Irish Independent Investigation Reveals!

Einhard wrote: »

And who judges whether they are in conflict if they don't have to publish such information. I have to say I'm surprised Biggins. I had imagined that you would be calling for full transparency when it comes to public representatives and their interests outside politics.

O' I do.
...But does the press have to know about every bit of land that a family might have been left to them?
For example - and this is ONLY an example - what if Enda or someone got that land by marriage?
Will a paper with its on ageanda mention this or just state "He owns it!"
Now on first impressions some might read the paper and think "O' he might be loaded and getting money from somewhere we don't know about!"
Such thinking could adversely effect a good person, into one of poor (and possibly wrong) light.

There is already a department that lists records of such things where TD's shave already informed/listed their business interests, etc.
(Now if the persons involved have been totally honest - thats another thing! THAT should be exposed if they lied or its clear they withheld such data!)
See here for example for some basic stuff that can be found out by the public alone: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=CNq4xtwH&key=0ArtXDGF50fODdFpKMXk1VHE0VFVlcmhYUFlfQmpsX2c&hl=en&authkey=CNq4xtwH#gid=0

The idea of the legislation is to promote transparency amongst our public representatives, a concept which was sorely lacking until recently, and which, from the article, seems to be somewhat lacking even today.

And yet people seem ok with it simply because they want to have a go at the Irish Independent. Strikes me as odd.

Personally speaking, the piece could be badly written and can be construed wrong in its aim.

This isn't Mexico Biggins. We don't exactly have abduction gangs roaming the streets, and if we did, it's fairly easy to identify who has money and who doesn't. Further, abducting sitting members of parliament would be a very bad idea for any criminal gang.

Your right - and thankfully so.
Lord knows, I would hated to have to kidnapp Jackie Healy Rea.
Feeding him which being captured would be a nightmare in itself!

Zebra3 wrote: »

Biggins,

Regardless of how Kenny or any other TD came about any assets, they should be declared so the public (and journos) can see that the country is being run in a transparent manner.

If Kenny or anyone other politican doesn't like it, they can leave politics and due to their huge talents, no doubt get an equally well paid job in the private sector.*

We've already seen Kenny break the rules to ensure his mate got a well piad handy number that we have to foot the bill for. :mad::mad::mad:

* :rolleyes:

Again, I agree.
Kenny alone has done many things questionable.
Don't get me wrong. I DO believe in FULL and honest transparency.
I do feel myself that not EVERYthing should be made for public consumption.
If there is an independent body which knows about such things and/or is able to further investigate such things if they have their own suspicions, I do (personally) feel that the right of an individual to a modicum of privacy should not dismissed either.
I'm not arguing against transparency, I'm just also playing devils advocate and also mentioning the rights of the individual to some privacy too - lest certain part so the media might jump on such things and additionally spin them wrongly for example to pursue their own agenda.
...And I'm not just talking about this Indo article when I say the last bit.

Short version: a delicate balance might have to be struck?

If their interests aren't declared to the public, then how can it be known how they got their property- whether it was legitimate (as I've no doubt is the case with Kenny), or the procedds of graft (as, say, with Haughey and his ilk).

Well there are ways already to find out what the interests are of a TD, they, the public might be interested in.
TD's already do have to state what their business interests are in - they just don't do the equivalent of sticking an advert in a paper.

If politicians have nothing to hide then they have nothing to hide and should publish their interests...

No argument there.

If anything, the Indo has done some service today by highlighting this anomoly. And yet it's criticised and condemned. I know that it's fashionable in these parts to have a go at that paper, but this strikes me as absurd.

You could be right but others here are also judging the article based on the prior reputation of the Indo' - and it ain't good with a lot of people.
The Indo's prior stuff and attitude/assumed agenda direction might be just coming back to haunt them?
They partly reaping previously what they sowed?

By the way, here is another recent Indo piece where in this article they do possibly raise the question "where is our money going to?"

See: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/senators-in-storm-over-23000-leader-perk-2988053.html

..But then at the end of the article they eventually finish up with FF getting the last dig in?
I DON'T question FF and their right to ask these questions - just by coincidence, once again the Indo is just siding with anything possibly currently anti-FG or others but FF ?