Shane Fallon – Stuck Inside This Rhythm
Move over, Ron Burgundy – there’s a new Anchorman in town.
The singer with Dublin band The Shoos, Shane has a lot of fun with oversized wigs and multicoloured bow ties in the video to this feelgood ditty that has added sax appeal.
Camoberg productions deserve all the prizes for putting a smile on our faces at Summer’s end.
Nick says: Rhythm king.
From top: John Connors winning an IFTA last year; Calls to action against Mr Connors and Terry McMahon from ‘Collective Action’
When I was publicly labeled a “cowardly traitor” by Gemma O’Doherty I received late-night messages from private numbers.
I didn’t blame Gemma O’Doherty for those calls. My number is easy to get and they weren’t so different to any other sad-sack trolls on social media who get to be the hero in their own fantasy.
You could hear subtle breathing but nothing else. It was as if the callers were thinking. Planning. Perhaps fantasizing. One time you could hear somebody urinating. Long and slow. Knowing I was listening.
After that, things escalated. The callers finally found their voices. It was just ridicule, initially. Juvenile insults about my crap writing. My shit films. My horrible voice. But that progressed to declaring I was the enemy. A fraud. A dead wanker walking.
I said nothing to my family. My missus is pregnant and there are enough lunatics to be dealing with in our family already. She doesn’t need to be burdened with any more of my ‘political bollox’ as she aptly describes it.
In truth, the whole thing was kind of embarrassing. I’d backed the wrong horse and understood this was part of the fall-out. So I just deleted the messages and got on with the day-to-day reality of preparing for a beautiful baby.
But I was with a close friend one night when one of the messages was left. We were in his gaff reminiscing over a good single malt when one of the anonymous patriots let rip. My mate was shocked. He was adamant I should call the cops.
But a good single malt with an old friend is too rare to be interrupted by the ravings of some broken soul. It made sense to just pour two more measures. Besides, there was too much pain in their wailing messages.
Like the high-pitch hurt of an ex-lover at 4 in-the-morning who swears to themselves they will never call again. Except one last time. This final time. To say what can only be screamed.
O’Doherty can’t be held responsible for the 4am rage that they feel the need to express from the confused confines of their dank and sweaty bedrooms. There was never any real danger.
It’s the ones who smile directly to your face in daylight that are often the real threat. Or it’s the censorious cowards who insist they have right on their side as they attack with impunity anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their world view.
You know the ones. The new Puritans.
This anonymous group of brave-as-hell soldiers recently declared their intention to name and shame and takedown Ireland’s Right Wing “Fascists.” A noble call if ever there was.
Only problem is, they don’t seem to know what a fascist is. But, courageous as these heroes are, they’re not going to allow silly little facts get in the way of their feels.
The fact that John Connors has done more for disenfranchised people of all socio-economic classes and races than these keyboard warriors combined is irrelevant.
The fact that John Connors has single-handedly rewritten the social contract when it comes to society’s expectations of Travellers is irrelevant.
The fact that John Connors has created more works of film, television and theatre for no money than many of the state-funded companies combined is irrelevant.
The fact that John Connors has won multiple IFTAs and gave an acceptance speech that inspired millions of people is irrelevant.
The fact that John Connors is a young man in his twenties who refuses to be limited by any political doctrine or engage in censoring any opposition is irrelevant.
John Connors did commit one fatal error. The dumb bastard stood by his principles. And, frankly, he wasn’t the most articulate about it. He hurt some folks’ feelings.
Caught up in the national maelstrom of a profoundly divisive referendum John Connors refused to subscribe to the frenzy of Repeal. And, by Christ, for that, he must be punished. No matter how long it takes.
John Connors is a fascist. That’s a fact. He is a fascist because a small band of nameless-faceless self-appointed keyboard warriors feel he is a fascist.
They feel he must be stopped. By any means necessary. And the other sad fact is, some people who should know better have refused to defend him against what could easily become a career annihilating accusation.
Some people who should know how dangerous the weaponising of censorship is have remained silent because John Connors is a mouthy chap who should have learned acquiescent silence as all the other artists did.
John Connors is a man who might have had a different moral position to some people on a life and death issue. He may have articulated it badly. Trying to do the right thing, we’ve all messed up.
The self-appointed moral guardians of a so-called ‘Antifa’ group publicly naming and shaming John Connors as a fascist is one thing but the fact that many people would rather watch a good man hang because of a difference in opinion than stand up for a larger principle is the real reveal here.
When will it be your turn to be publicly named-and-shamed for refusing to subscribe to the teachings of the New Puritans?
The moronic stench of the screaming poseurs is to be expected but the increasingly common silence of decent people gives too much breath to the frightening idea that, in our new political landscape, when it comes to to the cancer of censorship, feeling truly is the new fact.
Update: ‘Collective Action’s response to this post was to call for a personal boycott and publicly label me a:
“Neo-nazi, racist, homophobic, transphobic, right-wing, hatred-inciting wanker.”
I mean I can take most of those insults but, come on, labeling me a wanker really is a step too far.
Terry McMahon is a filmmaker and can be found on Twitter @terrymcmahon69
Previously: Terry McMahon on Broadsheet
POTTY mouth!
This afternoon.
In the House of Commons.
British PM Boris Johnson returned for Prime Minister’s Questions after 21 Tory MPs last night voted through a motion which paves the way for legislation to block a no-deal Brexit.
The questions kicked off at 12 noon.
In the last few minutes, Mr Johnson, speaking of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, said:
“He [Jeremy Corbyn] makes a contrast of this Government and his own proposals. The contrast could not be clearer. We think the friends of this country are to be found in Paris and in Berlin and in the White House and he thinks they’re in the Kremlin and in Tehran and in Caracas. And I think he’s Caracas, Mr Speaker.
“….we are growing the economy, he, by contrast, would put a £300billion tax on every company in the country, he wants a tax on homes and he’s calling incessantly for a general strike.
“The Shadow Education Secretary says that their economic policy is, and I quote Mr Speaker, by your leave, shit or bust. I say, I say it’s both.”
Watch live in link above
PMQs: Boris Johnson faces Jeremy Corbyn after Brexit vote defeat – live news (The Guardian)
An interesting video essay on the Quent’s deft use of music in the soundtracks of his films by Daniel Netzel of Film Radar.
Irish writer Francis Sheehy-Skeffington who was killed during the 1916 Rising
Twitter account The Irish For posted a poll asking its followers to vote for whom they reckon is Ireland’s favourite historical hunk.
The followers were given the options of Charles Stewart Parnell, Roger Casement, Michael Collins and Wolfe Tone.
And the results…
Anyone?
Gulp.
Catherine Ryan, on the Electric Picnic Banter 2020 page, writez:
*Not my photo* One of the entrances to the Arena Friday at EP. Where is the crowd control? Trying to pick out security in it is like playing Where’s Wally. Main stage Friday was dangerous, I will say they did open up the barriers Saturday to create more exits.
Then there was Body and Soul Sunday night. We were right down in front off stage and to see the crowds on the slopes it was scary. Not one security person to be seen, eventually they had to close the gates, only after it was over-crowded.
What will it be like next year when they up capacity again?
Anyone?
1/2 This is deeply disappointing content particularly given the impact of rising rents on family homelessness & the financial hardship imposed on working people as a result of excessive housing costs. https://t.co/0zH150c5ku
— Eoin Ó Broin (@EOBroin) September 4, 2019
2/2 It is also a variance with the @IrishTimes editorial view & implicates that newspaper in the broken housing system that they loudly decry. https://t.co/0zNZ5nSJl8
— Eoin Ó Broin (@EOBroin) September 4, 2019
Good times.
Property Clinic: How can I bring a low-rent property up to market rates? (Irish Times)
The Irish Times view on the housing crisis: how to fix a broken system (irish Times editorial)
Related: The Irish Times Property Porn Hub
From top: Minister for Culture, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs Josepha Madigan flanked by Edinburgh Festival award winners Pat Kinevane (left) and Gina Moxley last week; Eamonn Kelly
When the Republic of Ireland football team arrived back in Dublin airport in the summer of 1990 to be greeted by up to a million delirious fans for their world cup exploits there was a moment when a podium and microphone were up for grabs.
The contenders for the prize of addressing the crowd and basking in the glory were Jack Charlton and Charles Haughey.
Charlton placed a shoulder in front of Haughey and easily left him for dead, as he had done to opponents throughout his footballing career. Charlton took the plaudits.
Contrast this with Josepha Madigan beaming comfortably between Pat Kinevane and Gina Moxley, basking in the glory of Moxley and Kinevane’s deserved separate Edinburgh Fringe wins.
That’s politics.
Even the investment of €680,200 from Culture Ireland for the promotion of Irish arts globally, conveniently touted by the minster at the celebration, a fund to aid artist travel, could easily be regarded by a stretching cynic with a darkly humorous streak, as a fund privately designed to encourage the mass emigration of wacky creatives.
Political hierarchy is perhaps best defined by who stands closest to the public money, with circles of influence extending from the elected few, literally, out into the wider community, where queues of friendly association are formed in a bid to win best position for a piece of the pie.
But what if the elected official you have been grooming for a few years turns up implicated in a possible scam elsewhere? What do you do?
Do you throw out all that networking, all the angles and “chance” meetings, engineered to exchange smiles and first names as you jostle for position? Do you just throw all that away? No. You wait. You sit quiet and you watch and you wait.
Because these are hard times for the arts. In Dublin the arts are being systematically squeezed out of existence, a problem outlined in last Saturday’s Irish Times.
In the The National Campaign for the Arts (NCFA) pre-budget submission, published on July 16, at the height of the so-called swing-gate affair, the arts body went out of its way to congratulate Josepha Madigan on the tweak to welfare law that allows artists to spend the first year of unemployment trying to make their art economically viable.
After that, artists go onto employment activation, which only kicks in after a year anyway for everyone. Still, there is a concession there, that for a year artists may pursue their art rather than pursuing “real jobs”.
But there is no acknowledgment of the miserly-funded arts scene that artists are supposed to knock a living from; nor the fact that commerce has created a cultural wasteland devoid of venues and opportunity; nor the fact that it is widely recognized that art is not a business anyway and depends on subsidy.
Nor the fact that artists are being given a year to make their art a business or go get a “real” job, which amounts basically to a job in the service or hospitality sectors.
Instead the NCFA congratulates the minister on this “initiative”; one which is unlikely to ever really affect the well ensconced middle-class personages that make up the NCFA.
These are the administrator and managerial class of the arts, many who have created funded lifestyles from the activities of grassroots arts practitioners. It makes little difference to them if the infantry of their sector are herded into service jobs after the year’s grace to laughably attempt to make a business from art in this skewed, under-funded environment.
That’s all down there. Up top, the cream of the sector mix with the political and business classes and they are all essentially the same people from similar middle-class backgrounds.
In this kind of culture, criticism of these realties is written off as individual “bitterness”, as remarked upon recently by the playwright Lisa Tierney-Keogh, who got a break with the Abbey in the aftermath of the protests against the skewed representation of women playwrights on the Abbey stage. Note that the break only came after the ‘Me-Too’ outcry. An outcry by a movement, not by an individual.
But the reverse of this idea of criticism being bitterness, is that non-criticism can then become seen as co-operative, even in a situation that is endlessly producing socially unjust outcomes. Non-criticism becomes smiling acceptance and, on the face of it, everything appears to be just fine.
Ireland has a track record in political silence. In Peter Lennon’s excellent social documentary, “The Rocky Road to Dublin”, recently restored by Sé Merry Doyle and the Irish Film Board, the writer Sean O’Faolain comments on this attribute of Irish culture when he describes the Ireland that emerged from revolution as a society…
“…which was without moral courage, constantly observing a self-interested silence, never speaking in moments of crisis… a society in which there are blatant inequalities…”
When you hear that from 1967 and compare it to today’s cultural landscape it makes you wonder have we changed as much as we often like to believe we have.
An idea that is further reinforced when you learn that this Cannes award-winning film and it’s critique of Irish culture has never been shown on Irish television.
On the other hand, there often seems to be thoughtlessness at work in much of Irish social injustice. Thoughtlessness more than malice. Ignorance more than design.
This came to mind when watching Margaretta D’Arcy and Finn Arden’s documentary about wheelchair access, “Welcome to our World”, made to highlight the difficulties the playwright John Arden was facing in later life when confined to a wheelchair; problems which are faced everyday by wheelchair users.
And the defining element of the problems they encounter is largely due to thoughtlessness or a “sure it’ll do” attitude.
But, and here’s the thing, it is assumed that you are “happy enough” if you just endure those thoughtless difficulties in silence. But if you criticise, it is not assumed that your criticisms are valid, but rather that you are, personally, “difficult”.
The result is that the thoughtlessness that is parent to so many Irish social injustices is never unmasked and nothing ever changes. Because to complain is to be “bitter”. And only a few stronger individuals ever complain.
Few enough to be easily isolated and labelled “difficult” or “a bit of a character”. In this way the silence is preserved along with the political inequities such silence encourages and cultivates.
Eamonn Kelly is a freelance Writer and Playwright.
Previously: Eamonn Kelly on Broadsheet
From top: The PSC card; Minister for Employment and Social Protect Regina Doherty
This morning.
Minister for Employment and Social Protect Regina Doherty spoke to Bryan Dobson on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland.
It followed the release of her joint statement with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Paschal Donohoe last night – stating that it would be “inappropriate, and potentially unlawful, to withdraw or modify the use of the Public Services Card or the data processes that underpin it”.
This is despite the Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon’s findings on the card following a two-year investigation.
Contrary to the DPC’s report, the Government also said “the processing of personal data related to the PSC does in fact have a strong legal basis, the retention of data is lawful and that the information provided to users does satisfy the requirements of transparency”.
They said they came to this conclusion on foot of advice from the Attorney General’s Office.
Ms Doherty also said the PSC “has not seen any mission creep”.
In this morning’s interview, asked how much a legal challenge to Ms Dixon’s report would cost the State, Ms Doherty said “it would be in the Circuit Court so it probably wouldn’t be very expensive”.
At the outset of the interview, Mr Dobson asked Ms Doherty for her reaction to the DPC report.
Regina Doherty: “So Bryan, first of all, at the outset, I’d like to say that we, in the department and Government, have the highest respect for the office of the Data Protection Commission and the important work that they do.
“But, however, as a minister, I have to take my own responsibilities for Government policy with equal measure of respect and we have taken an awfully long time in the last two and a half weeks to really carefully and methodically consider and reflect on the final report from the commission and we’ve taken both our own legal advice from the Attorney General’s office and external counsel advice.
“And unfortunately, we don’t accept the findings in the report and will challenge them.
“And, to that affect, we wrote to the commission yesterday, seeking at the earliest opportunity, an opportunity to meet with the commission to discuss the findings and to outline exactly what it is that we find is the legal basis and it’s a very strong legal basis, as far back as 1998 when the conception of the idea of cross Government services, across any Government platform was conceived by that Government. But successive Governments since then have changed the legislation to allow and to anticipate the sharing of the data.
“So that Irish citizens can do their business and identify themselves just once and then be able to access services in an efficient manner.”
Bryan Dobson: “But just on a couple of specifics here. Her requirement that you stop processing data in those areas where she [Helen Dixon] says there’s no legal basis for the card, are you going to do that or are you going to continue processing data?”
Doherty: “What we’re going to do is to continue acting on the basis of the legislation as it would have passed in 2005….”
Dobson: “In defiance of her finding?”
Doherty: “In our basis, gives a very clear and legal underpinning of what it is that we’re doing and so at the very early…”
Dobson: “She says you don’t have that legal basis, it’s not there.”
Doherty: “Well, to be respectful, where we have a difference here is in the interpretation of the Social Welfare and Consolidation Act of 2005. My legal advice is incredibly strong, that we have a clear and unambiguous legal basis to do exactly what we intended to do from 2005 and what successive governments have done since and…”
Dobson: “Minister, she spent two years investigating this and her conclusion is that you don’t have the legal basis. She’s the person who’s charged. It’s her responsibility to protect the public interest, to protect all of our privacy and our data. And she says you don’t have the legal right to do this.”
Doherty: “And again, not to labour the point, Bryan, we believe that we do have the legal rights and the legislation to underpin exactly what we’ve anticipated from 2005 and the legislation and that’s why we’d like to sit down with the commission and discuss her concerns and to see if there’s any way we can overcome her concerns that she has with regard to the findings that she’s issued.”
Dobson: “Will you publish your legal advice so we can see what it is?”
Doherty: “I certainly won’t publish the legal advice but what I absolutely intend to publish is the commission’s report and our response to it. But, again, what I would rather do, rather than prejudice a meeting that I would really like to have with the commission, I would wait until the commissioner responds to me at some stage today or tomorrow before publishing. But I have absolutely intentions to publish the report and our response to it.”
Dobson: “Is it likely this will end up in court? Are you prepared to take it to court?”
Doherty: “Depending on where we go from here. At the moment, I don’t have a legal basis to take it because the report wasn’t issued under the legislation, the Data Protection Act…”
Dobson: “But if she takes enforcement proceedings – you’ll fight that? Will you?”
Doherty: “In my letter yesterday, I have given notice that, yes, we would intend to challenge within the courts, yeah.”
Dobson: “So you’re prepared to use public money to confront somebody who’s responsible for defending the public interest?”
Doherty: “I think the way the Oireachtas established the Data Protection Commission was exactly allowing for differences of views and differences of opinion and this certainly is not the first time that a regulator has been challenged by a Government body and I’m probably quite sure it won’t be the last.
“But what I absolutely have a responsibility to do is to make sure that I deliver public services to the people that we serve, that I serve, in the most efficient manner…”
Later
Doherty: “…we really believe that we have a very, very strong legal basis to do exactly what we have done and it would actually be illegal for us to change…”
Dobson: “And you’ll defend that all the way? In terms of legal action, you’d go all the way in defending that?”
Doherty: “I think that’s my role and responsibility…”
Dobson: “What would that cost Minister in legal fees?”
Doherty: “I don’t know but again it would be in the Circuit Court so it probably wouldn’t be very expensive. But what would be absolutely enormously expensive, Bryan, is that if we decided to act illegally and change Government policy and services delivery without having a serious conversation around the difference of opinion of the interoperation of the law.”
Listen back in full here
Yesterday: Put It On The Card
UPDATE:
Elizabeth Farries, Information Rights Programme Manager for the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, also spoke with Mr Dobson this morning.
During her interview, they had this exchange:
Bryan Dobson: “I’m wondering what’s your problem here? Do you have an objection in principle to this kind of card which can be applied across a whole range of Government services, it seems, on the face of it, something that might be very, might be welcomed, improve efficiency and productivity, in the provision of public services. Do you have an objection in principle or is it the way it’s being done?”
Elizabeth Farries: “ICCL and other experts have been opposed to the card from the start. We are opposed to it in principle and we’re opposed to it for good reasons. It’s illegal, the Data Protection Commissioner has said that and we’ve been saying that for years.
“It doesn’t respect privacy rights which are fundamental rights which we should all take extra care of in our technological age.
“And it targets the poor.
“And so crucially now the DPC is saying these same things. There are significant data security risks attached to the card and we have a group of privacy experts from all over the world right now with the international network of civil liberties organisations and they’re dealing with very similar problems in their countries.
“And they’ve seen devastating consequences of cards like this. In India, we have someone from the Human Rights Law Network talking about the Aadhaar card and the massive breach that happened there – they’re exposing important information of a billion people. You’ve got…”
Dobson: “I’m just wondering if the legal safeguards, if the legal foundation was put in place, if the safeguards were put in place, if the transparency, which the data commissioner says isn’t there, if that was put in place. If those safeguards were put in place and people had assurances that their data would be treated properly and be protected, should the card have a future?”
Farries: “There are no legal safeguards, as it stands, to protect from the security risks attached to the card in its current form. It’s absolutely unnecessary to collect very sensitive data, including biometric data used through facial recognition.”
Dobson: “That wasn’t a finding of the data commissioner, I think.”
Farries: “This is certainly our position.”
Dobson: “Yes.”
Farries: “It has been a finding of the data commissioner that it’s unnecessary to collect the huge amount of information without adequately …”
Dobson: “But, biometric data, she didn’t rule on that question.”
Farries: “We understand that she’s going to follow up on that question. Because it’s such an individually important question that it requires and investigation of its own.”
Dobson: “Very good.”
Listen back in full here
