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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abbeylara referendum
Comments
-
Whatever people's opinions of it, it seems likely to be passed pretty comfortably. The Irish Times asked people about this as part of their recent Presidential and politicial party opinion poll.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1008/1224305460850.html
"65 per cent said they would vote Yes, 8 per cent said they would vote No, 23 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent said they would not vote."
Even if all the undecided end up voting no, that would still be a 2 to 1 yes vote.
As an aside, the referendum on judge's pay looks like being having the largest majority in the history of the State :- 88 yes, 4 no, 5 percent undecided.
Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)
And there is nothing a person could do by challenging the State's clear refusal to provide any objective literature out there or postpone the referendum until people are fully educated on the implications of these referendums. The Courts have previously said that there is a presumption that the people will find out for themselves. Its a shame the politicans don't take a leaf out of the books of the courts then (ala Nice and Libson)
Personally, if the Dail, put in writting clarifications as to paragraph 4 of the Abbeylara referedum then that would help me to agree with it, but on paper, it looks really bad. We all know Ivor Callely got off and although he did not break any law etc he still in the eyes of public opinion considered to have done something wrong. whether you like him or not,he potentially could have been severely prejudice by idiots (like Dan Boyle Twitting - but he was found to do no wrong and other politicans making public commit - though not damning while the case was on going) , party political prejuidces and grandstanding to the people. Can you really allow the Oireachtas do these sittings when you look at the calibre of some of them?
As for judges pay, I would like to see clarifications on how this will be done. i am on the fence on this one. Am I naive to think that its nonsense coming from the judges that without huge payments that they could not be impartial when deciding cases and avoid judicial activism? Something is either lawful or not. They claim to be impartial, yet they are making it clear that they are more concerned that their paymasters don't try to get rid of them? but surely it may be dangerous in how the political groups dictate completely how this is to be done. Will this refernda bring out an ahem, independent body to decide these issues (without the quango effect etc)0 -
Aren't all judges government appointees anyway?
So it's really a power grab on the part of a fused executive/legislature/judiciary against itself.
Having said that, there is the possibility that judges will wander off after a few years in the job and "evolve" some independence, or that they remain loyal to a previous and different govt.
The manner in which the Government appoints they Judiciary does not fuse the Judicial arm of the state to the fused executive/legislature on the basis that the Courts are under no obligation to act on the whim of the fused body. The Fused body cannot pass acts which bind the Courts to act in a certain way, or determine the Court's decision in any matter. The separation of powers seeks to ensure that the actions of the judiciary are not directed by the state. As things stand, that situation prevails.So I oppose it. If TD's are keen to investigate stuff (and that's a big if),why can't the Dail committees make preliminary investigations, in their own time (which is at taxpayers expense) then if they find anything suspect, refer the matter to the DPP?.
That would amount to the implicit affixing of an adverse reputation/name on somebody or some entity, as the committee has clearly decided that there is something "shady" which requires investigation. That would be a finding, and the Committees are not That is what the Abbeylara judgement is all about. Plus, our laws must be sophisticated enough to deal with certain types of crime. As things stand, our laws are not sophisticated enough to deal with "white collar crime", and the DPP cannot investigate matters which are not illegal.For example, the lack of political will to pursue crooked bankers was nothing to do with lack of power. The govt. at the time had ample access to books and accounts.
However, they dont have the power to make adverse findings. That is the "power" that the Oireachtas is looking for. This referendum, if passed, will potentially instill quasi-judicial functions in every single representative, whether they are capable of appreciating that power or not. One of the major perks of the selection process for the Irish Judiciary is the fact that they are not beholden to the whim of the masses when making decisions. On the other hand, the vocations of Oireachtas members are given life by the support of the masses. Unpopular decisions can give rise to removal from office. Remember Michael D Higgins saying as much about the loss of his seat in 1982? Considering the views expressed by members of the Oireachtas on banking matters, I do not believe that it would be right and fair for them to be able to investigate "the bankers", as it is possible that the views expressed would prejudice the inquiry, and that the will of the masses would be at the forefront of their minds when making such decisions. At least the Courts are impartial, and the Judiciary do not need to make "popular decisions".0 -
walrusgumble wrote: »Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)
And there is nothing a person could do by challenging the State's clear refusal to provide any objective literature out there or postpone the referendum until people are fully educated on the implications of these referendums. The Courts have previously said that there is a presumption that the people will find out for themselves. Its a shame the politicans don't take a leaf out of the books of the courts then (ala Nice and Libson)
Personally, if the Dail, put in writting clarifications as to paragraph 4 of the Abbeylara referedum then that would help me to agree with it, but on paper, it looks really bad. We all know Ivor Callely got off and although he did not break any law etc he still in the eyes of public opinion considered to have done something wrong. whether you like him or not,he potentially could have been severely prejudice by idiots (like Dan Boyle Twitting - but he was found to do no wrong and other politicans making public commit - though not damning while the case was on going) , party political prejuidces and grandstanding to the people. Can you really allow the Oireachtas do these sittings when you look at the calibre of some of them?
As for judges pay, I would like to see clarifications on how this will be done. i am on the fence on this one. Am I naive to think that its nonsense coming from the judges that without huge payments that they could not be impartial when deciding cases and avoid judicial activism? Something is either lawful or not. They claim to be impartial, yet they are making it clear that they are more concerned that their paymasters don't try to get rid of them? but surely it may be dangerous in how the political groups dictate completely how this is to be done. Will this refernda bring out an ahem, independent body to decide these issues (without the quango effect etc)
Paragraph 3 is my personal beef. While Paragraph 4 lacks clarity, the clarity of what Paragraph 3 is unequivocable, and unacceptable from my point of view.0 -
True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent.the Courts are under no obligation to act on the whim of the fused body.
No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made.That would amount to the implicit affixing of an adverse reputation/name on somebody or some entity, as the committee has clearly decided that there is something "shady" which requires investigation. That would be a finding, and the Committees are not That is what the Abbeylara judgement is all about.
Agreed +1Plus, our laws must be sophisticated enough to deal with certain types of crime. As things stand, our laws are not sophisticated enough to deal with "white collar crime", and the DPP cannot investigate matters which are not illegal.
True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return.One of the major perks of the selection process for the Irish Judiciary is the fact that they are not beholden to the whim of the masses when making decisions.
It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;
Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.
Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.
Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.
Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.0 -
True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent.
No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made.
Agreed +1
True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return.
It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;
Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.
Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.
Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.
Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.
Sure without our system, we would not know what to do with the De Valera /O'Caoimh clan - dynasty.
I would not, with the exception of the ones I mentioned, suggest that our current High Court & Supreme Court Judiciary are unfit to be judges, certaintly not as many of them as barristers were involved in high profile cases on a regular basis, who would dare say Dr Gerard Hogan should not be a judge, or even Hardchaw Hardiman. But, when they come out, in cases talking about how they must be impartial etc as an excuse for refusing to deal with economic and social issues (which many would scream judicial activism anyway) and clearly use subjective views on their ideas of how governments and democracy runs, you would be tempted to attack their impartiality on the basis that their pockets, while barristers, were filled as many of them got the best cases, representing the state in the past or acted as attorney generals. - that though, must be viewed , to be fair to them on the basis of their talent.
As for the selection in the lower courts however, this, at times is an absolute joke. Jobs for the boys.0 -
True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent..
But they remain without fetter when making their decisions, regardless of what political party or entity they may or may not be affiliated to. That is the Separation of Powers in action. I trust judicial independence, as our Judges are not forced to make politically motivated decisions, nor are they likely to make "popular" decisions. An example would be the declaration granted to Pierce Doherty TD last November that the Government's failure to hold the Donegal South West by-election amounted to an infringement of his constitutional rights. This would not have been popular with the establishment. On the other hand, the Brian Curtain decision would not have been publically popular. Neither decision took into account the potential attitudes of the public, or political implications.No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made...
No, implicit in that decision would be an adverse finding against a person or a legal body. The Oireachtas do not have the power to do that, and to ensure the Separation of Powers, that must be maintained.True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return....
There are a number of points of difference between the Judiciary and the politican. First, the Politican's "contract" comes up for renewal every five years(at least), and they rely on public support for that renewal. They must renew popularity, and must take popular decision to retain their seats. Second, historically, politicians have always been more culpable when it comes to shady dealings than any member of the Judiciary. Third, I would like to know the benefits which a District Court Judge can bistow upon the "appointing" politician?It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;
Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.
Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.
Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.
Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.
While interesting, it is important to note that Germany's Separation of Powers is far more robust than it is in Ireland. The Referendum is an unsatisfactory attempt to take a large aspect of the Judiciary's functions, and invest it in the fused executive/legislature.0 -
-
How about; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheedy_AffairBut they remain without fetter when making their decisions, regardless of what political party or entity they may or may not be affiliated to. That is the Separation of Powers in action. I trust judicial independence, as our Judges are not forced to make politically motivated decision.................historically, politicians have always been more culpable when it comes to shady dealings than any member of the Judiciary. Third, I would like to know the benefits which a District Court Judge can bistow upon the "appointing" politician?While interesting, it is important to note that Germany's Separation of Powers is far more robust than it is in Ireland. The Referendum is an unsatisfactory attempt to take a large aspect of the Judiciary's functions, and invest it in the fused executive/legislature.
Indeed. Lucky Germans. Except, I don't believe in "luck".0 -
Anything in there about cutting his and the others wages per chance?0
-
Advertisement
-
walrusgumble wrote: »Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)
Welcome to the Refcom WebsiteMad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Meanwhile the referendum on Oireachtas Inquiries will give the Dail and Seanad power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person's conduct.
I am little confused i thought Seanad is being abolished? So why would they be written into anything?0 -
Meanwhile the referendum on Oireachtas Inquiries will give the Dail and Seanad power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person's conduct.
I am little confused i thought Seanad is being abolished? So why would they be written into anything?
Possibly just to cover all the bases, possibly because they're not being abolished. Given that there's an active process of 'internal reform' happening in the Seanad (http://politicalreform.ie/2011/09/30/seanad-public-consultation-committee/) my money is on the latter.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
How about; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheedy_Affair".
I accept your point that the affair was unsatisfactorily handled. However, that is not evidence of a malaise in Judicial Independence, or accurate Judicial thought. Every industry, profession, and vocation will have individuals which will make grave, and untenable errors of judgement. However, that does not mean that the entire industry, vocation, or profession is to be tarred with the same brush.
We are now within sight of polling day, and save for Dr Bryan McMahon's statements via the Referendum commission, the debate has been confined to Vincent Browne, while the likes of RTE continue to focus of the personality driven, high farce of the Presidential election.
I maintain that the Government have acted in a very sneaky manner in this attempted power grab, as they have decided to hold the referendum on the same day as they Judicial Pay referendum which will find favour with many voters.
I know what way I will be voting, as I dont believe this amendment is good for Ireland, democracy, or the separation of powers, which is hanging on by a thread in this country.0 -
On the contrary, it was handled well in the end, but only by the free press and the public. A judges resignation was forced, but even then the sponsoring political party tried to reward him with a plum job in european banking. It was public outrage that thwarted that plan.I accept your point that the affair was unsatisfactorily handled. However, that is not evidence of a malaise in Judicial Independence, or accurate Judicial thought.
What concerns me is the rotten system. To expect honest people to thrive in a rotten system is the triumph of hope over experience. It is reasonable to assume that most cases of corruption are hidden from the public eye, so the ones we know of are only the tip of the iceberg.
I'll vote against this referendum, but IMO the outcome is trivial. We should be voting instead on whether govt should be allowed to appoint judges, and whether govt should be allowed to continue to stifle the Dail legislature.0 -
Thread needs poll.
To be honest, I'm scratching my head as to how this even made it to a referendum and wasn't thrown out earlier.
I'm a firm believer in the independence of the judiciary and handing politicians, judicial power, no matter how small it is, is a big no no.
After all, we all no how independent and honest politicians are, don't we.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Vote yes for Stalinistesque show trials. Vote yes for jobs.0
-
Justice should never be politicised. I'll be voting NO!0
-
I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.
Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.
I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.
Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.
I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.
So why not use the courts then? Why the need for this at all? When people offer your explanation, it just makes me want to vote NO more.0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.
Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.
I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.
1. Members of the Ivor Callely committee put themselves in a position, of potentially prejudicing the case by not refusing to make any comment whatsover about the Committee, when interviewed during the process. You don't see the Tribunal Judges (eg Mahon, Smithwitwick) and the like twittering about their job do you? (To be fair, the Courts found that Boyle did nothing wrong, but he still put himself in the dodgy position)
2. The Senate came to a conclusion that was outside the remit of the purpose of their inquiry ie whether Senator acted unlawfully. The Dept of Finance said no. Not happy with that, or not deciding to cease that inquiry and establish another, it tried to move the goal posts and argue that it was breach of ethics, not the headings contained in the original inquiry, if they had, that you be a different story. Why didn't they ?)
3 What guarantees will there be about it being less expensive. I would imagine, for the first Inquiry under the Amendment, there maybe be numerous High Court / Supreme Court cases which will frustrate the workings. What does it mean by Paragraph 4 of the bill (in light of the draft act)?0 -
Advertisement
-
You're a bit out of date there. After the scandalous expense of the tribunals, a better way of investigating matters was arrived at; the commissions of inquiry. So we have had the child abuse reports and the banking inquiry since the tribunals.jimmycrackcorm wrote: »I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.
These inquiries worked well; quick and cheap, but also used fair procedures and were headed up by an experienced judge, not a media-whore politician.0 -
There is no doubt that the legal and business establishment are against this referendum. There is also no doubt that if this referendum is lost, it will be many, many years before the bankers, rezoners and senior public servants will be held to accoubt in a public forum.
The present legal system, including the present constitution, has failed the people and it has served the wealthy and powerful well.
This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.
Vote no to the status quo. Vote yes on Abbeylara.0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »There is no doubt that the legal and business establishment are against this referendum. There is also no doubt that if this referendum is lost, it will be many, many years before the bankers, rezoners and senior public servants will be held to accoubt in a public forum.
The present legal system, including the present constitution, has failed the people and it has served the wealthy and powerful well.
This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.
Vote no to the status quo. Vote yes on Abbeylara.
Vote YES for Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein led inquires within a decade.0 -
If a crime has been committed, the courts will handle it.Boulevardier wrote: »This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.
I find it odd that you blame the woes of the Irish people on a system that benefits the upper classes, while at the same time you think that by handing additional power to those same upper classes, it will cause major change to happen.
All this referendum will really do is give tribunals more power to demand access to information. It won't make any prosecutions, it won't put anyone behind bars or force them to pay back money or prevent them from doing the same things again.
Far from being used to bring bankers to account, these powers will be used within the next five years to start high-profile investigations against the leadership in Sinn Féin and the high-flyers in Fianna Fail, to destroy their names and eliminate them as any kind of serious political opposition.0 -
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.0
-
"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.0 -
You've failed to illustrate her Boulevardier, just how this amendment will cause any justice to be done.
What will it achieve?
"Hold bankers to account". And then what? They admit what they did, then what. Oh yes, they walk away scott free.0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »There are superb TDs and senators who are not upper class. The judiciary and SCs almost all are.
Funny.Boulevardier wrote: »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.
Based on nothing.Boulevardier wrote: »I really think that the ant-Abbeylara campaign is a pro status quo campaign in more ways than one.
I am against giving the government more power. I believe there are countless reasons why this is a solid stance. This same institution (govt) is the one that your kind probably protest against on a continuous basis. Yet, you want to make them more powerful. Baffling. And yet, inconsistency is the only consistent thing from your people.0 -
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.0 -
So...you just want more tribunals? Long, drawn-out affairs where people talk about what they did, lots of money gets spent, and nothing important happens at the end?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.
In the US and the UK, law enforcement officials put their white-collar criminals in front of a judge and they go to jail. Here in Ireland, our politicians tell our Gardai to leave their golf buddies alone and drop the investigation.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Why would the govt appoint 'independent minded tds'? That doesn't sound like something this government would do, nor FF, nor SF. Where in the name of Jebus are you getting this fantastical notion from?0 -
Ok there already seems to be a load of strawmen and bluster going on. People are talking about show trials and bias etc. How do they know this is the case
The referendum as far as i can see has no specifics. How these work will be determined under future legislation. This referendum only asks if you agree on principle.
Now i understand the concern about "the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest"
The refcom website states "When doing so, they would be obliged to have regard to the principles of fair procedures. These principles have been established by the Constitution and by the Courts"
that seems fair enough if the rights of the person will remain garunteed by the constitution.0 -
No, I want a viable alternative to tribunals.
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.
If the Gardai are being leaned on to drop inquiries, we have no way of knowing. Also, dodgy gardai cannot be questioned by public representatives because of - yes, you guessed it, the original Abbeylara decision!0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »No, I want a viable alternative to tribunals.
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.
If the Gardai are being leaned on to drop inquiries, we have no way of knowing. Also, dodgy gardai cannot be questioned by public representatives because of - yes, you guessed it, the original Abbeylara decision!
I can't even tell if you are addressing me, because you don't address anything I say. It's like you are talking to yourself. If you are happy with FF potentially controlling this tool one day, fair enough. You dug your own grave there.
What makes me laugh is your blatant ignorance of the truth. Talking about status quo's when ignoring the fact that the vast majority of TDs went to fee-paying schools and many TDs are sitting in 'legacy' seats.
Get a grip on reality.0 -
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.0 -
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.
You seem to have full confidence in one cosseted, parasitic system, and yet no confidence in another.
Bizarre.0 -
I think it might be interesting to find out how the Senate Congressional hearings work in the US and to draw parallels to what might be achieved in Ireland if the right framework was put in place. Especially if the (Irish) Senate was to make the decisions rather than the Dail.
I understand where Boulevardier and others are coming from - it's not as if I'm dismayed and distressed at the level of seeming immunity - but I don't believe this referendum is the right framework and I'm frankly alarmed at the proposed 15.10.4 wording: "The appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest...". This seems unnecessary and dangerous and when I see things like this I get worried as to why they are there, what the government hopes to achieve and how this tinkering will manifest itself in the future; in 10 years, 20 years.
From the Irish Times, April 19th: Speaking after the publication of the Nyberg report Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done.
Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned.0 -
I think it might be interesting to find out how the Senate Congressional hearings work in the US and to draw parallels to what might be achieved in Ireland if the right framework was put in place. Especially if the (Irish) Senate was to make the decisions rather than the Dail.
I understand where Boulevardier and others are coming from but I don't believe this referendum is the right framework and I'm frankly alarmed at the proposed 15.10.4 wording: "The appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest..."
From the Irish Times, April 19th: Speaking after the publication of the Nyberg report Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done.
Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned.
That seems to be the controversial bit. But from the referendum commision: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
It states they have to give due regard to fair proceedures also. so i dont see a whole lot of ways to conduct a show trial.0 -
sensibleken wrote: »That seems to be the controversial bit. But from the referendum commision:
...
It states they have to give due regard to fair proceedures also. so i dont see a whole lot of ways to conduct a show trial.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
You've failed to illustrate her Boulevardier, just how this amendment will cause any justice to be done.
What will it achieve?
"Hold bankers to account". And then what? They admit what they did, then what. Oh yes, they walk away scott free.
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:Lack of scrutiny of constitutional change is dangerous, short-sighted – Mary Davis
Citizens should not casually dilute their Constitutional rights without very good reason, a thorough debate, and considerable thought
It is in interest of political system that these changes are waved through but citizens should be 100% aware of the changes they are being asked to make
Tuesday, October 18th – Mary Davis, Independent Candidate for the Presidency, has said that waving constitutional change through without debate or scrutiny is dangerous and short-sighted. Mary Davis has also said that she has concerns about the potential impact of both of the proposed changes to the Constitution to be voted on next week and has advised people to carefully consider both questions in advance of casting their vote on October 27th.
“The primary role of the next President, whoever that may be, will be to protect the Constitution. However, next week the people of Ireland are being asked to change the Constitution in two important ways, and I am concerned at both the potential impact of these changes and the complete lack of real debate or scrutiny of these proposals.
“The referendum questions that are being put to the people, if passed, will allow for salaries of judges to be reduced and give TDs and Senators considerably more power to conduct inquiries and investigations into matters of public interest.
“There are good reasons behind each of these proposals. However, both of them involve the granting of more power to Leinster House, which is not something to be treated lightly.
“These changes, if accepted, will dilute some of the rights and protections that are afforded to all citizens. Therefore, it is incumbent on all citizens to be 100% aware of the implications of their vote on October 27th.
“In respect of Oireachtas inquiries the Referendum Commission has said it would be difficult for the Courts to successfully challenge a decision of the Oireachtas to carry out an inquiry given the wording of the amendment, and that the Houses of the Oireachtas alone would determine the balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest.
“These two questions, if passed, will give a significant amount of new power to our politicians, so it is vital that we consider these proposed changes very carefully before deciding whether to accept or reject them.
“It is in the interest of the political system that these changes are waved through but as citizens we all rely on the independence of our judiciary, on the separation of the political system from the judicial system, and on the fundamental protections that are afforded us all under the constitution.
“Changing any aspect of this requires good reason, a thorough debate, and considerable thought – at this time, however, we have had none of these.”
Nice to see a Presidential candidate actually talking about the Constitution, given the Constitutional role of the President as guardian of the Constitution.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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 then0 -
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 them0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement