Has The Attorney General Just Appointed Eamon Gilmore's Daughter To Defend The Shell

Wildlife Actor

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/03/23/has-the-attorney-general-just-appointed-eamon-gilmores-daughter-to-defend-the-shell-gas-pipeline/

"Grainne Gilmore, who qualified as a junior counsel in 2008 and is a specialist in environment law, is understood to have been picked (with an SC) to help the government fight off challenges from An Taisce and two residents to overturn Bord Pleanala’s decision of January 11 last to grant planning permission to Shell to construct 8.3km of pipeline from Glengad (the landfall) to the terminal at Béal an Átha Bui, Co Mayo.

The post is under the gift of the new Labour-appointed AG, Maire Whelan."

And she has only 2 years PQE... Is'nt it a great little country we're in!

Ste.phen

I'm confused, are you suggesting that although she's apparently qualified, and seems to be specialised in the specific area, that she shouldn't have gotten the job because of her family connections to government members? There's nothing in that story at all to suggest nepotism is in play, in fact, there's not much detail there at all, does she work for a legal firm who generally get these contracts?

opinion guy

Indeed how many barristers in the country are specialised in environmental law ? Methinks you could probably count them on one hand

Wildlife Actor

Ste.phen wrote: »

I'm confused, are you suggesting that although she's apparently qualified, and seems to be specialised in the specific area, that she shouldn't have gotten the job because of her family connections to government members? There's nothing in that story at all to suggest nepotism is in play, in fact, there's not much detail there at all, does she work for a legal firm who generally get these contracts?

opinion guy wrote: »

Indeed how many barristers in the country are specialised in environmental law ? Methinks you could probably count them on one hand

Very naive opinions I'm afraid. If you look at the comments after the quoted article you'll see this link: http://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/results.asp?fname=&sname=&languages=None&circuits=All+Circuits&pareas=All+Areas&sareas=Environmental%2C+Planning+%26+Local+Govt+Law.

So you'll see that you would need one hell of a hand to count all gthe environmental experts on it. Oh, and guess who's not on it!

But more importantly, consider the process by which barristers are selected to act on behalf of the government. Oh yes, that's right, there's none. The Attorney General chooses them. A lawyer only 2 years qualified - even if they're going to be very good in the future - is way too inexperienced for a case of this size and importance. Barristers retained by the State in cases like this with this little experience have one common characteristic, and objectively verified ability is not the one I'm thinking of.

The Waltzing Consumer

This would be perceived very badly if it is true. Is there any other source? It is hard to believe it if it is just some blog, especially since the wording is not saying she is or is not, but it is understood she has been picked.

Also, I read somewhere that the AG does not pick a JC, just a SC who themselves pick their JC, so is that true? And if it is true, does that make the claim a load of nonsense?

But yes, if this is nepotism, it is sh**

StupidLikeAFox

In fairness she has been appointed "with an SC", she is probably only acting as an assistant.

WeeBushy

Love nor Money wrote: »

Very naive opinions I'm afraid. If you look at the comments after the quoted article you'll see this link: http://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/results.asp?fname=&sname=&languages=None&circuits=All+Circuits&pareas=All+Areas&sareas=Environmental%2C+Planning+%26+Local+Govt+Law.

That's a very misleading link, it includes environmental and planning and local government lawyers. The number who specialise in environmental is only a fraction of that. A lecturer of mine practiced as an environmental lawyer for a time and says its a very small area within Ireland.

OllieNorth

This really looks bad, whether its true or not. seems like new crew same old policy.:mad:

Wildlife Actor

WeeBushy wrote: »

That's a very misleading link, it includes environmental and planning and local government lawyers. The number who specialise in environmental is only a fraction of that. A lecturer of mine practiced as an environmental lawyer for a time and says its a very small area within Ireland.

The Corrib Gas cases are not niche environmental law cases, even if environmental facts abound. They're judicial review cases.

One way or another, she's not on the list...

Mind you, after these cases she will be a specialist! Thems is the breaks....that some people get!

WeeBushy

Whether she's on the list or not, for a JC that will be assisting the SC, she is very qualified.

Gráinne Gilmore
LLB (Ling Fran) (Dub), LLM (Bruges)
Gráinne Gilmore is a practising barrister. She lectured EC law, Environmental law and Constitutional law at NUI Galway between 2006 ? 2008. She also currently lectures Environmental law on the LLB programme at DIT. Gráinne graduated from Trinity College Dublin with an LL.B (Ling. Fran) in Law and French. As an undergraduate, she also studied French Law at the Universite de Paris II (Pantheon-Assas). She completed a Master of European Law (LLM) at the College of Europe (Bruges). Gráinne has also worked as a judicial extern for two US federal judges, as a trainee at the European Commission's Legal Service (Internal Market and Environment) Unit and as an electoral observer for the Rwandan 2008 legislative elections. She has published and presented papers on aspects of EU and environmental law.

http://www.gcd.ie/lawlecturerprofiles/

opinion guy

WeeBushy wrote: »

Whether she's on the list or not, for a JC that will be assisting the SC, she is very qualified.



http://www.gcd.ie/lawlecturerprofiles/

Damn thats impressive.

So OP I think the onus is upon you then since you are the one making these allegations, to go through that list of barristers you helpfully provided and find out exactly how many are more qualified than this lady.

ISAW

opinion guy wrote: »

Damn thats impressive.

So OP I think the onus is upon you then since you are the one making these allegations, to go through that list of barristers you helpfully provided and find out exactly how many are more qualified than this lady.

If she didn't pass the necessary exams she would not be entitled to practice! The OP's point ( I believe) is that a JC is being picked by an AG with Labour connections e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1ire_Whelan
She has served as financial secretary of the Labour Party, which is the junior member of the 2011 coalition government formed with Fine Gael.

She is also from East Galway, the same part of the Country as Gilmore.

She then picks the Leaders daughter for a case.

Fair enough nothing illegal. Just as gaining 500k by Gilmore's wife on an inflated land prices land deal to a school while Labour were complaining about State money being squandered on over priced land for schools due to inflated prices was not illegal.

But ask yourself this. Had a FF AG done the same what do you believe would Labour have said then?

ISAW

WeeBushy wrote: »

Whether she's on the list or not, for a JC that will be assisting the SC, she is very qualified.

Obviously not in the protocol department ( Dubl.) is the correct abbreviation.

randylonghorn

ISAW wrote: »

If she didn't pass the necessary exams she would not be entitled to practice!

I'll hang fire until I get more detail before commenting on the substantive issue ... certainly, at best, the optics are not good.

However, that resumé amounts to a hell of a lot more than "passing the necessary exams" to practise!

Agreed.
Clearly she is qualified but for transparency should have been ruled out because of her government links and that she is Eamon's daughter.

Extreme fail Mr Gilmore.

Leaders questions anyone?

WeeBushy

Sure ISAW, on the face of it it might not appear great. But so far all we have is a couple of paragraphs from broadsheet.ie with very little detail. And from what I can gather she seems very qualified indeed. I'm all for stamping out the nepotism that has seeped into this country, but if someone fully deserves the job, what their father does should not preclude them.

Ste.phen

WeeBushy wrote: »

Sure ISAW, on the face of it it might not appear great. But so far all we have is a couple of paragraphs from broadsheet.ie with very little detail. And from what I can gather she seems very qualified indeed. I'm all for stamping out the nepotism that has seeped into this country, but if someone fully deserves the job, what their father does should not preclude them.

This is essentially the point I was trying to make, but I do accept that I have very little info to go on too.

dtf

In these cases, i like to apply the Fianna Fail test. In other words, what would the reaction be, if the same position had been given to a daughter of a prominent FF govt minister?
I somehow doubt that the general feeling would be as understanding.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Clearly she is qualified but for transparency should have been ruled out because of her government links and that she is Eamon's daughter.
...

That would be just as wrong as appointing her because of who her father is.

HivemindXX

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough nothing illegal. Just as gaining 500k by Gilmore's wife on an inflated land prices land deal to a school while Labour were complaining about State money being squandered on over priced land for schools due to inflated prices was not illegal.

Are you still peddling this riduculous rubbish ISAW? It's been pointed out to you time after time that not only is there nothing illegal (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) there is nothing morally or ethically wrong whatsoever with selling your property for the going rate.

For some reason you don't accept this. Now, after the issue is long passed and your comprehensive correction at the hands of the posters here is hopefully forgotten, you bring up your slanted inaccurate version of events in the hope that maybe, this time, some mud will stick?

Link here for anyone that wants to decide for themselves the merit of this attack.

krayZpaving

Are you really taking your news from a (very funny!) comedy website? Come on lads.

It's nonsense. Sure she's come out in favour of the residents in the past anyway, so why would she take a case when she'd potentially be working against them?

P. Breathnach

ISAW wrote: »

... Just as gaining 500k by Gilmore's wife on an inflated land prices land deal to a school while Labour were complaining about State money being squandered on over priced land for schools due to inflated prices was not illegal...

You have gnawed long enough on that bone, and I cannot see what it has to do with this thread.

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have gnawed long enough on that bone, and I cannot see what it has to do with this thread.

Ivor Callely ( connected to FF) has nothing to do with this thread or Lowry ( connected to FG) or Slab Murphy (connected to SF) but if his sister or daughter was appointed to the same case people would be banging on about Ivor or Michael. How come the same does not seem to apply to Gilmore?

Even if the story is fake it shows up double standards.

It is okay to attack FG SF or FF and the Labour element in the media will line up and lambaste them whenever the opportunity arises . But any links to Labour leaders doing similar are met with scorn derision and attacks from the moral high ground. It just seems like double standards to me.

P. Breathnach

ISAW wrote: »

Ivor Callely ( connected to FF) has nothing to do with this thread or Lowry ( connected to FG) or Slab Murphy (connected to SF) but if his sister or daughter was appointed to the same case people would be banging on about Ivor or Michael. How come the same does not seem to apply to Gilmore?

You have already enjoyed a thread where you bored the pants off everybody with your views on Carol Hanney's actions and her husband's failure to impose your version of his supposedly-Marxist political values on her.

This thread deals with the appointment of a Junior to assist a SC in representing the state in a lawsuit.

Killer Pigeon

OK, so first it's Eamon Gilmore's wife, then it's his daughter ...

... Maybe Gilmore should practice what he preaches.

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You have already enjoyed a thread where you bored the pants off everybody with your views on Carol Hanney's actions and her husband's failure to impose your version of his supposedly-Marxist political values on her.

This thread deals with the appointment of a Junior to assist a SC in representing the state in a lawsuit.

And if FF were in government or SF and that junior was a daughter of Michael Martin or Gerry Adams that would not merit any comment and no one would comment about them being the leader of FF's daughter or the leader of SF's daughter? In fact Gerry Adams mentioned something about "money laundering" the other day in relation to FG and was met with guffaws along the lines of "well you are one to speak". If the times when Labour does things that Labour will complain about others doing are ignored and a culture of moral high ground is promoted then nothing will ever appear for others to guffaw at will it?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

And if FF were in government or SF and that junior was a daughter of Michael Martin or Gerry Adams that would not merit any comment and no one would comment about them being the leader of FF's daughter or the leader of SF's daughter?

And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle....


Nothing to do with the thread!


It must be a curse being a politicians son/daughter/relative, as no matter how hard you have worked at becoming an expert in your subject, it'll always be nepotism that gets you the job... :rolleyes:

Wildlife Actor

opinion guy wrote: »

Damn thats impressive.

So OP I think the onus is upon you then since you are the one making these allegations, to go through that list of barristers you helpfully provided and find out exactly how many are more qualified than this lady.

Firstly. Woah... "Making these allegations"? I copied a link to a website that's as reliable as this one. That's my source. Its fully disclosed. If someone has published it there, there's a reasonable likelihood (not a guarantee obviously) that it is accurate. So don't say I'm making these allegations as if it's off the top of my head.

All the ling francs and rwanda election monitoring gigs are irrelevant, and even with academic qualifications in European law 2 years PQE is very light. In fairness to Miss Gilmore, she doesn't put herself forward as an specialist. So to answer your question, how am I supposed to know what qualifications people have on that list? All I can say is that they regards themselves as specialists. And if Miss Gilmore doesn't, who's to say that there arent 30 or 40 more with qualifications like hers that are'nt on the list? Personally, I think that experience is worth all the letters after your name you can list.

The main point I am making is that the problem is not that a government minister's child is doing well in her career or getting work from the government. And what's more she can't be blamed for taking it. The problem is that no JC without contacts like that would be considered for a big case like that, even if they had all the academic qualifications in the world, unless they had proved themselves in the "private sector" over a number of years.

randylonghorn

ISAW wrote: »

Even if the story is fake it shows up double standards.

Pardon??!


So ... no other mention of this that I can see apart from the original very unreliable source and the resulting threads on Boards and politics.ie

And it emerges that Gráinne Gilmore has been shown to be sympathetic to the anti-Shell campaign (at least one might assume so from her participation in this AFRI conference.

Hmmmmm .... I have a sneaking suspicion that either broadsheet.ie is taking the pish, or someone is taking the pish out of them! :pac:

OhNoYouDidn't

ISAW wrote: »

Even if the story is fake it shows up double standards.

Mother. Of. God.

The woman is a barrister with a specialism in environmental law and a fantastic CV. Its an environmental case and she was selected as a junior. I agree that in a case like this we should look for nepotism, but it appears there is none here.

What are you arguing? That reletives of politicians cannot win state contracts?

It must be tough to be the kid of a politician. No matter what you fo in life, you will only have done it because someone pulled strings for you.

Wildlife Actor

Newsflash. I went back to the source of this thread and there's a comment from some dude naming two other lawyers (barristers I assume) that are acting for the state in the corrib cases.

Now, I suppose a commenter is just as reliable or unreliable as the website he posts on, but he sound pretty sure of himself, and it leaves a doubt about my OP. Possible apologies all round (esp to Miss G).

The underlying issue is a good one for discussion though. Not only regarding legal work: especiually with FF's quango-packing last 2 weeks in office.

randylonghorn

Love nor Money wrote: »

Newsflash. I went back to the source of this thread and there's a comment from some dude naming two other lawyers (barristers I assume) ...

The two he names are Michael Cush, a Senior Counsel (since 1998; JC 1985) and specialist in company law, and Niamh Hyland, a Junior Counsel of 17 years standing:

Niamh Hyland is a practising barrister. She taught EU and Competition Law as the Jean Monnet Professor of European Law at Trinity College and worked as a referendaire at the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. She specialises in the areas of EU law, particularly procurement, environmental and competition, and in judicial review and commercial law. (Source)

Sounds more believable, tbh, though obviously it's also unconfirmed.

Sand

This just highlights to me that the process of making public appointments needs to be more open and accountable. This will protect the citizens (from incompetents being appointed due to insider connections) and protect those people who are appointed (from suspicion of insider connections).

Irish people are justified in assuming the worst in any public appointment until proven otherwise - just look at the board of the Central bank or any other public body and determine who knows anything about the role theyve been appointed to. This mistrust is justified, but its also corrosive and we need to remove the causes for it which are best expressed by:

"The post is under the gift of the new Labour-appointed AG, Maire Whelan."

Thats a major problem if accurate.

@P.Breathnach

That [disqualifying her because of her links to Labour/her father] would be just as wrong as appointing her because of who her father is.

Given how weak and opaque the decision making process is within the Irish government and civil service, it would be by far the lesser evil to disqualify people with insider connections from public appointments than to harm the wider interests of the citizens and taxpayers by running the very, very high risk (in an Irish context) of the wrong person being appointed to a position because of their connections.

Or we could have more open and transparent decision making process which is open to challenge and criticism so that relatively incompetent appointments are weeded out by public examination.

filthymcnasty

If a similar appointment was made a year ago by FF to a close relative of a high ranking minister the outcry on this forum would go on forever.
This may or may not be nepotism, but for a new government the timing is utterly atrocious.

ISAW

Papa Smut wrote: »

And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle....
Nothing to do with the thread!

Thread is about ~ the daughter of a Party leader getting an appointment.

What do you think people might object to here? They wuld find the principle of
[/b] Political party appointee gives job to family of party Leader as problematic.

Again and again I point out a principle which is applied one way to non Labour people (appointees are treated with scorn and derision) and in an entirely different way to Labour people. so much so in fact that when Labour do it all other cases of non Labour doing it are deemed "straw men" or "nothing to do with this case". It seems it is wrong and nepotism in all other cases but in Labour's case one has to assume it isn't nepotism and everyone else is wrong for suggesting it is and the burden is shifted to them to prove it is!

It must be a curse being a politicians son/daughter/relative, as no matter how hard you have worked at becoming an expert in your subject, it'll always be nepotism that gets you the job... :rolleyes:

There you go again!

randylonghorn wrote: »

Pardon??!

See above randy : It seems it is wrong and nepotism in all other cases but in Labour's case one has to assume it isn't nepotism and everyone else is wrong for suggesting it is and the burden is shifted to them to prove it is! Even if the case if fictitious people defend the appointment when it it Labour but attack it when it isn't Labour. What was that idea about "putting party before country"?

So ... no other mention of this that I can see apart from the original very unreliable source and the resulting threads on Boards and politics.ie

I agree it needs to be confirmed but the "putting party before country" bit is the point I am making.

And it emerges that Gráinne Gilmore has been shown to be sympathetic to the anti-Shell campaign (at least one might assume so from her participation in this AFRI conference.

Which if true are grounds for removing the appointment.

Hmmmmm .... I have a sneaking suspicion that either broadsheet.ie is taking the pish, or someone is taking the pish out of them! :pac:

Maybe but it still does not change the "putting party before country" point.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Mother. Of. God.
The woman is a barrister with a specialism in environmental law and a fantastic CV. Its an environmental case and she was selected as a junior. I agree that in a case like this we should look for nepotism, but it appears there is none here.

Randylonghorn gave a source three messages above this.

What are you arguing? That reletives of politicians cannot win state contracts?

I'm arguing that one can not apply the principle of this being wrong when non Labour people are involved and then apply the double standard of accepting it when Labour Party people are involved.

It must be tough to be the kid of a politician. No matter what you fo in life, you will only have done it because someone pulled strings for you.

The level of the other appointees has already been indicated. I'm not arguing about the appointment. I'm arguing about the principle of "putting party before country" which was important when Labour were in opposition but people flock to he defence of Labour party appointees when they get into government.

filthymcnasty wrote: »

If a similar appointment was made a year ago by FF to a close relative of a high ranking minister the outcry on this forum would go on forever.
This may or may not be nepotism, but for a new government the timing is utterly atrocious.

That is my point exactly!

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
Given how weak and opaque the decision making process is within the Irish government and civil service, it would be by far the lesser evil to disqualify people with insider connections from public appointments than to harm the wider interests of the citizens and taxpayers by running the very, very high risk (in an Irish context) of the wrong person being appointed to a position because of their connections....

It is not a good idea to propose as a remedy for a wrong something that is itself a wrong.

later12

The simple fact is that if this were Bertie Ahern's, or Mary Harney's daughter (had the latter any children), there would be uproar.

I have no reason to think that Ms Gilmore is anything but capable for the role based on the decision of the Attorney General, even if the Attorney General is herself a Labour woman and an appointee of the Labour leader, the father of the Junior Counsel in question - an unfortunate co-incidence.
However, two years as a JC is not a long time at all to spend in that role and it would not be unusual to have anticipated that for a case as important as this one, there might be more eminent and experienced junior counsel to assist.

sollar

Whatever job she got in this country there would be calls of "its nepotism".

oppenheimer1

Why is anyone surprised by this? The last time they were in government they appointed their buddies to all the cushy jobs and it was one of the big criticisms of John Brutons govt at the time.

To paraphase Dermot Morgan, "In 1992, We voted in Fianna Fail, we expected what we'd get, but they were surprised when they went down to government buildings on their first day in office to hand out the goodies but to find Labour already there ahead of them, snouts in the trough, arses in the air"

Rubik.

Just to clarify, she declined the offer and had worked for the previous attorney general.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That would be just as wrong as appointing her because of who her father is.

Disagree

But anyhow she's done the right thing and apparently agrees with me.

randylonghorn

ISAW wrote: »

Even if the story is fake it shows up double standards.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Pardon??!

ISAW wrote: »

See above randy

You are seriously arguing that a fake story, *any* fake story, shows up / proves anything?

Is this a principle you *really* want to have entered into the equivalent of the "common law" of Boards?!

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Mother. Of. God.

The woman is a barrister with a specialism in environmental law and a fantastic CV. Its an environmental case and she was selected as a junior. I agree that in a case like this we should look for nepotism, but it appears there is none here.

ISAW wrote: »

Randylonghorn gave a source three messages above this.

Huh? A source showing she was selected as a junior or a source proving nepotism?

The two sources I linked to were (a) a source demonstrating that Gráinne Gilmore was at least somewhat sympathetic to the anti-Shell campaign and (b) a brief online CV for Niamh Hyland. How exactly you're referencing either of those to prove your points is beyond me!



Lord, now I see people on politics.ie citing an Irish Mail story as "proof"! Ffs, if the Irish Mail printed a story that all men had dicks, that would be enough to make me check in my trousers that I still had mine! >.<

Just for the record, I think it would have been fairly inappropriate to see Gráinne Gilmore engaged as Junior on this one.

But a question: if she is not seen as having a particular expertise / being capable, why was she engaged by an FF AG in the past? Was that nepotism?

Wildlife Actor

Well, looks like the OP wasn't wrong after all (mind you, I'll never start a thread again!).

She was offered the job but refused it because she had a conflict of interest. That's the right thing to do and if she didn't have a conflict of interest, you couldn't blame her for taking the work. Whoever decides what lawyers are hired (the attorney general, Minster for Justice or whoever) is responsible for this screw up, and for leaving Miss Gilmore in a very difficult position.

It just shows that there needs to be a transparent system for hiring barristers and solicitors to carry out work for the Government. Just like there needs to be a transparent system for appointing people to state boards and quangos.

But will it ever be done?

ISAW

randylonghorn wrote: »

You are seriously arguing that a fake story, *any* fake story, shows up / proves anything?

Yes. If for example I invented the story it would show that certain people have one standard when it applies to Labour Party and a different standard when applied to no Labout Party

Is this a principle you *really* want to have entered into the equivalent of the "common law" of Boards?!

Yes. Not that "fake stories" are evidence but that the reaction to them is!

Huh? A source showing she was selected as a junior or a source proving nepotism?

The two sources I linked to were (a) a source demonstrating that Gráinne Gilmore was at least somewhat sympathetic to the anti-Shell campaign and (b) a brief online CV for Niamh Hyland. How exactly you're referencing either of those to prove your points is beyond me!

If a council is selected to serve in a case and it is found they were sympathetic to one side of the case in the past or knew any of the people involved personally it opens the the potential for a public perception of bias – given the fact that, in a certain sense, the council in question would appear to be on friendly personal terms with a party who is implicated in this case ( or as the case may be on unfriendly terms with another party). If this were the position of a juror serving on the panel, that person would in all likelihood be excluded ‘for cause shown’ if such information came to light at the time of jury selection.

Lord, now I see people on politics.ie citing an Irish Mail story as "proof"! Ffs, if the Irish Mail printed a story that all men had dicks, that would be enough to make me check in my trousers that I still had mine! >.<

Whatever the truth of the story the truth of the reaction to it is apparent. Those supporting Labour defended her apparent appointment. the same people that would attack the appointment if it applied to a non Labour Party person appointing a family member.

Just for the record, I think it would have been fairly inappropriate to see Gráinne Gilmore engaged as Junior on this one.

Why?
If FF were in government and appointed her, like they appointed Alan Dukes would that be acceptable? Or is your problem about personal bias?

But a question: if she is not seen as having a particular expertise / being capable, why was she engaged by an FF AG in the past? Was that nepotism?

If she is married to, or a girlfriend of a family member of the FF AG or to the then leader of FF yes it is. The point is quite clear appointing "party friends" known through the party. Political appointments of Ministers and other pals is fair enough and it is know in advance that the Taoiseach can do this and that Ministers can hand out jobs to their buddies is also accepted but not widely known. But not at this level. For example, I would like a public single list of the names and salaries of every "advisor" appointed by every Minister and their job description.

But the issue here isn't only about appointments. It is about reaction to them by Labour Party people. I expect, given the "party before country " attitude the same people would hang even FG appointees out to dry but will defend any Labour appointee. Watch and see.

Sand

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is not a good idea to propose as a remedy for a wrong something that is itself a wrong.

Thats overly simplistic - restricting someones freedoms is wrong, and yet its imposed as a remedy for criminal activities, anti-social behavior, politicial corruptions, libel and so on. Id imagine youd never approve of Michael O'Leary being appointed as Minister of Transport (via the Senate for example) whilst also running Ryanair due to potential conflicts of interest.

As it appears here, Gilmore Jnr has recognised the issues her appointment would cause and has wisely refused the appointment. She should never have been put in that position, and neither should the Irish people have to hope that individuals will hit upon the right decision by chance. Too many Irish insiders would simply have brazened it out.

Preferably there should have been an open and transparent selection process (something underlined by the Moriarty report...) or at the very least anyone with potential conflicts of interest through insider connections ought to be ruled out from consideration for public appointments.

mikemac

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It must be tough to be the kid of a politician. No matter what you fo in life, you will only have done it because someone pulled strings for you.

Rosemary Healy Rae is a barrister was appointed to Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
A lot of outrage on boards last December

But she was qualified and seven years experience.
Tough life indeed no matter what you qualify in, people reckon they know why you succeed

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

Thats overly simplistic....

No, it is not: it should be regarded as a fundamental principle.

Anywhoodle

Love nor Money wrote: »

She was offered the job but refused it because she had a conflict of interest. That's the right thing to do and if she didn't have a conflict of interest, you couldn't blame her for taking the work. Whoever decides what lawyers are hired (the attorney general, Minster for Justice or whoever) is responsible for this screw up, and for leaving Miss Gilmore in a very difficult position.

Sand wrote: »

Thats overly simplistic - restricting someones freedoms is wrong, and yet its imposed as a remedy for criminal activities, anti-social behavior, politicial corruptions, libel and so on. Id imagine youd never approve of Michael O'Leary being appointed as Minister of Transport (via the Senate for example) whilst also running Ryanair due to potential conflicts of interest.

...

Preferably there should have been an open and transparent selection process (something underlined by the Moriarty report...) or at the very least anyone with potential conflicts of interest through insider connections ought to be ruled out from consideration for public appointments.

She wouldn't have any 'conflict of interest.' A conflict of interest is obviously when you're involved with a number of projects (/have a number of interests) that can potentially come into conflict with each other. Doesn't apply to her at all. If she decided to defend Shell, she wouldn't have any competing interest that would undermine that.

If someone appoints someone else on the basis of nepotism, then they're the one with the conflict of interest..

Wildlife Actor

Anywhoodle, you've missed the point.

The conflict of interest is nothing to do with her father. Its because she gave advice to Shell to Sea partisans in the past.

Yes the attorney general has a conflict of interest between her party loyalty and her duty as attorney general (are we all sure that the minister for justice has no role in all this?).

Anywhoodle

Love nor Money wrote: »

Anywhoodle, you've missed the point.

The conflict of interest is nothing to do with her father. Its because she gave advice to Shell to Sea partisans in the past.

Yes the attorney general has a conflict of interest between her party loyalty and her duty as attorney general (are we all sure that the minister for justice has no role in all this?).

Ah, fair enough.. I presumed you were referring to the same thing as the other poster quoted.

randylonghorn

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. Not that "fake stories" are evidence but that the reaction to them is!

While I now understand and to an extent accept your basic point in theory, I still feel that in practice you're heading down a very rocky road.

We have more than enough poor redtop journalism, and the way the Gilmore (pretty much non-story, relatively speaking) was put out there reeks of a deliberate attempt at a smear campaign, even if there are some questions to be answered (and I do think there are some). Funnily enough, I actually wouldn't look first at a rival political party in this case ... my antennae would be twitching towards the Law Library, where a number of senior wigs are apparently much annoyed by Whelan's appointment, not because they feel she's not up to the job but because she's not seen as one of the inner circle.

And to anticipate your next question ... I wouldn't be any more impressed if it was Enda Kenny's or Brian Cowen's / Micheal Martin's daughter!

ISAW wrote: »

Why?
If FF were in government and appointed her, like they appointed Alan Dukes would that be acceptable? Or is your problem about personal bias?

I think personal bias is an issue in this case, but one which would apply to any barrister with the same history. Ms. Gilmore refused whatever work was offered, the correct course, which renders it a non-issue.

On the other issue, if Máire Whelan made the decision to offer Gráinne Gilmore the second chair, then I think it was a pretty poor decision. Ms. Gilmore is obviously very well qualified for a barrister of her age and experience, and in relevant areas, and appears to have done work for the AG's office before, but the fact remains that she is light on post-qualification experience as yet. I think given who she is, Whelan would be at best foolish to make such an offer unless she could clearly show that Gilmore was demonstrably and clearly the most qualified person available.

But we don't know as yet that that is what actually happened. We know she was offered work, that doesn't necessarily mean the Junior's spot, perhaps she was simply asked to consult on an aspect of the case in which she has a special expertise given her background. Nor do we know that Whelan made the decision: it may just as easily have been someone in the AG's office, perhaps because the work Gilmore had done for them before was relevant to the work she was being asked to do now, hell, perhaps naively thinking to curry favour with Whelan? The full facts of this are not as yet in evidence, but people are deciding on the verdict anyway ... were deciding on the verdict with much fewer facts than we now have, in fact. And pretty much ignoring the fact that under whatever circumstances the offer was made, or whatever offer was actually made, Ms. Gilmore turned it down ... yet she is being pilloried across the internet and other media.

And yes, if this was an offer / appointment by an FF AG or any government in which her father was not a senior figure, there would obviously be less questions to answer and less pressure on the AG's office to justify the decision to the highest possible level of scrutiny.

ISAW wrote: »

If she is married to, or a girlfriend of a family member of the FF AG or to the then leader of FF yes it is.

And woah ... we have another hare!! 0_o