32 thoughts on “De Monday Papers

    1. eoin

      The boy Harris has a lot to learn about the law, on one hand, he’s happy to appeal the High Court decision (specifically the requirement for state medical staff to have absolute confidence in their diagnoses) but, on the other hand, he doesn’t want to interfere with the €2m compo award. Poor lad, does he not realise that the two are intrinsically linked.
      It’s like he wants to keep his halo while dragging the terminally ill woman through the appeal courts.

      Reply
      1. Listrade

        The issue here is the SCA, rather than politicians. I feel dirty already defending FG, but the SCA philosophy of No Surrender in every claim has been in place since its inception. It’s a philosophy shared by most of the semi-state self-insured bodies too.

        If you claim, expect to have a long drawn out process that could end up in the Supreme Court on a seemingly minor point of law. Their view is that it will (and in fairness has to some extent) deter FG TDs from making false or exaggerated claims.

        Some appeals have a legal merit, avoiding precedent or unconstitutional aspects, some appear merely malicious attempts to force people to drop cases as the costs escalate. But, it isn’t individual ministers directing appeals, it is controlled via the SCA and like with a lot of insurance companies, individual policy holders have little influence over defending or settling a claim.

        Reply
        1. Cian

          There was an article here recently saying that the SCA has a potential liability of over €2 billion. Should SCA not try to minimise this?

          The country is full of chancers looking for a quick buck (see Maria Bailey) which would suggest that all claims against the state aren’t 100% valid and SCA should defend them? Remember the Army Deafness cases… and there was the slopping-out in prison cases.

          Reply
          1. martco

            hmmm. careful there. inference being that there’s some element of “chancer” to Ruth Morrissey. like when the writing is on the wall, so so stark & obvious in her case why challenge? must everything be done autopilot?? it’s bs & a crazy nonsense & I think for the state to shrug their shoulders & permit this to occur in any shape or form is unacceptable.

          2. Al Bin Man

            He’s spot on

            We should not be handing out money like confetti

            Unless of course it’s a great job being done by a government apparatchik or family friend

          3. GiggidyGoo

            Typical Noonanesque response from the FG Apologist. You’re inferring that Ruth Morrissey is a ‘Chancer’ then? Good boy Cian. You’re a disgrace.

          4. Cian

            I’d like to clarify that I did not mean to imply that Ruth Morrissey is a chancer. I was responding to Listrade’s point on the SCA in general terms.

          5. GiggidyGoo

            The typical apologist reply. You made the comment on this article and the implication was clear.

          6. Cian

            @GiggidyGoo
            I am willing to be unpopular and say the things that others don’t/won’t. And I stand over what I say (unless someone convinces me otherwise – I am open to changing my mind, and will acknowledge if I am wrong). I don’t “imply” things – I’ll happy to say them straight.

            Once again, for the avoidance of any doubt: I do not think, nor meant to imply above, that Ruth Morrissey is a chancer.

          7. martco

            @Cian now I’m not entirely clear either reading that

            given your views on the SCA as above…in the context of Ruth Morrisey’s specific case would you support an SCA appeal against her award? It’s a really straight question.

          8. Cian

            @martco
            Firstly, the SCA aren’t appealing against her award. The US Lab is paying the €2.1 million not the SCA. The SCA are appealing against the judge’s decision because it may have massive repercussion on all future medical negligence cases.

            I’m not a lawyer or a medic, but there seems to be a lot of disquiet about the judge’s requirement for “absolute confidence” in a diagnoses. The suggestion is that this could lead to a situation where screening becomes non-viable, where doctors won’t be willing to make a diagnosis – but will send you for further tests.

            If this is correct, then the state is correct to appeal the decision and seek clarification on this point.

            Saying this, if the judge decided Ruth Morrisey’s damages based on this “absolute confidence” then if the SCA appeal is successful then the lab could appeal too, and her amount could be reduced.

            Straight answer, if the judge was wrong then an appeal is warranted. If this reduces the damage awarded to her, then she wasn’t entitled to them in the first place.

            It would be terrible for the poor woman – to have to bear the brunt of another state cock-up. In this scenario I would hope that the state could work something out – to ensure that she never has to go to court ever again. That the SCA appeal will not affect her, and to guarantee that if the lab does appeals that the state will deal with the lab and cover any short-fall if her original award were reduced.

    2. Vanessa the Holy Face of Frilly Keane

      Add Joanne Hayes and Majella Moynihan to Noonan’s list of barbaric misogynist credits
      ( And that carries an so far

      BTW
      Noonan’s Wiki page doesn’t carry any filling on his years of Minister for Justice under the Political Years puffoonery – it gets treated under Cabinet Minister 1982-1987
      With a good bit about the phone tapping (FFs) revelations, and his direction on the wording of the ’83 Abortion Referendum; but not a word of the Lynch Tribunal.

      Reply
    1. SOQ

      First debate for the Tory leadership and Johnson is nowhere to be seen- real leadership skills so.

      “Where is Boris? If his team won’t allow him out to debate with five pretty friendly colleagues, how is he going to fare with 27 EU countries? He should be here.” said Jeremy Hunt.

      Meanwhile The Telegraph says Tory donors open secret talks with Nigel Farage about general election pact to save Brexit. Problem is, 3 years later, nobody is any the wiser as to what Brexit actually means.

      Reply
  1. SOQ

    First debate for the Tory leadership and Johnson is nowhere to be seen- real leadership skills so.

    “Where is Boris? If his team won’t allow him out to debate with five pretty friendly colleagues, how is he going to fare with 27 EU countries? He should be here.” said Jeremy Hunt.

    Meanwhile The Telegraph says Tory donors open secret talks with Nigel Farage about general election pact to save Brexit. Problem is, 3 years later, nobody is any the wiser as to what Brexit actually means.

    Reply
    1. eoin

      It didn’t do Michael Higgins any harm when he didn’t turn up at presidential debates last year. As the only serious contender and being way out in front, it’s the wise move by Boris to avoid a debate where he has nothing to gain (because of his huge lead) and everything to lose (because of his proclivity for faux pas and because his rivals have nothing to lose in attacking him).

      Reply
      1. SOQ

        Possibly but there is quite a difference between a role of a people voted president and an internal Tory election for a prime-minister.

        Interesting prediction from Micheal Porttillo- except who ever wins will still have the HP numbers game and therefore the DUP to navigate or- call a general election.

        FORMER Tory MP Michael Portillo believes Boris Johnson as British prime minister will negotiate a Northern Ireland-only Brexit backstop – and will hold a referendum in the north to secure support for the plan.

        http://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2019/06/15/news/michael-portillo-makes-prediction-over-boris-johnson-s-brexit-backstop-plan-1642500/

        Reply
  2. eoin

    Jebus, that Majella Moynihan case is unbelievable.

    When she was 22, in 1984, she had joined the Gardai and had sex (outside marriage) with another Garda and had a baby. While pregnant, she faced disciplinary procedures under the Gardai’s 1971 disciplinary regulations.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1971/si/316/made/en/print

    Specifically, “Conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the Force.” This was in 1984, when Frankie Goes to Hollywood “Two tribes” was #1 for 10 weeks, this wasn’t the dark days of Catholic Ireland where frocked priests roved the land.

    There’s nothing explicit in the regulations about sex outside marriage, unmarried mothers or sex between Gardai but she was hauled up on all of that, and subjected to very intrusive disciplinary proceedings. The Gardai even got the church involved, and in return for having her child and giving him up for adoption (and not going to England for an abortion), she was allowed keep her job.

    Now, she’s told her story. She gotten an apology, in fact two, from the Garda Commissioner and justice minister. She’s not happy though and says she wants a face to face apology from the Garda Commissioner, and she says she’ll be happy with that. I wonder though. This has the feel of seeking an ex-gratia payment in compensation, but I may be wrong, and in any event, would anyone begrudge him a payout? And have the Gardai really “lost” the papers relating to Majella’s disciplinary proceedings?

    Extraordinary story.

    You’d wonder why Supt David Taylor was allowed retire last November when the Charleton Tribunal concluded he was a liar, liar pants-on-fire in the Sgt McCabe smear campaign. Where were the (still extant) Garda regulations then (six months ago)? Why wasn’t Dave Taylor subjected to the regulations and why was he allowed retire with a full pension? Didn’t he discredit the Gardai and doesn’t the decision to allow him retire on a full pension bring discredit on the Gardai?

    Reply
  3. eoin

    Today is day #19 since the “fortnight long” Maria Bailey compo inquiry was started by FG with a senior barrister investigating what Leo was unable to wheedle out of Maria in a private conversation.

    What’s the conclusion? Is it acceptable in FG for its TDs to pursue dodgy claims? What role had Josepha Madigan in the dodgy compo claim?

    Is the media just allowing this to be swept under the rug?

    Reply
    1. GiggidyGoo

      Doubtful there will be any information released. Actually, how do we know there is an enquiry at all? JoeB has her puss into everything at the moment. That seems to be the treatment to offset any bad press. In your face rehabilitation.
      We will get the ‘it’s a private matter’ line, and Varadkar thinks that’ll suffice.

      Reply
  4. eoin

    Fair play to the Times Ireland (Brian Hutton) for some interesting work on the cost of returning those in direct provision (whose asylum application was turned down) to the appropriate country. Four Gardai who were returning (presumably) an individual to Nigeria, ran up €4,900 each on air fares..

    €4,900.

    Each.

    “In total 860 repatriation flights were booked last year”

    Reply
    1. eoin

      Apols, the story is by Brian Hutton alright but it’s been syndicated in the Times Ireland, Irish Times and possibly other outlets.

      Reply
    2. Cian

      36 of 860 flights were business class.

      “All 36 business class flights relate to situations where GNIB officers are accompanying people being removed from the State on foot of deportation orders,” the spokesman said. “Business class flights are booked where it is considered by An Garda Síochána that it would be a security risk for Irish officers to leave the airport in the destination country and to stay overnight in a hotel.

      “By booking business class flights the officers can stay in the airline’s lounge until a return flight leaves to one of the European hubs. An economy class flight is then booked from the European hub back to Dublin.

      Reply
  5. won't you join too

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-leadership-debate-live-updates-boris-johnson-brexit-channel-4-hunt-raab-stewart-gove-javid-a8961291.html
    The candidates are asked about their weaknesses.
    Javid says he is stubborn and it takes him too long to change his mind – citing the example of taking 10 years to agree to get a family dog.
    It’s time for closing pitches from each of the candidates. Hunt claims for the second time tonight that Labour wants to turn the UK into Venezuela, but he can unlock Britain’s potential.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *