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

Abbeylara referendum

12467…10

Comments

  • #92
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    "If a crime has been committed, the courts will handle it."

    Yeah, right. We all know that that is SO true!

    There are superb TDs and senators who are not upper class. The judiciary and SCs almost all are.

    As for party political use of inquiries, that will be difficult if those same parties have seats on the committees themselves, as is likely to be the case.

    I really think that the ant-Abbeylara campaign is a pro status quo campaign in more ways than one.

    How many accused people were acquitted before a Court, that should not have been acquitted?

    . Lets remember now boys and girls, alot of the cases are before a jury and the prosecution and gardaí are suppose to get their briefs properly in place. Are you instead referring to sentencing? If so, do Judges legislate or build prisons?

    The Judiciary are upper class? You have never met some of the judges of the lower courts so. Parish pump cheer leaders of political parties they may have been in the past, upper class they certainly ain't. Quite a few of the Superiors got there via Scholarships just like any other ordinary person in the 1950-1980's. Some of the judges, in the past and even present, where former TD's and Ministers prior to joining the bench, just like some of the excellent "wurking class" boys and girls we have now. Mr Justice White, I think, was a member of the Worker's Party. Judge Birmingham was a Fine Gael TD.

    No one can say, that only a few were born with silver spoons in their mouth, that would be nonsense. No one can say that they truly know the problems of the people, but not all of them are like that. You are generalizing.

    Most people would rather that paragraph in the Bill on the Oireachtas deciding (and only the Oireachtas) the degree of fair procedures was deleted. That is the problem. Its not necessary and it takes over the role of the Court. We can't be sure, whether the court, when parties will enviably seek judicial review to prevent an inquiry, for legitimate reasons, will be willing to rule on it, they already give a lot of leeway to the Oireachtas as it is as per their understanding of the separation of powers.


  • #93
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

    It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

    It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway.

    It would have been ever better if our elected representatives had not put these fat cats in the position that they achieved in the first place.

    Despite the contrary, there is some legislation already in place to tackle white collar crime. eg Thief's and Frauds Act 2001,(probably a weak example, but it was the first attempt) Why has there being a huge lack of activity there? CAB and the other Gardaí in this area are up to their eye balls in work (maybe not properly funded enough) so it ain't like they are scratching themselves. Why didn't they not throw legislate criminal sanctions and throw these people to the mercy of judge and jury?

    It does matter who goes or who does not go to jail. Some people may be unfairly treated as scapegoats. In a civilized society, everyone is entitled to a fair trial / inquiry. Its an extreme, but, remember Cpt Kelly of the 1971 gun running campaign? He went to his grave without being able, while alive, to get justice to clear his name.

    It does matter, who goes and who does not go to jail. People can be unfairly made as scapegoats for others. In an extreme example, to ask you to look at Cpt Kelly of the 1971 Arms Trial Fame. He went to his grave without being able to properly clear his name. Ok, he did not go to jail, but his good name and career were utterly ruined because of cover up. The opposition were no use.


  • #94
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    It would have been ever better if our elected representatives had not put these fat cats in the position that they achieved in the first place.

    Despite the contrary, there is some legislation already in place to tackle white collar crime. eg Thief's and Frauds Act 2001,(probably a weak example, but it was the first attempt) Why has there being a huge lack of activity there? CAB and the other Gardaí in this area are up to their eye balls in work (maybe not properly funded enough) so it ain't like they are scratching themselves. Why didn't they not throw legislate criminal sanctions and throw these people to the mercy of judge and jury?

    Let me hazard a guess. Because the judges are upper class statusquoites, and the TDs are salt-of-the-earth working class men without a malicious bone in their body?


  • #95
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    Duke, I am correct about the method of composition of Dail committees. Check any textbook if you are not sure.

    As for social class, today's TDs and senators demonstrably have a more diverse social, economic and gender makeup than judges and SCs.

    The yanks and Brits have not, as a rule, produced kangaroo courts, and I don't see why we should be any worse than them.

    We are constrained by the Abbeylara judgment and by a bogus constititional "right to a good name." That, plus our draconian libel laws, are how the speculators and bankers have been getting away with it for so long.

    It is time to take back our legal system from our cosseted, parasitic legal profession who, unsurprisingly, hate this amendment and are working to defeat it.

    Yet, any attack on your good name, you will go running to the Constitution and libel laws. Not all of the media are upstanding you know.

    The right to a good name in this case, is to allow the accused to fully address all allegations made against them, that a decision maker won't go off and make prejudicial views or run off to the media and make potentially (though not intentional) comments on their case , after all, its makes great sound bite.(which nearly happened in Callely)

    In Abbeylara, the Gardaí were not going to be allowed to properly address the allegations made against them. They were basically,if found, accused of murder / manslaughter / negligent in the death of another. How can you allow this, in a civilized society if then, the government can't put them to jail like a court can? If you are going to get accused of being responsible for a potentially criminal offence, wouldn't you want a trial and jury? More to the point, do you want the potential of politicians being harassed and canvassed by angry citizens who will try to influence they way a committee which they sit on, to go a certain way. Let's face it, the gardaí on that day were in a horrible position, yet, rightly, the majority of the people would naturally be more sympathetic to the family and victim (in light of facts that later came out).

    You want your decision maker to be more concerned about his votes and avoidance of being doorstepped by angry hacks and genuinely angry voters than doing "the right thing" and decide a case fairly?


    "It is time to take back our legal system from our cosseted, parasitic legal profession who, unsurprisingly, hate this amendment and are working to defeat it"

    That is hilarious. Its the very Constitution that was voted in by the people in 1937 (hey, no one would have thought it was necessary then) and never touched all through the peak of the Tribunals.

    It is the same people who constantly voted in the majority of politicians despite, even then, damning evidence being leaked by the lovely colleagues and through legitimate airways. The news of Lowry broke in 1994-1996! He resigned. He has constantly being returned by the people of North Tipp. There is little to suggest that he would not get reelected tomorrow morning if there was an election. And then there's Bertie, there was alot of dirt on him in 2007, yet no heave before election. Every one giggled with a wink and a nod about the "Teflon Bertie". People still buy Dessie O'Brien's products (though with little choice, one supposes)


    As for libel, I don't know how the hell you equate that protecting banker's name etc. People like Fintan O'Toole and Shane Ross have being doing very well in their books which exposed these people a long time ago! Charlie Bird and George whats his name won a defamation cases brought against them by a banker and politician Beverley Cooper Flynn.

    People did not really go up in arms enough (until, sadly they lost their money) to demand the proper measure; legislation to combat this! We would not have needed Tribunals then


  • #96
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Let me hazard a guess. Because the judges are upper class statusquoites, and the TDs are salt-of-the-earth working class men without a malicious bone in their body?

    Clarify where you got such a stupid chip on the shoulder "class" notion from.


    This is what you said

    "No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

    It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

    It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway."

    My direct comment did not actually disagreed with you, i merely say, its too late for that now, the damage is done. The comment you made , by quoting what I said, has absolutely no relation to each other. Was the the correct quote to which you had intended to respond too?

    I responded, because even if they grill them, nothing else will happen, unless, the DPP then brings a case, (no guarantee as there maybe no legislation.) Also the notion of politicians grilling will give them kudos, despite the fact, that had they done their job properly, there would not have been a need for grilling or potential tribunals but actual meaningful measure to stamp the problem at its source. The parliament have no power to trial criminal cases, a criminal case, may have been the better option in the first place, as a deterrence.

    Do you deny the fact that it was the politicians in the first place who put these fat cats in the position which they dominated, or at least aided them?

    I don't know why you are making references to class, i imagine that you are being sarcastic. I had merely responded to another's poster hysterical comment on this. Nice to see that you ignored the rest of what I said.

    It is legitimate to say that politicians should have legislated on these cases ages ago, to stop the current nonsense, which they now want to inquire on (when they should have stamped it out or get the DPP to direct criminal cases)

    The current economic down fall is due to light touch. It was politician's after all through their job as law makers and appointing the Head of Central Bank that fell asleep. And now they want to decide cases that they themselves are partly responsible for (to be far, a majority of government are now gone)

    If I was in trouble, I would prefer to have a judge who is properly trained in judging as oppose to some gombeen politician, wouldn't you? Considering even our local government politicians (our future TD's) and Parliament itself are not capable of proper debate, what hope is there from them


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And if one favours the amendment because those called in front of it don't walk away scot free, then one is admitting that the amendment will be giving quasi-judicial powers to politicians.

    Also, I see Mary Davis has made a statement calling for more discussion of the amendments:



    Nice to see a Presidential candidate actually talking about the Constitution, given the Constitutional role of the President as guardian of the Constitution.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You would have thought Dana would talk about this, after all , see is the one who seems to be in competition as to how many times she can throw that rhetoric about. Does Dana even know what it says or how the courts interpret it. What does she mean by upholding it anyway (Dana)? Will she uphold if amendments like the one on Children comes in?


  • #98
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Clarify where you got such a stupid chip on the shoulder "class" notion from.


    This is what you said

    "No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

    It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

    It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway."

    My direct comment did not actually disagreed with you, i merely say, its too late for that now, the damage is done. The comment you made , by quoting what I said, has absolutely no relation to each other. Was the the correct quote to which you had intended to respond too?

    I responded, because even if they grill them, nothing else will happen, unless, the DPP then brings a case, (no guarantee as there maybe no legislation.) Also the notion of politicians grilling will give them kudos, despite the fact, that had they done their job properly, there would not have been a need for grilling or potential tribunals but actual meaningful measure to stamp the problem at its source. The parliament have no power to trial criminal cases, a criminal case, may have been the better option in the first place, as a deterrence.

    Do you deny the fact that it was the politicians in the first place who put these fat cats in the position which they dominated, or at least aided them?

    I don't know why you are making references to class, i imagine that you are being sarcastic. I had merely responded to another's poster hysterical comment on this. Nice to see that you ignored the rest of what I said.

    It is legitimate to say that politicians should have legislated on these cases ages ago, to stop the current nonsense, which they now want to inquire on (when they should have stamped it out or get the DPP to direct criminal cases)

    The current economic down fall is due to light touch. It was politician's after all through their job as law makers and appointing the Head of Central Bank that fell asleep. And now they want to decide cases that they themselves are partly responsible for (to be far, a majority of government are now gone)

    If I was in trouble, I would prefer to have a judge who is properly trained in judging as oppose to some gombeen politician, wouldn't you? Considering even our local government politicians (our future TD's) and Parliament itself are not capable of proper debate, what hope is there from them

    Did someone hijack you account?


  • #99
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    Vote No to let the bankers and rezoners stay silent. Vote No to keep relying on a "justice" system which raps the big boys on the knuckle and sends the small fry to jail.

    And voting yes, is going to force the Minister's to realise the errors of Parliaments own ways and bring in proper legislation that should have been in enacted in the first place, when it was obvious to many economics that there were problems? (go and commit suicide was the answer one genius offered)

    And voting yes, will lead to a stronger approach to dealing with white collar CRIME? Voting yes, will allow Politicians to directly send culprits to jail? Why has the DPP not done this already? Why have politician's not assisted, legislatively under the powers that it already has, to make this happen?

    Boulevardier, god bless him/her, thinks that the Courts make up the law as it goes along. Can't do an awful lot when the Politicians fail to properly legislate so that the Courts can send these bold boys and girls to jail. Boulevardier seems to be of the impression that the Judges can arrest, and dictate that charges should be pressed against these bold boys. Does Boulevardier believe that even with these Tribunals whether the current lot or the Dail ones, that that automatically leads to jail?


  • #100
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Did someone hijack you account?

    My post at

    "It would have been ever better if our elected representatives had not put these fat cats in the position that they achieved in the first place.

    Despite the contrary, there is some legislation already in place to tackle white collar crime. eg Thief's and Frauds Act 2001,(probably a weak example, but it was the first attempt) Why has there being a huge lack of activity there? CAB and the other Gardaí in this area are up to their eye balls in work (maybe not properly funded enough) so it ain't like they are scratching themselves. Why didn't they not throw legislate criminal sanctions and throw these people to the mercy of judge and jury?"


    Your post at 94, which directly quoted the above

    “Let me hazard a guess. Because the judges are upper class statusquoites, and the TDs are salt-of-the-earth working class men without a malicious bone in their body?”


    How, at post 94, could you come up with a comment like that, from the actual comment made by me, which you directly quoted?

    My comment, in light of your post at 94

    1. Has nothing to do with who is better, or even suggest such

    2. Makes no comment on class - which it utterly retarded, nor does the quote that you directly quoted from even suggest that TD's or Judiciary come from a certain class, nor that one particular class is capable or incapable of acting maliciously. Your categorizing of judges and politicians, if you are serious, is ridiculous. If you actually read my posts, it seems obvious, that like, you, I don't trust the politicians on this issue.

    3. Regarding Fat Cats, you have misunderstood what was said. I am referring to the bankers. I make no reference to the Judges at all. The second paragraph, which you directly quoted from, makes that clear. Where did you feel the need to even comment on judges, from that direct quote, ?

    4. It was well known in government circles that the fat cats referred to in point 3 where acting recklessly. The government did not deal with it in the manner that it should, ie introduction of legislation. This has actually cause gross harm to the country. The Politicians fell asleep and encouraged this crap. Judges have nothing to do with this and they have no role until the government bodies put these people before them, in a court of law.

    5. If this was done, there might not have been a need for a Tribunal or Inquiry as the problem might have been be stamped out (not the economic melt down per se) All Tribunals - Inquiries do, is often state the bloody obvious as to what happened and who are responsible and do nothing about punishment, which that can't impose anyway.


  • #101
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    My post at

    "It would have been ever better if our elected representatives had not put these fat cats in the position that they achieved in the first place.

    Despite the contrary, there is some legislation already in place to tackle white collar crime. eg Thief's and Frauds Act 2001,(probably a weak example, but it was the first attempt) Why has there being a huge lack of activity there? CAB and the other Gardaí in this area are up to their eye balls in work (maybe not properly funded enough) so it ain't like they are scratching themselves. Why didn't they not throw legislate criminal sanctions and throw these people to the mercy of judge and jury?"


    Your post at 94, which directly quoted the above

    “Let me hazard a guess. Because the judges are upper class statusquoites, and the TDs are salt-of-the-earth working class men without a malicious bone in their body?”


    How, at post 94, could you come up with a comment like that, from the actual comment made by me, which you directly quoted?

    My comment, in light of your post at 94

    1. Has nothing to do with who is better, or even suggest such

    2. Makes no comment on class - which it utterly retarded, nor does the quote that you directly quoted from even suggest that TD's or Judiciary come from a certain class, nor that one particular class is capable or incapable of acting maliciously. Your categorizing of judges and politicians, if you are serious, is ridiculous. If you actually read my posts, it seems obvious, that like, you, I don't trust the politicians on this issue.

    3. Regarding Fat Cats, you have misunderstood what was said. I am referring to the bankers. I make no reference to the Judges at all. The second paragraph, which you directly quoted from, makes that clear. Where did you feel the need to even comment on judges, from that direct quote, ?

    4. It was well known in government circles that the fat cats referred to in point 3 where acting recklessly. The government did not deal with it in the manner that it should, ie introduction of legislation. This has actually cause gross harm to the country

    5. If this was done, there might not have been a need for a Tribunal or Inquiry as the problem might have been be stamped out (not the economic melt down per se) All Tribunals - Inquiries do, is often state the bloody obvious as to what happened and who are responsible and do nothing about punishment, which that can't impose anyway.

    Jesus, I honestly don't think you even read my quote... don't know what to say.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Jesus, I honestly don't think you even read my quote... don't know what to say.


    Ah, I think the meaning of post 94 has now dawned on me.

    Post 100, move along, nothing to see here.


  • #103
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I don't know if I fully understand the proposed legislation:
    2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

    3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

    4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.
    http://www.referendum2011.ie/your-decision/referendum-on-inquiries-by-the-oireachtas

    1. where is the definition of "general public importance"
    2. what kind of findings can be made and what form of process will follow from them?
    3. what kind of "conduct" could be investigated?
    4. what are the "principles of fair procedures"?
    5. where can I find out what determines the "appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest"?


  • #104
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I think most of these are addressed in detail on the Referendum Commission website:
    kbannon wrote: »
    I don't know if I fully understand the proposed legislation:

    http://www.referendum2011.ie/your-decision/referendum-on-inquiries-by-the-oireachtas

    1. where is the definition of "general public importance"

    It will be defined in legislation, but will be for the Oireachtas to decide:
    The amendment would allow the Dáil and/or Seanad inquire into a matter which is “of general public importance”. The Dáil and/or the Seanad would decide whether or not a matter is of “general public importance”. The manner in which they would make this decision will be set out in legislation. The Courts may be asked to review such decisions but it would be difficult to challenge successfully any such decision by the Dáil and/or the Seanad, given the wording of the amendment.
    kbannon wrote: »
    2. what kind of findings can be made and what form of process will follow from them?

    Findings of fact, and findings of guilt:
    If the proposed amendment is approved, an inquiry conducted by either or both Houses of the Oireachtas would have the power to make a finding that a person had, for example, behaved in a corrupt manner or been responsible for the unlawful killing of another person. The only limitation on the findings that may be made are that they must concern the matter to which the inquiry relates.

    Such a finding would, however, be different from any decisions made by a court of law about a person’s conduct. A decision that a person has committed a crime and is to be imprisoned and/or fined can be made only by a court. A decision by an Oireachtas inquiry that a person had, for example, unlawfully killed another person could not, on that determination alone, result in that person being imprisoned and/or fined. The Houses of the Oireachtas would not have the power to apply a criminal sanction to the person concerned. Similarly, a decision that a person is responsible for a civil wrong, for example, that the person defamed another, and should pay compensation, can also be made only by a court. An Oireachtas inquiry could not make an award of damages, nevertheless, such a finding could clearly affect that person’s good name, a right which is specifically protected by the Constitution.

    So a separate court case would be necessary for any penalties, either civil or criminal, to follow the Oireachtas finding. I can't see how such a case can be considered fair if everyone involved in the case knows the Oireachtas finding - something acknowledged by the proposed legislation in proposing that inquiries may not be held into matters subject to a pending or current case.
    kbannon wrote: »
    3. what kind of "conduct" could be investigated?

    See 1.
    kbannon wrote: »
    4. what are the "principles of fair procedures"?

    Again, from the RefComm:
    “Fair procedures” is a general term that covers a range of rights to which individuals are entitled when their conduct is being investigated. The rights derive from the Constitution and have been developed by decisions of the courts over many years. The precise manner in which these rights must be applied depend on the particular context and may differ in particular cases.

    The main rights involved are:

    • The right to know the case against you – you are entitled to be told if allegations of wrong-doing have or may be made against you, and the basis for such allegations.

    • The right to defend yourself against such allegations – this may include the right to give evidence, to call other people to give evidence on your behalf and the right to cross-examine witnesses. It may also extend to a right to be represented by a lawyer.

    • The right to an unbiased hearing –for example, a decision-maker cannot have a personal interest in the subject-matter of the inquiry. There are a number of decisions of the Courts, including the Abbeylara decision itself, which confirm that people appearing before an Oireachtas inquiry are entitled to fair procedures.
    kbannon wrote: »
    5. where can I find out what determines the "appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest"?

    The amendment gives supreme power to the Oireachtas to determine this on a case by case basis - it will likely not be determined by the courts:
    In the case of inquiries being conducted by the Houses of the Oireachtas, it would be for the House or Houses to decide how those rights would be applied in particular cases. When making that decision, the House or Houses would have to have “due regard to” the principles of fair procedures.

    This means that the House or Houses would have discretion as to the procedures to be applied in any given case. The balance struck in any given case may have important implications for people affected by an inquiry. It is not possible to state definitively what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted by the Houses.

    So the Oireachtas has to take into account that you should be entitled, for example, to be told the case against you, but may set this aside if it believes the public interest is better served by not doing so.

    The Oireachtas has to take into account that you should be entitled, for example, to call a witness to state that you were elsewhere on a particular occasion you're accused of being party to, but may set this aside in the interests of speed.

    The Oireachtas has to take into account that you should be entitled, for example, to defend yourself against charges with the aid of a lawyer, but will almost certainly set this aside in the interests of speed and efficiency of the inquiry.

    The Oireachtas has to take into account that you should be entitled, for example, not to have a TD with an interest in the case sitting on the inquiry Committee, but may set this aside if the party makeup of the Committee makes it necessary or more convenient to do so.
    There are a number of decisions of the Courts, including the Abbeylara decision itself, which confirm that people appearing before an Oireachtas inquiry are entitled to fair procedures.

    This is, in fact, largely meaningless, since the Oireachtas is not, under the terms of the amendment, required to give you full access to fair procedures, but instead only to strike a balance - determined by the Oireachtas - between that entitlement and the 'public interest', defined, amongst other things, as, 'cost-efficiency':
    Brendan Howlin wrote:
    This would now be balanced by a new constitutional value recognising the public interest in ensuring effective inquiries – ie, inquiries that are fairly conducted, tightly defined, cost-efficient, and are completed expeditiously.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #105
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So in effect we are voting in favour of a change to allow politicians carry out their own inquiries, the terms and conditions of which will be decided by politicians.

    hmmm


  • #106
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    kbannon wrote: »
    So in effect we are voting in favour of a change to allow politicians carry out their own inquiries, the terms and conditions of which will be decided by politicians.

    hmmm

    Exactly. The naivety of proponents is staggering. Furthermore, they don't even seem to consider the fallacy of the situation where the Dail must be investigated. How does that work?


  • #107
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    kbannon wrote: »
    So in effect we are voting in favour of a change to allow politicians carry out their own inquiries, the terms and conditions of which will be decided by politicians.

    hmmm

    Basically, yes. I've no objection to the idea itself (on the contrary), or to the politicians deciding what they want to investigate, the terms of reference, who they call, that failure to appear should be an offence etc - my objections all come down to the right of the politicians to decide how much of your rights you're entitled to and the fact that as far as possible they've excluded the courts from challenging their decisions in the matter.

    If they simply said "you will not have the right to representation, but otherwise will have all rights of fair procedure", that too would probably be OK.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #108
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    "Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned. "

    I don't see why. The principle of justice being seen to be done has always underlain our court system of justice.

    Carveone, I do agree that we are right to discuss it. I also think that supporters of the referendums are being complacent. Most of the discussion is being done by opponents. That is why as a supporter of the Abbeylara referendum I think it may be defeated next week.

    I also think, as I have said brefore, that if it is defeated the bankers, rezoners and senior civil servants will breathe a huge sigh of relief. This is not like Lisbon, where the establishment's economic agenda was at stake. Another referendum on this subject will not be put again for many many years.


  • #109
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    "Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned. "

    I don't see why. The principle of justice being seen to be done has always underlain our court system of justice.

    Carveone, I do agree that we are right to discuss it. I also think that supporters of the referendums are being complacent. Most of the discussion is being done by opponents. That is why as a supporter of the Abbeylara referendum I think it may be defeated next week.

    I also think, as I have said brefore, that if it is defeated the bankers, rezoners and senior civil servants will breathe a huge sigh of relief. This is not like Lisbon, where the establishment's economic agenda was at stake. Another referendum on this subject will not be put again for many many years.

    What if the Dail needs to be inquired? How does that work?


  • #110
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,351 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    I also think, as I have said brefore, that if it is defeated the bankers, rezoners and senior civil servants will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
    Why?
    I would have thought the bankers, "rezoners" and senior civil servants would prefer a political inquiry over the likes of a proper garda inquiry.

    Lets say for example, this was in place a some years ago. Would FF politicians have been effectively deciding the terms of reference for an inquiry into Bertie Ahern?


  • #111
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    carveone wrote: »
    Also from the referendum website:
    When making that decision, the House or Houses would have to have “due regard to” the principles of fair procedures.

    This means that the House or Houses would have discretion as to the procedures to be applied in any given case. The balance struck in any given case may have important implications for people affected by an inquiry. It is not possible to state definitively what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted by the Houses.
    If anything I now feel worse than before!

    I'll say one thing - boards.ie is discussing the issue. The media are talking about Norris' knickers or something.

    I think all theyre saying there is 'we dont know what the legislation will say'. Which is true. If the govt had half a brain or an ounce of fairness they should have published the legislation before the referendum. We are voting half blind here.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    kbannon wrote: »
    Boulevardier wrote: »
    I also think, as I have said brefore, that if it is defeated the bankers, rezoners and senior civil servants will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
    Why?
    I would have thought the bankers, "rezoners" and senior civil servants would prefer a political inquiry over the likes of a proper garda inquiry.

    Lets say for example, this was in place a some years ago. Would FF politicians have been effectively deciding the terms of reference for an inquiry into Bertie Ahern?

    I note how Bertie has called for an investigation into the media, in todays news. Can you imagine the likes of him with this tool at his disposal?

    Christ, the naivety...


  • #113
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Basically, yes. I've no objection to the idea itself (on the contrary), or to the politicians deciding what they want to investigate, the terms of reference, who they call, that failure to appear should be an offence etc - my objections all come down to the right of the politicians to decide how much of your rights you're entitled to and the fact that as far as possible they've excluded the courts from challenging their decisions in the matter.

    If they simply said "you will not have the right to representation, but otherwise will have all rights of fair procedure", that too would probably be OK.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    I dunno. I dont see how they can say 'you have no right to know the case against you' when it also states be within 'due regard to the principles of fair procedures'.

    Another question is are these rights imutable in the normal sense. Ie are there existing situations where these principles can be waved in order to serve the function of a non judicial inquiry


  • #114
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sensibleken wrote: »
    I think all theyre saying there is 'we dont know what the legislation will say'. Which is true. If the govt had half a brain or an ounce of fairness they should have published the legislation before the referendum. We are voting half blind here.

    This is the proposed Bill: http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Draft-Heads-Houses-of-the-Oireachtas-_Powers-of-Inquiry_-Bill-20116.pdf

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #115
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sensibleken wrote: »
    I dunno. I dont see how they can say 'you have no right to know the case against you' when it also states be within 'due regard to the principles of fair procedures'.

    Because the 'due regard' is only part of 'striking a balance'. It's not 'due regard', full stop. They have to take into account that you should be entitled to know the case against you, but can set that aside.

    Again, this isn't really arguable. One of the specific aims of the amendment is to speed up the process of inquiry by doing away with the right to representation in such inquiries - and the right to representation is one of the established principles of fair procedure.

    It should be obvious that if a main aim of the amendment is to set aside one of the principles of fair procedure, and the amendment will achieve that, the apparent protection of such principles in the amendment is, in fact, meaningless. If, on the other hand, the amendment does not achieve that effect, then there's no point to it at all.
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Another question is are these rights imutable in the normal sense. Ie are there existing situations where these principles can be waved in order to serve the function of a non judicial inquiry

    Not that I'm aware of, although I'm open to greater awareness...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #116
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    The Dail elects members of committees, usually in proportion to party size. Some committees are chaired by opposition TDs. Independents like Joe Higgins and Shane Ross are on these committees and the government cannot prevent that.
    The likes of Ross etc. only get onto minor committees; there is no way he will get onto one of these proposed govt. inquiries unless it suits them.
    If we were introducing legislation like they have in Germany, where the opposition (a minority) can initiate an inquiry, that would be different.

    For a while I thought it might be possible for opposition/independents in the Seanad to scrape together a Seanad majority and hold a Seanad Inquiry. This could have been independent of the govt. majority in the Dail.

    But if you check the proposed legislation in Scofflaw's link;
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This is the proposed Bill: http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Draft-Heads-Houses-of-the-Oireachtas-_Powers-of-Inquiry_-Bill-20116.pdf

    You find that the Seanad committee has to get permission from an "Oversight Committee" which itself is composed of both Seanad and Dail committees. The proposed legislation does not make it clear how the numbers will stack up, but I will assume the govt. intend to be able to veto any inquiry originating in the Seanad which is not to their liking, via their Dail majority.
    The committees appointed under subsection (1) shall, as soon as may be after they are appointed, be joined together to form a joint committee, which shall be known as the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions.......
    ...if the Oversight Committee does not consider that the relevant matter is of general public importance or, if it does so consider the matter to be of such importance, is not satisfied that an inquiry should be conducted into the matter, refuse to consent to the inquiry and give the committee notice in writing of the refusal and specify in the notice the reasons for the refusal.

    Where would we be without govt. "oversight"? George Orwell & Big Brother, here we come....


  • #117
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    This is the proposed Bill: http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Draft-Heads-Houses-of-the-Oireachtas-_Powers-of-Inquiry_-Bill-20116.pdf

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Ok I just finished reading through it.

    FAir proceedures seem to be better catered for in the bill than is expressed in the amendment
    head 11 (4)(h)
    the considerations to be taken into account in determining the
    appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public
    interest in ensuring an effective inquiry, including the public interest in
    concluding the inquiry within a reasonable time frame, in the
    efficiency and cost effectiveness of the inquiry, and in ensuring
    fairness of procedures for persons against whom allegations of
    wrongdoing are made    .

    Also if someone objects to the private draft report circulated they can refer to the courts for amendment.
    32.___ (1)(b) apply to the Court for an order directing that the draft report be amended before the submission of the draft report to the appropriate
    person as a relevant report

    also Head 36 - provides that a person who gives evidence to a committee is entitled to the same privileges, immunities and responsibilities as a witness before the Courts

    It also outlines that salaries and costs have to be laid out by the oversight commitee (the body who essentailly makes sure the commitee is behaving itself)


  • #118
    limklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    vellocet wrote: »

    I don't really see a problem with the Oireachteas having the power to call, say for example, the solicitors organisation up to explain why they are charging a grand to do conveyancing, or dentists to explain why work is a third of the price in Newry or the NUJ to explain why their members are lying cockroaches. I think it a bit farfetched that they will target individual citizens.
    I do not have a problem with that too if they motive is to gain an understanding of a situation to better the Law by legislation. Except what Rights the Politicians say you can have and the manner you are allow by the other side in which you can defend your self.

    It like Kerry Playing Kilkenny in a Hurling Final and the Kerry has the rights to determine what Rules and what Rights Kilkenny has to play by.
    For Example, Kerry can decide that All Kilkenny Hurlers must have their hands and leg tied, blind folded, and unable to touch a Kerry Player for the whole match.
    I wonder who win that match.

    It must be a fair level playing field and the same rights and rules must be applied to everyone otherwise the Oireachtas inquires are a sham populous ego driven show spectacle and can be used by unscrupulous Politicians to scapegoat everybody else for their own blunders and Political interference. Just listen to the Dail so called debates.

    It like most things in life. Allowed unscrupulous Politicians a slight crack to get away with things and they wedge through them in droves. Unscrupulous Politicians are always looking at the next election therefore therefore every opportunity is a vote getting opportunity therefore populous decision are in the back of their minds. Inquires like what the Amendment they want will be abused by unscrupulous Politicians.


  • #119
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    limklad wrote: »
    I do not have a problem with that too if they motive is to gain an understanding of a situation to better the Law by legislation. Except what Rights the Politicians say you can have and the manner you are allow by the other side in which you can defend your self.

    It like Kerry Playing Kilkenny in a Hurling Final and the Kerry has the rights to determine what Rules and what Rights Kilkenny has to play by.
    For Example, Kerry can decide that All Kilkenny Hurlers must have their hands and leg tied, blind folded, and unable to touch a Kerry Player for the whole match.
    I wonder who win that match. It must be a fair level playing field and the same rights and rules must be applied to everyone otherwise the Oireachtas inquires are a sham populous ego driven show spectacle and can be used by Politicians to scapegoat everybody else for their own blunders and Political interference. Just listen to the Dail so called debates.

    I dont see how that is the case. the rights of the individual must still ensure fairness of proceedures against those accused. the right of appeal before findings are mede public would also scupper the idea of 'show trials'


  • #120
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭carveone


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    I note how Bertie has called for an investigation into the media, in todays news. Can you imagine the likes of him with this tool at his disposal?

    I would tend to vote assuming that the current government was led by Charlie Haughey.

    I agree with Scofflaw (9:45 today) in that I'm not against the proposal in principle. Just in practice.
    Boulvardier wrote:
    I also think that supporters of the referendums are being complacent. Most of the discussion is being done by opponents. That is why as a supporter of the Abbeylara referendum I think it may be defeated next week.

    Only on boards.ie. I think it may pass unless the presidential candidates and the media start discussing it pronto.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    limklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭limklad


    sensibleken wrote: »
    I dont see how that is the case. the rights of the individual must still ensure fairness of proceedures against those accused. the right of appeal before findings are mede public would also scupper the idea of 'show trials'
    What is Fair in Politics? It is not a perfect Political World we have. They make blundering Mistakes.
    There is no rights of Appeal before Inquires. Right of Appeal are after an event.
    It is not the Politicians job to Pass judgements or to declare who morally right or Wrong. We do not elect them to do that Job.
    We elect them to run the country and to pass legislation.
    We Pay Judges and have jury trails to Pass judgements. We have Several Ombudsman's to pass judgements we have plenty of Appeal process in various sectors.
    The Dail has the power to setup Independent Ombudsman's and Enquires.

    I have no problem with them using the Inquires they currently have to gain an understanding if they want to legislate for a particular problem and to allow them to bring a person before them to gain that understanding. They should have any other Power as that power can be abused.

    I have rarely know Political committee or any Dail meeting that is shown on TV or news to be very civil. Listen to Dail debates, They are always ego bruising encounters to bring down the other side. What Rights do they give each other? This is the kind of Envoirnment you expect persons drawn before them what will be "Show Trials" for Populous Vote getting exercise. They have the Power currently to bring Bertie before them for Conduct. Yet they never did have their inquiry before the Tribunal got their hands on him. They rather bruise him in the Dail for TV consumption is their prefer option.
    Nothing is Fair in Politics as everything is up for grabs even the "rights of a person" if they are allowed to have that power.
    If Political are concerned to have the "Rights of a person in Mind". why haven't they ratify the latest batch of Rights of a person they sign up to in International Treaties? For example The "Rights of Children" is ongoing for 6 years once the issue with the Irish Constitution was brought up which the government sign up to with the UN in 1992.
    During the Lisbon Treaty the Excuse from one particular Government minister that people would reject it because they may mixed up the two referendums.


Advertisement