McDowell: Worse than General Franco?

ionapaul

Am I the only one who finds boards' hatred of Minister McDowell a little over-the-top and perplexing? People really seem to believe he is one of the supporters of the fellow with the strange 'tash (don't want to invoke Godwin in any way here by naming names). I would feel confident in saying that the average boardster finds Messers. Adams and McGuinness (and maybe even Big Ian) more acceptable as political figures than McDowell - this amazes me. Particularly in that I don't believe this hatred of McDowell in particular and the PDs in general is held by the majority out there in the 'real world'. Certainly, the public do not support the PDs to any great extent, as the polls show, but it is rare that you find anyone expressing such hatred of that party and McDowell as you expect to see on boards.
Or is it that I just don't move in the circles where McDowell is seen as a fascist dictator bent on world-domination?

sliabh

I think it might be something to do with the position he holds - Minister for Justice. The holder of the job in any country never seems to be too popular as they are easily blamed for:

1. Not doing enough to tackle crime, even when crime rates are falling as the media always loves a good crime scare story (an oft cited media motto is "if it bleads, it leads")
2. Passing laws that are claimed to restrict people's freedoms or bring in a police state

Some Justice ministers are scary people, just look at the recently departed Ashcroft in the US, but I wouldn't put McDowell in the same category. Hey I even voted for the man myself at the last election. If he is guilty of something it is probably the usual politicians offence of promising more than they deliver.

But if the man gets the extra 2000 Guards and there is a new traffic corps then he will be forgiven a lot.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

Am I the only one who finds boards' hatred of Minister McDowell a little over-the-top and perplexing?

I'm sure there are others....but ask yourself this...

What has the man achieved that you believe could be viewed as a triumph, a highpoint of his appointment? What has he done thats made his appointment a good thing?

I would feel confident in saying that the average boardster finds Messers. Adams and McGuinness (and maybe even Big Ian) more acceptable as political figures than McDowell

I dunno about the average boardster. The "Anyone But Sinn Fein" brigade would be as numerous as the "Sinn Fein go Breagh" brigade I woulda thought...whereas outside of Cork, I can think of few people who gush praise over anyone in the current government.

Particularly in that I don't believe this hatred of McDowell in particular and the PDs in general is held by the majority out there in the 'real world'.

Yup, and if you took boards as reflection of Irish political reality, FF would become one fo teh smallest parties in teh next election, whilst Labour, Sinn Fein, the Greens, and other assorted "tinies" would all vie for dominance...

Having said that, I don't think people hate/dislike/criticise McDowell because he's a PD at all. If he was an honest-to-God Fianna Failer, they'd still be out for his blood.

jc

Meh

sliabh wrote:

But if the man gets the extra 2000 Guards and there is a new traffic corps then he will be forgiven a lot.

Don't forget he also promised to reform the libel and immigration laws. Neither of which has happened yet, and it's looking increasingly unlikely.

bonkey wrote:

What has the man achieved that you believe could be viewed as a triumph, a highpoint of his appointment? What has he done thats made his appointment a good thing?

To be fair to him, the new independent Garda Ombudsman looks like a significant improvement on the old system. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/1122/263353298HM1MAINCAROL.html

Having said that, I don't think people hate/dislike/criticise McDowell because he's a PD at all. If he was an honest-to-God Fianna Failer, they'd still be out for his blood.

To some extent, this is McDowell's own fault. He doesn't exactly go out of his way to appease his critics. He seems to enjoy a good fight.

Lemming

ionapaul wrote:

Am I the only one who finds boards' hatred of Minister McDowell a little over-the-top and perplexing? People really seem to believe he is one of the supporters of the fellow with the strange 'tash (don't want to invoke Godwin in any way here by naming names). I would feel confident in saying that the average boardster finds Messers. Adams and McGuinness (and maybe even Big Ian) more acceptable as political figures than McDowell - this amazes me. Particularly in that I don't believe this hatred of McDowell in particular and the PDs in general is held by the majority out there in the 'real world'. Certainly, the public do not support the PDs to any great extent, as the polls show, but it is rare that you find anyone expressing such hatred of that party and McDowell as you expect to see on boards.
Or is it that I just don't move in the circles where McDowell is seen as a fascist dictator bent on world-domination?

The dislike of McDowell isn't limited to boards.ie - quite a lot of the media, among others, also loath him.

The guy is a fruit-loop. What makes this scary is that a) he is in a position of power and b) quite an intelligent guy. You can see the day that he went loopers. It all happened when his son got assaulted. He turned into a rabid right-wing lunatic the day that happened. Before that he was a middle-of-the-road average, unimpressive politician lacking any sort of substance. Now he's noted, for all the wrong reasons ......

mycroft

Meh wrote:

To be fair to him, the new independent Garda Ombudsman looks like a significant improvement on the old system. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/1122/263353298HM1MAINCAROL.html.

And to be fair,

1. The ombudsman powers are to limited, theres still debate on whether the ombudsman person will be allowed to arrive unannounced at a Gardai station (you could imagine how that'd work in Donegal "Lads would you mind tidying away all the incriminating evidence, it's just the ombudsman is popping over in five minutes)

2. It's been three years since the ombudsman became an election promise, and still no sign.

3. Both these things become even more unforgivable in the light of consistent exposure of gardai corruption and abuse of power over that time period, and whats more we have the finest model in the world to base our inspectorate on working for a number of years just across the border. The Northern ombudsman has arguably the toughest policing job in the western world and they've done an amazing job. Despite having a perfect blueprint it's still taken McDowell n Co over three years to get his finger out and no set date for the setting up of the ombudsman.

And in fairness any system is better than the system we have available at the moment which is just farcial.

dahamsta

sliabh wrote:

I think it might be something to do with the position he holds - Minister for Justice.

It's a copycat thing in my view: Ashcroft, Blunkett, Straw, McDowell, they all copy each other. They're demonised because of what they represent, but they created the image of what they represent themselves, by going completely OTT on issues in order to guage a reaction and settle for a lower standard of intrusion into our lives. So it's not as if they don't deserve the Nazi label. They asked for it.

ID cards in the UK are a prime example: They leak the absolute worse case scenario to goad activists into responding, come out fighting to look like hard men defending their plans, then "back down" on some elements of the plan, leaving the core of stuff they wanted to get through in the first place. And of course the media don't draw attention to this because they want the completely OTT story at the start of the cycle. Casino's in the UK is another example where the Government is in retreat mode at the moment.

adam

Moriarty

Lemming wrote:

Now he's noted, for all the wrong reasons ......

Naturally enough, him being "obviously wrong" has nothing at all to do with your political views. Heh.

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

Naturally enough, him being "obviously wrong" has nothing at all to do with your political views. Heh.

I'm sorry Moriarty. I missed the bit where I said he was "obviously wrong" .......

Moriarty

It wasn't a direct quote, it was more a generalisation of your position from what I've seen of it.

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

It wasn't a direct quote, it was more a generalisation of your position from what I've seen of it.

Moriarty ... the pattern stands. Up until the day his son got assault he was "just another politican" and nothing exceptional to note of in performance of his duties.

Then overnight he lost the plot altogether and turned from intelligible middle-of-the-road to right-wing lunatic. What makes this all the more disturbing is that the guy has law qualifications and is obviously quite quite smart.

Just look at the history of his policies up to and after. Whether or not I agree with any of his policies (and a lot of his recent ones I find highly dubious) aside, it doesn't take a partisan mind to point out that there was a marked change in his initiatives erring to the draconian after his son's assault.

Moriarty

So?

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

So?

*sigh*

Because I was pointing out to the original poster why there was such animosity towards him (within and without boards.ie)

Moriarty

Politicans aren't allowed change position now? If they do, they're derided as "scary"? (your words, this time)

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

Politicans aren't allowed change position now? If they do, they're derided as "scary"? (your words, this time)

You know what Moriarty .... yes. You're right.

Politicians aren't allowed to change their positions. They must stick to them with dogmatic stubborness or face castration by a pixie so high on angel-dust that they are technically in the next galaxy, whilst Mickey Mouse sings songs and dances ni the air around the politicians head and then starts morphing into Barney and wanting to know why we all can't just be friends .....

:rolleyes:

FTA69

I detest the man more than any other figure in Irish politics, even more than Big Ian and his band of merry men! My main grievance with him is the lies and propaganda he spouts about the movement of which I am a member, each new statement about us becomes more farcical and fantastical than the next but he has consistently failed to show us the slightest shred of proof for his rants. Does he take the Irish people for fools?

Lie no 1) IRA activity funding Sinn Féin - no proof

Lie no 2) IRA involved in racketeering in Dublin docklands - no proof

Lie no 3) IRA involved in spy ring in Stormont and Leinster House - no proof

Lie no 4) Sinn Féin negotiating team on IRA Army Council - no proof

The man is a political oppurtunist of the highest degree, his "smash Sinn Féin" attitude is simply an attempt to drive a wedge between us and Fianna Fáil in my opinion, because if a coalition between those two forms where will that leave him and his motley crew of facists? Out in the political wilderness, and I can't wait for that day!

Sparks

"the movement of which I am a member" - FTA, are you saying you're a part of Sinn Fein or a part of the IRA?

Sparks

Moriarty wrote:

So?

So it implies that he has lost the objectivity and professionalism that his job requires...

FTA69

As I said on another thread I am not an IRA Volunteer, I am however a member of Sinn Féin, a party which McDowell has criticised even more than the IRA.

Moriarty

An answer without a rolleyes would be fantastic, lemming.

How is that implied sparks? Something happens, he (may have) changed his outlook on life, and it's suddenly completely lacking in objectivity and professionalism? Can you join the dots for me, as I seem to be missing where you can leap from one to the other.

Sparks

It's not implied by him changing his mind Moriarty, it's implied by him radically changing his mind because of a traumatic personal incident. That doesn't mean he's wrong, mind, just that there's the suspicion that he may overreact. And the case isn't fully made, to be honest.

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

An answer without a rolleyes would be fantastic, lemming.

How is that implied sparks? Something happens, he (may have) changed his outlook on life, and it's suddenly completely lacking in objectivity and professionalism? Can you join the dots for me, as I seem to be missing where you can leap from one to the other.

Ever heard of the expression "Justice is Blind" Moriarty?

Now, lets take a look at Mr.McDowell's behaviour. He has quite visibly allowed a personal incident to cloud his judgement. If he were any normal person this wouldn't be an issue. We're human after all. But he's not "any normal person". He is both someone with the ability to shape laws directly, and the overseer of the justice department. What makes me all the more bewildered by his radical shift in position is that he has an extensive law background and would therefore know better than most the concept of impartiality.

If it transpires in, say court room, that you (as the prosecutor) have a personal involvement in a given case, it does not look favourably whatsoever. Why do you think that lawyers/gardai/etc are very much discouraged from direct involvement with cases in which they are involved/affected? it calls into question their professional integrity.

But we have a problem here since McDowell is the Justice Minister, not just some law professional or garda. His impartiality has been called into severe question since it's blatantly obvious that he has been compromised as Minister due to his subsequent actions/behaviour surrounding the assault on his son.

For examples, take a look at the attempt to have the media gagged, or the insanly myopic idea of rolling back licensing hours by about an hour to "stop street violence", or the new bill proposing to allow the gardai the ability to conduct searches without the need for judicial oversight (among other things) - thus giving unparalleled levels of unaccountability.

All of which happened *after* his son was assaulted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

from Guardian

All over Spain, in the dark days of Franco's revolt against the elected Republican government, suspected supporters of leftwing parties were taken on paseos (walks) outside towns and villages. Once out of sight they were shot and tossed into communal graves. Among the more famous victims was the poet and playwright Federico Garcia Lorca, killed hundreds of miles further south.

"Even now, after all these years, I still don't understand why they were so intent on killing us. We weren't communist, all we did was support the Republic," Mrs Gonzalez said.

About 35,000 people are believed to have died this way, without trial or after rapid, meaningless courts martial. Up to now nobody has paid attention to any but the most famous victims.

I think McDowell has some distance to travel before silly peeps on the internet can draw parallels.

Mike.

Moriarty

Lemming wrote:

He has quite visibly allowed a personal incident to cloud his judgement.

If it's so visible, you won't mind providing proof then, I take it?

Lemming wrote:

it calls into question their professional integrity.

So, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you will be unhappy with any justice minister that has ever been the victim of crime.

Lemming wrote:

His impartiality has been called into severe question since it's blatantly obvious that he has been compromised as Minister due to his subsequent actions/behaviour surrounding the assault on his son.

Uh.... huh. (1) Why does a justice minister have to be "impartial"? "Impartial" with who? (2) If it was blatantly obvious I wouldn't be calling you on it, so it isn't at all obvious. I have no vested intrests or particular like or dislike for the man, and no reason to defend him to the hilt. (3) Can you demonstrate to me how his attitude was markedly different before his son was assaulted?

Lemming wrote:

For examples, take a look at the attempt to have the media gagged,

I haven't read the Media Gagging Bill in the dail records yet. Oh wait, you were exagerating.. I see.

Lemming wrote:

or the insanly myopic idea of rolling back licensing hours by about an hour to "stop street violence",

Are you sure there's no alterior motive to proposing that? No, you're not. You've said so yourself that he appears to be a smart guy. It's rather unlikely he would actually believe that if he is.

Lemming wrote:

or the new bill proposing to allow the gardai the ability to conduct searches without the need for judicial oversight (among other things) - thus giving unparalleled levels of unaccountability.

I haven't seen anything about it, so I can't comment. It's still irrelevant though, you're simply angry because it's a policy you don't agree with.

Lemming

Moriarty wrote:

If it's so visible, you won't mind providing proof then, I take it?

Tell me Moriarty - how do you "prove" what someone is thinking? His actions speak quite clearly. Just take a look at the "before & after" history of what he did in office. There is a clearly visible shift in his policies. Not a shift along the lines of "oh dear this isn't working", but a much more fundamentalist, radical change.

So, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you will be unhappy with any justice minister that has ever been the victim of crime.

No. That's an unrealistic stance to take. And you know it. My problem is that the guy (in reference to the above shift in policies) has clearly allowed a personal problem take hold of his professional life. It's like you taking out your frustrations at being refused a mortgage on your managerial underlings and then giving unrealistic deadlines so you can whip them for it - all because your homelife isn't hunkydory.

Uh.... huh. (1) Why does a justice minister have to be "impartial"? "Impartial" with who? (2) If it was blatantly obvious I wouldn't be calling you on it, so it isn't at all obvious. I have no vested intrests or particular like or dislike for the man, and no reason to defend him to the hilt. (3) Can you demonstrate to me how his attitude was markedly different before his son was assaulted?

Hmm ... let me get this straight .... you don't see why the justice minister has to be impartial.....

rigggggght moriarty. I'll end this conversation here and ignore the rest of what I was going to respond to. Have a nice day.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, but nor are the two mutually exclusive.

If the minister is seeking to sway public opinion (or have other influence on anyone) by presenting unproven aellgations as fact, then he most certainly is lieing although it would generally be called "spin" because thats the polite socially-acceptable form of being economical with the truth nowadays.

If, on the other hand, that is not what he is trying to do, then I agree he's not lying, but rather showing an inability to perform certain aspects of his job impartially. Whether or not that is a problem....I guess that depends on your own opinion of the aspects in question.

Its interesting to note, however, that FTA69 hates/disrespects the man more than any other because he said false things about Sinn Fein/ the 'Ra. (at least, given that this is what each and every listed example deals with, one must draw that conclusion).

I'm wondering if he equally will hate and disrespect anyone of Sinn Fein who is in the public eye and has ever presented as fact a statement that they believe but cannot prove.....in other words...anyone of Sinn Fein who has ever told a lie, or engaged in spin. I somehow doubt it.

jc

FTA69

I should have clarified my position more, I was exaggerating when I said I disliked the man more than any other, as bad as he may be he is not as bad as the likes of Michael Stone or Maggie Thatcher. However, it is not simply the fact he lied about the Republican Movement that irks me, it is his belief in rampant capitalism and anti-Republicanism.

AngelofFire

We should raise serious questions about a Minister for Equality who publicly stated last may that he is against Equality. Also the man calls himself a liberal, yet he has done nothing on same sex civil unions, possession of cannabis laws. As a matter of fact hes done more to restrict liberty than to promote it, the intoxicating liquor act was a blatant attack on civil liberties and the entertainment culture, furthermore these coercive laws have done nothing to solve the problem with binge drinking and violence on our streets.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AngelofFire

He was quoted as saying "our type of economy demands inequality". Now thats quite a shocking statement, as it implies that its ok if not necessary to stick to society`s most vulnerable.

For jesus sakes the most recent news item I read on FG was one of the YFG groups voting against the distribution of condoms to sixth years because it would be promoting illegal activities. That's the future of FG and I don't think a coalition with conservatives like that is going anywhere

At Labour Youth national conference, i emphatically spoke out against cooperation with blueshirts for reasons such as that.

Victor

McDowell had been noted for baiting Haughey on occassion.

FTA69 wrote:

As I said on another thread I am not an IRA Volunteer

The you are not part of the Movement (provo euphamism for the IRA).

sliabh

AngelofFire wrote:

He was quoted as saying "our type of economy demands inequality". Now thats quite a shocking statement, as it implies that its ok if not necessary to stick to society`s most vulnerable.

I would say that is an extreme interpretation of what he said.

The statement is a fact and I don't think Labour or anyone else can suggest how it would be otherwise. We cannot have everyone on the same income. Not even in good old Communist Russia was that managed. And the reality is that you will always have some people earning more than others.

But I fail to see how this is a suggestion that people should be deliberately kept in poverty.

Victor

sliabh wrote:

But I fail to see how this is a suggestion that people should be deliberately kept in poverty.

I think the point is the interview came across as being ambivalent* towards inequality. That he didn't care.

He made no attempts to dissuade people of this perception.

* Psychology 201 - Ambivalence is anger

Redleslie2

sliabh wrote:

The statement is a fact and I don't think Labour or anyone else can suggest how it would be otherwise. We cannot have everyone on the same income. Not even in good old Communist Russia was that managed. And the reality is that you will always have some people earning more than others.

Where has anyone from here or Labour suggested that we should "have everyone on the same income"? Straw man argument I believe.

sliabh

Redleslie2 wrote:

Where has anyone from here or Labour suggested that we should "have everyone on the same income"?

That was my interpretation of what you meant, sorry if it was wrong.

But

"it implies that its ok if not necessary to stick to society`s most vulnerable"

does sound like a straw man to me!

Redleslie2

sliabh wrote:

That was my interpretation of what you meant, sorry if it was wrong.

What I meant where? What's going on?

sliabh

Sorry, I meant from Angelfire's comment. I should be paying more attention to what I am doing

Villain

McDowell makes accusations then when asked to prove them he says, ah well that would be difficult and wouldn't help the Peace Process. If you can't prove something don't start mouthing it off in Public. Anyway the Local and European elections proved that the PD's bashing of SF was a failure, instead of bashing other party's the PD's would be better off trying to get votes for their own party ( tough task I know). McDowell talks hard but it's all an act really.

AngelofFire

Slaibh i recognise that not everyone can be on the same income, but i believe that everyone from the corporate managers child to the child of low income parents should be able to avail of the opportunity to acheive their potential. Unfortunately this is prevented by the stark inequalities in irish society. Mcdowells comments are out of line because inequality causes a massive waste of human potential, example people having to drop out of college because of lack of social protections and financial support.

sliabh

AngelofFire wrote:

but i believe that everyone from the corporate managers child to the child of low income parents should be able to avail of the opportunity to acheive their potential. Unfortunately this is prevented by the stark inequalities in irish society.

I agree totally.

But I don't think McDowells comments were meant to imply that some people should not have the same opportunities. Everyone should have access to a very good standard of healthcare and education. But the reality is that those with the most money will usually be able to pay for the very best. To be truly "equal" would be to imply that everyone in the country, poorest to richest, will always have access to this best standard as well. And this is not going to happen.

AngelofFire

Yes but he said that inequality is somehow an incentive for people to work harder which implies that he favours incentives over social protections . How is sending a child to school hungry and not being able to concentrate an incentive? He or she needs a good meal not an economic incentive. Likewise the med student from a low income family needs an improved grant not an economic incentive.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

Victor wrote:

McDowell had been noted for baiting Haughey on occassion.The you are not part of the Movement (provo euphamism for the IRA).

The term "the Movement" is an abbreviation of the term "the Republican Movement". This movement incorporates Sinn Féin, Óglaigh na hÉireann and Coiste na hÍarmhicí. Considering I am a member of Sinn Féin I am subsequently a member of the Republican Movement. While the term is sometimes used to express membership of Óglaigh na hÉireann, it doesn't mean that that is the only purpose of that term. Ok?

Redleslie2

sliabh wrote:

I agree totally.

But I don't think McDowells comments were meant to imply that some people should not have the same opportunities. Everyone should have access to a very good standard of healthcare and education. But the reality is that those with the most money will usually be able to pay for the very best. To be truly "equal" would be to imply that everyone in the country, poorest to richest, will always have access to this best standard as well. And this is not going to happen.

The idiots in Finland see things somewhat differently. Free meals, no university fees, free childcare. Madness. :mad:

The basis of our education and teaching is equality.

Send McDowell over there to sort them out.

sceptre

AngelofFire wrote:

At Labour Youth national conference, i emphatically spoke out against cooperation with blueshirts for reasons such as that.

I'm sure there was someone at the (doubtless totally packed:rolleyes:) YFG conference emphatically speaking out against cooperation with pinkos for the opposite reason:).