General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We have been down this road before. Certain posters want Ministers to be made aware of every single letter and email that their hundreds of civil servants send out every day.

Most of them haven't a clue what it is like to work in a Government Department and neither do they understand the Public Service Management Act 1997, which is well worth a read for understanding how and why civil servants can act without telling the Minister about every single thing that they are doing.

In this particular case, where a civil servant was defamed by a member of the public, why does the Minister have to be told? Are civil servants not entitled to their good name? Can twitter users and anonymous internet posters say what they like about civil servants and not take account of the defamation acts?

I think some people just like to moan, complain and whinge. It is certainly true of some journalists.

True, while others won't hear a bad word against any minister. We can only go with our honest opinions. if people take personal offense that's unfortunate and odd.
Speaking on being down this road before, you may have come to a conclusion to your liking that differs from mine.
If you are the head of an organisation, department, ministry, you should have a series of checks and balances in place. No, you don't need read everything that leaves your office but their must be a chain of command with proxies to carry out less important works on your behalf. This is bog standard stuff Blanch. Add to that anything pertaining to an issue of national interest such as this particular scandal, someone should be acting as a filter not a clog. If a minister states, "I didn't know', I'd expect someone is in for a bollocking. If it happens a lot, a sacking or moving of that staff.
Now with this particular issue, it's in the papers anytime it's raised. And yes we've sadly been down this road before, (not forgetting Noonan not knowing about Denis O'Brien's sweet Siteserv deal, still under investigation).
This incident was a headline. Harris rolls out "I wasn't aware' or a proxy does, he seems to have one for deflecting on his behalf.
Holohan tried to put the frighteners on someone using Harris' office for weight when it seems to me a private matter best suited for a solicitors letter.
Now that's my opinion on it. Harris should tell a member of staff, "Here, Orla. Anytime there's an issue relating to the Cervical check scandal that does be in all the papers any time it's raised, give us a shout' or something similar, IMO.
'I didn't know' or 'Nobody told me' isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Holohan tried to put the frighteners on someone using Harris' office for weight when it seems to me a private matter best suited for a solicitors letter.

The "Office of the Chief Medical Officer" is very much not Harris' office. Nor is it remotely a private matter as the defamation was done on the basis that the person in question was the CMO.

Harris being involved in this would the type of political interference that people regularly bemoan in fact.

blanch152

Getting back on topic:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0828/1071406-average-weekly-pay-increased-at-fastest-pace-in-decade/

"According to figures from the CSO, average weekly earnings stood at €771.12 at end June, up from €745.09 a year earlier.

Earnings increased in 12 of the 13 sectors of the economy examined."

As Bertie might say, the boom is getting boomier.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

The "Office of the Chief Medical Officer" is very much not Harris' office. Nor is it remotely a private matter as the defamation was done on the basis that the person in question was the CMO.

Harris being involved in this would the type of political interference that people regularly bemoan in fact.

So it's a health matter, in the public interest, relating to a scandal also in the public interest.

He had no business writing in such a manner. It was personal, he should have kept it between him and her not try use the health department's weight to bully her, IMO.
Harris seems to be a figure head with the to and fro of the office happening around him. Someone, if not the CMO, such a senior post, should have said, 'Hey, Sio, FYI...'.

The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) (Irish: an Príomh-Oifigeach Míochaine) for Ireland is the most senior government advisor on health related matters. It is a government post as the lead medical expert in the Department of Health.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Getting back on topic:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0828/1071406-average-weekly-pay-increased-at-fastest-pace-in-decade/

"According to figures from the CSO, average weekly earnings stood at €771.12 at end June, up from €745.09 a year earlier.

Earnings increased in 12 of the 13 sectors of the economy examined."

As Bertie might say, the boom is getting boomier.

Good news.
Sinn Fein led LA's at it again? ah sure...
And will be as true as when he said it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Good news.
Sinn Fein led LA's at it again? ah sure...
And will be as true as when he said it.

Thankfully, there are few enough LAs with SF influence following the local elections last year.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So it's a health matter, in the public interest, relating to a scandal also in the public interest.

He had no business writing in such a manner. It was personal, he should have kept it between him and her not try use the health department's weight to bully her, IMO.
Harris seems to be a figure head with the to and fro of the office happening around him. Someone, if not the CMO, such a senior post, should have said, 'Hey, Sio, FYI...'.

Except that it wasn’t personal. It was an attack on him as CMO, so he responded as CMO.

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that it wasn’t personal. It was an attack on him as CMO, so he responded as CMO.

I respectfully disagree. How ever it's irrelevant. The office was used to bully her and should not have been.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Thankfully, there are few enough LAs with SF influence following the local elections last year.

So who's responsible for the housing crisis this week? Brexit?

Uriel.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. How ever it's irrelevant. The office was used to bully her and should not have been.

She accused him of wrong doing in his role of CMO. It wasn't just a personal manner.
Also, to term it as bullying is a complete mischarecterisation of the matter. She was pulled up on making false claims and allegations (in the eyes of the CMO). An effective request to cease and desist. He also offered her an opportunity to deal with the issue via independent mediation. That's not bullying IMO

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that it wasn’t personal. It was an attack on him as CMO, so he responded as CMO.

I have to agree with you 100% on this, but it only requires a small element of knowledge of public affairs to be able to understand why you are correct.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. How ever it's irrelevant. The office was used to bully her and should not have been.

I have to say that I haven't noticed the media or the usual suspects on the opposition benches making any great big deal out of this.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I have to say that I haven't noticed the media or the usual suspects on the opposition benches making any great big deal out of this.

I don't have a team Blanch, unless you count tax payers.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. How ever it's irrelevant. The office was used to bully her and should not have been.

That's like disagreeing that the sky is blue.



Which bit do you disagree with? That her attack was about his actions as CMO?


Or that should have responded as CMO to her attack on his actions as CMO?


What specifically are you suggesting he should have done? Should he have ignored it? Or sent her a personal letter, breaching data protection regulations by using work information for personal purposes?

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's like disagreeing that the sky is blue.



Which bit do you disagree with? That her attack was about his actions as CMO?


Or that should have responded as CMO to her attack on his actions as CMO?


What specifically are you suggesting he should have done? Should he have ignored it? Or sent her a personal letter, breaching data protection regulations by using work information for personal purposes?

For the third time, he should have sent her a solicitor's letter if he felt the need to come the heavy. Especially if it was seen as personal.
People should be informing Harris of anything pertaining to this crisis at this stage. Not the first time something has made the papers and he's not been told.
This is repetition on my behalf, nothing I haven't said already.
Disagree by all means.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

For the third time, he should have sent her a solicitor's letter if he felt the need to come the heavy. Especially if it was seen as personal.
People should be informing Harris of anything pertaining to this crisis at this stage. Not the first time something has made the papers and he's not been told.
This is repetition on my behalf, nothing I haven't said already.
Disagree by all means.

You said; "he should have kept it between him and her not try use the health department's weight to bully her, IMO".


And now you say he should have sent her a solicitor's letter. So should he have used the Department's solicitor to send this letter (you know, using the health department's weight to bully her - your words, not mine) or should he have leaked her details to his personal solicitor to do this?


A solicitor's letter has no status in law. It tends to be used by private solicitors to try to intimidate people by letting them know that you have legal resources available to you. Government departments always have legal resources available to them, so it's a bit of a pointless exercise.

is_that_so

Meanwhile we're getting into Budget mood. Paschal apparently has some new ideas but is holding off to see what madness happens this week in the UK. I'm strongly inclined towards caution myself and some fair points being raised by FF on it.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-warns-fine-gael-against-using-brexit-as-cover-for-a-giveaway-election-budget-38457307.html

MadYaker

How the fcuk is he supposed to make a budget in the current climate?

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said; "he should have kept it between him and her not try use the health department's weight to bully her, IMO".


And now you say he should have sent her a solicitor's letter. So should he have used the Department's solicitor to send this letter (you know, using the health department's weight to bully her - your words, not mine) or should he have leaked her details to his personal solicitor to do this?

See above. Solicitor's letter would be between him and her, not from the office.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A solicitor's letter has no status in law. It tends to be used by private solicitors to try to intimidate people by letting them know that you have legal resources available to you. Government departments always have legal resources available to them, so it's a bit of a pointless exercise.

Exactly.
Iif you're not trying to bully using the weight of the department/state it's not.

James Brown

MadYaker wrote: »

How the fcuk is he supposed to make a budget in the current climate?

It's like Christmas come early. Expect 'Brexit' to be wheeled out at every opportunity.

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

See above. Solicitor's letter would be between him and her, not from the office.

So he should have breached Data Protection law and the Civil Service Code by taking confidential work information home and using it for personal purposes, including releasing it to a 3rd party - his solicitor?

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So he should have breached Data Protection law and the Civil Service Code by taking confidential work information home and using it for personal purposes, including releasing it to a 3rd party - his solicitor?

Sure, why not :rolleyes:

He should not have been trying to bully her at all. If he had a personal chip on his shoulder he should have pursued it that way not using the office for weight. Her remarks were in the public domain, he didn't need use any confidentiality, no more than he needed to use official channels. And again, an FYI to Simon might have been warranted. The department is poorly run IMO and Harris not often in the loop.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's like Christmas come early. Expect 'Brexit' to be wheeled out at every opportunity.

Yes but not in the way I had expected.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-warns-fine-gael-against-using-brexit-as-cover-for-a-giveaway-election-budget-38457307.html

Mr Donohoe is preparing plans to pump money into the economy to cushion it from the no-deal Brexit shocks. There will be an increase in capital project spending, funding for tourism, targeted welfare increases and even potential tax cuts.

I had assumed a no-deal Brexit budget would be going the opposite way.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yes but not in the way I had expected.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-warns-fine-gael-against-using-brexit-as-cover-for-a-giveaway-election-budget-38457307.html

I had assumed a no-deal Brexit budget would be going the opposite way.

Surprised if any raise in welfare. Rental aid I assume. Usually it's aid to people gets hit with supports for business.

Seems a change in policy anyway:

He said his party would prioritise protecting public services, supporting vulnerable economic sectors, protecting people living in poverty and citizens' incomes.

Had to start sometime I suppose.

Ironic with FF giving out about a give away budget.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Surprised at a raise in welfare. Usually it's aid to people gets hit with supports for business.

He's just talking but as DoF people have said, he needs to find a way to pay for it. A pure Brexit budget might just mean OAPs getting a few bob. I believe there is already a Brexit support fund of €100m(IIRC).

is_that_so

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yes but not in the way I had expected.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fail-warns-fine-gael-against-using-brexit-as-cover-for-a-giveaway-election-budget-38457307.html

I had assumed a no-deal Brexit budget would be going the opposite way.

That's the austerity route. Capital spending can provide a boost.

James Brown

The state always seems to look after business concerns and private investors over the general public, I don't see Brexit changing that. A new reason for more of the same, remove Lehmans, insert Brexit.

Loafing Oaf

is_that_so wrote: »

That's the austerity route. Capital spending can provide a boost.

I can see that but I would have thought the former was the commoner approach when heading into turbulent economic times, particularly for a party like FG. But we'll wait and see what the budget actually contains

is_that_so

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I can see that but I would have thought the former was the commoner approach when heading into turbulent economic times, particularly for a party like FG. But we'll wait and see what the budget actually contains

In the circumstance spending of some form makes more sense.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The state always seems to look after business concerns and private investors over the general public, I don't see Brexit changing that.

And if the budget does deliver increases in welfare spending will you admit you were wrong?