Comments on: Is McDowell right? http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/ Estd. in Ireland, July 2002 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Karen Cameron http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-82252 Karen Cameron Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:51:16 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-82252 Hi there, I am trying to complete a assignment and am unable to find any information on the current status of the Law Reforms recommendations and the proposed changes to the Defamation Bill. I am only looking for short paragraph and any information would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks Karen Cameron Hi there,

I am trying to complete a assignment and am unable to find any information on the current status of the Law Reforms recommendations and the proposed changes to the Defamation Bill. I am only looking for short paragraph and any information would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Karen Cameron

]]> By: William Watson http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71143 William Watson Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:46:40 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71143 I have no legal training but I would presume that if evidence of the alleged crime came to light any attempt to bring Connolly to trial for it would fail on the grounds that he cannot now get a fair trial. So if Connolly is innocent, his career has been ruined for nothing and if he is guilty he cannot be brought to justice. I seem to remember reading somewhere that before entering politics McDowell made a fortune practising law. Too bad he never got the hang of it. I have no legal training but I would presume that if evidence of the alleged crime came to light any attempt to bring Connolly to trial for it would fail on the grounds that he cannot now get a fair trial.
So if Connolly is innocent, his career has been ruined for nothing and if he is guilty he cannot be brought to justice.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that before entering politics McDowell made a fortune practising law. Too bad he never got the hang of it.

]]> By: john m. http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71128 john m. Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:38:34 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71128 Posted this on an earlier strand before I got to here (so confused by the evil Internet) but for what it's worth and somewhat re-worded: There is clear distinction between what McDowell (as Minister for Justice) did in the releasing of this information and the information itself. Information cannot be unlearned i.e. because we have been informed the way we have does not erase that fact that we now know what McDowell considers to be true about Frank Connolly. So two issues now offer themselves: what to do about McDowell and whether the information is true. They are no longer linked e.g. whatever is done about McDowell does not prove or disprove the information about Frank Connolly. As so many people think that McDowell's actions were completely out of order, it is instructive that the one man, Frank Connolly (who has set himself up as an arbiter of public probity) who could deal an immediate hammer blow to McDowell’s political and quite possibly legal career (by demonstrating that he was not in Columbia at the time in question) has chosen not to do so, citing higher moral ground. This is a particularly weak response from a man dedicated to rooting out all that is wrong in public life. Of course, the obvious conclusion is that he cannot offer such proof - does anyone seriously believe he would hesitate otherwise?. Given our stringent libel laws (all of this was published long before McDowell raised it in the Dail)it is also peculiar that Connolly did not seek redress for what would be a vicious libel if untrue. This also highlights the point that despite all the righteous indignation flying around about McDowells actions, the story was in the public domain since 2002 - in other words it was not introduced under Dail privilege. About the only other difference between this and any other political leak is that McDowell admitted he leaked it. Posted this on an earlier strand before I got to here (so confused by the evil Internet) but for what it’s worth and somewhat re-worded: There is clear distinction between what McDowell (as Minister for Justice) did in the releasing of this information and the information itself. Information cannot be unlearned i.e. because we have been informed the way we have does not erase that fact that we now know what McDowell considers to be true about Frank Connolly. So two issues now offer themselves: what to do about McDowell and whether the information is true. They are no longer linked e.g. whatever is done about McDowell does not prove or disprove the information about Frank Connolly. As so many people think that McDowell’s actions were completely out of order, it is instructive that the one man, Frank Connolly (who has set himself up as an arbiter of public probity) who could deal an immediate hammer blow to McDowell’s political and quite possibly legal career (by demonstrating that he was not in Columbia at the time in question) has chosen not to do so, citing higher moral ground. This is a particularly weak response from a man dedicated to rooting out all that is wrong in public life. Of course, the obvious conclusion is that he cannot offer such proof – does anyone seriously believe he would hesitate otherwise?. Given our stringent libel laws (all of this was published long before McDowell raised it in the Dail)it is also peculiar that Connolly did not seek redress for what would be a vicious libel if untrue. This also highlights the point that despite all the righteous indignation flying around about McDowells actions, the story was in the public domain since 2002 – in other words it was not introduced under Dail privilege. About the only other difference between this and any other political leak is that McDowell admitted he leaked it.

]]> By: J http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71115 J Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:44:44 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71115 McDowell does not care if anyone thinks he is wrong or not. As one of the Sunday Tribune columnists alluded to earlier in the year, he likes to play at "show me your willy" politics. He puts me in mind of an overgrown 6th form bully who likes to pick on the first years, but who'll turn tail and run from guys his own age. McDowell will get away with doing and saying as he pleases as long as the voters of Sandymount and its environs continue to elect him. Quite frankly, I do not understand why the people of D4 are so bloody insecure in themselves that they have to elect such a playground bully to represent them. McDowell does not care if anyone thinks he is wrong or not. As one of the Sunday Tribune columnists alluded to earlier in the year, he likes to play at “show me your willy” politics. He puts me in mind of an overgrown 6th form bully who likes to pick on the first years, but who’ll turn tail and run from guys his own age.

McDowell will get away with doing and saying as he pleases as long as the voters of Sandymount and its environs continue to elect him. Quite frankly, I do not understand why the people of D4 are so bloody insecure in themselves that they have to elect such a playground bully to represent them.

]]> By: EWI http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71108 EWI Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:56:58 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71108 <i>By the way what is the whole strikeout of perphaps about in your own first main paragraph. I never get this strikeout thing on blogs. seen it on many sites but no idea about it.</i> It used to be done by <strike></strike> tags, but there's a CSS property (can't think of it offhand) you can assign now to spans, etc. By the way what is the whole strikeout of perphaps about in your own first main paragraph. I never get this strikeout thing on blogs. seen it on many sites but no idea about it.

It used to be done by tags, but there’s a CSS property (can’t think of it offhand) you can assign now to spans, etc.

]]> By: EWI http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71107 EWI Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:55:02 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71107 <i>with 1 or 2 exceptions, the meeja vibe is to let it slide.</i> Pretty much the Independent titles let it slide (with the exception of the Tribune), and Madam Editor is a former (?) PD as well. There's two constituencies here gunning for Connolly - those hostile to the Provos, and those hostile to investigation of scandals among the elite in our society. (Perhaps a third, as well - ambitious Justice Ministers from D4 seeking to add to their man-of-action mystique) with 1 or 2 exceptions, the meeja vibe is to let it slide.

Pretty much the Independent titles let it slide (with the exception of the Tribune), and Madam Editor is a former (?) PD as well. There’s two constituencies here gunning for Connolly – those hostile to the Provos, and those hostile to investigation of scandals among the elite in our society.

(Perhaps a third, as well – ambitious Justice Ministers from D4 seeking to add to their man-of-action mystique)

]]> By: Sarah http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71102 Sarah Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:44:50 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71102 What I think is most interesting about the week's developments is that with 1 or 2 exceptions, the meeja vibe is to let it slide. Connolly wasn't liked, he's probably guilty, McDowell gave one of their own a great scoop, and they are quite happy that they have the power in this case, not the courts. I simply do not understand how anyone can defend a Minister for Justice bragging about giving garda documents to a journalist. He claims that the CPI had the power to undermine the state and this was his motivation. Wasn't this the same justification Sean Doherty used to tap phones back in the GUBU government? Since certain journalists were clearly getting their information direct from the cabinet, then it was a threat to national security since those discussions should have been confidential. But that was Fianna Fail and this is the PD's - who were elected keep an eye on Fianna Fail. The whole thing is a joke - or would be. If McDowell gets away with this there will be no stopping him. What I think is most interesting about the week’s developments is that with 1 or 2 exceptions, the meeja vibe is to let it slide. Connolly wasn’t liked, he’s probably guilty, McDowell gave one of their own a great scoop, and they are quite happy that they have the power in this case, not the courts.
I simply do not understand how anyone can defend a Minister for Justice bragging about giving garda documents to a journalist. He claims that the CPI had the power to undermine the state and this was his motivation. Wasn’t this the same justification Sean Doherty used to tap phones back in the GUBU government? Since certain journalists were clearly getting their information direct from the cabinet, then it was a threat to national security since those discussions should have been confidential. But that was Fianna Fail and this is the PD’s – who were elected keep an eye on Fianna Fail.
The whole thing is a joke – or would be. If McDowell gets away with this there will be no stopping him.

]]> By: simon http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71101 simon Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:08:07 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71101 I have put some of my views here http://dossing.blogspot.com/2005/12/double-standards-for-mcdowell.html saves me the trouble of replying here. By the way what is the whole strikeout of perphaps about in your own first main paragraph. I never get this strikeout thing on blogs. seen it on many sites but no idea about it. I have put some of my views here
http://dossing.blogspot.com/2005/12/double-standards-for-mcdowell.html

saves me the trouble of replying here.

By the way what is the whole strikeout of perphaps about in your own first main paragraph. I never get this strikeout thing on blogs. seen it on many sites but no idea about it.

]]> By: EWI http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71097 EWI Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:04:33 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71097 <i>Is that a point of information?</i> (d'oh! ;-) Is that a point of information?

(d’oh! ;-)

]]> By: Gavin Sheridan http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71095 Gavin Sheridan Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:20:10 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71095 Is that a point of information? I am using Republican in the IRA sense, but point taken. Is that a point of information? I am using Republican in the IRA sense, but point taken.

]]> By: EWI http://www.gavinsblog.com/2005/12/13/is-mcdowell-right/comment-page-1/#comment-71094 EWI Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:13:54 +0000 http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=2541#comment-71094 <i>It should be noted that I am not known for a love of republicanism, nor of any group that uses violences to further their political aims. Indeed the record probably shows me to be something of an anti-republican, though perhaps not as gung-ho as Mr. McDowell.</i> Point of order - I am a republican, and so is McDowell (as he himself recently asserted). Neither of us, however, are 'Provisionals', which is the proper term to be used here. <i>In effect, Michael McDowell is taking it upon himself to decide what rights citizens should have and that ‘subversion’ is what he defines it to be. In other words the due process of law can be dispensed with on the strength of the Minister’s opinion.</i> Perhaps a journalist can enquire of the Minister just when he plans to name himself dictator for life? It should be noted that I am not known for a love of republicanism, nor of any group that uses violences to further their political aims. Indeed the record probably shows me to be something of an anti-republican, though perhaps not as gung-ho as Mr. McDowell.

Point of order – I am a republican, and so is McDowell (as he himself recently asserted). Neither of us, however, are ‘Provisionals’, which is the proper term to be used here.

In effect, Michael McDowell is taking it upon himself to decide what rights citizens should have and that ‘subversion’ is what he defines it to be. In other words the due process of law can be dispensed with on the strength of the Minister’s opinion.

Perhaps a journalist can enquire of the Minister just when he plans to name himself dictator for life?

]]>