UsernameInUse wrote: » Gilmore has his daughter working on a huge case regarding Shell. This is hardly a niche area - add to that she only got her particulars...rubbish.
mlumley wrote: » To be honest, I don't know what to say, but if people got up off of their arses and started shouting about it, maybe, just maybe, something might get done about it. It must be up the to people in Gilmores constituancy to go to him and ask him why he (if he did) get her this job, was it advertised, what was the qualifications for the job. Look, if I were in the same position and could get my daughter a nice cushy job with no one asking questions , I would. Gilmores constituants have got to say to him, no more of this ****, we had enough under FF, cleand up the house. If people dont shout, no one hears.
Naikon wrote: » The people at the top control and distribute the wealth as they see fit. Slavery in some shape or other will always exist, even if it's reduced. We're nothing more than simple serfs I am afraid. Nothing will change.
Sonics2k wrote: » but what exactly is the problem with Mr Farrell hiring his wife to be his P.A., it is quite common after all for people to hire partners as Secretaries, Assistants etc
bigwormbundoran wrote: » The fact that we must pay for it
Captain_Generic wrote: » Look on the bright side, at least she's not pregnant with his child
Mark200 wrote: » It's not costing us any more than it'd cost for him to hire a stranger She's a qualified barrister, and he trusts her. It's an important job. I don't see what the huge deal is.
UsernameInUse wrote: » The money is going straight into his pocket when he chose his wife - same household. Oh wait - I forgot, politicians need 3/4 cars and that extra holiday home!
Mark200 wrote: » As I said, it is costing us the same regardless of who he hires. She's not unqualified either.
Da Shins Kelly wrote: » Were people really expecting anything different? Every major party is rotten to the core. They need to have a clean out from the top down. New blood is needed.
Ruu wrote: » We need another tribunal I think. >_>
UsernameInUse wrote: » But here's some nepotism for you, thrown in for good measure. Gilmore has his daughter working on a huge case regarding Shell. This is hardly a niche area - add to that she only got her particulars...rubbish.
UsernameInUse wrote: » I understand what you're saying but you must accept that he is the one benefiting from his actions. As opposed to picking someone else - in which case, he wouldn't be benefiting.
whydoibother? wrote: » I don't think any position being paid by the state, be it PA or barrister, should be given to a person without the normal procedure for public jobs. I mean advertising publicly, application forms, interviews etc. There needs to be a fair competition.
Still waiting and for what precisely? a list of Junior Counsel who specialize in Environmental Law? Here's a list of counsel who do Bar Council of Ireland And by the way, where is Ms Gilmore on this list? Nowhere! So perhaps, you should contact each one and ask them (particularly those who qualified in the last five years) if they have ever received a state brief? Perhaps the following passage, might be helpful (it comes directly from the Attorney Generals Website The Attorney General briefs counsel to give legal advice and to appear on behalf of State parties in litigation. The Attorney General is subject to the provisions of s. 7 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 which provides: "The Attorney General shall ensure that barristers briefed by him (or her) in his (or her) official capacity … are chosen, from amongst those barristers who have indicated their willingness to so act or advise, in such manner as to effect a distribution of such retainers amongst them that, in the opinion of the Attorney General, is fair and equitable taking one year with another, having regard to their suitability in relation to any particular retainer, to the public interest and to the distribution of retainers under subsection (2) of this section." Now back to the main point. Eamon Gilmore before and during the election campaign 'made a vow' that he would end cronyism (but don't take my word for it here's the link On about the 9th March 2009 a new Attorney General is appointed, who happens to be the former financial secretary of the Labour Party. Her nomination was made by the leader of the Labour Party, Eamon Gilmore. Approximately two weeks later, Broadsheet.ie raise a question about the instruction by the new Attorney General of the daughter of Eamon Gilmore to a case in which the state is a party. Coincidence? For two days, March 24th-25th, there is silence about this until the story starts to generate some attention online before eventually being picked up by the Daily Mail who ran with its story today. According to the article in the Mail as reported by Ian Cary "Grainne Gilmore, 28 who has worked for the previous Attorney General...declined the offer (so the offer was made) According to a spokeswoman (presumably affiliated with the Labour Party) "She turned down the work not because of her father, but because she had previously advised people who were close to the case." This may or may not be true - but it comes from "a spokeswoman" - so you can take it or leave it unless there is firm evidence to say one way or the other. It may or may not be spin. There are a couple of questions that need to be followed up here. (1) When was the appointment made (Letters of instruction must exist) (2) When did Ms Gilmore decline the case (was it before or after the story entered the public domain, and how was this communicated) (3) When was the other Junior Counsel appointed, before or after Ms Gilmore declined instructions (4) Did the Attorney General instruct two junior counsel to begin with or just one? When were the SC and the other JC instructed? Just to say at no juncture, is there any question about the competence or ability of Ms Gilmore - what is in question is the ethics of the instuction, namely the instruction by the chief law officer of the state (or the civil service) of a lawyer who happens to be the daughter of the deputy prime minister (who appointed the chief law officer of the state, to wit the Attorney General) It may not be a conflict of interest, but it raises ethical questions. Finally it would appear that the replacing JC (if it is a replacement) has 17 years professional practice experience and is therefore well established. This begs the question, why was this person not instructed in the first place? Perhaps the Attorney General has some questions to answer, and given that she holds her office under the constitution and is remunerated by the tax payer - she should answer them and be given an opportunity to answer those questions in good faith.
Poccington wrote: » I'd just like to point out that Gilmore's daughter turned down the job offer as she said there was a conflict of interest. But in true AH fashion, let's not let the facts get in the way of a rant.
