From top: Ireland and Ulster captain Rory Best at a press conference in Paris yesterday; Gormla Hughes

Getting my hair cut last week, I was asked, when I said I loved running in the dark, was I not afraid something might happen to me.

I said no – my age deems me invisible and experience had already taught me that the likelihood of being sexual harassed or assaulted was far higher, by someone I knew. But of course, there are exceptions. I know this too.

When #NotMyCaptain started trending, I read the comments about Rory Best, OBE, captain of the Irish Union International Rugby team, attending the courtroom the day the alleged victim was giving her evidence.

Two thoughts immediately sprung to mind; the first, that his presence that particular day was, without question in my opinion, an orchestrated strategy and second, I remembered Brian Murphy—the young man beaten until he died, a mere thirty seconds later, outside Club Anabel, 30 August 2000, by four former Blackrock College students, a place well known for its tradition of producing excellent rugby players.

At the time, newspapers spoke of these young men in glowing terms, men with bright futures ahead of them. Even the judge, in his sentencing statement said he did not want to cause any reputational damage to them by being too harsh for a night that was obviously just a bit of drunken madness—a statement dangerously close to assertions made about men who physically harm or rape women.

[Language such as ‘bright future’ attached to privileged young men, subliminally excludes women, any person of colour or with a disability—with the class division widened with the use of terms such as ‘animals’ and ‘thugs’.]

In those days, I listened to the radio when I was driving. I remember being so angry and sad, in equal measure. I remember thinking there is no justice in this world, why bother reporting anything, when men and the privileged will be ‘looked after’ every time.

I also know, there is much invested in maintaining their reputation.

I went to a private school. A school closely linked to two well known ‘rugby’ schools. I would often hear the girls talking about what they were going to wear to a match the following weekend — and any girl who had an older sister who was able to pass on information as to where the players would be celebrating or commiserating after the match was given extra attention (eat your heart out Madame Bovary).

The school scarf of a rugby player was a prized possession, one that brought the wearer extra attention and favour. If a girl was lucky enough to be given one by her boyfriend, she was lauded – elevated to a place others strove to reach. It meant she had been chosen.

If the girl went out with him long enough to bring him home to meet her parents, she was elevated higher – rewarded by bringing her shopping for extra clothes, maybe even a sneaky manicure. Her father, boasting at work about who his daughter was dating tended to be received more warmly in the business world.

Social circles increase, favours are done for the parents of – for the players – for the teachers – for the coaches – for their supporters, business introductions, tips on how to avoid paying too much tax – a world where many blind eyes are turned.

Furthermore.

The more caps a player achieves, the more likely it is that he will walk into a management position, irrespective of his qualifications or intellectual prowess.

But, not only that, when they are being ‘tested’ for promotion in most corporations – being married is a BIG plus to put you ahead of your competitors for the position of partner, ceo or cfo – everyone knows this, and works it. Men may have their affairs and flings without impacting the trajectory of their career – if a woman does, its game over.

Even in the rugby and business world – her virtue is demanded – by the very men who entertain themselves at parties, by dabbling in a picnic basket of drugs and hiring sex workers to join them – men who are advocates and beneficiaries of the social division of women’s character between deviant and devout.

It is a cultural industry that most within it benefit from. And like every cultural setting, there are good people, bad people, assholes and perpetrators.

And if something happens?

We believe the law is above all of this. We believe truth will conquer all inside a court room. We fail to remember, every time, that many of the judges hail from this culture.

Except women—(well, most) women know otherwise.

Women have been indoctrinated in the anatomy of kindness – of turning the other cheek – of self-checking, self-blame, of breastfeeding all around her, of understanding that scandal and shame gets you ostracised and if that happens you won’t be able to access a piece of the pie.

And in the meantime…

Men encounter few meaningful consequences for their actions against women in this world, particularly those centred in the world of privilege – so it was the reaction to Rory Best’s conduct that actually took me by surprise.

When counsel for the accused asked the alleged victim what she knew about rugby and its players and their social standing, I knew absolutely nothing had changed.

I also know—#TimesUp

Gormla Hughes is an essayist and you can follow her on Twitter @Paradisefound64

Top pic: AFP

Previously: Shoulder To Shoulder

From left: Supt Noel Cunningham, solicitor at the Chief State Solicitor’s Office Annemarie Ryan, Colm Smyth SC and Michael McDowell SC

Today.

At the Disclosures Tribunal.

Supt Noel Cunningham is scheduled to give evidence.

Although Supt Cunningham is not waiving his client/lawyer legal privilege, it is hoped Supt Cunningham will be able to shed light on how and why several specific events occurred at the O’Higgins Commission of Investigation in 2015.

It’s also hoped Supt Cunningham may be able to help shed light on a matter that, to use a term used several times by various counsel at the tribunal, appears to have left solicitor at the Chief State Solicitor’s Office Annemarie Ryan and Michael McDowell SC, for Sgt Maurice McCabe, “diametrically opposed” to each other.

Specifically, Ms Ryan has given evidence to say that she gave Supt Cunningham’s report of an August 2008 meeting with Sgt Maurice McCabe in Mullingar to both the commission and Sgt McCabe’s counsel – namely Mr McDowell – on the morning of May 18, 2015.

On Friday, Mr McDowell categorically told the tribunal this didn’t happen.

This prompted Mr McDowell to have the following exchange with Judge Peter Charleton.

McDowell: “The report by Superintendent Cunningham dated some day in September 2008 was not handed in on day 4 [May 19, 2015] — or day 3 [May 18, 2015]. It was produced at a later stage.”

Charleton: “Maybe. But the evidence I have at the moment is that it was actually handed in with the letter —

McDowell: “No, it wasn’t.”

Charleton: “Well, somebody is going to have to tell me that, and not just by nodding and gesticulating. If that is going to become important, somebody will have to tell me by evidence.”

McDowell: “I think, Judge, that if you check the transcript, the evidence is the contrary, that it wasn’t handed in that day.”

Charleton: “Well, the evidence is it was handed in that day and that people didn’t get a chance to read it, specifically those whose name was to the letter. But, Mr. McDowell, that can all be corrected. Don’t worry about it. That’s my understanding of it, but I actually think I’m right. I don’t always think I’m right, but I actually think I’m right on this occasion.”

McDowell: “I know I am not always right, but on this I think I am right.”

Charleton: “You could well be, because you were there, but I think someone is going to have to tell me about that if it becomes important.”

Why does this matter?

Because Supt Cunningham’s report of this Mullingar meeting matched the transcript of Sgt McCabe’s tape recording of the same.

And yet, this fact came as a “total surprise” to Supt Cunningham’s legal team on June 25, 2015, as stated by Michael McNamee BL, for the former Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan.

To recap.

Readers will recall how a legal row broke out at the commission on Friday, May 15, 2015, while retired Chief Supt Colm Rooney was giving evidence.

After the row – and after the legal team for then Garda Commissioner Noirin O’Sullivan, Supt Cunningham, Chief Supt Rooney and Supt Michael Clancy, among others said it was Ms O’Sullivan’s instructions to challenge the motivation of Sgt McCabe – Judge Kevin O’Higgins called on Ms O’Sullivan’s legal team to supply the commission and Sgt McCabe with a document outlining the claims that they intended to put to Sgt McCabe.

This letter, from the Chief State Solicitor’s office, was submitted to the commission’s chair and Sgt McCabe’s legal team on the morning of May 18, 2015.

This letter included an allegation of a blackmail-like scenario against Sgt McCabe in paragraph 19 of the letter.

It stated:

“Having been appointed to investigate Sergeant McCabe’s complaint against Superintendent Clancy, now Superintendent Noel Cunningham, having attempted on a number of occasions to meet with Sergeant McCabe, eventually met with Sergeant McCabe by appointment on the 25th August 2008 in Mullingar Garda Station, to receive details of his formal complaint.

“Superintendent Cunningham was accompanied to this meeting by Sergeant Yvonne Martin. Notes were taken at the meeting and countersigned by Sergeant Martin and a detailed report of the meeting was prepared by Superintendent Cunningham, and its contents agreed with Sergeant Martin and forwarded to Chief Superintendent Rooney. In the course of this meeting Sergeant McCabe advised Superintendent Cunningham that the only reason he made the complaints against Superintendent Clancy was to force him to allow sergeant McCabe to have the full DPP directions conveyed to him.”

Colm Smyth SC, for Ms O’Sullivan and other gardai, put this allegation to Sgt McCabe as he gave evidence on Monday, May 18, 2015 and Sgt McCabe said it was “absolutely false”.

Kathleen Leader BL, for the tribunal, previously said that while Supt Cunningham gave evidence on May 19, 2015, “an issue arose with regard to the circulation of documentation which led to Superintendent Cunningham not completing his evidence on that day”.

The tribunal hasn’t heard the details of that issue.

In any event, the commission didn’t sit after May 19, 2015 until June 25, 2015.

But on June 11, 2015, lengthy submissions were given to the commission and to Sgt McCabe’s legal team, on behalf of Ms O’Sullivan and the other gardai, and in one paragraph, the allegation of blackmail was repeated.

And, the submission claimed, evidence would be put forward to support this.

It said:

“It is understood that Superintendent Cunningham and Sergeant Martin will give evidence that Sergeant McCabe said at this meeting that the complaint which he had made was a bid by him to have the full DPP directions conveyed to him and to the complaining party. This is recorded in a report of the meeting prepared jointly by Sergeant Martin and Superintendent Cunningham.”

However,

On June 25, 2015, when the commission resumed, Judge O’Higgins called into question this blackmail-like allegation as set out in the Chief State Solicitor’s letter of May 18, 2015.

This was because, in the intervening period of when the commission wasn’t sitting, Sgt McCabe had provided a secret tape recording of the meeting which proved that no such blackmail situation had unfolded at the meeting.

Colm Smyth SC, for the then Garda Commissioner and Supt Cunningham, told Judge O’Higgins that the tape recording “came up somewhat by surprise to us during the course of the examination by me of Superintendent Cunningham, I am going to have to take him through this transcript”.

Sean Gillane SC, for the commission, put the following to Supt Cunningham:

“I know you didn’t write this letter but again I infer from your evidence that in relation to paragraph 19 of the letter written by the Chief State Solicitor that has been referred to this morning, that following then is, I put no higher than this, the wrong end of the stick, in the course of this meeting Sergeant McCabe advised superintendent the only reason he made the complaint against Superintendent Clancy was to force him to allow Sergeant McCabe to have the full DPP directions conveyed to him. That just doesn’t appear to be right.”

Supt Cunningham agreed.

Supt Cunningham then went on to point out that his report of the August 2008 meeting matched the contents of Sgt McCabe’s tape.

Supt Cunningham’s report, the tribunal has heard, stated:

‘Sergeant McCabe stated that this report was composed by him to highlight matters that occurred in Bailieborough where he was Sergeant in Charge in Bailieborough station. He stated the report was a bid by him to have the full directions of the DPP conveyed to him and the Ds in relation to the allegations made against him by Ms. D and subsequent investigation.’

In a later statement to the Disclosures Tribunal, Mr Smyth attempted to explain why a false allegation had been put to Sgt McCabe at the commission. He said:

“A misunderstanding in instructions which came from clients other than Commissioner O’Sullivan resulted in an inaccuracy related to an interaction with Sergeant McCabe on 25th August 2008 in Mullingar Garda Station.”

But when he gave evidence to the tribunal about this “misunderstanding in instructions”, Mr Smyth said, actually, it wasn’t so much of a “misunderstanding” but they were the “wrong instructions”.

He said:

“I think there was a misunderstanding as to the precise — the proper instructions should have been that this, just as I have related to you, we weren’t given the correct version, and there was a clear misunderstanding – not so much a misunderstanding, there were clearly wrong instructions.”

And, as for the perceived so-called ‘to’ versus ‘against’ error in the CSS letter, Mr Smyth said:

“I can speak for myself in respect of this, I was left in no doubt about this; my clear perception was that this was “against” rather than “to” at the time.”

When asked if Mr Smyth saw Supt Cunningham’s report on the morning of May 18, 2015, Mr Smyth said: “I don’t recall seeing that document.”

When Michael McNamee BL, also for Ms O’Sullivan and Supt Cunningham, was asked if solicitor Annemarie Ryan gave Supt Cunningham’s report of the Mullingar meeting to him on the morning of May 18, 2015, Mr McNamee said: “No, sir, she didn’t.”

Mr McNamee also gave evidence about the submissions and said “they were approved before they were delivered”.

Readers will also recall how Diarmaid McGuinness SC, for the tribunal, has told the how Supt Cunningham made a statement to the tribunal explaining why he didn’t spot the mistake in the Chief State Solicitor’s letter.

Mr McGuinness said:

“The position is that he [Supt Noel Cunningham] recites in his statement that he received the letter, he didn’t have an opportunity to print it, and read it from his phone, but he wasn’t able to read it from his own phone and he said he had bad eyesight and he said that he didn’t see the mistake in paragraph 19, and that, had he seen the error, it would have been clear to him.”

When asked about this claim and if it was brought to his attention at the time, Mr McNamee said: “No, it was not brought to my attention at the time.”

Readers may wish to note it was in this exchange Ms Ryan had with Ellen Gleeson BL, for Colm Smyth, that she claimed she gave Supt Cunningham’s report to the commission on the morning of May 18, 2015.

Ellen Gleeson: “Ms. Ryan, I think you indicated, Mr. McDowell asked you earlier to confirm that it was only when the record of the Mullingar meeting came to light that the error in the letter of the 18th of May was revealed?”

Annemarie Ryan: “That is correct.”

Gleeson: “But in fact, I think you had handed in to the Commission and I think also to Sergeant McCabe’s team, as I understand it, Noel Cunningham’s report of the September 2008 with the letter of the 18th May, you had made that available, I think you said earlier in your evidence on day 42, at page 140, that you had handed in those enclosures, including that report on that date?”

Ryan: “Yes. The 18th May 2015, I recall Mr O’Hagan [solicitor for the commission] wanted the letter immediately and, as I said, I was late for other reasons getting over there, out of my control, and I gave the letter over, I was then copying the documentation, there was three documents and they followed within a couple of minutes, and the hearings commenced and I do recall a part — and then a copy of it I was directed to give it to Maurice McCabe’s legal team. My notes show I gave over three copies and with the letter, with the documentation and no other party received that letter or documentation.”

Gleeson: “Thank you. And the September 2008 letter, of course, referred to the complaint being to Superintendent Clancy, isn’t that right?”

Ryan: “Yes.”

Gleeson: “And would you agree, therefore, that the September 2008 report, which revealed that mistake in relation to the complaint against Clancy, was made available to everyone by your clients before the transcript of the Mullingar meeting was provided by Sergeant McCabe?”

Ryan: “Yes, it was. I received it directly from the clients that morning of the 18th of May 2015.”

Previously: “The Linchpin”

Disclosures Tribunal on Broadsheet

UPDATE:


From top: Nigel Farage and John Waters at the irexit conference in the RDS on Saturday; Dr Rory Hearne

It is incredible how angry supposedly sensible people get when you express a contrarian view point. Or if you even raise questions about supposed ‘truths’ and general ‘commonsense’.

The impossibility of Ireland leaving the EU, or Irexit as it come to be called (or probably more appropriately Eirexit) is apparently one of these accepted ‘truths’.

On Saturday I had the temerity to question this assumption on twitter and got one hell of a reaction.

I posted the simple tweet:

Now to make it clear from the outset, I am not arguing that Ireland should leave the EU, and I am pro-immigration and I actually blame the policies of our own successive Irish governments of various hues of Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael/Labour/Greens/PDs as being the primary cause of our current problems. Although I do think the EU/ECB has had an important role too.

Clearly then I will have nothing to do with the Nigel Farage/John Waters Conference and any potential new Irexit party. They stand for a right-wing, conservative vision of Ireland and Europe that offers nothing positive for Irish people.

However, what I am saying is that there is a ‘progressive’, outward and forward looking critique of the EU that has real legitimacy, and it is this critique that needs to be listened to seriously.

For if it is not addressed, and quickly, then support for Irexit could grow.

I am also, therefore, making the case that some of those expressing support for Irexit have legitimate concerns that represent a not insignificant proportion of the Irish people.

Rather than dismissing these concerns, the Irish and European establishment should take them serious and engage in a radical overhaul of the direction of Ireland, the EU and its institutions.

There is a problem with our democracy, our political culture and this exists in wider Irish society. We are afraid to question and challenge the status quo. And our government and establishment media even more so.

Our ‘state’ not just dislikes questioning and challenge – it is terrified by it. And that’s why it actively silences dissenting voices – through gag orders on charities such as homeless NGOs or community organisations working on poverty.

And the system likes to portray those who question as dissidents or ‘Left-wing’ in order to try undermine your concerns. Rather than maturely engaging in a discussion there is a hysterical over-reaction. And this is reflected in the response to my tweet.

Why is it not possible to be pro-Europe and question fundamentally the current EU structures and process?

I am involved in the cross-European ‘Re-InVEST’ study into the impact of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent austerity on the most vulnerable in 13 European countries.

The project aims to contribute to a more solidarity and inclusive EU through an inclusive and powerful social investment strategy at EU level and to give voice to vulnerable groups and civil society organisations.

We have found that:

“As a consequence of the recent economic crisis, institutional trust in these countries has fallen to dramatic levels. In particular, in Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Spain, the effect of the economic crisis on public trust in institutions is especially prominent…respondents with low subjective incomes, low level of education, and those who are unemployed report significantly lower trust in national parliaments and the European Parliament”.

The reality is that in response to the 2008 crisis the EU institutions focused on macro-economic stabilisation rather than social consequences. As a result poverty and inequality have increased, particularly in the peripheral countries and political trust has declined. There has been a rise in the support for populist, anti-establishment, political parties.

But this is not just something that started in 2008. Inequality has been on the rise since the 1980s and the shift to neoliberal financial capitalism.

The EU has played a key role in promoting the free-market, neoliberal globalisation model. Citizens have become much more insecure – particularly in relation to work, pensions, and housing. The future for their children looks much more difficult than they had it.

There is a sense of going backwards, or not going in the right direction. And there is a sense of loss control over major decisions.

Ireland is changing too and Irish people are increasingly experiencing these insecurities. The generation in their 20s and 30s are scarred by emigration and insecure jobs and unaffordable housing.

Poor communities remain excluded across the country. Who represents these excluded groups? The establishment, particularly as represented by Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael, continues to ignore the excluded and is more focused on trying to stem the tide of change – as Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohue said after the last election –“ That is why it is more important than ever that the centre of Irish politics holds” he wrote in the Irish Times in April 2017.

There is a real danger that if these concerns are not given a political expression then the support for a right-wing xenophobic Irexit could grow.

That is why progressive, civil society, and ‘Left’ critiques of the EU and the unequal Irish model should be given a much bigger voice in the Irish media, and it is why the political left in Ireland need to maintain a strong critical voice in relation to EU – arguing for a Europe of social justice and human rights and opposing the current free-market corporate-dominated EU.

Dr Rory Hearne is a policy analyst, academic, social justice campaigner. He writes here in a personal capacity. Follow Rory on Twitter: @roryhearne

Rollingnews

 

 

Cllr Shaun Cunniffe at the little used public toilet in Tuam. Photo: Johnny Ryan Photography.

Tuam’s superloo – dubbed the town’s cut-price love nest because it’s used by canoodling couples – could be an early St Valentine’s day present for Oranmore. County Councillor Donagh Killilea (FF) has proposed that Tuam Municipal District gift the public toilet at The Shambles car park in Tuam to the Oranmore/Athenry Municipal District.

Superloo ‘love nest’ could be gifted to Oranmore (Connacht Tribune)

(H/T: Frank Yoka)

(Photo: Johnny Ryan Photography)

Broadsheet.ie