Presidential Election 2025

She's winning in the polls and it's hers to lose. So if you're advising her, tell her to do nothing different. But Humphrey's campaign has been anemic...

It is true that the cab-bank rule requires a barrister to take a case, unless the following apply:

• - They lack the necessary expertise.

• - There is a conflict of interest.

• - They are unavailable due to prior commitments.

• - The fee offered is not appropriate.

9.-Code-of-Conduct-Amended-by-AGM-22.7.24-Updated.pdf

Even so, it is legitimate for the HH campaign to ask CC to reveal - subject to the rules - which banks she represented.

I hope some of the homeowners will come forward and reveal this.

There is more I am wondering about, but since I have to do some research first, I will refrain for now.

Footage has emerged of Catherine Connolly praising the British people for voting for Brexit in 2016.

Video here:

Report on this here.

I have vocally opposed CC's credentials for president on here but I agree with this point. She was obligated to take those cases on in her work as a barrister.

However, subsequent to this she spoke several times in the Dáil calling for a moratorium on home repossessions. Therefore, it is a legitimate line of questioning for her.

I'd admire her greatly if she came out and stated that she morally disagrees with the repossessions of family homes but in her work as a barrister she had to put personal principles aside to serve the justice system in which she worked.

Connolly and the EU.

Catherine Connolly has a long history of demonstrating animosity toward the EU. She has campaigned against all previous European Treaty referendums. And she has stated numerous times that the EU is, as she puts it, moving down a more militarized path. She has criticized the EU and member states for rolling in behind Ukraine, going as far as to compare this situation to the 1930s. CC has apportioned particular blame to Germany on this point. She has accused UvdL of having stood shoulder to shoulder with war criminals (which is a smear btw). Previously she has supported, and received support from, elements of the Eurosceptic left, including Daly, Wallace et al. Now you have correctly stated that supporting a different power structure in the EU parliament is not in itself, hints of Euro-scepticism. But the groups who she supports, and has received support from, are not seeking to attain power in the European parliament. They are looking to dismantle whole strands of European power, and some within the bloc would seek to dismantle the body altogether.

The above facts are, at the very least, grounds to argue that Connolly will be the most Eurosceptic president that we have ever had, assuming she is elected. This is not a smear, its a simple analysis of her positioning on Europe since she entered public life. You are free to disagree with the analysis, and offer your own take on the above facts. But you cannot credibly claim that such analyses are an attempt to smear, or erroneously frame Connolly’s position on Europe.

The Eirigi Fiasco

Connolly appointed the lady to a role in Leinster house. She has more or less claimed that she knew the ladies history, and therefore had to be aware of her full association with Eirigi. She was also likely aware of the fact that the lady has taken part in a mock execution of Queen Elizabeth II. Now you ask a direct question here:

“when is someone suitable for rehabilitation”

I’ll take the topic of rehabilitation for a moment and say that I agree. People are entitled to a second chance, and I have never said otherwise. But there is a judgement call to be made, as to whether someone with this lady’s background should ever receive a position in Leinster House. No one is suggesting that this lady should never be employed again, as that would be outrageous. What can logically be suggested is that her background would probably rule out an appointment to Leinster house. She was a member of a political party which refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Irish State, yet Connolly felt it no harm to place her in the Government building of that very same state? We are entitled to question her judgement on this, as it is relevant to her presidential candidacy. The story has morphed several times; the lady failed a back ground check, subtly shifted to her resigning before such a background check could take place, and for no less than 6 months we are told.

This is a legitimate story, and we are entitled to discuss it, and have it covered by the media. Referring to this as a smear, or that it has been poorly ‘framed’ is nothing more than an ultra partisan smoke screen.

Your final paragraph.

"I'm fairly sure (though open to correction) that I haven't mentioned the word 'smear' - my issue isn’t with criticism, but with media framing. The pattern is clear—it’s the anti-Corbyn playbook all over again: label, isolate, and delegitimise.

With five days to go, it looks like Connolly may withstand this agenda-driven, often dishonest media campaign and become the next President of Ireland. If that happens, it will be even more remarkable given the coalition of right-wing FG types, pro-NATO academics, journalists, and other commentators arranged against her, their outrage will be a joy to behold!"

Its relevant to state that I have acknowledged that the current ‘Bank Repossession’ story is a smear, thereby accepting that the election cycle is taking a nasty turn. What I have also done is highlight that earlier stories, including the Eirgi and Anti-EU topics are not in the same category; they are legitimate lines of inquiry that the media was correct to have pursued. Whether or not you have used the word smear or not, on this thread, is irrelevant. The accusation has been used multiple times and in many different ways – you have stated that the topics are being ‘framed’ incorrectly; Its pure semantics, Connolly supporters have claimed for weeks that their candidate is being smeared. And until the Bank Repossession story surfaced, the accusation was false. The media always 'do a number' on Presidential Candidates; you can complain about framing, but the candidate tends to set the agenda. CC has refused to budge on her positions, which kept open the Eirigi story, and she repeats her anti European/German rhetoric when ever Foreign Policy is discussed. She has framed her own candidacy in this way, and the media is doing what the media has always done. They are following the story.

We can agree to disagree if you wish – iv already conceded that barring a last minute disaster, Connolly will likely win the election. Iv made my thoughts clear, as have you.

So hopeless we've been in government four successive times for 15 years, and will be for 19 years by the end of this Dáil?

Ok.....

For the avoidance of doubt, we will now do ANYTHING in the next 4 days to destroy Connolly's candidacy and campaign. But not a word of it will be a lie. Just very inconvenient truths for Mz Connolly.

And the greatest favour the Connolly campaign can do us, is to embrace the lead she apparently has, and contribute to a low turnout, because her student politics level voters assume she is home and hosed.

This contest is far from over boys and girls.

It might 'skirt' the issue you and the Irish Times have but it's very much the issue and once more you run away from it...

I didn't question whether or not FG have been in government. I pointed out they are bad at campaigns. Ignoring 2011 because of the obvious circumstances, have they had any good election campaign in the last couple of decades?

Fine Gaels biggest problem is Heather in this election and Harris (popular on the ground probably in their own constituency’s) not the other way round I think

People’s desire for a steady ship and their pockets in the centre is the only thing that keeps them in power

Why do I sense that FG will desperately throw the kitchen sink at Connolly this week?

if Connolly represented 

There is no 'if's' Connolly did her job as all barristers do and represented all sides as cases came in.

 with Connolly shown as the bad guy

When people lose their homes or a case, do they 'blame' the barrister or solicitor, or the people who put them in the situation or created the circumstances for their situation?

Humphreys goes down this line in the debate she is bouncing a ball in front of a woman skillful enough to turn the focus on why people found themselves in court. She should heed the warnings, it's already happening on SM, read the comments under FG's sleazy attack video.