Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dail's biggest bank critics face shutout from inquiry

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    The idea of TDs and Senators inquiring "without reasonable perception of bias" into a calamity that they were attached to is nonsense.

    If that is the test, then it isn't just Shane Ross who fails to meet it; almost none of them do.

    Then again, it hasn't been established that anyone except Ronald Quinlan and Shane Ross have taken this view of the regulations. Even Peter Matthews had to be 'approached' and the question put to him by the journalist. Nobody in a position of authority has suggested the journalist's views on the regulations are accurate


  • Options
    #3
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The idea of TDs and Senators inquiring "without reasonable perception of bias" into a calamity that they were attached to is nonsense.

    If that is the test, then it isn't just Shane Ross who fails to meet it; almost none of them do.

    Then again, it hasn't been established that anyone except Ronald Quinlan and Shane Ross have taken this view of the regulations. Even Peter Matthews had to be 'approached' and the question put to him by the journalist. Nobody in a position of authority has suggested the journalist's views on the regulations are accurate

    I'd agree with that - this is one of those terrible articles about legislation which start by taking a dramatic possible outcome whether particularly plausible or not, and then interviewing people about it as if it were a fact. Sindo trash, I'm afraid - it's a short enough step from there to making up the whole outcome without any reference to the legislation, as the UK tabloids do.

    Nor is being a critic necessarily the same as not being impartial. If there is an inquiry, it is presumably because there is something to be investigated, and if there is something to be investigated, then in one sense only a vocal critic can give a clean bill of health at the end of the inquiry, while anyone who has kept silent is going to be suspected of bias.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement