Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
The fault lies with bank regulators not with the government.
This was one of Mary Harney’s parting quotes as she headed off into comfortable, no worries retirement.
Her logic is a bit like that of a government minister of a country that had just been invaded saying – It’s nothing to do with the government, it’s the army’s fault.
An article in yesterday’s Irish Independent outlines the stark reality facing the Irish people.
It’s worth reproducing the article in full with emphasis and some comment.
IMF-EU plan forces State to come clean on its loans
By Emmet Oliver Deputy Business Editor
Wednesday February 09 2011
AS part of the IMF-EU programme, all government departments and state agencies have been told to disclose all their outstanding borrowings by the weekend.
The agencies and departments must disclose all “current encumbrances” by close of business on Friday, a circular from the Department of Finance has made clear.From now on any fresh borrowing done by a department, local authority or state agency can only happen with the express permission of the Department of Finance.
(The reality is that the Dept. of Finance is merely the whip master to the IMF/EU. Brian Lenihan is the messenger boy who informs the whip master how many lashes are to be applied to Irish citizens).
These changes have been demanded by the terms of December’s €85bn EU/IMF bailout programme. The Department of Finance’s central capital unit will now handle all requests for fresh borrowing.
Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan has written to secretary generals at all government departments informing them of the new system. ”
“This is required to comply with the loan agreements with both the EFSM and EFSF under the EU-IMF support programme,” the instruction from Mr Lenihan makes clear.
From now on the Department of Finance will maintain a register of debts at each department and state agency in an attempt to streamline and tighten up the management of the public finances. No previously unknown exposures are expected to emerge from the trawl, sources said.
The list of public bodies who must comply with the instruction is extensive, although in many cases the organisations don’t borrow any money. But in a significant number of cases state agencies borrow on a short-term basis to deal with funding shortfalls.
Monthly
The list does not include commercial semi-states, but does include companies like Irish Rail. It also includes the IDA, FAS, An Bord Pleanala and Enterprise Ireland.
(FAS? EU/IMF officials should brace themselves for a severe shock).
The IMF and EU must also be provided with monthly management accounts by the Department of Finance itself, showing how much revenue the State is collecting and how much it is spending.
The whole area of how the public finances are managed is due to change at the end of June when a Budget Advisory Council will come into operation. This will oversee the budget process and make sure the State sticks to its debt targets.
The stark reality is that the EU/IMF is in complete control of the economy and obviously the purse strings.
This fact is going to have a very serious impact on the most important, most corrupt, aspect of our dysfunctional state – Clientelism.
Up until the catastrophe Iish politicians obtained their power by plundering state coffers and using the funds to buy votes from politically ignorant citizens.
They have now lost that source of power forever.
Only time will tell how an Irish electorate, who have lived for decades under the blissful delusion that their gombeen representatives were giving them something for nothing, will react to this sudden dose of reality from the EU/IMF.
Trinity lecturer and Irish Times columnist Dr. Elaine Byrne is obviously very passionate about the need for radical political reform in Ireland.
She may therefore be surprised to learn that she is part of the problem herself. No significant reform of the political system will occur until those in the media wake up to what is actually happening in Ireland.
That Dr. Byrne is unaware of the reality of the situation was evident last Wednesday on The Late Debate when she engaged in a comfortable, light-hearted discussion with Fianna Fail TD Mary O’Rourke.
Clearly, Dr. Byrne has great respect for O’Rourke saying at one point:
I think Mary O’Rourke has made a fantastic contribution (to politics) particularly on her Seanad reform report which was one of the better reform reports.
Here’s the reality that Dr. Byrne does not see.
Mary O’Rourke is a traitor to her county and people. In common with all Fianna Fail politicians O’Rourke believes strongly in loyalty; to herself, to her family dynasty, to her party, and most of all, loyalty to the rotten political system that sustains her in power and comfort.
O’Rourke is an admirer and supporter of the criminal Haughey and seems to have no problem with the fact that her party has been a hotbed of corruption for years.
As for that Seanad report – like all politicians, O’Rourke see such reports as nothing but a big joke on the Irish people.
If O’Rourke was a citizen of a functional/accountable democracy she would be treated with utter contempt whenever and wherever she showed her face. Neither she nor any of the cabal of chancers that makes up her party would last a week in public life.
In our corrupt state she is feted as the Mammy of Parliament and is treated with utmost respect by the media and academics like Dr. Byrne.
If Dr. Byrne was truly aware of what has happened to our country and who is responsible she would treat the likes of O’Rourke with the contempt she richly deserves and therefore greatly hasten the cause of real political reform.
People like O’Rourke are enemies of the state and a state that fails to act against its enemies is doomed to destruction.
Copy to:
Dr.Byrne
Mary O’Rourke
On 28th August last year I submitted a formal complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to expense claims made by Senator Ivor Callely (Complaint reproduced below).
I received a judgement last Friday informing me that the Commission found no basis on which to initiate an investigation.
My reply to the judgement.
Dear Mr…
Thank you for your efforts in this matter. I would have been truly astonished if the outcome had been otherwise.
Yours sincerely
Anthony Sheridan
The judgement is worth reading because it demonstrates just how slyly intelligent our politicians are when it comes to looking after their own interests.
I predict that this era of legal corruption is very close to an end.
(My emphasis throughout)
4 February 2010 (sic)
Dear Mr Sheridan,
I refer to previous correspondence to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Standards Commission) concerning a complaint about Senator Ivor Callely relating to expenses claims made by him while he was a Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children.
The Standards Commission sought and received copies of the expenses claims from the Secretary General of the Department, Mr Michael Scanlan.
It also asked the Secretary General to set out the relevant rules under which Ministers of State were allowed to claim mileage expenses at the time and to set out the steps taken by the then Secretary General at the time in his capacity as Accounting Officer to secure compliance with those rules.
The Secretary General replied stating that Government decisions of 16 September 1983 and of 7 February 1984 regulate the payment of mileage claims by Ministers of State.
He said that under those decisions the head of a department shall certify mileage claims for Ministers of State on being provided with a statement, certified by the Minister of State concerned, that the mileage travelled was for official purposes only.
The following are the relevant sections of the decisions:
16 September 1983
“3(a) that the new arrangements, in respect of Ministers of State,… should be made with effect from the 1st October, 1983,… that in all cases the arrangements under which they would provide their own cars in place of State cars, should be on the basis of a mileage allowance being paid in respect of mileage, other than that unrelated to their Office, and civilian drivers being provided by the state in lieu of Garda drivers”
“(b) that the mileage rates payable in respect of (a) above should be those applicable to members of the judiciary, subject to payment in respect of not more than 60,000 miles a year in each case,”
7 February 1984
“the Government following further consideration of the matter, agreed that paragraph 3(a) of that decision (of 16th September 1983) should be amended by the addition of
“such mileage allowances shall be payable and certified by the relevant accounting officer on the basis of a statement to be furnished from time to time by the office-holder certifying the total mileage travelled and related to the office in the car provided by the office holder in place of a state car, in the period covered by the claim.”
The Secretary General also stated that all payments were made on the basis of claims certified by the Minister of State concerned in accordance with those decisions. He said that on occasion some claims were queried by the (then) Secretary General but paid on the basis of certification by the Minister of State concerned.
Having considered your complaint in light of the documentary evidence provided, the rules under which the claims were dealt with and the observations of the Department’s Secretary General, the Standards Commission has decided that there is no basis on which to initiate an investigation under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.
Initial complaint
28th August 2010
To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to formally lodge a complaint under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995.
The complaint concerns an article in the Sunday Tribune newspaper on the 22nd August 2010 which outlined the following expense claims made by then junior minister, Ivor Callely.
Claimed 5,000 miles per month in expenses during his term as junior minister at the Department of Health even though he lived less than three miles from his office.
Claimed for the 5,000 miles (the maximum allowed) even when he had been out of the country on government business, including March 2003 when he was away for at least eight days on trips to France, England, Malta and Slovakia
Claimed the maximum allowed mileage for May 2003 even though he spent seven days in the US during that month.
Claimed for more than a dozen dining expenses at the Leinster House restaurant. These particular claims were questioned by the department but were eventually paid out.
I request that these claims be investigated to clarify what appear to be very serious inconsistencies.
I include below a full reproduction of the newspaper article
Yours sincerely
Anthony Sheridan
Most of the incompetent/traitorous politicians, bankers and regulators have headed off into the sunset with golden handshakes and massive pensions to live out their lives in peace and comfort.
Reaction of consultant to prosposed cuts of €11 million at children’s hospital (Today with Pat Kenny).
Have to tell parents that they cannot come, some of these kids with serious eye problems will go blind, this is the implication of it all.
This means blindness and maybe life and utter chaos and confusion.
This is not going to save money…when all the staff is still there, when all the facilities are still there, it doesn’t make sense…we should tackle the non frontline services, the non core services, the people who administer the system.
Hitting vulnerable services and creating chaos and confusion among ordinary folk is just not on.
The hospital will save nothing and only create massive headaches for me and suffering for all my patients.
A lot of consultants have gone to ground, they’re afraid to speak up. The new contract gags a lot of them from speaking out and there’s the threat of intimidation.
Meanwhile, almost the entire media is caught up in a frenzy of analysis over whether there should be a three or five way political debate.
Eoghan Harris warns that simplistic solutions to our problems could lead to anarchy (Sunday Independent).
Before I go further I can hear you say: who cares? The answer is all who abhor anarchy. Without a coalition of centrist parties we are at the mercy of political mobs — including media mobs — shouting simplistic slogans and peddling stupid socialist solutions.
He then proceeds to offer a ‘sophisticated’ analysis of one aspect of the situation.
Socialism in Ireland is called benchmarking. And no matter how it’s disguised it means taking money from the majority productive private sector class (which is at the mercy of market forces) and spending it on a minority public sector class (which is protected from market forces) and which enjoys permanent and pensionable employment.
Pat Kenny mentioned on his radio show yesterday (Wed, 26th) that politicians were breaking the law by erecting election posters too early.
I rang the Dept. of the Environment to check out the situation.
An official guided me to the relevant section of the Act.
Posters are now only allowed to be erected for a certain specified time period before an election. This time period is either (a) 30 days before the poll date or (b) from the date the polling day order (or equivalent) for the election has been completed, whichever provides the shorter period of time.
The official wasn’t too sure of the interpretation of this section and promised to get an expert to ring me back, I’m still waiting.
Personally, I think it confirms that the law is being broken. The only election date confirmed so far is 11th March and, according to the official, no polling day order has been completed.
Here in Cobh there are posters up all over the place but I’ll bet nobody will be prosecuted.
The matter may seem trivial but is actually a good indicator of how little things have changed in Ireland.
A group of citizens (allegedly) break the law in plain view of law enforcement agencies and (most likely) no action will be taken.
It’s still the same old wink, wink, nod, nod, culture.
The scumbag traitor Bertie Ahern was interviewed outside the Dail today as the 30th Dail broke up (RTE News).
Journalist: Will you miss it?
The traitor: Well, kind of… (interrupted by angry citizen).
Angry citizen: People like us getting cuts in our wages and taxes and all that. Have you no shame, you’re on the TV the last two days mouthing out of yourself, you should be ashamed of yourself, shame on you.
The traitor: Thank you.
Angry citizen: No, not thank you, I’m fed up. I’m working and getting my pay cheque this week and getting less money, how dare you?
Journalist: That’s an anger that most Fianna Fail TDs are going to face.
The traitor: (Dismissive and insulting reply) I have to say, outside here, this happens every day. People come along here to try and get themselves on TV and radio.
Journalist: What’s your biggest regret?
The traitor: I would have loved if somebody; somewhere had told me what was going on in the banks in this country but nobody ever did, you get wise after the event. We didn’t get a proper national stadium, when I see little countries like Qatar and Kuwait talking about their tent stadiums and we never succeeded in getting one national stadium.
The Data Protection Commissioner has written to political parties to caution them about communicating with individuals using text, email or phone in the forthcoming election.
The Commissioner said that his office had received numerous complaints during previous election campaigns.
He said subsequent investigations revealed that contact details were obtained from sources such as sports clubs, friends, colleagues and schools.
Obtaining personal data in such circumstances constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Acts.
I rang the Data Protection Commissioner to find out how many politicians or political parties had been prosecuted as a result of these investigations.
Before ringing I made a mad guess that the answer would be zero and indeed that mad guess turned out to be, well, not so mad.
Here’s some of what I was told by a spokesperson.
If a company sends an email or text to a citizen without permission they can be immediately prosecuted, the law is crystal clear on the matter.
However, there is a special exemption written into the law for politicians and political parties.
In other words these people and organisations have full rights to bombard citizens with any amount of unsolicited material at any time of day or night.
Now we have to stop here and consider this special exemption.
Who made this decision? Was it a politician, a civil servant – or both? Why should politicians enjoy this special exemption?
Is it just another of those occasions where the law and state institutions are utilised (abused?) to provide politicians with an advantage at the expense of citizens?
But there’s good news.
Apparently politicians/political parties can be fined up to €3,000 (about five days expenses for the average TD?) if they illegally obtain contact details of citizens through such sources as sports clubs, friends, colleagues and schools.
In his warning the Commissioner revealed that he had indeed received and investigated numerous such complaints after recent elections so I put the obvious question to the Commissioner’s spokesperson.
Has your office ever taken action against a politician or political party for breaching the Data Protection Act?
No, it hasn’t arisen. You see our first action is never to serve an enforcement order in any of the complaints we deal with.
(Translation: Our first action is never to enforce the law?).
You’re confirming that you’ve never served an enforcement order against a politician or political party.
We investigated complaints in the local government and general elections but it hasn’t been necessary to actually serve an enforcement order because in each case, when we found out, they agreed to delete the details.
This is similar to the strategy adopted by the Financial Regulator when banks were found to be robbing their customers – just pay back the money and promise to be good in future.
This method of dealing with alleged law breakers is one of the principal reasons why our country is now facing total ruination.
The (Tammany Hall) system can be outlined as follows.
An activity is taking place that is damaging to the general public.
Laws are introduced and an organisation is set up to enforce those laws to protect the general public and the good of society.
If it is found that the laws are ‘inconvenient’ for some vested interests (politicians, bankers, property developers, solicitors etc.) a number of options can be considered.
Write an exemption into the law. This is usually buried deep within the legislation.
Ensure that the enforcement agency is provided with only minimum powers and is so understaffed and under funded that it will be impossible to carry out its remit.
The ODCE, presently investigating Anglo Irish Bank, is a good example of this kind of strategy.
Equip the so called regulator with Soviet style secrecy laws which debars any questions whatsoever. The Financial Regulator is a good example of this strategy.
Allow civil servants wide discretion regarding the implementation of the law. This particular case is a good example of this strategy.
The Data Protection Commissioner could have taken action against politicians/political parties for breach of the Act but chose instead to come to a mutual agreement
Ignore the law altogether. This is a very common strategy in Ireland. Ansbacher and DIRT are just two examples where so called regulatory agencies were aware of serious breaches of the law but failed to take action.
The failure to rigorously enforce laws by a wide range of state agencies over a prolonged number of years has led to the inevitable – political chaos, impoverishment and hardship for ordinary citizens and national shame in front of the world community.
Allow me to end by making another (mad) guess/prediction – not a single politician or political party will receive an enforcement order from the so called Data Protection Commissioner as a result of any breaches of the Act in the forthcoming election.
Copy to:
The Data Protection Commissioner
I will be astonished if Cowen is still Taoiseach this day next week.