McDowell misusing his Dáil privileges...?

Perhaps you might like to substantiate your quote from Aylward and others.
To be honest I haven't the time. Ring the DOJ press office if you're so anxious

My quote was fair comment. It refers specifically to an opinion and not to the person expressing the opinion. I don't intend to remove it.

My entire point is that Labour were unwise to allow this to happen.

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.
Ray Burke's planning activities were subject to a number of Garda investigations from the 1970s to the early 1990s. His case was reviewed on a number of occasions by the DPP and the DPP opted not to bring charges. For the guts of a generation Burke used these "facts" to stonewall inquiries into his activities. It was only following considerable pressure, led by the Labour Party of Dick Spring, that the truth finally emerged from behind what Burke termed "the facts".
 
OK Folks

This thread is getting out of hand.

I am closing it until I get time to read it in more detail.

Brendan
 
Hi Brendan

Although I don't agree with the allegation that my post above contained a personal attack on another contributor, I have edited the comment in question in an effort to resolve the issue.

Can we now please re-open the thread?
 
Thanks for clarifying your comments. Nice to have the thread back.

There are a number of flaws in your position as detailed in your posts.

Firstly, Your 'entire position' that Labour were unwise to allow SFIRA/Morgan/Daily Ireland to spin the situation to suit their own position does not stand up. If Labour were to have taken the opposite position and McDowell/PD/SIndo were to spin this situation to suit their own purposes, would that have been equally unwise? Are Labour (and all other parties) now expected to be frozen into inaction for fear of who will spin their actions one way or other? I certainly don't want our politicians (of all parties) leading from behind, more concerned about who will say what about their actions than the results of their actions.

Secondly and more importantly, you are equating opposition to McDowell with support for Connolly. This is not the case. There is a fundamental issue of preventing political interference with our justice system at issue here. Even if it were to turn out that Connolly travelled to Colombia on a false passport, this does not justify McDowell's actions. The end does not justify the means. Leaking of confidential Garda files to drinking-buddy-come-journalist by a Minister for Justice is fundamentally wrong.

And just as a matter of protocol, the onus rests on you to justify your comments regarding statements by Alyward & others. I've checked the Indo website and the Dept press releases, & I can't find anything to support your comments. If you expect your comments to carry signficant weight, give us the day/date/source.
 
There are 3 points to be addressed here. To take the last point first, unfortunately I have no means of tracing the Indo story reporting comments made by Sean Aylward and others regarding the supposed CPI "investigation" into the prison site deal. The practicalities of recycling in my neck of the woods mean that our newspapers are taken away in a green bin every few weeks and I no longer have any mid-December papers to hand. Therefore I can't really illuminate you further, except to note that the Indo only archive a selection of their daily articles on the web and as such I'm not surprised that you can't find the particular article in question.

Of course you in common with every other AAM user are quite free to make up your own mind in relation to anything written in these pages. However that does not mean that there are any sort of "protocols" on AAM that demand that contributors be in position to specify on request "day/date/source" particulars in relation to any media item referred to in the course of a discussion. Given your long-standing position as moderator of this board I am surprised that you would choose to create any impression otherwise.

Secondly I have already made my point in relation to Labour blurring the lines between themselves and SFIRA by swallowing the latter's spin on this issue, and my belief (which is only a belief) that Labour will suffer electorally as a result. Labour could easily have helped to put SFIRA under serious pressure on this issue by demanding that Connolly explain his role vis a vis the false passport bearing his photograph and its use in Columbia during a period when he seems to be unable to say where he was or what he was doing. Instead they chose to let SFIRA off the hook in order to focus on the rights and wrongs of what the Minister did. I personally think they made a big mistake in foregoing the opportunity to nail Connolly, and by extension SFIRA, on what one might term the "substantive issue". However as I say that is a matter of opinion.

Finally do bear in mind that there are plenty of valid precedents to support McDowell's actions in this case - not least the decision of Michael Noonan to release classified intelligence to the media in 1983 to illustrate how CJ Haughey's government had tapped journalists phones. The revelations in the Brendan Smith affair that torpedoed Albert Reynolds' government in 1994 were also predicated on the release by Dick Spring of certain information relating to the treatment of files by the Attorney General's office that had been previously been kept secret. A number of years ago it was said that the Beef Tribunal would never have been necessary had certain government ministers publicly disclosed various items of information within their collective remit. There is a certain irony nowadays in a Minister being lacerated for alleged confidentiality breaches in bringing into the public domain information concerning an apparent scandal, especially where the criticism is voiced by the very party who a decade ago were the leading force in espousing the cause of 'open government'.
 
Apart from anything else - McDowell has acted unprofessionally by deciding that he is above the DPP, who have acknowleged there is no case. In which case, the matter should be closed.

Whey should Connolly comment on this? And where should he place his comments? There is no accusation that bears any legal weight. He remains dignified in his silence, and fair play to him. Perhaps he is working behind the scenes to save his organization? Perhaps this is more important than scoring irrelevant politican/quasi-legal points with elected representatives.
 
I don't think it is correct to say that the DDP have acknowledged that there is no case against Connolly. There may not be enough evidence available at present to warrant the bringing of criminal charges against him, which is a separate matter entirely.

Its bizarre to contend that Connolly may have remained silent in order to save "his" organisation (I presume here that you mean the CPI??), as it is his very silence in response to questions raised by Atlantic Philantrophies that has motivated the latter to cease their funding for the CPI.

Atlantic have stated clearly that they are prepared to continue their funding of the CPI if Connolly satisfactorily answers their questions or if he resigns or is removed as Chief Executive of the CPI.

In this context, Connolly's silence may well be dignified, but unless he has something to hide, it is hardly rational.
 
My experience with the Irish Indo must be very different to yours. My experience is that every article in the main edition of the paper and the major supplements (like Thursday's Business supplement) are available in the archive. The only stuff not in the archive from my experience is the more 'fluffy' supplements on motoring or health. It is ironic that you deem it appropriate for Connolly to have to answer the hard questions, but you give no answer to the simple question of identifying the article to support your claims. And please don't go blaming the recycling bin - you were originally asked the question within a week of the alleged appearance of the article. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, show your source.

Your interpretion of Labour's position as 'swallowing' anyone's line is flawed.As I've explained earlier, attacking McDowell on this matter does not indicate support for Connolly/SFIRA. Attacking McDowell indicates support for our system of natural justice, and not McCarthy-ite/Stalinist political interference in our justice system - no more, no less. You have chosen to interpret this as indicating support for Connolly - but that is your interpretation. This correlates with the words of Pat Rabitte in today's Irish Times;


The precedents that you mention in relation to Noonan/Spring bear no comparison to McDowell's actions. Noonan/Spring didn't leak information anonymously to their drinking-buddy-pet-journalists. Let's not forget that now we have a Justice Minister indebted to Independent Newspapers. If the threat to the security of the State was so significant, why didn't McDowell simply hold a press conference (as Noonan did iirc) to release this information. Why did he leak it to Sam Smyth and only come clean when cornered? Why did he wait for the PQ from Finian McGrath to release the information to the Dail? If this is such a critical matter, why didn't he give a statement to the Dail at the earliest opportunity?

It seems that the pro-McDowell brigade have swallowed his spin without question, and without any consideration for the damage he has done to our system of justice.

It is grossly unfair that you continue to cast doubt over the DPP's decision not to bring charges against Connolly. Like it or not, the DPP's decision in this case (and every case) is a Yes or No response. They don't deal in nearly's or possibly's or maybe's - they don't deal in the kind of FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt) that you are spreading. They deal in Yes's or No's. In this case, it was a decision NOT to bring Connolly to trial. Any other spin you choose to put on the DPP's actions are just that - your own spin.
 

I have no intention of continuing to debate with you on this or any other topic when the confrontational tone of your words above betray the extent to which you hold me in contempt.
 
Just for the record, while I disagree strongly with your views on this issue, I don't hold you in contempt.
 

Did the great CJ not tap the phones as a matter of national security? Something to do with British spies in this great little nation of ours??
I read operation Brogue years ago but cant remember the in's and out's of the entire situation so Im open for correction!