An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

I recommend you take a look at TJ McIntyre's blog on IT Law in Ireland. TJ is a solicitor and lecturer in law at UCD.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Digital Rights Ireland made a submission and I would suggest you refer to this submission. This is something DRI has been working on for a long time, not something that suddenly came up last month.

I should also have mentioned that TJ is chairman of DRI.

El Guapo!

Got 2 replies today and both of them were pointless. :mad:

Dean

Thank you for contacting me about an issue of concern to you.

I will revert to you with a detailed reply shortly.

In the meantime should there be any other local or national matter where I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Councillor Mary O'Shea and we'll do whatever we can to help.

Kind regards
Paschal

---

Paschal Donohoe TD
Fine Gael, Dublin Central

Dean; I am working my way through the various correspondence I have received on this and trying to make an informed decision.
Regards,
Maureen O'Sullivan


Maureen O'Sullivan T.D.
Independent Dublin Central
Office:

Dub12Dave

Just signed.

seamus

Tristram wrote: »

More than a few of us.

Appears to be a fairly stock response from the FG camp, each TD has just altered some of the text to suit themselves. The fundamental text of the responses seems to come from an internal memo - they're too similar to be coincidence. Response from Brian Hayes:

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

First, I’d like to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

Second, I’d like to emphasise that the need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

Third, I believe it is important to emphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Hayes TD

Also got a much more straightfoward response from Eamon Maloney who is seriously growing in my estimation.

Many thanks for your email in relation to the signing of a statutory instrument by Minister Sean Sherlock regarding copyright law.

This issue has been raised with concerns, by a number of my constituents and I have contacted Minister Sherlock urging that he carefully re-examine his proposals.

I will be in contact with you again as soon as I have a reply to hand.

Yours sincerely

Eamonn Maloney T.D.

Brian017

Sent a letter to all 5 local TDs. Just 1 have replied so far.

Dear Brian,

Regarding your email concerning the proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

Having spoken to the Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, he has emphasised to me that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

The Minister has no choice but to legislate as the issue arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland which was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself, unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

The Minister has informed me that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleston’s judgment in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

The Minister held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

If you have any further query on the issue or indeed if I can be of assistance in any other way please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Deputy John Paul Phelan, TD

Beruthiel

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Beruthiel,

Digital Rights Ireland made a submission and I would suggest you refer to this submission. This is something DRI has been working on for a long time, not something that suddenly came up last month.

You can find a copy at http://www.scribd.com/doc/78967355/Copyright-SI-Submission

Thanks for that antoino.
I have sent him a long e-mail addressing his points and including the Digital Rights link.

mathepac

Stock reply hot off the PR consultant's presses photo-copier. The only reply received so far, so thanks John Paul, but no preference vote next time old pal.

"Dear mathepac,

Regarding your email concerning the proposed legislation in the area of copyright law.

Having spoken to the Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, he has emphasised to me that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

The Minister has no choice but to legislate as the issue arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland which was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself, unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter.

The Minister has informed me that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleston’s judgment in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

The Minister held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

If you have any further query on the issue or indeed if I can be of assistance in any other way please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Deputy John Paul Phelan, TD"

Jimmy Bottlehead

Stock reply from John Lyons, Dublin North-West. Only TD to have replied from there so far:

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue.

I have a attached the speech Minister Sean Sherlock made on this issue recently. I think it addresses many of the points you made, as well as concerns relating to copyright, employment and the future development of web based business in Ireland.

I believe this speech clarifies much of the issues raised on this subject in general, as well as addressing any misconceptions.

I hope this addresses your concerns, Jimmy. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With best wishes,

John Lyons TD
Dublin North-West

Well my name is in there twice, it MUST be a unique and personal reply, eh?

Gaw_

Sent an e-mail to my local 4 TD's and have received one reply, unfortunately it's the stock one everyone else is getting.

Thank you for getting in touch with me expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyright law and how it pertains on the Internet.

First, I’d like to clarify that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forward any proposals to enact a US type SOPA or Stop Online Piracy Type Law.

There is a need to legislate, which arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. The High Court found itself unable, under existing primary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary in relation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failing to be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very serious matter. The current issue of registration of septic tanks comes to mind in that we potentially leave ourselves open to ongoing fines if we do nothing.

There is no policy change in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed that the Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court found otherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrument has been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording of the EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather than extending any scope beyond that of intermediaries.

The intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, it seeks merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.

Last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. Minister Sherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect of their views and concerns.

The legislative measure is expected to be introduced shortly.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind Regards

Yours Sincerely

Joe Carey

Davidth88

got 1 answer

Basically the std stock answer .

Many thanks for your email in relation to the above.

With regard to the points your raised concerning copyright law, it is important to be aware that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law. Rather the need to now introduce legislation arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. As non-compliance with EU Law is a very serious matter you can understand the need to address the matter.

I should make you aware of the fact that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. Instead the intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. As a result of this court ruling, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 needed to be revised in order to provide civil remedies such as injunctions.

As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerns involved. I am wondering if you were in a position to forward a submission to the Minister at the time outlining your views? If so, perhaps you could send me a copy of same and I can again raise your concerns with the Minister.

In any case, I have taken on board you views in this regard and will bear them in mind in future discussions on this matter.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Anthony Lawlor TD

gizmo555

I got this from Enda Kenny:

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the proposed new copyright law.

I have noted the points you make and the concerns you have raised. I have forwarded your correspondence to Minister of State, Sean Sherlock T.D. for his consideration.

I will be in touch with you again on the matter as soon as I have some further news.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Enda Kenny T.D.
Taoiseach



and this rather more comprehensive reply from Dara Calleary, who in fairness seems to get the main points of objection to this matter very well. I hope he really means the bits I've highlighted in bold

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for your email on the matter of internet freedom and the new law introduced by the Fine Gael/ Labour Government.

We believe that they have failed to give enough opportunity for debate on the matter. The debate in the Dáil was scheduled in a rushed way, and gave us just 5 minutes to outline our objections to the law.

We believe that this was a clumsy way to handle this matter. The need to have copyright holders' rights upheld cannot come at the expense of individuals' rights to privacy and the need to ensure that the internet remains a dynamic, innovative resource.

We believe that SOPA in the US failed to strike this balance, and we agree with those who have made the point that there is a danger that similar legislation could be introduced here. Minister Sherlock has failed to quash suggestions that this could happen, and the law he introduced does not give courts sufficient guidance on the matter.

The whole affair has been mishandled appallingly by Fine Gael and Labour, especially given the message they allowed to be sent out about Ireland.

We do not believe that the Government should be in any way ordering ISPs to police the internet. We believe that they must produce a comprehensive framework on internet management which balances the rights of copyholders, the privacy of end users, and the need to maintain and protect a dynamic internet.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dara



Dara Calleary TD
Fianna Fáil Spokesperson on Justice, Equality & Defence

Hyperbullet

Got the stock response from Joe Carey as well. I wonder do any of them really know what they're talking about in the email.

dave13

Dean09 wrote: »

Got 2 replies today and both of them were pointless. :mad:

Got the same two stock responses from Paschal Donohoe and Maureen O'Sullivan. Nothing from Costello

chocksaway

Reply from Ray Butler TD Meath West...appears to be the generic response that was drawn up........

Thank you for getting in touch withme expressing your concern about proposed legislation in the area of copyrightlaw.
First, I’d to clarify that Ministerof State, Sean Sherlock TD, has emphasised that he has not put forwardany proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law.
Second, I’d like to emphasise thatthe need to legislate arises from a finding of the High Court in October2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under CopyrightDirective 2001/29/EC as the High Court found itself unable, under existingprimary legislation, to grant an injunction against an intermediary inrelation to transient communications. As you will appreciate, failingto be in compliance with our obligations under EU law is a very seriousmatter.
Third, I believe it is important toemphasise that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. It had been the intention of the Copyright and Related Rights Act,2000 to provide civil remedies such as injunctions and it was assumed thatthe Act did, in fact, provide for such remedies until the High Court foundotherwise in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October2010. Accordingly, the wording of the proposed Statutory Instrumenthas been framed in a manner which merely gives effect to the wording ofthe EU Copyright Directive (i.e. Article 8(3) of 2001/29/EC) rather thanextending its scope beyond that of intermediaries.
The intended purpose of the proposedStatutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but, rather, itseeks merely to restate the position that was though to exist in the Copyrightlegislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case ofEMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010.
Last July Minister Sherlock held a publicconsultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrumentamending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. Morethan 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing anexcellent overview of all the issues and concerned involved. MinisterSherlock has engaged extensively with interested parties in respect oftheir views and concerns.
The legislative measure is expectedto be introduced shortly.
I hope this clarifies matters and thankyou for contacting me.
Kind regards,
Ray Butler TD

Liamario

Absolutely disgraceful that they can get away with this. They clearly have knowledge of the issue and have no opinion. So they send out these fookin templates in the hopes it'll keep you quiet.
Do they know who they are working for and more importantly do they actually care.

mikom

chocksaway wrote: »

Reply from Ray Butler TD Meath West...appears to be a generic response that was drawn up........

What the hell is up with all the typos?

withme
copyrightlaw
Ministerof
forwardany
thatthe
CopyrightDirective
existingprimary
inrelation
failingto
seriousmatter.
toemphasise
Instrumenthas
publicconsultation
expectedto
thankyou

antoinolachtnai

It is good work with getting all these emails sent and getting responses. But it is very important to get down to your local TD's clinic to say hello and express your concerns in person.

It is really important if you are in the Taoiseach's constituency that at least one person shows up and expresses their concerns.

You don't have to get into a big debate or anything, just show up, state your concerns and why the boilerplate response is wrong.

By the way, it would be very surprising if the government did not come out with a boilerplate response. This is a complicated issue and they are trying to come out with a single message.

In large part they are agreeing with us, that there should be no change in the present situation. The question is why, if they agree with us on that, they don't just adopt some or all of the proposed alternative SI? This would ensure that the policy status quo would remain and that fundamental rights would be protected.

It is obviously very easy for the opposition to oppose this. Because they are in opposition, they know they don't have to make any decision on the matter. They don't have to worry about having a common line. But they were poised to sign almost the same SI before they left office. They did not even have any sort of consultation.

Moonbeam

I got a reply from Anthony Lawlor today..

"As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000
"
Standard FG response.

Can anyone remember this or did any of you contribute to it?

chocksaway

mikom wrote: »

What the hell is up with all the typos?

withme
copyrightlaw
Ministerof
forwardany
thatthe
CopyrightDirective
existingprimary
inrelation
failingto
seriousmatter.
toemphasise
Instrumenthas
publicconsultation
expectedto
thankyou

oops...looks like it didn't paste correctly!

antoinolachtnai

Moonbeam wrote: »

I got a reply from Anthony Lawlor today..

Can anyone remember this or did any of you contribute to it?

Answered above somewhere. Digital Rights Ireland put in a submission, and you should draw your TD's attention to it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78967355/Copyright-SI-Submission

It would be best if you could visit your TD with it, obviously!

Crackle

Got a response from Michael Creed today (Cork North West)

Dear ***,


Thank you for your recent e-mail.

I tried to call you on your mobile earlier today but there was no response (**********).

You title your e-mail " Sean Sherlock's proposed new copyright law". Technically this is incorrect. The law has existed both in EU Directive form (Copyright Directive 2001) and in National Law since the Copyright and related Rights Act 2000. In a ruling in the High Court in October 2010 in a case between EMI verses UPC, Justice Charlton indicated that the 2000 Copyright and related Rights Act was defective insofar as it didn't provide for the issuing of an injunction in this case. It is true therefore to say that currently Copyright Thieves cannot be hindered by the present law but change by way of Statutory Instrument can address the issue of Copyright theft. I support the issue of legal remedy for theft whether it is Internet Theft of Copyright or the more conventional understanding of theft.

In essence there is no proposal from Sean Sherlock or any other Government Quarter to restrict legal Internet freedoms.

The proposed introduction of this Statutory Instrument has clearly given rise to a wider debate which is regularly entwined with the SOPA legislation in the U.S. (NOW WITHDRAWN) Clearly both matters are far from connected. The Irish proposal arises from an October 2010 Court Case referred to above. This debate varies from advocates of an unregulated online world where anything goes to those who accept requirements for some degree of policing/regulation.

I fall into the latter category, as I believe. that the Internet can be abused and when so abused can have adverse impacts which require legal remedy. (Pornography, Movie and Music piracy, fraudulent representation, illegal trade in prescription medicines, unregulated online gambling etc).

I do appreciate your contact on this matter and if you have any further observations please contact me again.

Kind regards.


Yours sincerely,

Michael Creed T.D.
Dáil Deputy for Cork North West Constituency.

Hellrazer

Heres my response from Anthony Lawlor--North Kildare.

Anyone care to translate it or better still give me a decent reply to return to him.

Many thanks for your emails.

I apologise for not getting back to you on Monday night. I have received over 400 emails about the Copyright law in the last couple of days, let alone the hundreds of emails about other issues, and unfortunately it can take some time to go through each one in detail. I personally like to respond to all emails I receive on an individual basis as opposed to sending out an automatic response and therefore I am sure you can appreciate that it is impossible to respond immediately to each query.

With regard to the points your raised regarding copyright law, it is important to be aware that Minister of State, Sean Sherlock TD, has not put forward any proposals to enact a Stop Online Piracy Type Law. Rather the need to now introduce legislation arises from a finding of the High Court in October 2010 that Ireland was not in compliance with its EU obligations under Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. As non-compliance with EU Law is a very serious matter you can understand the need to address the matter.

I should make you aware of the fact that no policy change is proposed in the Statutory Instrument. Instead the intended purpose of the proposed Statutory Instrument is not to enact new EU legislation but merely to restate the position that was thought to exist in the Copyright legislation prior to Mr. Justice Charleton’s judgement in the case of EMI Ireland & others v. UPC in October 2010. As a result of this court ruling, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 needed to be revised in order to provide civil remedies such as injunctions.

As a result of your interest in this matter, I am sure you are aware how last July Minister Sherlock held a public consultation in relation to the wording of a proposed Statutory Instrument amending Section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerns involved. I am wondering if you were in a position to forward a submission to the Minister at the time outlining your views? If so, perhaps you could send me a copy of same and I can again raise your concerns with the Minister.

In any case, I have taken on board you views in this regard and will bear them in mind in future discussions on this matter.

I hope this clarifies matters.

Kind regards,

Anthony Lawlor TD

Liamario

I fall into the latter category, as I believe. that the Internet can be abused and when so abused can have adverse impacts which require legal remedy. (Pornography...)

Wow!

expectationlost

Beruthiel wrote: »

More than 50 submissions were received from interested parties, providing an excellent overview of all the issues and concerns involved.: Anthony Lawyor

email him back asking to see the submissions, ask him if he's seem them.

he somewhat suggests he has, but has he?

expectationlost

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Don't worry about having to debate with them. The important thing is that you show up and say that this is important and that a vote is at stake. That means a lot to TDs. Leave some paperwork if you feel you need to, but if there are any complicated questions, refer them to the Stop SOPA Ireland team, and we will happily send out our team of burly negotiators to explain the fine details.

if you don't engage them on the issue they can continue to pretend to not know with the issue is, with regard to passing the buck to the courts

expectationlost

i wrote a original email last week, terence flanagan assistant sent sherlock's statement to me, i made short reply asking for personal response, terence flanagan assistant sent sherlock's statement to me, i asked for him to ask for the submissions, he replied he would ask the djei, but im not holding my breath.

also

Thanks for your email and comments which I read with great interest.

I have already contacted Minister Sherlock and Bruton directly on this matter and raised many of the issues that you mentioned. I understand that there will be a Dail debate on this matter tomorrow afternoon.

As you probably know I voted against Budget 2012 but I will raise this issue from the opposition benches with Labour colleagues and all of my Dail colleagues.

I enclose the times of my information clinic network below if you would like to discuss this matter further. Please make sure to keep in touch.

Very Best Wishes,

Tommy Broughan T.D.

Moonbeam

Hellrazer wrote: »

Heres my response from Anthony Lawlor--North Kildare.

Anyone care to translate it or better still give me a decent reply to return to him.

Same as mine.

expectationlost

went through the published replies since boards email form set up and permalinked to them spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqAEiinGYynOdEJtbk55a0pOd2VUWUd0NzRnQU9oQ1E#gid=0

add more published replies you can find. 34 published replies via boards so far, and most meps

Anyone

Got 1 reply so far. It's from the one TD who cant give an opinion :rolleyes:

Dear Anyone,

Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed statutory instrument regarding copyright.

I'm sure you will appreciate that, as Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann, I am required to maintain a strictly neutral and impartial position on all matters involving legislation, including statutory instruments.

However, I have passed on your comments to the Minister of State, Seán Sherlock TD.


Kind regards.

Yours sincerely,


Seán Barrett TD

Allyall

I haven't a lot to say, that hasn't already been said a hundred times or more on this thread, other then i feel physically sick every time i hear about this law, and the fact that it may go ahead, and that it is down to one single person..

Got what seems to be an Auto-Response almost immediately

James Reilly james.reilly@oireachtas.ie

9:31 PM (3 minutes ago)

to me
I acknowledge receipt of your email. Your correspondence will be brought to the attention of Dr James Reilly T.D., Minister for Health and to the relevant officials in the Department of Health. If the content of your correspondence relates to the functions of another Minister's department, it will be brought to their attention for direct reply.
Yours sincerely,
Constituency Office of Dr James Reilly T.D., Minister for Health
Unit 3, 1st Floor, Chamber Building
North Street,
Swords,
Co. Dublin