McDowell misusing his Dáil privileges...?

Right , sounds good enough for me... you didn't fly a plane on 9/11... now prove your not on the IRA Army Council...
 
jhegarty said:
Right , sounds good enough for me... you didn't fly a plane on 9/11... now prove your not on the IRA Army Council...
Click to expand...

You're mixing up your situations with regards to the pronouncements of Minister McDowell.

He'll say to anyone, anywhere, that certain people are on the IRA Army Council - outside of Dail privilege. The people that he's said this about are free to take umbrage at this any time they so choose, and take it to the courts if necessary. They haven't.

What's he's said about Frank Connolly has been said under Dail privilege, and therefore Mr.Connolly doesn't have the ability to take any action over what was said.
 
CCOVICH said:
If McDowell has made a false accusation, he should be made resign.
Click to expand...

He has made a false accusation. He knows DPP has not enough evidence to make a case.
Lets pretend we are dealing with a Joe Bloggs whose brother is/maybe in the Legion of Mary and has had a lot of a lot of adverse media coverage.
IRA/Sinn Fein are words that distorts peoples normally rational judgement eg. Michael McDowell.
Lets change the name of the CPI to CPI Times and demand that it be owned by someone as upstanding as, say, Tony O`Reilly or Rupert Murdock.
All employees must also be vetted by the Minister for Justice who will monitor them as well as he did Gardai in Donegal.
 
People are judged by their relatives on their way into the Garda Siochána aren't they??
Id say the inquiry into the purchase of overpriced prison land had more to do with McDowells accusations than the relation of Frank Connolly to the Columbia 3.
Its an awful pity we dont have many honest decent journalist instead of tabloid writers who excacerbate problems such as crime in this country. Maybe if they did some research instead of printing the tripe they get away with we'd have ministers less inclined to do what they want in Ireland.
 
Grumpy said:
He has made a false accusation. He knows DPP has not enough evidence to make a case.
Click to expand...

Making a false accusation and not having enough evidence to take a case are not the same thing.
 
CCOVICH said:
Making a false accusation and not having enough evidence to take a case are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

The accuser should prove his accusation, not the victim disprove it.
McDowell should not indulge in opinion, backed up by, of all things, Garda intelligence.DPP has told him there is no legal basis for his accusation.
The pub is the place for this type of accusation, over a pint with Sam Smyth.
Then go home and sleep it off...not to the Dail.
 
CCOVICH said:
Making a false accusation and not having enough evidence to take a case are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in certain cases of slander and defamation you are guilty until proven innocent
 
Grumpy said:
DPP has told him there is no legal basis for his accusation.
Click to expand...

Grumpy said:
He knows DPP has not enough evidence to make a case.
Click to expand...

From listening to the coverage of all of this, my understanding is that the DPP only ever says that they will not proceed with a prosecution, never giving a reason why.

We don't know why they're not proceeding in this situation - it is pure speculation that "there is no legal basis" for the accusation, or that the "DPP has not enough evidence to make a case".
 
It's worth noting McDowell's words from a few short months ago when he was concerned about Garda leaks to the press. He said;

"I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people."
Click to expand...

Some turnaround eh?

It's also worth nothing that the next planned inquiry from CPI was into McDowell's Department's purchase of land in north Dublin for the new prison.

Draw your own conclusions...
 
From the Bar Council's Professional Code of Conduct [broken link removed]........

Surely, declaring a person publically guilty of serious offences must count as "prejudicial to the administration of justice"? The phrase "whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise" would appear to cover actions undertaken as Minister for Justice.
 
Can anyone enlighten me as to why Connolly isn't suing the minister for defamation - very handy money for him I would have thought if he is innocent of the allegations made against him.
 
Possibly because the costs of taking such a libel action would run into hundreds of thousands of euro. Would you put hundreds of thousands of your euro on a bet of what a jury will decide?
 
RainyDay said:
Possibly because the costs of taking such a libel action would run into hundreds of thousands of euro. Would you put hundreds of thousands of your euro on a bet of what a jury will decide?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, in this instance it's a black and white case - he was either in Columbia or he wasn't during the said period. If he wasn't let him prove it ( very simple to do ) and sue Mcdowell accordingly.
 
It's also worth nothing that the next planned inquiry from CPI was into McDowell's Department's purchase of land in north Dublin for the new prison.
Click to expand...

Senior figures in the Dept of Justice and the Prison Service have spoken out openly in recent days to say that they have heard nothing about any such 'inquiry' nor have they, or any of their officials, been approached for information from the CPI or anyone else in relation to any 'inquiry'.

Rainyday, it is sad to see some wise people, most notably the Labour Party (with whom you have publicly identified yourself on these pages in the past), so gullibly swallowing the SFIRA line on this sordid issue.

Labour have taken a position of attacking the Minister for an alleged breach of procedure rather than focusing on the real scandal - the apparent use of a false passport by a named individual to orchestrate a technology transfer of terrorism to one of the world's most notorious terrorist/drug cartels.

In doing so, they have created the impression that (1) they are on the side of this particular person and his SFIRA cohorts; and that (2) matters such as the illegal drug trade and the operation & financing of international terrorism are secondary to procedural issues governing the handling of information by a govt department.

This impression will only serve to muddy the distinction in the minds of voters between themselves and SFIRA, handling the latter in a giftwrapped opportunity to eat further into Labour's core vote.

When Labour lose yet more ground to SFIRA at the next election, they will only have themselves to blame.
 
ubiquitous said:
When Labour lose yet more ground to SFIRA at the next election, they will only have themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

Apparently, political agendas with the viewpoint of "me and the voters" only distort debate.
I would add:-
apparently guilty individual
apparent transfer of terrorism
apparent terrorist drug cartel

to apparent use of false passport.

FARC is just another drug financed faction in a sundered state.
The de facto government of part of Columbia is financed by the US who are pushing for a military solution/victory for their client faction.

I wonder did the British and American military visiting this benighted country travel on false passports.Who cares, its the aid and comfort that matters.
 
Apparently, political agendas with the viewpoint of "me and the voters" only distort debate.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, if that is your opinion. However the recent debate has also been distorted, and voters confused, by the bizarre spectre of respected politicians treating bureaucratic protocols on the handling of State documents as being more important than conspiracies between international drug-traffickers and terrorists.

I don't for a moment believe that Labour (and indeed elements within Fine Gael, right up to the leadership) have any time for, or tolerance of, SFIRA and their fellow travellers. Why then do they give a contrary impression to the voting public?
 
Who have these senior figures been speaking openly to?
ubiquitous said:
Rainyday, on a personal level, it is sad to see you (and the Labour Party) so gullibly swallowing the SFIRA line on this sordid issue.
Click to expand...
I really think you've broken our posting guidelines by attacking the poster and not the post with your 'so gullibly' claim. You might want to review this.


It's a fairly common tactic of attacking those who stand up for fundamental civil rights through 'guilt by association'. Abhorrence of McDowell's leaks does not indicate any support for Connolly, SFIRA, Farc or others. Does every person who complains about Guantanomo Bay automatically become a supporter of Al-Queda? Does every person who complains about the breaches of civil rights in Northern Ireland by the Unionist community become a supporter of SFIRA.

The Gardai sent Connolly's file to the DPP. THe DPP decided not to prosecute. In any civilised society, that would be the end of things. But not here - we now have Connolly undergoing trial by media and being put in a position where he is expected to spend hundreds of thousands of euro on legal fees in a libel case to prove his innocence. Am I just being silly in thinking that it is a fundamental tenet of our justice system that the State is expected to prove guilt of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to anyone being expected to prove their own innocence, which is frequently impossible.

And let's not forget the sheer blatant hypocracy involved - this is the Minister who wants to make it a criminal offence with punishment of up to 5 years inprisonment for a member of the Gardai to leak information to the press in this way. To quote the Minister himself "I am not supposed to just throw out into the public domain facts which haven't been proven in court about people."

Just for the record, I'm not in any way speaking for or on behalf of the Labour Party in this or any other post. I speak for myself & myself only.
 
The CPI themselves have stated that they are not investigating anything related to the state purchase of land for the replacement for Mountjoy. If you wanted to believe that McDowell was motivated by the fear of such an investigation, you should ask yourself why you were prepared to buy into a conspiracy theory.

I wonder whether any of the indignant parties were as indignant when McDowell was the first to point the finger at the IRA for the Northern Bank robbery. In that case, he also used Dail priviledge to state what everyone knew. If everyone was happy that someone stated the obvious in that case, then it's hypocritical for the same people to be offended by his current outburst. Lots of people had publicly questioned Connolly's background and motivation before McDowell. It seems, if you use Dail privledge to attack SF/IRA directly then everyone says fair game but if you say anything against the 4th estate then you are attacking some fundamental pillar of society.

Give me one Micheal McDowell or one Joe Higgins over 20 Dick Roaches or Olivia Michells any day. The former are real politicians prepared to stick their necks out for their beliefs no matter what, the latter are manipulative, intellectually shallow, shrilly indignant, PR animals.
 
Who have these senior figures been speaking openly to?
Click to expand...
Irish Independent (last Saturday I think although it might have been a day or two earlier). Sean Aylward, Secretary of the Dept of Justice, was one of those quoted. There were others.

I really think you've broken our posting guidelines by attacking the poster and not the post with your 'so gullibly' claim.
Click to expand...
How, exactly?

It's a fairly common tactic of attacking those who stand up for fundamental civil rights through 'guilt by association'.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that Labour's "abhorrence" of McDowell's leaks HAS INDEED been confused for support for Connolly and SFIRA. Just take a look at the front pages of Daily Ireland over the past fortnight or listen if you can to any of the tapes of the Vincent Browne shows that featured SFIRA's Arthur Morgan in recent weeks if you don't know what I'm talking about.


Substitute the words "Burke" for "Connolly" and "tribunal" for "libel" in the above, and your statement will sound suspiciously like what Bertie Ahern said in the Dail on October 7, 1997...

In the case of Ray Burke, I see a much more sinister development, the persistent hounding of an honourable man to resign his important position on the basis of innuendo and unproven allegations.
Click to expand...
Ironic, eh??!!

By the way, nobody expects Frank Connolly to have to "spend hundreds of thousands of euro on legal fees in a libel case to prove his innocence". A simple statement from Frank saying where he was in a particular week in April 2001 (specifically his whereabouts from the time he landed in a Paris Airport to the time he returned from there to Dublin a week later) would suffice.

Do bear in mind that Frank is in a uniquely lucky situation if he is able to tell us, as not alone would his disclosure automatically end the career of the Minister for Justice, it would also most definitely leave the Taoiseach's credibility and career in ruins, and most likely precipitate the collapse of the government. Frank would hardly shed any tears were the above eventualities to come to pass, nor would he have to spend a cent to do so.

Why has Frank chosen to spare McDowell and Ahern this embarrassment?
 
ubiquitous said:
Irish Independent (last Saturday I think although it might have been a day or two earlier). Sean Aylward, Secretary of the Dept of Justice, was one of those quoted. There were others.
Click to expand...
The only quote I can find in the Indo from that period is from this article;
Perhaps you might like to substantiate your quote from Aylward and others.

ubiquitous said:
How, exactly?
Click to expand...
I'd have thought it is fairly obvious, but if you really want me to spell it out, I will do so. Your claim of 'so gullibly swallowing' is a personal attack on me. It does not relate to my position or my post. It relates to my person. Please remove it.

So now you are judging the Labour party not by what Labour says, but by what SFIRA or Daily Ireland say that Labour said. It's not entirely unexpected or surprising that SFIRA/Morgan/Daily Ireland would attempt to spin the situation to suit their own position. I'd suggest that if you want to make a credible attack on Labour's position, you stick directly to Labour's position, not 3rd spins on the Labour position.

ubiquitous said:
Substitute the words "Burke" for "Connolly" and "tribunal" for "libel" in the above, and your statement will sound suspiciously like what Bertie Ahern said in the Dail on October 7, 1997...

Ironic, eh??!!
Click to expand...
You can play all the word substitution games and 'guilt by association' games you like, but it doesn't change the facts. Connolly isn't Burke. He is Connolly. His case has been reviewed by the DPP and the DPP opted not to bring charges. To allow politicians to meddle in the due process of our justice system is extremely dangerous. Like his party colleague Harney's comments on CJH many years ago, McDowell's blabbing has made it absolutely certain that there could be no fair trial for Connolly if any charges were ever to be brought in the future.

Perhaps you could explain why it's acceptable for a Minister to leak Garda files to the press when he made it a criminal offence for Gardai to take the same actions?

Please quote your source for this claim. The position of the CPI as reported in the Irish Indo last Thursday is quite different.

Actually, I'd take Dick & Joe over Michael & Olivia any day. Let's not be under any misapprehension that McDowell is concerned about saving the State from the bogey men of the past. McDowell is planning the next stage in his career - to attempt to replace Harney as PD leader and take the Tanaiste position in the next Government. He's playing to the gallery, and is quite prepared to walk all over fundamental civil rights (right to due process, right to fair trial) in order to improve his public position. He's no hero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register