McDowell's Departure

ubiquitous said:
Really? I'm not sure there were ever many votes in this country in actively opposing and facing down SFIRA. It certainly did no good in the 1970s for Conor Cruise O'Brien who (just like McDowell) lost his seat while while a sitting minister. Likewise John Bruton's brave anti-SFIRA stance arguably cost him the Taoiseach's job in 1997.
Click to expand...

why is it so "brave" to face down Sinn Fein? i think most of the irish people know what they are about and are well capable of making their own choices. If Bruton kept up with his stance and stayed in power there would have been no Good Friday agreement and the ensuing peace. Politicians like Ahern and Blair are also both well aware of Sinn Fein's activities but used a level of diplomacy for the good of the peace process.

There was no silent majority supporting McDowell, we have a secret ballot in this country and the PDs were soundly beaten and the the Shinners picked up more seats than them. There is no other better barometer of public opinion than that. If he wanted to show real bravery he would've have tackled crime in places like West Dublin and Limerick (although i am aware of the provo connections).
 
gonk said:
This is not true. Here's how the Irish Examiner described the leaking of the information on Frank Connolly:...

Here is how Judge Fergal Flood, retired High Court judge and Chairman of the Centre for public inquiry described McDowell's actions:

....

Minster McDowell's actions in leaking this information were an absolute disgrace to his office and should have resulted in his immediate dismissal. It is to Bertie Ahern's shame that he did nothing at all in repsonse.
Click to expand...


The fact that McDowell initially gave this information to Sam Smyth is immaterial, as a number of days later, Finian McGrath filed his Dail Question on this issue to McDowell and McDowell could not have meaningfully replied to McGrath without citing this evidence.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether the giving of the information to Sam Smith was proper or not - one's opinion on this will depend ultimately on one's opinion of McDowell. However I am continually mildly amused when SFIRA figures stress their outrage at McDowell's actions in this case, given that for a number of years prior to that one of the leading figures in SFIRA Denis Donaldson was running a spy ring at Stormont designed to leak confidential state security info to SFIRA. (By the way, isn't it telling that the same outrage among SFIRA people was mysteriously missing when Donaldson was later found murdered in Donegal?)

(Another By the way; the former Justice Flood is hardly a reliable commentator on this matter given that Connolly appointed him to chair the so-called Centre for public inquiry.)

Most mysteriously of all, while Frank Connolly and others have been so busy denouncing McDowell for bringing this affair to the attention of the public, Connolly has not yet had the time to confirm once and for all (1) his explanation for the falsified application for his passport (2) whether or not he actually travelled to Columbia when alleged by McDowell. It is a pity that he is so busy as it makes innocents like myself wonder why he is so silent on these key issues.
 
woodseb said:
There was no silent majority supporting McDowell, we have a secret ballot in this country and the PDs were soundly beaten and the the Shinners picked up more seats than them. There is no other better barometer of public opinion than that.
Click to expand...

My point exactly - there were never any votes to be got in facing down SFIRA. I don't know how you can then conclude that McDowell's attacks on SFIRA were "very much for his own political benefit"
 
ubiquitous said:
I don't know how you can then conclude that McDowell's attacks on SFIRA were "very much for his own political benefit"
Click to expand...

that wasn't my conclusion, it was my understanding on McDowell's rationale.

i think he thought by exposing Sinn Fein/IRA it would paint himself in a good light, despite the fact that the dogs in the street know what Gerry Adams' day job is. In the end, in tackling the real issue of criminality McDowell did very little but talk and mudsling
 
woodseb said:
maybe so but he didn't back it up with any substantive action against criminality did he?
Click to expand...


What about the recently introduced Criminal Justice Act which contains tough (some say too tough) measures against crime?

[broken link removed]
 
ubiquitous said:
The fact that McDowell initially gave this information to Sam Smyth is immaterial, as a number of days later, Finian McGrath filed his Dail Question on this issue to McDowell and McDowell could not have meaningfully replied to McGrath without citing this evidence.
Click to expand...

It is not in my view immaterial. The information first came into the public domain as an anonymous leak given by McDowell to his drinking buddy Sam Smyth. If McDowell was so sure of his justification in releasing it, why didn't he go on the record? I note you have not commented on the "coincidence" of Connolly's imminent investigation into the purchase of Thornton Hall . . .

ubiquitous said:
It is a matter of opinion as to whether the giving of the information to Sam Smith was proper or not - one's opinion on this will depend ultimately on one's opinion of McDowell. However I am continually mildly amused when SFIRA figures stress their outrage at McDowell's actions in this case, given that for a number of years prior to that one of the leading figures in SFIRA Denis Donaldson was running a spy ring at Stormont designed to leak confidential state security info to SFIRA. (By the way, isn't it telling that the same outrage among SFIRA people was mysteriously missing when Donaldson was later found murdered in Donegal?).
Click to expand...

Indeed it is a matter of opinion. I've made mine clear and I'm sure the Connolly affair had at least some influence on public opinion in the election, contributing to McDowell losing his seat. As for SFIRA, I am no supporter of theirs either, and I doubt McDowell would appreciate you justifying his actions by reference to SFIRA doing similar things. Two wrongs don't make a right after all . . .


ubiquitous said:
(Another By the way; the former Justice Flood is hardly a reliable commentator on this matter given that Connolly appointed him to chair the so-called Centre for public inquiry.)
Click to expand...

It is true Justice Flood is not disinterested, but as an ex-High Court judge he may be presumed to know what he is talking about when he comments on breaches of the separation of powers. Let's be clear about this - no other minister for justice has ever done what McDowell did - with good reason.

ubiquitous said:
Most mysteriously of all, while Frank Connolly and others have been so busy denouncing McDowell for bringing this affair to the attention of the public, Connolly has not yet had the time to confirm once and for all (1) his explanation for the falsified application for his passport (2) whether or not he actually travelled to Columbia when alleged by McDowell. It is a pity that he is so busy as it makes innocents like myself wonder why he is so silent on these key issues.
Click to expand...

Connolly, like every other citizen, is entitled to the presumption of innocence - he does not have to prove it, it's up to the state to prove he committed an offence - if he did. The DPP examined the evidence as to Connolly's alleged falsification of a passport application and decided there was no case to answer. That should have been the end of the matter.
 
polaris said:
What about the recently introduced Criminal Justice Act which contains tough (some say too tough) measures against crime?

[broken link removed]
Click to expand...


i wouldn't count that piece of legislation as a particular triumph for mcdowell, you just have to look flak it has taken from his peers on the bar. Its pratically guaranteed to face a supreme court challenge when they try to use it. Alas, the protection of the right to silence is a whole other debate...
 
gonk said:
It is not in my view immaterial. The information first came into the public domain as an anonymous leak given by McDowell to his drinking buddy Sam Smyth. If McDowell was so sure of his justification in releasing it, why didn't he go on the record?
Click to expand...

The "leak" wasn't anonymous. As soon as Smyth published the story, it was McDowell who stated that he was the source.

gonk said:
I note you have not commented on the "coincidence" of Connolly's imminent investigation into the purchase of Thornton Hall . . .
Click to expand...

For what its worth, I think that McDowell erred gravely on the subject of Thornton Hall. That said, if Connolly wants or wanted to investigate this topic via the CPI, what was to stop him pursuing this via his work for the Irish Daily Mail or the Village magazine, once the CPI had bitten the dust? Its not as if Connolly has been thrown in jail or murdered (a la Denis Donaldson) or anything...


gonk said:
It is true Justice Flood is not disinterested
Click to expand...
'nuff said.

gonk said:
. The DPP examined the evidence as to Connolly's alleged falsification of a passport application and decided there was no case to answer.
Click to expand...
This isn't exactly true. The DPP decided it would not be worthwhile bringing a case against Connolly because the alleged offence in question merits only a token penalty on conviction, and on the basis that it would be disproportionately expensive and cumbersome to bring to trial as much of the evidence concerning the allegation involves officials in Columbia.
 
gonk said:
Connolly, like every other citizen, is entitled to the presumption of innocence - he does not have to prove it, it's up to the state to prove he committed an offence - if he did. The DPP examined the evidence as to Connolly's alleged falsification of a passport application and decided there was no case to answer. That should have been the end of the matter.
Click to expand...
Connolly was the head of a privately funded organisation that wrapped itself up in quasi-judicial clothing. His motivations and actions are not just fair game; there is an onus on the media and those in public life to question them. When the media failed to do so the minister of Justice stepped in. I do not condone his actions but it is beyond any rational logic to suggest that Michael McDowell ever sunk anywhere near the level that Frank Connelly and his SFIRA friends call home.

woodseb said:
i wouldn't count that piece of legislation as a particular triumph for mcdowell, you just have to look flak it has taken from his peers on the bar. Its pratically guaranteed to face a supreme court challenge when they try to use it. Alas, the protection of the right to silence is a whole other debate...
Click to expand...
Yes, and his suggestion that Judges comply with the will of the people, sovereign under the constitution, and adhere to the legislation that they, through their elected representatives, have seen fit to pass into law. When the Judges wax lyrical about the separation of powers and how the bogey man McDowell has damaged them, I hope they highlight their own flagrant disregard for the same.
 
ubiquitous said:
McDowell's main misfortune was that he was handed the poisioned chalice of the PD leadership a week or two before the "Bertiegate 1" story emerged. Had Mary Harney held onto the leadership, my own view is that she would have lost her seat & McDowell would have survived.
Click to expand...
Didn't Mad Mullah McDowell snatch the leadership out of her hand, rather than waiting for it to be handed to him?
 
I thought Harney resigned of her own free will? Was she forced to resign as you are implying Rainyday?
 
From [broken link removed]
Progressive Democrats leader Mary Harney reportedly threatened to sack Minister for Justice Michael McDowell from the cabinet after he attempted to mount a leadership challenge this week.

Reports this morning say the row erupted when Mr McDowell threatened not to run in the next General Election unless Ms Harney stepped down as leader before then.

McDowell reportedly claimed he had an arrangement with Ms Harney that she would stand aside before the election.
Click to expand...
 
RainyDay said:
Didn't Mad Mullah McDowell snatch the leadership out of her hand, rather than waiting for it to be handed to him?
Click to expand...

Indeed, but had he known that Bertiegate I was on the horizon, surely he would have been tempted to sit tight for a while and let Mary H sort out the "digout" mess...?
 
RainyDay said:
From [broken link removed]
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Rainyday. I have to admit I don't watch much TV (apart from familyguy) and I'm reading fewer and fewer newspapers.

But I seriously thought Harney was way more popular than McDowell and that noone could challenge her. This was my impression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top