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.
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.
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.
My point exactly - there were never any votes to be got in facing down SFIRA.
Because he thought it was the right thing to do?why did he do it then?
I don't know how you can then conclude that McDowell's attacks on SFIRA were "very much for his own political benefit"
Because he thought it was the right thing to do?
maybe so but he didn't back it up with any substantive action against criminality did he?
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.
What about the recently introduced Criminal Justice Act which contains tough (some say too tough) measures against crime?
[broken link removed]
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 . . .
'nuff said.It is true Justice Flood is not disinterested
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.. The DPP examined the evidence as to Connolly's alleged falsification of a passport application and decided there was no case to answer.
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.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.
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.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...
Well when you are dictator for life just remember your old friend PurpleI'm working on it.
Didn't Mad Mullah McDowell snatch the leadership out of her hand, rather than waiting for it to be handed to him?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.
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.
Didn't Mad Mullah McDowell snatch the leadership out of her hand, rather than waiting for it to be handed to him?
From [broken link removed]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?