we’re not the police; we don’t go chasing people around.
But surely somebody in Bord na gCon must know who he is?
No, we went and enquired and, we know who he is, just can’t contact him.
Could you give me his name; I might be able to track him down?
I’d have to come back to you on that one.

Fortunately, through an impeccable source, Public Inquiry has learned that the infamous overseer is a Mr. Dan Lannon. The report says Mr. Lannon has “extensive experience in the construction industry”, which could mean a number of things, including possible conflicts of interest.

It is crystal clear that the C&AG has failed in his duty to ensure that transactions of public bodies are in accordance with legal authorities governing them. It is also clear that there are still many unanswered questions surrounding this scandal and that the report submitted by the C&AG is nothing more than a cleverly written whitewash.

Copy to:
Comptroller and Auditor General
Bord na gCon
Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism

Notes and quotes

Mary O’Rourke’s howls of pain could be heard for miles as that dog bit deeply into her ankle.

“I take responsibility having led the Yes campaign that goes with that position. I don’t walk away from that in any way.” (An Taoiseach Brian Cowen, 1st report, 11th item)

In most countries taking responsibility means resignation – In Ireland it means nothing.

I suspect that plans and plots are afoot for the toppling of Enda Kenny.

“Obviously you’re not being allowed to interview me. As you know we were opposed by elements on the extreme left and extreme right. We’ve seen this in European history before and one of the first things to go is free speech.”

A very angry Brian Lenihan as he experiences a rare contact with ordinary people (1st report, 8th item).

I agree with several commentators who said that the result was principally a reflection of the disconnection between ordinary citizens and the body politic.

Would everybody please now standby for chaos in the universe followed by the sky falling in – Thank you.

Not once during the campaign did I hear the word ‘conscription’ mentioned never mind hotly discussed as a serious possibility. Yet Michael Martin claimed on a number of occasions today that fear of conscription, put out by the No side, was a factor in the result.

The funniest comment today was written on the tricolour displayed at Dublin Castle – “Who is the loola now Bertie? (1st report, last item).