Cowen-Gate affair rolls on

There’s a good selection of letters in today’s Irish Times on the Cowen paintings affair. Here’s two, one very funny and the other very accurate.

Madam,

If I find there is an intruder sneaking around my home in the middle of the night, should I dial 999 and tell the operator that someone is attempting to nail a painting to my wall without permission? Because that seems to be a very effective way of getting the gardaí to respond quickly. I certainly won’t tell them that there’s a gang of bankers in the kitchen rummaging through my wallet.

Yours, etc,

SHANE Ó MEARÁIN,
Sandymount Road,
Sandymount,
Dublin 4.

Madam

The unfolding story of Cowen-Gate is an almost perfect parable of the life and abilities of this Government and Fianna Fáil.

With our economy in tatters, our education and health care systems decimated, more people unemployed than ever before, and cronyism and corruption rife in Irish life, it takes two satirical portraits of Brian Cowen in the nip and the ridiculous attempts to censor the coverage of them, for people to finally realise that the emperor has no clothes.

Sad to say, it seems that we are living in a banana republic without either the good weather or the bi-annual excitement of a change of government.

Yours etc,
HARRY LEECH,
Leinster Place,
Rathmines,
Dublin 6.

It's not just the economy stupid

“I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”

(New Scientist).

It’s not just our economy that’s going down the tube.

Happy Thursday everybody.

Update on Mass card law

I received the following email from Aras an Uachtarain today in response to my email to the President regarding the Charities Act, 2009 which makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your e-mail to the President of 19th March, 2009.

As you are aware the Charities Act 2009 has become law. The President has therefore no further function in relation to this legislation. You may wish to bring your concerns regarding the provisions of this Act to the attention of the Government.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

I also made a formal complaint regarding this Act to the EU through the three Munster MEPs, Kathy Sinnott (Independent), Brian Crowley (Fianna Fail) and Colm Burke (Fine Gael).

19th March 2009

Dear Ms. Sinnott,

I wish to lodge a formal complaint with you regarding the recent enactment of the Charities Act, 2009.

According to former Attorney General John Rodgers SC, Section 99 of the Act, which was recently signed into law by President Mary McAleese, may be unconstitutional because it makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Mr. Rodgers has stated:

The narrow categories of persons is arbitrary and unfair and represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others who are members of non-Catholic churches and religious communities in this State. (Irish Times, February 26th).

The most worrying aspect of the Act, however, concerns the reversal of the widely accepted legal principal of innocent until proven guilty. Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Act states:

In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.

Clearly, this section is in direct contradiction of Article 48 of the EUs Charter of Fundamental Rights which states: Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty is, I believe, one of the fundamental legal pillars of most modern democratic states.

Mr. Rodgers believes that this section goes further than is reasonably required to deal with the problem. I believe that it is an unacceptable attack on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and therefore request that you investigate the matter with the aim of having the repugnant section struck out.
Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Kathy Sinnott replied.

Dear Anthony,

Thank you very much for alerting me to this. I will certainly do what I can and get back to you.

Kathy

I received no reply from Mr. Crowley or Mr. Burke. I have resubmitted my formal complaint to both MEPs today.

Niall O'Loughlin: A comfortable but worried artist

The artist Niall O’Loughlin has an interesting take on the Brian Cowen picturegate controversy. He says:

“I personally think what the artist did was a step too far, the painting itself IMO was very poorly executed which I know is irrelevant, however I worry about the long term repercussions of what he did.

Artists are very well treated in this country, lets just hope the government doesn’t form the opinion that we’ve nothing better to do than sit around all day drawing silly pictures of our political leaders and then sneaking into art galleries to hang them up. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame whoever you are.”

I’ve always assumed that artists were freethinkers, that they pushed boundaries to the limit, acted outside the box, acted and worked with the intention of shocking, enlightening, educating, leading and encouraging the general population to see reality from as many perspectives as possible.

I suspect that Mr. O’Loughlin’s stated fear of possible government reprisals against artists indicates that he’s a comfortable artist, very well established, enjoying considerable monetary favours from the State and is very worried that his less well established and more radical artist colleagues may make things uncomfortable for him.

Copy to:
Niall O’Loughlin

RTEs cowardice seriously damages its credibility

The Brian Cowen caricature stunt which started out as a humourous and harmless stunt has evolved into a very serious matter.The artist, I believe, never dreamed that his/her action would expose RTE as a lapdog of the Government.

Discussing the matter on Today with Pat Kenny, Fianna Fail TD, Michael Kennedy said;

“RTE is there to give serious news items. It’s not a comedy piece…I want it to be balanced, I want it to be unbiased and I want it to be newsworthy, not fickle entertainment.”

I want, I want, I want.

So, we’re clear on what Mr. O’Kennedy and the Government wants, we’re also clear that RTE has no problems or scruples in immediately complying with Government demands.

And keep in mind this is just the latest in a number of cases where RTE were happy to cave in the moment they received a phone call from an angry government.

Last November we saw the outspoken government critic, John Crown, banned from appearing on the Late Late Show and more recently we saw the curtailment of references to Cowen on the Gerry Ryan Show.

But RTE cannot escape the consequences of its actions. I, and I’m sure a great many other people, will never again see its news broadcasts in the same light, particularly if the news report concerns any matter that’s sensitive to Government officials or politicians.

The question will always be in the back of my mind – how much of this report is genuine news and how much is government propaganda?

RTEs craven kowtowing to government bullying has seriously damaged its credibility.

Copy to:
RTE News

Confirmed: The so called Financial Regulator is rotten to the core

Former AIB internal auditor Eugene McErlean confirmed today what we at Public Inquiry have been saying for years (as far back as 2005). He told the Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs:

“It is my opinion that the Financial Regulator’s report published in December 2004 failed to tell the whole story about overcharging. The report gave the impression that the regulator had acted in the public interest. I think it is relevant to consider that if a whistleblower had not exposed the problem in 2004 then the overcharging practices may have carried on indefinitely.”

This statement makes the following points:

The so called Financial Regulator acted against the public interest by deliberately keeping secret, information that was vital for consumers.

By its actions the so called Financial Regulator was acting in the interest of a bank that was robbing consumers.

By failing to take action against this robbing bank the so called Financial Regulator exposed consumers to potentially great loss.

By failing in its duty to act against this robbing bank the so called Financial Regulator has helped to endanger the international reputation of Ireland.

The so called Financial Regulator has a putrid record of tolerance and facilitation of thieving financial institutions and as Mr. McErlean points out is quite prepared to tolerate theft indefinitely. There is no evidence whatsoever that this policy has changed, we are still waiting for even a single banker to be arrested.

Mary O’Dea, currently acting head of the Financial Regulator, should be sacked immediately. In recent weeks we have heard several so called informed commentators praising this woman because she questioned the mafia style actions of one bank at one meeting after the avalanche of filth had already engulfed and enraged the general public.

She has been a senior director of Ifsra since its establishment in 2003, she is and was fully aware of all its rotten policies that effectively protected corrupt financial institutions and exposed the general public to great loss and has seen the international reputation of Ireland in tatters.

And she’s not the only one who should be fired in disgrace. For years, I’ve had to listen to insulting, condescending, bullshit from a number of departments at Ifsra about so called financial complexity; about secrecy laws, about ‘who the hell do you think you are Mr. Sheridan calling us and asking impertinent questions.

The whole rotten edifice should be cleaned out once and for all and that should include all staff members who knew, by dint of their position, what was going on in this organisation that has betrayed the Irish people.

They will have to be sacked because, clearly, their long and close association with the rotten stench coming from the Irish financial sector has long ago destroyed their sense of morality, a sense of morality that would, in normal people, lead them to immediately resign in shame.

Copy to:
Financial Regulator (so called)

Fragile memento

The opening paragraph in an article by Vincent Hogan in today’s Irish Independent.

In Cardiff Airport yesterday, one brazen Irish rugby supporter faced a complication at check-in. He sought to bring one of the corner-flags from the Millennium Stadium on board his flight as hand luggage.

The ground-staff insisted that this rather conspicuous memento, thieved in the fevered celebrations of Ireland’s first Grand Slam triumph since 1948, needed to be checked in.

“Okay,” the supporter finally relented. “But can you mark it ‘fragile’?”

The Grand Slam

What a game, I watched it at home and like most people was literally on the edge of my seat but also lying on the floor, pacing up and down the living room, perched on the coffee table, running out into the garden in fright and ecstasy, alternatively kissing and shaking my fist at the screen.

Moggy, who is strictly a soccer fan cat, had had enough by the second half and headed for the shed.

When asked was he nervous during the game, that genius Brian O’Driscoll said that it was easier to play than to watch.

Feck, I’d certainly agree with that.

His Excellency Martin Cullen devastated by news of new technology

Don’t believe reports that yesterday’s special Cabinet meeting was held to discuss spending cuts and taxes to gain control of public finances.

I can exclusively reveal that the emergency meeting was demanded by a very distraught Martin Cullen after he watched a report on Six One News (12th item) last Friday.

His Excellency was devastated to learn that Cisco had developed a revolutionary Teleconferencing system that could practically do away with the need to physically travel to ‘very important’ meetings.

In addition to saving millions in expenses the new system is environmentally friendly with Cisco slashing its travel budget by 50% last year thus saving over a hundred thousand metric tons in carbon emissions.

It is reported that His Excellency nearly choked on his caviar on hearing the news and immediately called on Biffo to convene an emergency meeting.

Leaks from the meeting indicate that while most ministers are happy to use the new technology His Excellency is totally opposed.

I’m all for technology, he said, but we also have to think of image. This new fangled machine will not impress the peasants, not if they’re deprived of the sight of their leaders travelling to very important meetings in expensive cars, helicopters and planes.

We’ve got to lead by example, he said, give them something to aspire to.

A law repugnant to democratic principles

The Charities Act 2009 was recently signed into law by President Mary McAleese.

Section 99 of this act makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

This law is repugnant to the enlightened democratic principles of most modern states. I believe this law was introduced for one principal reason – to re-establish the lucrative Mass card monopoly to the Catholic Church.

I have written to Mary McAleese challenging her on this matter.

Dear Mrs. President,

You recently signed into law the Charities Act 2009 a section of which makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Act states: “In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.”

Clearly, this law is in direct contradiction of Article 48 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights which states: “Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty is, I believe, one of the fundamental legal pillars of most modern democratic states.

I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.

Do you agree with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

Do you agree with the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ section of the Charities Act 2009?

Yours sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

The relevant section.

Section 99. (Charities Act, 2009)

(1) A person who sells a Mass card other than pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.

(3) In this section—

“Church” means the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church;

“Mass card” means a card or other printed material that indicates, or purports to indicate, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass howsoever described will be offered for—

(a) the intentions specified therein, or
(b) such intentions as will include the intentions specified therein;

“priest” means a priest ordained according to the rites of the Church;

“recognised person” means—

(a) a bishop of the Church, or
(b) a provincial of an order of priests established under the authority of, and recognised by, the Church;

“sell” includes, in relation to a Mass card, offer or expose the card for sale or invite the making by a person of an offer to purchase the card.