Bertiegate - the Problem is the Media!

by Bored SBP Reader Mon May 14, 2007 11:40

To answer your question with Vincent Browne - well, he's got a magazine to run, and it's in debt. So that explains all the posturing. He's also a man not averse to looking for dig-outs himself (in the purely legal sense, of course).

On the media, it's clear there is an agenda against Bertie. However, let's take a wider look at bias - the way that Richard Boyd Barrett's personal life is being trawled though the newspapers yesterday and today is a disgrace.

So what if he lives in a 1.5m pile in Killiney and his "birth" mother is Sinead Cusack. That's his business.

by Miriam Cotton Mon May 14, 2007 12:00

John

The last thing I believe about the Irish Times is that it is above suspicion:

http://mc.babna.com/about_us.html

I just think that you are reading a connection between the history of the IT and Bertiegate that simply isn't there - and in the proces are conducting a little revisionism of your own where Ahern and his party's conduct are concerned.

by Slim Jim Mon May 14, 2007 12:27

Re the BICO, the intellectual forerunners of the Irish Political Review; 'BICO regarded the union as more important than working class union, believed uncritically in the benefits of British rule in Ireland and elsewhere; justified, or denied discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland; and called for hard line measures against the IRA but not against Loyalist paramilitaries. Its Orangeism was evident in its retrospective support for Williamite settlement in ireland, which it regarded as unqualifiedly progressive.'
J. McGarry and B. O'Leary, Understanding Northern Ireland, (oxford, 1995) p. 139.

This is the organisation which was transformed magically into the IPRG and the Aubane Historical Society in the mid 1990s and is now trying to provide some sort of left wing cover for Fianna Fail. A joke then, a joke now.

by SBP Reader Mon May 14, 2007 12:41

I don't think that Vincent Browne's other interests remotely answer the inconsistency between the attack on Bertie in the SBP and at a press conference last week, and the poodling support for him this week http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=VINCE...1.asp - Bertie hasn't remotely provided a sensible response to Browne's questions, at least not any that Browne publishes. And where is the commentary about the sinister influence of CJH's mentor and handler PJ Mara? There is an element of self-promotion that is most blatant in Jody Corcoran's "exclusives", and in general the media are stirring without attempting to resolve the truth or to report the full facts known to them. It is like watching a teenager pick acne spots while Clearasil lies unused in the cupboard.

One might assume these journalists wish to ensure the continuation in power of flawed leaders upon whom they hold dirt, and hence exert control and influence, rather than fostering accountability in public life. Of course some newspapers have their own difficulties with accountability (John Water's sacking, Liam Lawlor's death, Liz Allen's bullying award, Irish Ferries co-directorships, newspaper editor / director salaries and conflicts of interest).

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon May 14, 2007 12:43

Miriam,

I notice you haven't made any comments on the British Ambassador's letter which I attached in my previous posting.

Do you have any views on it?

by jasper Mon May 14, 2007 12:44

The saddest thing about this election is that even if current government was ousted, the scenario would be akin to Animal Farm where the animals looking in at the pigs (Napoleon et al) thought they were seeing humans.

As it is, it's starting to resemble the last American Presidential election where John Kerry's main selling point was that he wasn't GW Bush. The same is starting to happen here.

"Oh...look at Bertie! Look what he's been at. We wouldn't do that. No siree."

It's becoming farcical to the point where all I've had on my doorstep is yes-men (and women).

by Miriam Cotton Mon May 14, 2007 13:32

John

I'm aware of that letter and the associated history - long before Bertiegate ever erupted. You haven't shown any correlation between that and the events you are trying to link it to - at least nothing remotely credible, in my opinion. Terry Prone has a good article in today's Irish Examiner which boils down to this: the idea of an orchestrated media response to Bertiegate is really the deluded wail of a party that is casting around for people to blame for its woes. Bertie Ahern should have resigned when all of this first came to light. Look at the trasncripts of Leaders Questions for Sept 22-30 - Ahern's explanations are excruciatingly bad. Mortifying, in fact. Nobody with an ounce of curiosity, let alone a journalist, could fail to have had their interest whetted by his performance. The media are in competition with one another - they have their own tribal loyalites - especially at election time. The statement to end all statements does not actually draw a line under anything. The story about his house is as murky as ever.

As Harry McGee puts it in the Examiner today:

But there are other [questions] that remain hanging. Why was that lodgment a mixture of sterling and punts? And that lodgment went through two accounts before going back into his safe in St Luke's a month or so later. And then it was converted back into sterling for the purposes of paying back Mr Wall but then that didn't happen and then may or may not have been kept in his safe in sterling.

Has there ever been such brass-necked baloney talked by anyone as by Ahern? And here we have the Irish Political Review, of all things, apparently impervious to what the facts reveal: While Minister for Finance, and the person with ultimate responsibility for the management of the country's finances, Ahern was in receipt of undeclared income for which he did not pay income tax until the payments were exposed 12 years later. There is a moral vacuum at the heart of your arguments which you fail to address.

And now we learn, despite assurances to the contrary last September, that there are issues of tax liability on the payments he had from Manchester businessmen, after all. Since then, he has made an ex post facto payment to the Revenue - which they have decided to accept. Did you ever hear the like? If that were you or I, we would have been fined for defrauding the revenue of taxes on undeclared income.

by SBP Reader Mon May 14, 2007 13:56

"If you tell the truth, it always comes out the same, no matter how you tell it".

The various versions, currency conversions, gifts, digouts and now tax liabilities most probably arise from creative story telling that suited the facts known to be public at the time - possibly without involving an accountant in the creative process. It is sad that only a tabloid will state that "Bertie Lied", while everyone else is protecting him from such unparliamentary language. Without mitigating factors, of two contradictory stories explaining the facts, (at least) one is a lie.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon May 14, 2007 19:53

Miriam,
I have just referred to your website and frankly I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It opens with a stunning quote from Geraldine Kennedy regarding the role of the media: “To lead and shape public opinion”. You rightly criticise her for this statement and there are a lot of other comments in the website with which I agree.

And yet here I am raising the issue of media bias in this election and you rush to the defence of the media and quote approvingly from Terry Prone who is also dismissive of the allegation of media bias. (Interestingly you have some less approving views of the same Terry Prone in your website).

I am genuinely perplexed. I can only think that the only media bias you are capable of seeing is a capitalist media bias. You are incapable of seeing an anti-national media bias even when the evidence is presented in front of your nose. The British Major who controlled the paper for so long, who was deciding its editorial line with a foreign state and who is currently the President of The Irish Times Group is invisible to you.

You say that you are aware of the so called “white nigger” letter and have been aware of it long before Bertiegate ever erupted. But you still haven’t offered any opinions on it in this discussion even though you have given plenty of opinions on other matters.

Do you have any opinions, as a media commentator, on how The Irish Times and the rest of the media handled the revelation of the “white nigger” letter: It is now accepted that although the IPR was the first to publish the details of the letter in January 2003, it was known about long before then, probably December 1999.
You might be interested to know (or then again maybe not) that a list of questions was submitted by the IPR to both the board of directors of The Irish Times Ltd and The Irish Times Trust Ltd. The gist of the reply was that what McDowell did was nothing to do with them even though he is currently honoured with the title President for Life of The Irish Times Group. The Irish Times doesn’t believe in delving into its own past, but is more than eager to look at the past of our Taoiseach even though the events occurred between 10 and 13 years ago.

It is no accident that you quote Geraldine Kennedy in the first sentence of your website to illustrate media arrogance. Any media commentator, even one as myopic as you appear to be, could not avoid noticing the arrogance of The Irish Times and its arrogance goes way beyond the mere advancement of corporate interests.

Its stated position is that the Irish are essentially childish, corrupt and sleeveens. Every so often we redeem ourselves like when we were silent during the playing of God Save the Queen in Croke Park, but then we quickly slide back into our old ways.

In my view the editorials last year in the Irish Times around the time of “Bertiegate 1” were quite extraordinary. The theme was that “we had disgraced ourselves yet again” by forgiving Bertie. But of course, the “we” doesn’t refer to The Irish Times, the “we” is the Irish people. The “we” is said in the manner of a nurse trying to coax a senile geriatric or a very young child.

When The Irish Times exposes corruption it is not to prevent it, but to show how corrupt “we” are. This, of course, has an attraction for people on the left, but The Irish Times agenda is not a socialist agenda it is an anti-national one.

Regarding your quotes from Harry McGee, my reaction is: so what. Ahern is entitled to organise his financial affairs in the way he sees fit. He received money from Irish businessmen based in Britain so why is it surprising that there was both sterling and Irish pounds included in the lodgement.

Ahern has admitted last year that he was wrong to accept the money all those years ago. The Irish people have forgiven him because of the circumstances of his marital relationship. No evidence of political favours being given has emerged despite all the digging. Nothing new has emerged during this election campaign despite all the column inches devoted to the story.

The conclusion of the IPR remains: Bertie is not the problem; it is the media.

by Miriam Cotton - MediaBite Mon May 14, 2007 20:33 mcotton at mediabite dot org

John

I think we've arrived at a stalemate. I acknowledge the significance of what you have revealed - except as you are insisting on relating it to this issue. We are accusing each other of myopia on key points and it seems are unlikely to agree.

You seem to imply that improper and dishonest behaviour only matters if it involves huge sums of money. It is a fact that Ahern received significant income which he did not declare or pay tax on until it was made public 12 years later. That's dishonesty and you are applying a different standard to Ahern than is consistent even with the law of the land - and certainly as it is applied to ordinary people. How you can say, given the known facts, that there has never been any suggestion of impropriety is bizarre. You can only argue that if you choose to disregard all that we now know.

I'm not 'defending' the Irish Times - they may well have a hundred different motives in this, but Ahern has brought this on himself by his own improper behaviour and the IT is right in that narower regard.

With regard to Terry Prone - the fact I agree with one thing she says doesn't signify any more than that. She had an 'advice' column for Enda and Bertie in the Sunday Tribune yesterday headed 'OK boys - now sell yourselves' - long on the sort of puffery that management and PR consultants make so much money out of but entirely devoid of substance or meaning were the real issues are concerned. That's the sort of media commentary this country needs like a hole in the head.

Does the IPR have a website?

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Tue May 15, 2007 09:20

Miriam,

Perhaps the differences between us are not as significant as first appeared.

I am more forgiving of Ahern. In fairness it was not a case of undeclared income it was undeclared gifts. It is not uncommon for people to receive gifts of money from other people. People get into financial trouble for various reasons and friends help them out.

Most people in that situation are grateful, but it does not follow that the receipients feel they have to do the donors any favours in return. There are some areas of human life that are not dictated by the law of contract.

Also, there would be very few people whose first thought on receiving a gift would be to declare it to the Tax authorities.

Okay I admit that the receivng of money as minister for Finance wasn't great. He claims he didn't ask for it, but that someone knew his situation and thought he would do something about it. There was a feeling that a likely Taoiseach shouldn't be living over a shop and shouldn't have to be worried about personal financial problems. (Incidentally, it was an Irish Times story that prevented Ahern from succeeding Reynolds in 1994. It has been remarkably coy about its role in Ahern's destiny).

In my view all of this was dealt with last year. The Irish people or at least most Irish people can't think of Ahern as being corrupt (maybe they and I are naive). I have never met Ahern, but I do know of people who have been helped out by Ahern (in terms of his time and energy) in resolving disputes and have tried to pay Ahern and he has refused. Rightly or wrongly people think Ahern is a decent man.

In my view Ahern has been hounded by the media in this election. Story after story has appeared but nothing of substance has emerged.

I am not a professional journalist myself, but I can see that there may be cases where journalists hound a politician over a small story in order to keep a bigger story on the boil. It's a dodgy ethical area, but if there is some substance to the bigger story the hounding in retrospect can be justified. But in this case the big story has not emerged and as far as I can see is not there.

Also, when I hear the shrill moralising of the Irish Times in particular and then I look at how it behaves when it itself is put under scrutiny, I want to vomit.

The website is www.atholbooks.org. On the left hand side of the home page (fourth line down) you will be able to access some free back issues of the Irish Poltical Review.

In particular I would recommend you read the December 2004 issue which deals with how the Irish Times dealt with "the white nigger" letter.

Thank you for your interest.

Best regards

John

by spock's ears Sun May 20, 2007 14:19

Their Haughey-worship isn't the worst thing about the IPR.
Here are some other objectionable articles from the magazine.

*An article in February 2007 attacked legistation for gay rights in Northern Ireland, claiming that
"Peter Hain … is determined to impose social norms against the grain of society in the North." Editoral Comment,Feb 2007

*Another Editoral Comment, in April 2007, implied the Omagh bombing might be the work of the British secret services.

* Yet Another article in Nov. 2005, "the Propaganda that never sleeps" sailed dangerously close to David Irving territory by claiming "The Nuremberg Trials were a travesty of law on many grounds.". Does the IPR seriously think the murderous Nazis were the helpless vicitms of English Imperialism?
The Nazi butchers were tried according to the principles of international law and given lawyers to defend them.

The Aubane gang have nothing to offer the Irish left.

by yello Sun May 20, 2007 17:31

I agree with the above poster. The Irish Political Review has published dozens of offensive comments over the years,(loads of them as bad as "white nigger") all far worse than one
(admitted nasty) comment in a private letter.
Perhaps Brendan Clifford is Justin Barrett in disguise ; ).

by Eamonn de Paor Mon May 21, 2007 20:47

The IPR is a complete irrelevance. I for one never heard of it and neither know nor care who or what it espouses, - left, right or centre. (Frankly, it irritates me that in the course of important discussion in an election campaign, that people should insult the intelligence of the participants and start running after hares.) The Irish Times, on the other hand, is far from irrelevant - it is a major player in Irish affairs; and in view of its conduct, close scrutiny and questioning are warranted. I don't care who asks the questions so long as we get to the bottom of what the I.T. is up to.

by SBP Reader Mon May 21, 2007 20:55

"The Irish Times, on the other hand, is far from irrelevant"

And likewise Vincent Browne who appears to have played a quite underhand role in massaging pro-PD, pro-FF messages throughout the campaign, the latest being his vindictive attack on Pat Rabbitte today.

by spock's ears Mon May 21, 2007 21:29

I agree there are problems with the Irish Times, but I have read the IPR
regularly in a local library (I've seen it in libraries and bookshops in Cork,Galway, and Dublin) and I find its views highly offensive.
It basically seems to advocate an 1950s idea of Irishness where only white, nationalist Catholics have an right to be Irish, dressed up with a dollop of Leninism and anti-globalisation.
Remember, John expressed disapproval of an IT editiorial advocating multi-culturalism and friendship with-NOT submission to-Britain. Respecting the French or American national anthems is not advocating our annexation by those nations.

Worse still, its articles on WWII resemble a cross between AJP Taylor and Pat Buchanan-the evil British forced the friendly Germans into war.
When Gerry McGeough publishes these kind of opinions, there is outrage. When the IPR does it, nobody seems to notice.

The IPR are in no position to sling mud at anyone, even the Irish Times.

by Eamonn de Paor Mon May 21, 2007 22:10

"When the IPR does it, nobody seems to notice."

I expect because practically nobody reads it. Why else would nobody notice?

Curious, isn't it, that when a serious criticism surfaces of a very powerful institution, a storm of irrelevances suddenly arises to cloud and conceal the major issue. Now, I wonder why would that be?

by SBP Reader Mon May 21, 2007 22:30

"Curious, isn't it, that when a serious criticism surfaces of a very powerful institution, a storm of irrelevances suddenly arises"

Indeed. The Independent by way of Jody Corocoran (who in my humble opinion is too thick to plot) and the Irish Times (who are too clever to succeed) are the only media of note in forming this election, and have played a strange game. But effective, one assumes, as neither seem dissapointed by re-electing Bertie and his cronies. This election is nothing but red herrings. Every constitutional crisis, fundamental employment right, taxation policy or other electoral issue has been quietly dropped.

I sincerely hope that the populist monstrosity that is McDowell and the PDs will be ousted, at the very least. A change of leadership would certainly open the civil service books to inspection, whoever the new regime.

by spock's ears Mon May 21, 2007 22:57

Last Week the IT published TWO full pages
of Bertie's statement defending himself. Strange behaviour from a publication determined to "hound" St. Bertie and "re-anglicise" Ireland.

We're unlikely to see that reported in the IPR, a magazine whose contributors appear to be Irish verisions of Lyndon LaRouche.

Remember "The New Frontiersman" in "Watchmen", a, paranoid
right-wing magazine? The Irish Political Review is the
real-world "New Frontiersman"!

by Eamonn de Paor Tue May 22, 2007 09:52

Curiouser and curiouser!
I had assumed the IPR was just another little self-referential club of navel-gazers, of no lasting interest to anyone but themselves.
But if they have got the arrogant Irish media and their apologists worried, then maybe there is more to them after all.
Good work, IPR! Well done, Indymedia!

by Spock's ears Tue May 22, 2007 10:45

The Irish Times has criticised (rightly) Bertie, but it also gave him a chance to defend himself.
There was no Sunday Independent-style bullying of Ahern.
The Irish Times, whatever its flaws, has always been hated by those who dream of an Ireland populated entirely by white Catholic Republicans (see the newsagent in Angela's Ashes, for instance).
And while I disagree with many of Geraldine Kennedy's views, I admire her standing up to the Haughey government over the phone-tapping scandal-something the "volkish" element of Ireland still hates her for.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Tue May 22, 2007 11:14

The idea that the Irish Times has been objective in its reporting of the General election is, in my view, eccentric. I could give numerous examples of its bias.

Despite all the column inches devoted to Bertie Ahern’s finances it looks like it has been much ado about nothing. No evidence of political corruption has been found. Indeed an allegation has been made that the Irish Times suppressed information leaked from the Mahon Tribunal which would have pointed to Ahern’s innocence (see letter by Liam Young, The Irish Times, 16/5/07). I have not seen any denials by Madame of this very serious charge.

The whole tenor of The Irish Times campaign in this election has been that Fianna Fail has been on the ropes and has been having a torrid time on the door steps (see last Saturday’s article by Kathy Sheridan in which a prediction of 62 seats for Fianna Fail was made). It was only yesterday that its own opinion polls could no longer hide the reality from itself and its readers (incidentally, The Irish Times opinion polls reduce the FF vote by 5 percentage points in their “adjusted” figures. The 5 percentage points are then distributed to the other parties. Look at the “core” vote figures and compare with the adjusted figures if you don’t believe me).

It’s current tack today is that Fianna Fail will be looking for the support of independents after the election. So a vote for Fianna Fail is a vote for instability. But if its own opinion polls are to believed a FF/PD coalition is still a likely option and a FF single party government is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

The most blatant example of The Irish Times’s bias was its coverage of the debate between Ahern and Kenny. Although most commentators believed that Ahern had won, the exception, of course, was The Irish Times.

It is not often that readers of a newspaper read about an event that they themselves have witnessed. But this was the case with the election debate.

The headline in the following day’s Irish Times (18/5/07) was: “Kenny scores on confidence and Ahern on detail”. The clear impression that any reader would get was that the outcome was a draw. But given that it was a draw (per The Irish Times) Kenny really won. This is the logic that it used:

“Given that Mr Kenny had much more to lose if he failed to demonstrate his ability to hold his own in such a crucial contest his supporters will be happier at the outcome. There was certainly no knockout punch from either man in the course of the contest.”

In the discussion of the debate many boxing metaphors have been used. But in boxing if the contender does not score more points, the champion is declared the winner.

The Irish Times report tended to be impressionistic:

“Mr Kenny looked confident and alert while the Taoiseach looked tired at times. Mr Ahern did pressurise his opponent on how he would deliver on his “contract” within budgetary constraints and he also did well on crime.”

Unlike the Irish Independent there was no reference to the most dramatic parts of the debate in which Ahern obtained an admission from Kenny that the potential partners of Labour had a tax policy that benefited the top 3% of income earners. Nor unlike the Irish Independent did it mention that Ahern demonstrated that Fine Gael’s own Justice spokesperson had got his statistics wrong.

A good proportion of The Irish Times coverage dwelled on the “issue” of Ahern’s finances which in fact consisted of only a very small part of the overall debate.

The pictures and headlines in the coverage of the debate were quite disgraceful.

At the top of page 8 (18/5/07) a small headline read: “Enda Kenny says he would bring a ‘new energy and a new motivation’ to role of Taoiseach.”

Then in a much bigger headline there was the rather defensive quote from Ahern: “My energy levels as good as ever”. Underneath this headline there was a matrix of nine pictures taken during the debate: four of Kenny and four of Ahern with a picture of Miriam O’ Callaghan in the centre. The top picture is of Ahern with his eyes closed.

Underneath the pictures is a box entitled “Kenny v Ahern: what they said”.

It might be wondered why Kenny’s name was first in the above title. As the outgoing Taoiseach and leader of the largest party should it not have been Ahern? Then under the heading there are four quotes each from Kenny and Ahern. Kenny’s quotes are confident and aggressive while Ahern’s are defensive.

About the only concession to reality came with an insert at the very end of page 8 in which five floating voters were asked for their opinions. Three out of the five said Ahern was a convincing winner and the remaining two thought it was pretty even but that Ahern had come out on top.

In my view The Irish Times coverage of the debate was a complete misrepresentation of what happened. The people responsible would have been aware that unlike in most reports their readers would have witnessed for themselves what was being reported on. One can only imagine how this event would have dealt with if The Irish Times had been freed from such a constraining factor.

by yello Tue May 22, 2007 11:17

"FOR the first time in my life I am going to vote Fianna Fail. And if you care about the future of Irish democracy you will do the same. Because I believe the anti-Ahern campaign to be the most sinister, sustained and successful manipulation of the Irish media that I have seen in my lifetime".
Who wrote that? John? Eamonn? No, it was....
EOGHAN HARRIS, in the Sunday Independent, May 06 2007.
Maybe Harris should get a job at the IPR-after all, both he and Brendan Clifford were once attacking Irish nationalism from an authoritarian Marxist viewpoint, and both have
embraced reactionary positions (Harris-Anglo-American neo-conservatism,Clifford,
1950s Catholic Republicanism). And what's a little FF corruption between friends?

by spock's ears Tue May 22, 2007 12:22

Eamonn says he doesn't care where the criticisms of the IT are published -I wonder would he say that if, say "Penthouse" published a searing critique of the IT : ).

On a more serious note, Indymedia viewers, go into a library that takes the magazine and read its back issues. You'll find the magazine has some highly questionable views on immigration,
religion and the Second World War.

by John Boy Tue May 22, 2007 12:43

Whatever your views on who says what, it's blatantly obvious that the only credible conteder to be the next Taoiseach is Biff Cowen.

I'm no fan of FF but the thought of Rabitte, Kenny et al assuming the position has me break out in a cold sweat.

by SBP Reader Tue May 22, 2007 12:59

For sure the BIFFO will be taoiseach if FF are elected - Bertie is headed the way of Judge Naughty O'Buachalla and others who resign rather than answer the simplest of questions. I am sure the IT know with precision the nature of Bertie's offences and whether they are or are not criminal, but they are seeking control of a compromised leader. They will not get it because the questions still remain and a questionable leader is unsupportable.

But it would be far preferable to eject FF from office, or at the least wrest control from the two-headed monster of the FF-PD alliance, and rotate some offices. The only way to bring accountability back into public life is by scrutiny, which means new faces to answer to.

Whether Bertie has or hasn't broken the law is now irrelevant, he is untrustworthy, as are all those pledging uncritical support.

by John Boy Tue May 22, 2007 14:34

There's no point in change for change's sake.

Sure, people would like a change but the alternative to FF being in government means that KG and Labour will be there and neither Kenny nor Rabitte have the wherewithall to run a country.

So, as unpalatable as it may be to many, FF being in power may be the lesser of two evils.

by mm Tue May 22, 2007 15:18

If FF resume power we will see the continuation of the move to the right.
The poor and the sick can rot for all Bertie and FF care.
Ireland will soon become an american state in all but name with the same
mé-féin society and everything decided by the bottom line.
Is this what we really want?

by John Boy Tue May 22, 2007 15:21

There's very little discernible difference between the parties.

Politics is about those who are in power trying to hold onto it and those that aren't trying to get it.

Fulfilment of any election policies is of secondary importance.

The copuntry, in it's entirety, wouldn't be any better off with a difference set of politicians at the top table and it pains me to say that.

by mm Tue May 22, 2007 15:42

Its well known that, after a time, any corporation or company begins to take on
the personality and traits of the individual in charge.
This is true also for Ireland Inc. After 10 years of Bertie as taoiseach he has managed
to impose his character on Irish society; and what a character it is.
- no appreciation for the value of education
- no care for the poor and the sick
- unable to tell right from wrong
- power at any price
- F*** the environment
- our children reared by strangers.

What a man!

by John Boy Tue May 22, 2007 15:51

The logic is flawed since there are many people that would like to see the back of FF but see the alternatives as incapable.

A change of Taoiseach may be the catalyst for change for the better but I can't see a change of party being better.

I would lose the PDs though.

by Great Cthulhu Tue May 22, 2007 17:35

Bertie must be in big trouble if he has only Harris and the B&ICO/Aubane gang supporting him!!

by Odds 50/1 Tue May 22, 2007 20:45

Our cyndicate has put 100 @ 50/1 Ahern. pd 100 @ 55/1 Kenny l/p 100 @ 30/1 Rabbit l/p 100 @ 5/1 Higgins S/P

What's the odds, nothing like a good oul gamble it might just pay off ...Will we hit the jackpot?

by SBP Reader Tue May 22, 2007 22:58

It didn't occur to me until you posted, but Paddy Power was very accurate on the Eurovision and on previous elections - certainly far more accurate than polls, adjusted or raw. They have some lovely tables on every question I can think of, including Bertie to win, McDowell for demotion and FF/Lab for government.
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_type&category=S...=1653

by Great Cthulhu Sun May 27, 2007 17:24

....My earlier guess was proved wrong. He won a majority after all, in spite of those nasty
Bolshevik-Freemason-West Brits at the Irish Times.

by billy idle Sun May 27, 2007 19:32

I think you'll find alot more West Brits and other nasties at the offices of Sir O'Reilly's rag-sheets. No wonder mad hatter harris and mental Myers are so at home their,

by Dagon Sun May 27, 2007 19:38

Dunno. The Indo ran a lot of anti FF stories even in the vlast week of the election campaign. Even in the Sindo there are real journalists like Gene Kerrigan, John Drennan and Alann Ruddock.

by billy idle Sun May 27, 2007 19:59

My theory on this is that independent newspapers were smart enough to see how stories about Berties dodgy personal finances last october actually increased FF's popularity. This time it had the added benefit of distracting the electorate from the real failures of this government in the areas of health,education,environment and transport etc.

Isn't it interesting how Cowen and other senior FF people had a shady meeting with O'Reilly just a few days before the election after which both sides refused to give any details about what they discussed. That suggests that FF were not at all displeased about all those Bertie stories that the indo were running. And the subsequent result of the election shows why.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon May 28, 2007 11:07

Can I suggest that the thesis of the Irish Political Review has been proved correct? Can I also suggest that my posting of last Tuesday stands up quite well in terms of the outcome of the election?

It is not just a question of whether you are for or against Bertie Ahern or Fianna Fail. The Irish Times followed by most of the rest of the media misrepresented the reality of what happened during the election. It misrepresented the debate between Ahern and Kenny, which turned out to be a key determinant of the result.

It misrepresented the Fianna Fail campaign as being in disarray when in fact it fought a very well thought out intelligent campaign. (To deny this would be to say that Fianna Fail won the election despite a terrible campaign. This would be very complimentary to the outgoing government!)

This is a very serious problem. We all depend to a greater or lesser extent on the media to understand what is happening in the outside world. But it is not often that the media’s presentation of reality is tested by an objective measure. The results of the election show objectively that what the media said was happening on the doorsteps was simply wrong.

Why was the media so wrong? Are the journalists incompetent or stupid? In Bertie Ahern’s post election interview he didn’t blame individual journalists at all. According to Ahern “they were only doing what they were told to do”.

But who or what is behind the propaganda campaign of the media? I am surprised that there has been very little comment on the “white nigger” letter which I attached to an earlier posting. In the light of the results of the election I attach this letter again.

The letter is from the British Ambassador to Ireland describing a lunch he had in October 1969 with the Chief Executive of The Irish Times, Major Thomas McDowell. McDowell was the Chief Executive of The Irish Times from 1962 to 1969. He was also Chairman of the Irish Times Trust, the secretive body which controls the paper, from 1974 to 2001. He is currently honoured with the title of President for Life of The Irish Times Group.

1969 British Ambassador letter 0.12 Mb

by Stuart Mon May 28, 2007 11:40

John Martin "Can I suggest that the thesis of the Irish Political Review has been proved correct?"

If you wait 38 years for a throwaway comment to be proved correct then there is bound to be a moment it could seem so. I don't see it myself, in the light of the routing of the PDs. The Irish Times played patsy and got smacked - their meddling had the exact opposite effect of their intent. The electorate love a good old sinner, man of the people, flawed genius. For now.

I don't think Bertie will last two more years. He has the sympathy vote now, but everyone knows he lied (whatever language Michael McDowell put on it) and he would lie to any of us, over anything. He shafted his own constituency colleagues with his Bertie No 1 stunt on the last night of the elections. He shafted his strongest allies in government. He has his celeb status that allows him to kick the print media out of his post-election media call. He would shaft and kick out any of us, over anything.

The cutest hoor of them all.

by Zen-Tao Mon May 28, 2007 19:56

I don't want this to go off the point, but I must ask this:
John, don't you have a problem working for a magazine (the IPR) that attacks people because they are Protestant ( i.e.Elizabeth Bowen) homosexual (i.e. the attempt to disprove Casement's homosexuality, or the comments about Peter Hain mentioned by the other posters) or immigrants?

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Tue May 29, 2007 08:45

"I don’t want to go off the point, but…"

You are going off the point. You are also misrepresenting the position of the Irish Political Review. We never attacked Elizabeth Bowen because she was a Protestant, but we did mention the indisputable fact, that she was a British spy during the Second World War. The only defence I have seen of Bowen was the view of Martin Mansergh that her spying activities were harmless. I find it bizarre that you accuse the Irish Political Review, a magazine associated with the “two nations theory” long before it became fashionable as being somehow anti-Protestant.

The Irish Political Review has given space in its pages to contributors who question the authenticity of the “Black Diaries” attributed to the great Protestant patriot Roger Casement. I don’t know how this makes us anti-homosexual. Incidentally, the black diaries as far as I know imply paedophile activities as well as homosexual activities. They also indicate an exploitative relationship between Casement and the boys he was alleged to have had sex with. And I haven’t accused you of being “anti-Protestant” because you seem to accept the veracity of the Black diaries.

The Irish Political Review has never attacked immigrants. However, we have been critical of a policy that encourages immigration as a means of undercutting workers wages (e.g. Irish Ferries). This legitimate concern does not seem to have been a problem because of the buoyancy of the economy and has not featured recently in the pages of the Irish Political Review.

Now to get back to the point…

I am stunned that you don’t seem to have any opinion on the “white nigger” letter which I attached in my previous posting. The Irish Times, it seems, is above criticism and yet you find the time to misrepresent a small circulation magazine such as the Irish Political Review.

by Proddy Gayboy Tue May 29, 2007 09:19

Yes, John Martin, you are absolutely correct to complain that anyone would "misrepresent a small circulation magazine such as the Irish Political Review". Although your fixation with a sentence in a letter from the mists of the last century is not enlightening the debate.

I take it that your own juxtaposition of "homosexual .... paedophile" is an accurate representation of this virtually unread publication, that is in any case completely inconsequential to any discussion of portraying Bertie in the media.

by Marlboro Man Tue May 29, 2007 09:48

"I take it that your own juxtaposition of "homosexual .... paedophile" is an accurate representation of this virtually unread publication, that is in any case completely inconsequential to any discussion of portraying Bertie in the media."

Hear Hear, stay on topic and stop agenda setting.

by Miriam Tue May 29, 2007 11:21

John

There is no denying that the letter you are preoccupied with said what it said. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. It is your attempt to link it to the media's response to Bertiegate - the IT's in particular - which is not convincing people. There are few if any IT lovers posting to this website. That doesn't stop us from having a sense of proportion and perspective about its role in the general scheme of things.

There are entirely legitimate questions being raised about Ahern's finances. If the media did any less it'd be a scandal in itself. How many of us have to go through time-consuming, complicated and humiliating means tests year in year out for meage welfare payments such as carers allowance, for example. If a single mistake is made, the full force of the state is brought down on your head. There are mini-Mahons of this sort being conducted on many of the most needy people in the country every day - at great expense to the state too. And yet you (and most FFers) behave as if it was an outrage to require a Minister for Finance/Taoiseach to make an honest account of himself in highly dubious circumstances.

I for one am enraged by Ahern's behaviour. Bad enough that he did what he did, but the attitude he presents now is as if he believes he should be accountable to noone - railing at the media etc. You will have to find some other situation to hook your theory onto - not doubt there are good examples of where that white nigger injunction was followed - but this ain't one of them. This is self afflicted, home-brewed misery.

by bj Tue May 29, 2007 11:44

One of the problems with the media and the political parties in general is that they overrate the
public opinion of themselves. They believe their own propaganda.
Joe Bloggs, the floating voter, just doesn't give them a great deal of thought. He's much too busy earning a crust / fishing / whatever:

- "the govt. are doing a fairly o.k. job - I have a good job, a house, a holiday - the traffic is a pain
the poor are getting a raw deal - not great but it could be a lot worse - remember the 80s -
I won't risk it yet - leave well-enough alone but ditch the ultra right-wingers - if it all goes to shit I'll need healthcare"

-" yes Bertie has questions to answer but I'm not going to waste my vote on some principle
that has no relevance to my life"

Did I leave something out?

by SBP Reader Tue May 29, 2007 12:53

It is nice to see that the Irish Times reads this column. Patsy McGarry seems a little touchy about criticism of his employer and colleagues in a rather egoistic piece today "For penance, say 78 Fianna Fáils and two PDs - Following the general election campaign, a penitent journalist goes to confession." In this attempt at satire he writes "Fianna Fail bring out the worst in me at election time ... like trying to dig up dirt on Bertie ... I wrote rash judgement, calumny and detraction".

I think most of the people who have posted here support the fair, balanced and comprehensive exposure of financial misconduct. I would like to see the truth about Bertie's finance, and I would like to see his "discrepancies" exposed for what they are: lies, lies and more lies. Along with his colleagues, his alliance partners in the PDs and the witnesses from the AIB. Oh, did I suggest the AIB lied to the tribunal? Perhaps I should stick with the "discrepancy" that "the bank official involved in processing the sterling transaction provided evidence to the tribunal without referring to the connection between sterling and punt transactions, and omitted contemporaneous documentation of transactions."

Or maybe I should write artifice, avoidance, casuistry, circumvention, cop-out, cunning, ditch, dodge, double-dealing, duplicity, elusion, equivocation, escaping, eschewal, evasiveness, excuse, fancy footwork, fudging, jive, (but NOT lie), obliqueness, prevarication, quibble, runaround, ruse, shiftiness, shirking, shuffling, sophistry, stalling, stonewall, subterfuge, trickery.

But no, Colm Keena and Fiona Gartland have seven separate articles spread over two pages of today's Irish Times in a display of self-puffery worthy of the most exotic zoo specimens, without stating the obvious.

by bj Tue May 29, 2007 13:03

Great list!
You got the cunning part right but left out 'devious'

by Watcher Tue May 29, 2007 13:16

What's wrong with calling Bertie what he is; A bought and paid for liar.

by yello Tue May 29, 2007 19:01

John said nothing about the Peter Hain comment, or the conspiracy theories about Omagh, or the article by Brendan Clifford that said the Nuremburg trials were a "travesty"(Is Clifford seriously saying all the accused Nazis should have been acquitted?).
I don't know about him, but I'd rather work for the much-maligned IT than Clifford's hate-sheet.
By the way, I'm sure Robert Service said Stalin's ideas about nationalism were to justify Soviet Imperialism in the Ukraine and Baltics.
If that's where B&ICO/Aubane got the two-nations theory, we should stay well away from it.
Brendan Clifford-from authoritarian Marxist to authoritarian Catholic...

(And just because the IT's owner made a racist remark in a private letter
almost forty years ago, doesn't affect the modern IT. Anymore than the fact that Reader's Digest published articles praising the Ku Klux Klan, or the New Statesman published articles praising Stalin matter. Although all three positions were reprehensible, they don't affect their respective modern publications,since they all happened decades ago and their contemporary staff would be ashamed of such attitudes.).

by great cthulhu Tue May 29, 2007 19:32

What! Granny's favourite magazine praised the white-hooded thugs!
Dearie me, we can't read the IT, the IPR, the RD or the NS. We'll have to stick with Ireland's Own.

by Zen-Tao Wed May 30, 2007 00:21

John,this is what the IPR's editor David Alvey said about Bowen..." Given that she spied for a foreign power against this state, why should she be claimed as an Irish writer? Her novels were a contribution to English literature. That she is still defended by various influential Irish academics, including Dr Mansergh*, testifies to a collapse of faith in the national tradition on the part of what might be called the Irish intelligentsia. " Unpublished letter Apr. 13, 2004.
So all those people who say Bowen is an anglo-Irish writer are self-hating West Brits.Bowen is to be expelled from the Irish canon. I hope Mr. Alvey will be consistent and apply his philistinism to Francis Stuart, another great writer who worked for a "foreign power against this state".
I admire both Bowen and Stuart as great Irish writers,despite disagreeing with their political views(especially Stuart's!). In addition to apologising for FF's corruption, John's magazine has adopted the Paul Johnson school of criticism, where people's mistakes and weaknesses are seen as the key to their character.
Fortunately, Ireland is much bigger than the IPR's sectarian, xenophobic, anti-intellectual "national tradition".

*Poor Martin Mansergh.Despite working for the IRP's hero Haughey, his religion and ethnicity are all wrong. So the B&ICO/Aubane goes after him, just like they once went after John Hume and Mary McAleese.

by Eamonn de Paor Wed May 30, 2007 11:10

What a display of Free State smugness!
The vast majority of Protestants in Ireland are British. That is why the Six Counties are sovereign British territory and will probably remain such for the foreseeable future. For most of the past 3 or 4 centuries, to be called Irish, or to declare oneself to be such, was a mark of degradation in many parts of the world. Any sensible person who wanted to get ahead in the world avoided this label. But most people born in Ireland could not avoid it, and Irish history is largely the story of how those people tried to make the best of this unfortunate condition. Francis Stuart chose to be Irish. That was his choice, to which he was entitled. Likewise Martin Mansergh. They deserve neither praise nor blame for their choice. There is a movement called Reform, supported by a former Taoiseach, to assert the Britishness of Protestants in Ireland. There is a movement headed by the Irish Times, under its figurehead Major McDowell (who from a position of power sought to promote British influence decisively at the highest levels, at a critical moment of Irish history), to transform the rest of us in a particular direction. That, fundamentally, is the driving force behind Bertiegate.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Wed May 30, 2007 11:33

I’m glad you seem to accept the significance of the “white nigger” letter, which goes beyond a racist view of Irish people, but indicates that the most powerful person in the Irish Times in the last forty years wished to place the newspaper under the guidance of the British State. I don’t know how some posters can consider this just a “private” letter. It is a document indicating that he approached representatives of the British State and those representatives (the British Ambassador and functionaries of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office) wished to assure Downing Street that they would “exploit this opportunity”.

I notice that you have an interview with Fintan O’ Toole on your website in which he refers to the importance of the Trust which controls The Irish Times. In your introduction you suggest that O’ Toole’s view of the media might be rose tinted. Whatever about the media he certainly gives a benign view of the Trust.

The Irish Times believes that transparency and openness is for other people but certainly not for itself. Each year the directors of the Irish Times Ltd and The Irish Times Trust Ltd swear an oath before a commissioner of oaths. The following is an extract from the very long oath sworn by the directors of The Irish Times Ltd.

“I will observe a strict secrecy respecting all transactions of the Company, all opinions given at meetings of the Directors and all matters which may come to my knowledge in the discharge of my duties except when required so to do by the Directors or by a Court of Law and that I will never disclose any such matters by hint, innuendo or otherwise save as aforesaid.”

The oath sworn by the Governors of the Trust is almost identical.

Conor Brady the editor of The Irish Times from 1986 to 2002 also has a benign view of the Trust but is a bit more informative than O’ Toole. In his book “Up with the Times” he writes the following on the oath:

“Once a year all Governors and directors had to affirm, on oath, their commitment to the principles of the Trust. A solicitor came with his bible and ‘swore’ each of us individually as well as witnessing our signatures.” (page 115)

Brady also comments on how the Trust exercised control:

“The Trust took its work very seriously, in my experience. It met once a month, August excepted, in McDowell’s gloomy office, around a couple of extended tables. After a private meeting that might last an hour, the Governors would be joined by the editor and, later, by the General Manager (later styled successively as ‘Managing Director’ and ‘Chief Executive’). This procedure enabled the editor and the Governors to discuss editorial matters privately.” (page 115)

So the “Trust” discussed editorial matters among themselves and when they were finished they would summon the editor to appear on his own before them. Here is an extract from Brady on Major McDowell’s role:

“As the years went by, however, I felt that McDowell came increasingly to dominate the Trust. In the early years of my editorship, he would sound me out about possible candidates for the Trust. But in later years he came up with some names that worried me. In one instance I expressed my views very strongly. That individual never joined the Trust. But McDowell did not ask me for my views again.”

Another means of control which Major McDowell exercised was through Brady’s employment contract.

“Once a year, also, my contract of employment had to be renewed. Tom (i.e. McDowell – JM) would sign the single sheet of paper to a ripple of ‘hear-hears’. I think very few people in the organisation - or outside - realised that the editor of The Irish Times had to go on the hazard, as it were, of having his employment renewed every 12 months”. (page 116)

Regarding Bertie Ahern, his private financial affairs are being subjected to the most intense scrutiny. They have been leaked to the public in advance and the onus is placed on Ahern to account for all transactions relating to a period over 10 years ago. Failure to account for them is evidence of guilt, but no obligation is placed on the Tribunal to establish a link between the payments and what they are supposed to investigate, which is allegations made by a discredited witness, Tom Gilmartin, that corrupt payments were made to Bertie Ahern in relation to the Quarryvale site.

Listening to the Vincent Browne show last night it seems that the Supreme Court has had problems with the conduct of the Mahon Tribunal and in particular the suppression of evidence that would discredit Gilmartin as a witness. Vincent Browne asked Irish Times journalist Colm Keena if he accepted that individual rights had been trampled on.

Keena accepted that this had been the case but justified it by saying that the whole era was corrupt and that the rights of the citizen had to be put aside in order to get to the bottom of it. So you start from the position that the society was corrupt. You gather evidence to prove this proposition and such concepts as “due process”, “innocent until proven guilty”, “knowing what you are accused of” etc are obstacles which must be overcome to prove the original proposition. That appears to be the approach of the Tribunal. The enormous expenses incurred in its proceedings place greater pressure to prove the proposition.

Leaked documents to the Irish Times among others were used in an attempt to affect the outcome of the General election and now revelations appear to be designed to affect the formation of a new government.

In my view The Irish Times completely lost the run of itself during the General Election. In one of its editorials (5/5/07) it even arrogated itself a “constitutional role” which placed itself above any “requests” from the Mahon Tribunal, a privilege which has not been accorded to the Taoiseach among others.

As one of the Irish Political Review’s sister publications has stated the media, and in particular The Irish Times has now the prerogative of the harlot throughout history: power without responsibility.

by bj Wed May 30, 2007 14:04

"The Irish Times has now the prerogative of the harlot throughout history: power without responsibility."

You seem to be insinuating that the IT should act as censor where the interests of FF are concerned.
Do you perhaps think that the public should not be informed of the highly irregular financial affairs of a minister for finance / taoiseach?
Should the IT first consider in whose interest or otherwise it is to publish or withhold?
You are conducting a smear campaign against the IT of the nature you accuse it of doing against the taoiseach/FF.
You are fooling no-one.

by Jack Lane - Aubane Historical Society Wed May 30, 2007 22:58

John Martin has done us all a great service (above) in providing a glimpse of how the Irish Times operates. Readers may be interested in the following correspondence I had with Madam on 'the white nigger letter' which shows how concerned the Irish Times is with putting the record straight when itself is the subject that needs recording.

*

10th. January 2003.

Ms. Geraldine Kennedy
Editor
The Irish Times
Dublin

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

WHO DIRECTS YOUR PAPER?

I enclose a copy of a publication (Irish Political Review, January 2003) that contains an extraordinary document concerning the running of your paper, The Irish Times.

As you can see, it is a copy of a report by the British Ambassador in Dublin in which he outlines the arrangements made with the owner of your paper, Major McDowell, to have the paper’s content directed from No. 10 Downing St.

Do you accept this is a genuine document?

If you do, can you say if these arrangements are still in place and, if not, when were they rescinded?

I am sure you will understand that readers of your newspaper, as of any newspaper, are entitled to know by whom, and in whose interest, the newspaper is run.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Lane
*

She replied as follows:
15th January 2003

Dear Mr. Lane,

I can assure you that no such arrangement is in place for the running of The Irish Times. The ownership of the newspaper is vested in The Irish Times Trust since 1974.

I am unable to confirm the veracity of the letter to which you refer. We published a story that Major McDowell was prepared to act as “a link” to encourage North/South contacts on the release of the British Cabinet papers in January 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Geraldine Kennedy
Editor.
*
I replied as follows:

31st. January 2003

Dear Ms. Kennedy,

Thank you for your letter dated 15th January 2003. You are not able to tell me when the arrangements made by Major McDowell with No. 10 Downing St. were rescinded so I can hardly accept your assurance that they are no longer in place. Moreover, your reference to the Irish Times Trust being in charge of the paper would confirm that the arrangements remained in place. It is well known that the Irish Times Trust was a unique institution of its kind in that it was designed and set up to ensure that the Trust, and therefore its paper, was under the control of a single individual, Major McDowell. I understand that he remains President for life of the Trust. The Trust ensures that his writ runs and as he originated the arrangements with Downing St. it is just not credible that he used his own Trust to undo his own efforts. Au contraire, I would say.

Also, I find it amazing that you cannot confirm the authenticity or otherwise of the document concerned, or even give an opinion on it, although you and your paper were aware of it for over 3 years. You have not taken the trouble to clarify the matter in all that time! This shows an incredible lack of curiosity on your part about the running of your own paper. Your paper gave a misleading account of the relationship between Major McDowell and Downing St. in January 1971 in only reporting a reference to him as simply wishing to be a ‘link’ between the two governments. You were given an opportunity to rectify this deceit and instead you now repeat it and obviously condone it.

Your paper investigates and reports extensively on a host of issues, many of which are of considerably less significance than what is contained in the Ambassador's letter (the publications of this tiny local history group, for example). You are now shown to be very selective indeed in your investigations, reports and in the issues that seize you.

Your predecessor, Mr Gageby, the object of Major McDowell’s barrack-room abuse in the document, was clearly kept in ignorance of the paper’s direction arranged by its owner but you are clearly determined to be wilfully ignorant of the facts of the matter and their consequences. You are in denial. This must be a unique attitude for the editor of a paper that claims to be national, investigative and a journal of record. You and your paper are no longer credible in respect of any of those attributes.

This is all the more disappointing as it was generally assumed that your appointment as editor was made on the basis of your reputation for good news reporting and it was expected that you would take The Irish Times in that direction. This incident shows that you have not done so and the deceit and evasions you have practiced about it makes the high moral tone you adopt editorially on other issues appear very hypocritical indeed as your reporting clearly stops short where your own vested interests are concerned.

Yours etc.,

Jack Lane
*
23. 04. 2003
Madam Editor wrote in the letters page that:
"The contents of the letter in question were published in The Irish Times on January 27th, 2003, as soon as its existence was drawn to my attention. - Ed., IT."

How come I never saw the contents published then or at any time in the Irish Times.

Did anyone else?

Jack Lane

by bj Thu May 31, 2007 00:11

When Raphael Burke was outed we heard the same claims made -
it was a british conspiracy - the media had it in for him - etc. etc.
We heard the same story when the Reynolds govt. collapsed - ok maybe that was true - but
address the core issue and stop looking for scapegoats. The core issue, for those now distracted,
is the probity or otherwise of one B. Ahern and the media treatment of his strange financial affairs.
At the end of the day I, for one, want to be told everything.

Here's a little something worth reading. I wonder will this item raise its head again.
Go to the Ms. Shortall piece

by Spock's ears Thu May 31, 2007 10:36

Every time someone raises questions about the IRP's motives, they simply repeat the story about the letter to avoid dealing with the fact they want any questions about possible FF corruption censored.
Considering Brendan Clifford wanted the Nazis acquitted("The
Nuremberg Trials were a travesty of law on many grounds."The Propaganda that never sleeps, IPR, Nov. 2005-oddly not available on the Athol Books website, probably because wanting to let off history's greatest murderers dwarfs the "white nigger" letter to nothing) he'll have no problem pardoning corrupt FF-ers!
How can Jack and John work with this repulsive man....

by pat c Thu May 31, 2007 10:47

I haven't read the article you speak of of but I could understand someone calling the Nuremburg Trials a travesty of justice. The British had committed War Crimes in their Terror Bombing of German Cities. The British had also slaughtered tens of millions as they ravaged colonies all over the World as had the French. The USSR under Stalin had also the blood of millions of innocents on its hands. The US was had intervened in many Latin American States resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Over 1 million people died in the US suppression of the resistance in the Phillipines.

Therefore these Imperial States were not morally fit to try anyone. Thats not to say that the Nazis should have gotten off, they got what they deserved. Its just that their accusers, judges, juries and executioners were also mass murderers.

Is the article in question on line anywhere?

by spock's ears Thu May 31, 2007 11:27

I'm not sure if the article is online anywhere-I have a photocopy.However the article also includes
such gems as.. "In 1939 there was much condemnation of the bombing of Warsaw, but it did
not figure among the crimes charged against the Germans. The situation was
that the Polish armies had been defeated and Warsaw refused to surrender,
although it was surrounded and was without hope of relief. The city
authorities decided on a street-by-street resistance to occupation. In
effect the city declared itself a fortress and was treated accordingly."
So Clifford is sneering at the poor Poles who died bravely to save their city from the Third Reich,
who were "treated accordingly", i.e. slaughtered.
And "A realistic estimate made in the realities of the time had grounds for
seeing a British invasion as an immediate probability and a German
invasion as a remote possibility-except as a counter to a British
invasion, as in the case of Norway."
The British did send a small force to Norway to help them fight off the Nazi invasion-I think at the request of the Norwegian government, to respond to Quisling's call to the Nazis to invade Norway. It was NOT a British invasion.
So Clifford is saying a (flawed) democratic British government was worse than a genocidal dictatorship. We must ask serious questions about this man and his organisation.

by Eamonn de Paor Thu May 31, 2007 13:51

Yes. I too would like to see this article. If only to see whether it offers some counter to the present-day Churchills who evoke knee-jerk militarism by playing the Nazi-Hitler card whenever they want to attack, invade and occupy a country, grab some oilfields, destroy a state which does not kow-tow to them, and kill thousands while they are at it. And to the hordes of Boys Own Bigglesworths who are eager to parrot the propaganda. The Irish, having been taken in by this kind of propaganda (“Poor Little Poland – sorry, Belgium”) in 1914-18, have practically forgotten the price we paid. So the Churchills and Bigglesworths reckon we are ready to be suckered yet again. We are expected by the likes of Cathal O’Shannon (veteran of Burma (!!!), the Burma which was occupied by Imperial Britain in 1886 in order to grow opium for the Chinese market which the British had fought two wars for, the Burma where O’Shannon went with the British Army to fight the Burmese freedom fighters under Aung San (father of Aung Suu Kyi) who they later bumped off even though he had by then made terms with the western imperial side), we are expected to have guilty consciences because a handful of raggle-taggle flotsam and jetsam of the defeated Nazi regime washed up on Ireland’s shores. To soften us up for present-day imperial militarism we are supposed to shut our eyes to the post 1945 relationships that the western imperial powers made with the German Nazi system, after they had got rid of the most embarrassing of them in the Nuremberg comedy.This was the German system which Britain had sponsored until early 1939, when it turned against it for imperial reasons – sacrificing the unfortunate Poles into the bargain by offering them a bogus military alliance.

And don’t try to tell me that this new torrent of Churchillian propaganda is not connected with the Irish Times’ declared project of transforming us into something other than what we are!

by Miriam Cotton Thu May 31, 2007 14:36

Eamonn - your excitable post has brought us all the way to...1939?

How about this: there are several media activists and writers on this thread, none of whom have any affilliation to the Irish Times or the UK intelligence services. Quite independently from any alleged British conspiracy to programme the Irish people via the pages of the Irish Times, many of us are of the opinion that Ahern's financial affairs are a matter of legitimate public scrutiny. This conclusion arises from an awareness of the basic facts: that he was in receipt of money for which he cannot account. If anything, it is my belief that many in the media have gone remarkably easy on him - that he has had a fantastically easy ride in the circumstances. But the IPR's take on it beats all.

Please don't tell me that British intelligence implanted these idea in my head. I thunk em up all by myself, honest.

by Chekov Thu May 31, 2007 15:00

It's worth pointing out that any Indymedia regulars will have been aware for a long time of the "white nigger" letter and the shenanigans involving the Irish Times and Major McDowell. We ran it as a feature back in 2004: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/64231

Furthermore, it's fair to say that this place is by no means generally sympathetic to the Irish Times and a large number of pieces have appeared here very critical of the paper and its coverage of many issues. Critical as we may be, we're not so blind as to be unable to see the IPRG's theories for the bonkers nonsense that they are. The only real question is what on earth motivates these people to come up with such ridiculous counter-attacks to throw a bit of confusion around the dodgy finances of public figures.

by pat c Thu May 31, 2007 15:30

"So Clifford is sneering at the poor Poles who died bravely to save their city from the Third Reich, who were "treated accordingly", i.e. slaughtered."

Thats appalling. It could be said that the bravery of the Poles was foolish at times, incidents of cavalary charging tanks, but to sneer at the defence of Warsaw is sickening.

"And "A realistic estimate made in the realities of the time had grounds for seeing a British invasion as an immediate probability and a German invasion as a remote possibility-except as a counter to a British invasion, as in the case of Norway."
The British did send a small force to Norway to help them fight off the Nazi invasion-I think at the request of the Norwegian government, to respond to Quisling's call to the Nazis to invade Norway. It was NOT a British invasion. "

Indeed. It wasn't a British invasion. The force was sent there in support of the Norwegian Armed Forces who were resisting the German invasion. The expeditionary force was led by an Irishman, General Adrian Carton de Wiart. (no doubt some dirt on him will be uncovered now!)

If you could scan the article it might be worth while posting it here.

by wageslave Thu May 31, 2007 16:00

And while talking about the polish getting a raw deal in WWII, let us not forget the polish intelligence and their huge (but often conveniently forgotten) contribution to cracking the enigma code, which some say led to victory in WWII

http://www.avoca.ndirect.co.uk/enigma/enigma14.htm

by SBP Reader Thu May 31, 2007 16:48

1939 and all that is fascinating. Meanwhile, back in the real world, a tribunal discusses whether the elected head of government received 80,000 or perhaps 167,000 or perhaps some other sum entirely, and whether the sums were diverted party donations, planning bribes, as-yet-untaxed gifts or as-yet-unpaid loans. One day we might discuss his daughter's one million for a book deal with publishers (Murdoch's empire) who were angling for a (successful) takeover of the Irish broadcasting monopoly, or how the same media outfit gave him publicity digouts before and after the election. Just how much is the Ahern brand worth now? 10/10 for consistent sidelining.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Thu May 31, 2007 19:08

For people who are by no means sympathetic to The Irish Times there is a remarkable amount of defensiveness when it is attacked. I have attempted to raise some issues about the Irish Times, which along with other media outlets, has been attacking Ahern. In most, but not all cases, the response has been an attack on the Irish Political Review. BJ under the heading “Tell the Truth” seems to think I am trying to tell lies although he doesn’t say what lies I have told. Chekov thinks the IPRG is “bonkers”.

I think it was reasonable and relevant to raise the issue of The Irish Times in a thread entitled “Bertiegate – The problem is the media” given that it has been arguably the most active in pursuing the Bertiegate story.

It would be good to know precisely what part of my argument is wrong/a lie/ “bonkers”.

In my view the so called “white nigger” letter is quite an extraordinary document. The words “white nigger” leap out at the page. They indicate a racist attitude to the native Irish and disappointment that the “Protestant” Douglas Gageby the then editor had lowered himself to having sympathy with Irish nationalism. In response to this McDowell was seeking help from the British State to guide the newspaper. The document also indicates that the British were more than willing to exploit this opportunity. And who could blame them?

No one disputes the authenticity of this document. The document was seen by Professor Ronan Fanning in the Public Records Office in London before it was published by the Irish Political Review (Why Fanning sat on it is another story which has also been covered by Indymedia).

One poster seems to think that this was something that happened a long time ago (1969) and has no relevance now. The problem with this is that Major McDowell was already the Chief Executive in 1969 and subsequent to that his powers increased. He set up a Trust in 1974, which accorded him extraordinary powers. A Sunday Times report commented that he was helped by Lord Arnold Goodman who was considered one of the most powerful men in Britain. He was described as being Prime Minister Wilson’s “Mr Fix it”.

As indicated in a previous posting he resigned as Chief Executive in 1997 and resigned as the Chairman of the powerful Trust, which has ultimate control of the Irish Times group, at the end of 2001. He is currently honoured with the title of “President for Life of the Irish Times Group”.

I find it very difficult to take the shrill calls by The Irish Times for openness and transparency seriously when I consider how it conducts its own affairs. The Oath which binds Directors of The Irish Times Ltd (which includes the Editor) and the Governors of The Irish Times Trust to secrecy is available in the companies’ office.

I have quoted from Conor Brady’s book indicating how this was implemented and how control was exercised by Major McDowell. Brady describes all this as if it was the most normal thing in the world. I beg to differ.

I suspect – but I could be wrong - that most people would have no problem with what I have said in this posting up to now. The remainder of the posting is more controversial.

I never paid too much attention to The Irish Times until I became aware of the “white nigger” letter. But I notice in the newspaper a general tendency to denounce every aspect of Irish society. Individual examples of corruption are given as evidence of a general malaise.

I would consider myself to be left wing in my political outlook and I am under the impression that many of the contributors to this thread are also of that persuasion. I can understand why such people would be sympathetic to the exposure of corruption. But I would ask such people who is benefiting from all this. It certainly isn’t the working class or the Labour movement. At present the chief beneficiary is likely to be Fine Gael.

I would also ask people why a newspaper which boasts of its high income readership and which gives the appearance of being of the establishment is so zealous in its exposure of corruption.

In my view it is to demoralise the society and to make it more amenable to British influence. If someone has another explanation I would like to hear it. I find all the editorials and opinion pieces about “reinventing ourselves” or “re-branding ourselves” to be quite extraordinary and almost totalitarian in meaning.

I appreciate that this might appear far fetched. But given the structure of the paper, the influence of McDowell, the content of the newspaper can anyone deny that it has an anti-national bias?

Probably the most controversial aspect of the IPR’s position is its defence of Bertie Ahern. I accept that Ahern received gift/loans of tens of thousands of euros. There was nothing illegal in what Ahern did although Ahern has since introduced legislation requiring all gifts of over 499 euros to be declared. No evidence of political favours for the money has been found.

All of this emerged because of an investigation by the Mahon Tribunal into allegations by a discredited witness, Joseph Gilmartin, re: the Quarryvale project. No link has been established between payments received by Ahern and the Quarryvale project.

Even Vincent Browne accepts Ahern’s assurances on this. Indeed Browne recognises that there are grave problems with the way the Mahon tribunal has been conducted. Evidence from Gilmartin which would have discredited him as a witness was not made available to the lawyers for Owen O’ Callaghan (the person who was alleged to have bribed Ahern).

Finally, I find it interesting that BJ admits (perhaps jocosely) that there might be something in the idea that Reynolds resignation was a British plot. I know that Reynolds believes it was a British plot. All of this happened in 1994 which by coincidence is the time that Ahern’s financial affairs are now being investigated. The interesting thing is that it was an Irish Times story, written by Geraldine Kennedy, which prevented Bertie Ahern from succeeding Reynolds and persuaded the Labour Party to support the Redmondite Fine Gael leader John Bruton at a crucial period in Anglo-Irish relations.

Chekhov might like to know that Vincent Browne tried to persuade Dick Spring’s advisor Fergus Finlay that this was a mistake. In his book “Snakes and Ladders” Finlay says that he found this conversation extraordinary, but doesn’t explain Browne’s action.

And in the current controversy The Irish Times has been remarkably coy about its role in Ahern’s destiny in 1994.

by spock's ears Thu May 31, 2007 20:06

Here’s excerpts from another sickening article by Brendan Clifford, in which his hatred of Britain and Poland warps his understanding of history. In bashing Cathal O’Shannon’s programmes on Irish Nazis (which I haven’t seen), he expresses gloating admiration for aspects of both Hitlerism and Stalinism.

This article is online (No one disputes ITS authenticity either!). At…
http://www.atholbooks.org/review/nazis_2.php

My Comments are in square brackets.

From Irish Political Review: March 2007
Cathal O'Shannon At War
Part Two of a comment on Hidden History on Nazis in Ireland

*"How did it come about that Russia was "so successful on the battlefield" in this World War launched by Britain—a war in which Russia sought to be neutral—that in the moment of victory it was the pre-eminent threat to British interests? The short answer is: because Britain left the battlefield in June 1940, but kept Europe on a war footing by use of its Navy and Air Force, and manipulated European instability with a view to bringing about a German-Russian War.
It succeeded in this object, and then left Russia to do the fighting".
[Hang on a sec-what about the Hitler-Stalin pact? I thought it was Hitler who caused that European instability by attacking the Russians].

*"Poland, urged on by the British offer of military alliance, refused to negotiate the transfer to Germany of the German city of Danzig which Poland had proved entirely unable to govern. Germany invaded Poland and the Poles were left to fight alone".
[Polish difficulty was due to the fact Danzig was a semi-autonomous, largely German state, not Clifford’s xenophobic implication that the poor Poles-Clifford’s “white niggers”- were too stupid to run it. Danzig Nazi politician Albert Forster eventually invited the Nazis to invade in 1939].

*"Russia took half of Poland for itself (which it had grounds for doing)…."
[Clifford’s admiration for Stalin’s brutal annexation is sickening, especially since the terrible Katyn massacre of thousands of Poles took place at this time ,when” Russia took half of Poland for itself”. How dare this man act the moralist towards the Irish Times!!]

*"Britain launched a European war with no serious intention of fighting it. That War was lost, as far as could be seen, by the collapse in France in 1940"
[What about the Battle of Britain?].

*"Life is not lived but in the particularity of time and place. And decisions were reasonably taken in Europe after June 1940 on the assumption that the Battle of France had set the political framework of things to come for a considerable period".
[So collaborating with the the Nazis like Quisling and Petain did was alright? He insults the brave resistance fighters like Camus and Tito].

John , you ” would consider myself to be left wing in my political outlook”. So how can you work with this man-an apologist for war and totalitarianism- with a clear conscience? The publication of such repulsive articles is far more of a scandal than anything either Fianna Fail or the Irish Times are accused of doing.

by Eamonn de Paor Thu May 31, 2007 22:36

Re the above contribution:
The reality behind the Churchillian facade was very different from the propaganda. For instance, though it had its share of concentration and slave camps, collaboration was so complete in Occupied Britain that it was the only part of Occupied Europe in which the Wermacht could go about unarmed. And the only person in the Channel Islands to advocate resistance was the German soldier Paul Mulbach.
The above contribution perfectly demonstrates my earlier point about the link between Churchillian war-propaganda and defence of the I.T. project.

by SBP Reader Thu May 31, 2007 22:54

John Martin: "I accept that Ahern received gift/loans of tens of thousands of euros. There was nothing illegal in what Ahern did"

That is like saying Charlie Haughey was never convicted of anything. It is like saying that nobody was ever found guilty of arming republican paramilitaries. It is like saying Judge Curtin has never been convicted of possession of paedophile pornography. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam.

Hopefully this one can be resolved during the accused's lifetime.

by spock's ears Thu May 31, 2007 23:43

Eamonn, you haven't said anything about Mr. Clifford's disgusting contempt for the Polish and Norwegian victims of Totalitarianism.
Instead you go on about "Churchillian war propaganda" and the I.T. project.
I'd like to know what,say Miriam or Chekov makes of Clifford's vile sentiments, and of the magazine that gives them regular exposure.
Even if everything the IPR says about Bertie and the IT were true (which it isn't) , my criticism of Brendan Clifford would still be valid.
And Eamonn-for a man who claimed never to have heard of the IPR a week ago, you seem VERY familiar with its arguments......

by yello Fri Jun 01, 2007 00:03

Professor Noam Chomsky:
“In totalitarian societies, the usage is standard. In the former Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “anti-Russian.” Where a democratic culture prevails, the usage would be regarded as comical. If people who criticize Irish government policies were condemned as “anti-Irish,” I suppose people would collapse in ridicule in the streets of Dublin. At least they should.”
Time to collapse in ridicule at Fianna Fail, John,Eamonn, Jack Lane and the Poland-hating Brendan Clifford.

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 09:47

Wow! Anyone who opposes the I.T. project is practically a paedophile! Somebody is very upset. I wonder who?

by Spock's ears Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:03

Eamonn,I take it then you have no problem with the opinions expressed by Clifford. Otherwise you would not dodge the issue by whinging about how anyone who opposes the "I.T. project is practically a paedophile".
*"Russia took half of Poland for itself (which it had grounds for
doing)...." Eamonn hates British imperialism (rightly so) but has no problem with a man who endores Soviet imperialism.
*"...that the Polish armies had been defeated and Warsaw refused to surrender,
although it was surrounded and was without hope of relief. The city
authorities decided on a street-by-street resistance to occupation. In
effect the city declared itself a fortress and was treated accordingly."
You also have no problem with Brendan Clifford-a former Loyalist turned
Sinn Feiner-gloating at the slaughter of Polish civilians.

On another note, why did Bertie rush to start the election with the Mary McAleese (once libelled by Brendan Clifford) visit, thus suspending the Mahon Tribunal?

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 13:35

My work takes me frequently to Poland where I have many close friends. I am aware that many Poles are embarrassed at their country's inter-war treatment of Ukrainians in the territory they captured after World War 1, and at their involvement in the share-out of other parts of Eastern European non-Polish territory with Hitler, as sanctioned by Britain before the great rupture of 1939.
I am not aware that the IPR exercises any influence on anybody. "Brendan Clifford" could be the devil incarnate. But it was the Spitfire Pilots above who urged us to get acquainted with them.
Though I have long felt that the VERY influential I.T. has an Anglicising mission, I was far from convinced (sorry, John Martin et al.!) at the outset of this debate that Bertiegate was an aspect of it. In fact it was the surprise attack of the Spitfires from three o'clock that finally swung it for me.

by yello Fri Jun 01, 2007 14:30

A journalist from IPR started this whole tread, Eamonn!
Fortunately, the nation the IPR wanted to place us under the control of collapsed in 1989.
Fianna Fail could rape and murder a busload of children and the IPR would probably still sneer at their critics.

by Proddy Gayboy Fri Jun 01, 2007 15:40

"the nation the IPR wanted to place us under the control of" would actually be Tir Gealtachta and existed only in the imaginations of a few self-elected men (sic), even after independence.

It is very sad the petty-minded attacks on "the wrong sort of criticism" of the Irish Times, and on protestants or people whose birthplace or parentage is British, or who are homosexual. Who exactly is supporting the Irish Times anywhere in this thread? Who is attacking Ireland (other than Tir Gealtachta) anywhere in this thread? Like Miriam's quote from Chomsky, except it is fortunately a small band of Haughey worshippers denying reality, rather than a state.

Is Bertie corrupt or is he not? How long has he left in government?

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 15:52

But I thought the ultimate judges of all politicians gave their verdict on FF just over a week ago. What a shame we are stuck with this everso inconvenient system of democracy. Or maybe the nation still needs to be transformed until it starts to think in the manner expected of it and finally delivers the correct verdict? Perhaps the I.T. is right after all?

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 16:08

P.S.
I have never voted FF in my life, and perhaps never will.
But I accept, honour and respect the decision of the people.

by Spock's Ears Fri Jun 01, 2007 16:41

You respect the decision of an electorate who weren't allowed to find out the truth about Bertie because he called the election before the Tribunals could dig up any dirt on him.Is that the act of an innocent man?
When I saw the kind of people who were attacking Bertie's critics(including the IT) -a Hammer Horror gallery that includes Eoghan Harris and Brendan Clifford-alarm bells started to go off.
In both this thread and the "From Peking to Aubane" one, posters have raised legitimate questions about why the members of the B&ICO-a Stalinist organisation that for a quarter of a century attacked Catholic Nationalists in such vicious terms that one (McAleese) was able to sue them-are now supporting the ugliest forms of that same Catholic Nationalism, in the form of the Aubane Historical Society and its front publications.
We most also ask why the IPR is running a hate campaign against the unfortunate Martin Mansergh,who is a member of the political party the IPR is now championing, and a supporter of Haughey, a man who the magazine greatly admires. The sole reasons I can see for this campaign
are that Mansergh is English-born,Protestant, and defended Bowen from the anti-intellectual David
Alvey.

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 18:24

And, of course, I condemn - nay, denounce! - the evil Grand Master Brendan von Clifford in whatever guise he may assume!

by Jack Lane Fri Jun 01, 2007 18:52

Can I suggest to 'Spock ears' et al who disagree - to put it mildly - with articles in the IPR that they write to the magazine itself and refute the arguments made in the magazine. The IPR is accused of many things but not with suppressing letters and debate. I think that would be more productive than venting their spleen and creating shoals of red herrings in debates such as this about the Irish Times and what makes it tick. How about it?

by SEAN HORGAN Fri Jun 01, 2007 19:15

Is there a biography of this guy? He seems to have been one of the most important people in Irish society in the past 40 years but I have never read anything about him until this debate.

Any information welcome.

by SBP Reader Fri Jun 01, 2007 19:46

It is unfair to dismiss the nationalism of Hibernofascists as dheasca gealtachta, as they are representative of an international breed insecure in their own identity (be it political or sexual - as in the disturbing interest in labelling homosexuality and paedophilia above). They reject allies in their own prosperity and progress in favour of ideological alliances with their own worst enemies. They see another person's colour before anything else.

We should aspire to the highest of Standards in Public Life, viz Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. There is pride in the aspiration and the implementation, and no loss of pride in exposing failings - such as Bertie and Charlie - wherever they occur.

Ignore all this 1939 / 1969 / Casement / Polish nonsense about the "Irish Times project of anglicisation" for the red herring it is. Let's have some decent government - even if it is just a chastised Bertie.

by Eamonn de Paor Fri Jun 01, 2007 21:19

Would these Hiberno fascists be the the people who voted in the Evil Ones, such as the unrepentant, unchastised Bertie? Not including me, I hasten to add; even though I was not fully aware of this crime before I stumbled into this website. But isn't it worrying that one might inadvertently fall into mortal sin and offend against the new I.T.-approved thought-police. In the bad old days before 1989 (let us never speak of them again!) mortal sin required Full Knowledge, as well as Grievous Matter and Full Consent of the Will. Maybe we were too quick in getting rid of the old parish priests, compared with the new lot. Anyway, it's too late for me to turn back now, I burned my bridges there over 40 years ago.

And here was I thinking fascists were the ones who had problems accepting democratic election results!

by spock's ears Fri Jun 01, 2007 22:19

Okay,perhaps I was being a little aggressive. Maybe I will write to the IPR concerning some of the issues I have raised about Clifford.
Having said that, Bertie today refused to end the US military's usage of Shannon. The IPR has been strongly critical of the war in Iraq
(probably the only thing in the magazine I agreed with!). Surely this abandonment of the De Valera/Lemass tradition of neutrality,
is another scandal?

by Spock's Ears Fri Jun 01, 2007 22:22

By the way, did Mansergh steal Clifford's girlfriend or something? I can't see any other reason for the IPR's antipathy.

by yello Fri Jun 01, 2007 22:40

How exactly is the Irish Times "re-anglicising" us? I don't understand how criticism of Fianna Fail is laying us open to
turning us into Essex. Does the IT regularly demand we re-join the Commonwealth, or punish Irish-speaking kids with a slapping?
And why would Britain want to dominate the Republic anyway, given that they privately would love to withdraw from the North?
Fianna Fail aren't the only barrier between Ireland and a second Cromwellian invasion, Aubane lads!

by Jack Lane Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:22

Sean Horgan’s curiosity is understandable but I don’t think he will faind any biogrpahy or profile of the Major. He won’t find any feature in the Irish Times or any other paper though we are told what underwear is worn by many lesser mortals. And the Major is alive and well so it should be quite possible for one of our investigateive journalsist to interview him – at the very least. Sean will have to read back issues of the IPR for most of the information available. He was a Major in the Britsh Army and in M15 and was a member of the Whitehall Department that dealt with Court Martials. But the important thing about him is that he became the leading force in the Irish Times. When the IrIsh body politc went into crisis in 1969 he went to the head of his body politic for help and advice and assured them that his paper would do what it was told by them. The paper had always done this faithfully for about 100 years previously but it had gotten into the head of people like Douglas Gageby that it should join the Irish body politic. The Major was having none of that nonsense. Taking the niggers seriously! Hence the significance of the ‘white nigger’ letter. McDowell won the conflict with Gageby and this was confirmed by the current editor when she ran to the defence of McDowell and not her fellow editor when the story broke.

What exists of the independent nature of the Irish body politic resides in Fianna Fail for historic reasons and there is therefore a natural conflict with the Irish Times which both recognise in their bones as well as in their brains.

As pointed out in the item that began this debate the Irish Times puts itself explicitly above the existing Constitution and claims constitutional rights of its own beyond it to justify what it does. That is their remit and their raison d’etre for commenting and judging Irish society. That is what makes them different from the rest of the Irish media who are only concerned with making money and producing various comics for our entertainment with gifted comic writers like Eoghan Harris, Ruth Dudley-Edward etc.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:25

I am bemused at some of the criticism of the IPR. The anti-Polish accusation is bizarre given that it has carried a number of articles giving credit to the Polish resistance in deciphering Nazi codes during the Second World War. It has also published a sympathetic pamphlet on Joseph Pilsudski and his profound influence on James Connolly.

I would resent the accusation that I am anti-homosexual if the accusation was not just plain silly. We have published articles questioning the Black Diaries not because we have any problem with homosexuality. The Black Diaries are damaging to Casement’s current day reputation because they accuse him of paedophilia not because they describe homosexual activity.

Just because we support some aspects of Fianna Fail doesn’t oblige us to support everything Fianna Fail does. We oppose the use of Shannon by the US military. And it is just ridiculous to accuse us of being anti-Protestant because we have some disagreements with Mansergh who happens to be a Protestant. If we are anti Protestant how can our defence of Casement be explained? How can our advocacy of the two nations theory which is a defence of the national rights of Northern Protestants be explained?

But all of this is a distraction from the title of the thread. In answer to Sean Horgan I am not aware of any biography of Major McDowell. Very briefly, he was born in Belfast from a middle class background. He joined the British army. He also qualified as a Barrister but never practised. His business life tended to gravitate towards Dublin. As indicated he was Chief Executive of The Irish Times from 1962 to 1997. In 1974 he set up the Irish Times Trust which accorded him extraordinary powers and was Chairman of that body which has ultimate control of the newspaper until the end of 2001. He is now honoured with the title of President for Life of The Irish Times Group.

Cecil King, the former Daily Mirror proprietor, wrote in his published diaries that McDowell was in Mi5. He was also a member of the Judge Advocates department which seems to be a sensitive area of the Whitehall world involved in Military court martials.

The meeting between the British Ambassador and Major McDowell in October 1969 in which the latter made his white nigger remark was initiated by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, which indicates the high level contacts that McDowell had within the British establishment.

I have a copy of a document from the British Records Office which indicates that when McDowell made his initial contact with Downing Street in 1969 Harold Wilson thought it related to intelligence activity rather than journalism. So Cecil King wasn’t the only person who thought McDowell was in the intelligence business.

I am out of the country at present but will return next week and would be happy to furnish supporting documentation/references for the above next week.

There is no doubt that a biography of McDowell is warranted by his influence on Irish life through the Irish Times, but to judge by my experience and at least one other researcher such a biographer is not likely to obtain much cooperation from either McDowell himself or The Irish Times.

by Great Cthulhu Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:52

The Wikipedia entry on B&ICO states: "Their actions at that time (E.g.1969-1994) still cause some bitterness".
Judging by some of the comments above, their successor organisations, such as Aubane, are as polarising as ever.

by SBP Reader Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:09

Bizarre stuff, all this history, in a thread about the corrupt activities of members of the current government.

Perhaps people will regain some interest in reality when the charade talks with "potential FF partners" are dropped and the agreed partner, Labour (strangely quiet of late), steps into the breach. Perhaps also when Brian Cowen is obliged to stand in for Bertie when the latter reaches honesty crunch-point in the tribunal hearings.

by John Martin - Irish Poltical Review Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:44

One of the few admissions of media bias from within the media came from Chekhov Feeney in the Village 14/6/07. Here is what he says:

"...there is some evidence to suggest that there is a notable disdain for Fianna Fáil within much of the Irish media. RTÉ published a quantative analysis of press coverage of the recent election campaign up until 21 May, which revealed that Fine Gael, Labour and the PDs received a disproportionate amount of press coverage relative to their size compared to Fianna Fáil, while Pat Rabbitte and Enda Kenny both attracted more coverage than Bertie Ahern. While the figures may have given Fianna Fáil some grounds for complaint, the bias against Sinn Féin was much more marked. They received a fraction of the coverage of both the Greens and the PDs, despite being significantly more popular than either."

The above refers to a quantitive analysis. It doesn't consider the "quality" or type of coverage each party received, which would have been even more damning.

So, how can this imbalance in media coverage be explained? The following is Feeney's view.

"Did Bertie have a point when he claimed that journalists were being ordered to denigrate Fianna Fáil? The answer is almost certainly in the negative, for the mild hostility from sections of the media can easily be explained on a political level. The journalists who staff the more respectable media organs such as the Irish Times, the Independent and RTÉ, are generally drawn from the educated, professional, metropolitan middle classes and they often have an innate suspicion of the grubby populism of Fianna Fáil. The Irish Times in particular published several editorials in relation to Bertiegate which have expressed a barely-concealed disdain for the population."

So that's okay then! The bias is not being dictated from the top. The journalists are just been allowed to be themselves: snobby middle class types with a contempt for the democratic process.

But is it not significant that the journalists are allowed to indulge themselves. And how can disdainful EDITORIALS from the Irish Times be explained by the journalists being just middle class? Do the editorials not set the tone for the reporting?

by Not Sure Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:15

John's arguments are interesting, but given the aggressive attacks on the the Mahon tribunal by the Phoenix (you know, the unfunny magazine that never criticises Sinn Fein), the Sunday Independent and the Village, I think the IT's position is a minority one.
And the new FF/PD/Green/Ind. coalition is unlikely to create a fairer and more equal society in Ireland.

by Cat's-Outta-Debag Wed Jun 27, 2007 22:52

"The Chief Executive, Major Thomas McDowell, was unhappy with the editorial line being pushed by his editor Douglas Gageby."
The Major wasn't the only one. Someone who thought "Republicanism was
‘the malevolent insular ideology of a tatty-rag
bag crowd of altar hugging gombeen men.’-someone close to Mr. Jack Lane-shared McDowell’s sentiments.

"Nationalism has intellectual sophists in plenty.When there was crude work to be done its intellectuals applied themselves to it (It produced these subtleties out of its own resources, as well as harnessing remnants of Ascendancy Protestants, such as Brian Inglis and Douglas Gageby, editor of the Irish Times until recently)."

Brendan Clifford,quoted in
“Queen’s:A Comment on a University and a reply to its Politics Professor”(Pg. 55). Athol Books, Belfast, 1987.

On page 17, Mr. “Nuremburg was a travesty” also said that the cause of Norn Ireland’s Problems was the “self-ghettoisation chosen by the Catholic Community in the 1920s” (No B-Specials here-it rivals his gem about there being no
anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union).
On page 45, Clifford also praised the Penal Laws for stopping the Catholic Church in Britain and Ireland-the equivalent of praising the Ku Klux Klan for stopping crime in the African-American community.
And if you thought they gave poor Elizabeth Bowen a hard time…
“Michael Longeley, a guilt-ridden Protestant sidekick of the forceful Catholic-Nationalist Bigot Seamus Heaney…used his (Arts Council) power to sponsor
anti-Unionist propaganda”(pg. 51).

In my view, Mr. Clifford wanted “to demoralise Irish society and to make it more amenable to British influence”. Then suddenly, he changed his mind (perhaps he wasn’t making enough money out of his Unionism? Or he was angry at how influential his former associates like Paul Bew and John Lloyd had become while he was still obscure?) and decided to start doing “crude work” among the “altar-hugging gombeen men”. His buddies followed like the sheep they are.
The Irish Political Review gives this hysterical extremist almost a quarter of every issue to spew his venom
(He says "Before long I realised I knew more about Irish history than anyone else" on pg. 44 -even Kevin Myers doesn't go this far). This is the real reason why these extremists were not “engaged with” by the sensible Left in the 1970-80s. it is also the reason why we should oppose the efforts of "Gombeens Against Globalisation" to muzzle criticism of FF's corruption.

By the way, I warned the University librarians to watch out for B&ICO/Aubane arsonists…

by David Alvey - Irish Political Review Group Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:06

Everything that needs to be said about the quality of criticism being levelled against the Irish Political Review (IPR) in this thread is said by Brendan Clifford in the latest (July) edition of the IPR (available in Books Upstairs in Dublin) in an article entitled ‘Ersatz Intelligentsia’. Responding to a list of points made in this thread he writes:

“This is the kind of think that used to be scrawled on the walls of English public lavatories thirty years ago. And, like that lavatory graffiti, it goes on and on and on. And I suppose that much of that lavatory graffiti too was scrawled by inadequate intellectuals.”

The blog as a new medium of communication has possibilities for democratising public debate, but judging by this thread, it will go nowhere until it eschews anonymity.

by Miriam Cotton Thu Jun 28, 2007 13:15

That is just dismal. But it does explain one thing. I'd wondered what the reason was for the IPR's singular inability to recognise some very simple points made in the course of the discussion on this thread. It turns out to be arrogance - fatal to all efforts at intellectual exchange as is clear from the IPR's almost psychotic adherence to it's nutty thesis about Bertie Ahern's backhanders. We should have spotted it earlier.

PhD students sometimes suffer from this phenomenon: immersed in their theories over two or three years they lose perspective and end up viewing the world exclusively from inside their theory. What we are witnessing is the IPR's extended rapture at and obsession with their discovery.

However, and I will try to be as gentle as I can here, that the British Government will have made all sorts of efforts at influencing our media is hardly a surprising possibility. We'd all probably assumed they were up to all sorts of tricks. Well done! You found some hard evidence of what was going on at a given point in time and no doubt still continues in ways that would make our collective blood boil if we knew all about it. But it is not determining the price of fish, or how I decide what to wear in the morning, or indeed how we all feel about our Taoiseach accepting undeclared money from 'friends' who say they were not his friends. It's got **** all to do with it so please stop dictating to us all how we arrive at our own opinions.

A little advice: put the matter out of your minds for a while.

by An Observer Thu Jun 28, 2007 15:45

Let's see-the anonymous blogger found a pamphlet written by Brendan Clifford in which he sneers at Douglas Gageby for his nationalist sympathies, attacks Seamus Heaney in sectarian terms,blames Northern Catholics for their own plight, and denounces Michael Longeley
for liking Heaney. He also points out that Clifford (who seems appalingly egoistical) and his associates changed from extreme Unionists to extreme Nationalists without a convincing explanation-or an apology to Catholics for their previous behaviour.
Mr. Alvey responds with a juvenile insult. He doesn't quote anything-by himself or Clifford- to rebut the charges made by the blogger.
What would the nationalist audience the IPR is trying to gain make of Clifford's opinions-in 1987 or 2007?
Miriam is right -it's time for the IPR group to "stop dictating to us
all how we arrive at our own opinions".

by yello Thu Jun 28, 2007 18:37

So you and your buddies can dish out criticism by the bucketload (in magazines,books and websites)
but you can't take it, eh?

by ribbid Thu Jun 28, 2007 19:03

30 years ago toilet walls especially those in England were scrawled with a very different kind of graffitti.
for the sexual benefit and homophobic insult of men of all intellectual capacities.

I don't think Mr Elvey really gets the significance of latrinalia either then or now or would even stop to ponder why the word was coined in 1966 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latrinalia The stonewall riots 28 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Riots today are generally seen as the starting point for the LGBT movement & so yesterday at the European celebration of that movement in Madrid ("eurogaypride") there was much reflection by a wider and tolerant society facing its first statewide compulsary usage of a new "civics" education module on the progress made. A state which has seen over 3,000 equal rights civil marriages celebrated in the last 2 years & is moving to an end of furtive slang or latrinalia.

30 years ago, men met in toilets to engage in what were then universally illegal sexual acts. Prosecutions in England for "gross indecency" were often based on nothing more than trawling through address & telephone books & placing groups of suspects in the dock together accused of being a "ring". Thus cottaging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging in the 20th century developed means of maintaining anonymity which still have certain codewords in gay and other sexual subcultural slangs or argot especially in those states such as Poland (which forced a "morality clause" in its recent EU negotiations to allow its homophobia free reign) or Latvia (where indymedia ireland contributor Paula G went http://indymedia.ie/article/83136 ).

If Mr Elvey really meant what he wrote - then he has utter contempt for the men be they intellectuals or not who suffered marginalisation and no uncertain oppression in England as elsewhere 30 years ago. (a brief recap from the English Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,2109785,00....html )

Shame on Mr Elvey for that! You could potentially be a disappointment to any mammy who gave birth to you rather than sending you straight to heaven. (the mythical state not the effing big gay night club built on the site of a former cottage in central london). If I had your journal in a public loo - I'd wipe my virgin ass with it.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Thu Jun 28, 2007 19:31

I thought Dave Alvey’s comments quoting Brendan Clifford were fair enough. In this thread there have been some quite infantile comments re: the latter. (Mansergh stole his girlfriend etc. etc). And all have them been from anonymous sources.

I didn’t think Irish Political Review Group members were arrogant. But if we took what some of our critics in this thread were saying seriously we would be in danger of thinking that making the Irish Political Review accountable for everything it has written in the last 20 years (and more) was more important than The Irish Times.

I am intrigued at the accusation that we have been “dictating”. My understanding of that word is that it relates to an unequal relationship. (e.g. A boss dictates to his secretary and the secretary doesn’t have any say in what eventually appears on the document). I didn’t think IPR group members were in a position to “dictate” how people arrived at their opinions. I thought we were stating a position and defending it against our critics. But I can’t account for how other people feel.

I thought I had taken on board most of the serious points that have been made. I found myself in agreement with a lot of what Miriam Cotton has to say. In particular, I accept that the PD’s influence in The Irish Times is out of proportion to its popular support. But the overriding objective of The Irish Times in the recent election was to get Fianna Fail. If the PDs were adversely affected (and they were) that was too bad from the Irish Times point of view.

I even agree with her when she says: “that the British Government will have made all sorts of efforts at influencing our media is hardly a surprising possibility”. But that is not the point that the IPR group is trying to bring to people’s attention. What we DO find worthy of note is that the most influential person in The Irish Times in the last 40 years INVITED the British state to exercise that influence.

Miriam thinks in an earlier comment that we should have hung our thesis on some issue other than Bertiegate. Well that is a matter of opinion on tactics. In a general election situation people’s minds are focussed on politics. I think it is surprising that a conservative free market newspaper should take such a moralistic position in relation to donations from capitalists. Geraldine Kennedy in her interview with Eamon Dunphy last Saturday said that the Irish Times was an “anti-establishment” newspaper. If it is not a socialist paper, who or what establishment is it representing?

Finally, I notice that in the long interview with Fintan O’ Toole on Mediabite there is no mention of the “white nigger” letter or British influence on The Irish Times despite the fact that you were aware of the “white nigger” letter long before Bertiegate. As I have indicated already Media Bite seems to be aware of corporate influence on the media, but has a blind spot in relation to other influences.

by yello Thu Jun 28, 2007 23:08

The accusations against the Irish Political review group are:

1-The publication attacks people because of their religion and ethnicity (Mansergh, etc.)

2-The magazine publishes Brendan Clifford, a man who once insulted Douglas Gageby as an "intellectual sophist" who does "crude work", and said Catholic presecution in the North was their own fault. Clifford also sneered at the Norwegian and Polish victims of totalitarianism-(and note, the other posters took care to quote Clifford's own writings).
“Spock’s ears” and “pat c” have both made legitimate critiques of Clifford’s attitude. Alvey says Clifford rebutted all the accusations against him, but only quotes an adolescent dig about toilets.
If John, Jack or David disagree with any of Clifford's ideas, go ahead and say it here, (unless the IPR Group really is the political cult its opponents accuse it of being).

3- “But if we took what some of our critics in this thread were saying seriously we would be in danger of thinking that making the Irish Political Review accountable for everything it has written in the last 20 years…”But why not? Why is that a "danger"? Why the change from one extreme position to another, without any satisfactory explanation? Surely the B&ICO was partly responsible for the anti-nationalist revisionist culture its current incarnation is always denouncing? Weren’t people like Paul Bew, Eoghan Harris and John Lloyd (the pro-Unionist Brit hack) influenced by some of B&ICO’s ideas when the latter were anti-nationalist?

3-The magazine tries to level any criticism of FF political corruption as being "un-Irish". I wasn't aware any left-wing magazine was supposed to protect the Private Property of Rich White Men.

4-Other objectionable content, such as the April Editorial blaming Omagh on the British government.

5-The magazine's complaints about its "anonymous" critics. But considering the magazine's abusive tone-can you blame them? Nobody wants to have 30 pamphlets published denouncing them (look at what happened to Roy Foster!). Besides, most of these anonymous critics have not published libellous comments, only fair criticism. These were far from “infantile”.
This started as a thread about an influential publication accused of unfairly bullying a politician. We can see that the B&ICO/Aubane group are past masters at the art of using the media to unfairly bully people.
(We would like some answers please, instead of the six billionth mention of the “white nigger” letter…).

by yello Thu Jun 28, 2007 23:32

If you can bear his smugness, here's a link to John Lloyd discussing his time in B&ICO:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200705070035

by John Martin - Irish Politcal Review Fri Jun 29, 2007 08:07

Poor “Yello”! Poor “Spocks Ears”! Poor “Cats outta-de-bag”! They have to hide behind anonymity because the big bad B&ICO will get them. Maybe it will burn down their universities as well, despite those universities being warned in advance by “Cats outta-de-bag”.

Why not deal with everything these anonymous contributors raise? The answer is because as soon as one misrepresentation is dealt with another misrepresentation is raised and never an acknowledgement that there has been a misrepresentation. Life is too short.

To give just one example: “Cats outta-de-bag” says that Brendan Clifford wrote in the pamphlet Queen’s: A comment on a University and a reply to its politics professor” (1987):

“Nationalism has intellectual sophists in plenty. When there was crude work to be done its intellectuals applied themselves to it (It produced these subtleties out of its own resources, as well as harnessing remnants of Ascendancy Protestants, such as Brian Inglis and Douglas Gageby, editors of the Irish Times until recently).”

But that is a misrepresentation of what Clifford wrote. What he actually wrote was as follows:

“Nationalism has intellectual sophisticates in plenty. When there was crude intellectual work to be done its most gifted intellectuals applied themselves to it. Over the decades it acquired lots of spare capacity for applying to subtleties, or confusions, while the crudities of propaganda were tended to as a routine matter. (It produced these subtleties out of its own resources, as well as by harnessing remnants of Ascendancy Protestantism, such as Brian Inglis and Douglas Gageby, editor of the Irish Times until recently.)”

The whole thrust of this is the opposite of what “Cats outta-de-bag” is presenting it as. It is saying that nationalism had the capacity to influence people beyond its main constituency. No where is it suggested that Douglas Gageby was a “sophist” or did “crude work”.

A trawl through 20 years of pamphlets, magazines and books and that’s the best “Cats outta-de-bag” can come up with!

Now, could we get back to the point?

by yello Fri Jun 29, 2007 16:40

Poor Alvey! Poor Clifford! Poor John! People dare to criticise them, with detailed quotations from both their past and present hate-sheets!

I admit this is not the best place for a discussion of B&ICO/Aubane. I would much prefer to post it on the "From Peking to Aubane" thread, but Indymedia is no longer accepting comments on it. I can't speak for the other posters, but I have a personal reason for desiring anonymity in regard to Northern matters, given that one of my mother's friends was beaten up by the Official IRA in the early eighties (NOTE:I'm NOT saying B&ICO and the Stickies were linked, although I stand by my earlier comments about Harris and Clifford being authoritarian
Marxists who have embraced reactionary positions).

The comments about Peter Hain,(homophobia) Omagh ( conspiracy theories) the annexation of Poland (admiring Hitler and Stalin’s genocidal policies) and Nuremburg (saying the democrats were worse than the Axis) were made in the last few years, either by Clifford or as editoral articles. I take it they are representative of the attitudes of majority of the magazine’s staff.It may seem trivial, but the B&ICO/Aubane group once attacked Catholics in such vicious terms (the article quoted said that “Michael Longeley, a guilt-ridden Protestant sidekick of the forceful
Catholic-Nationalist Bigot Seamus Heaney”-a vicious attack on two great writers) that Mcaleese sued them.

Now it is defending Sinn fein/IRA,as well as the Private Property of Rich White Fianna Failers. We have yet to get an explanation why.
“I think it is surprising that a conservative free market newspaper should take such a moralistic position in relation to donations from capitalists”. I thought a “left-wing” paper like IPR should by even more critical of such “donations”.Sneering at critics of Fianna Fail may be popular and profitable among some quarters, but it does nothing to create a more free and equal Ireland. I don’t know if Bertie is corrupt, but we need a fair investigation. Why is that a "danger"?
And Miriam was right-both Alvey and Clifford are breathtakingly arrogant.
And people do not write detailed critiques of apologists for corruption in the public lavatories.

(I see the last edition of the IPR slagged off former B&ICO-er turned Blairite Kate Hoey, describing her as “ the unspeakable Kate Hoey”.Don’t annoy Brendan, John, or you’ll get slagged off too!).

by Frank Zappa Fri Jun 29, 2007 17:32

I know this is a thread about Bertie's persecution by the the IT, but can John or Jack give us some information
about themselves? Or maybe a short biography of the enigmatic Brendan Clifford, who seems almost as elusive and controversial as Major McDowell?

by Frank Zappa Fri Jun 29, 2007 17:37

"In conclusion, the IPR Group is putting forward a different analysis on Bertiegate than is to be found elsewhere. The debate would go better if the focus was on the topic and not on the origins and history of the IPR group. The choice in this controversy is between government by politics as represented by Fianna Fail and government by media as represented by the Irish Times. We support the primacy of politics".
That's a valid point, but we would like to know more about this interesting and controversial organisation.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Fri Jun 29, 2007 19:32

Brendan Clifford, Jack Lane and myself are very far from being elusive. Unfortunately you missed the launch of my recent book. But I attach a picture of the front cover of the book.

Why not visit the Athol Books website http://www.atholbooks.org

You can find out more about the group and even order a copy of my book on line as well as many other books, pamphlets and magazines. You know it makes sense!

Literature of the group is also available from such prestigious bookshops as Books Upstairs opposite Trinity College Dublin.

The following is from the book’s cover and includes a brief biographical note:

"This book is a review of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital from a businessman’s perspective. The author gives a clear concise summary of the ideas contained in the three volumes of Marx’s classic work and then subjects them to criticism.

Das Kapital describes the laws of motion of the capitalist system. Marx had very little to say about the transition from capitalism to communism and still less about what a communist society might look like. Therefore the relevance of Marx’s work does not stand or fall on the fortunes of the communist movement.

Indeed the author argues that the persistence of the capitalist system and its continued expansion throughout the world makes the ideas of Marx more relevant in the twenty first century than in the nineteenth century when the work was written.

There are two insights of Marx which are more relevant today than they were in his own time. The first is the idea that capitalism socialises production even if ownership remains in private hands. The second insight is the idea that capitalism has a tendency to incorporate the world into its system. The current word for this phenomenon is “Globalisation”.

The author compares Marx’s theoretical view of the capitalist system with his own practical experience and concludes that Marx’s analysis gives a better theoretical framework for understanding the system than modern economics textbooks. Notwithstanding Marx’s errors, which the author discusses, the overall conclusion is that it is far too soon to consign Marx to the dustbin of history.

* * *

The author has an honours degree in Economics and Politics and is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. He has worked as a Financial Controller, Director and General Manager and is currently a part owner of an Irish Manufacturing Company."

Front cover of Book 1.76 Mb

by Peter O'Riordan Fri Jun 29, 2007 21:40

"The author has an honours degree in Economics and Politics and is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. He has worked as a Financial Controller, Director and General Manager and is currently a part owner of an Irish Manufacturing Company."
Such a person is also likely to be a strong supporter of Fianna Fail, and an opponent of "big government" (such as the Mahon Tribunal,
perhaps?).

"Frank Zappa" (loved "Peaches En Regalia",by the way!) would be better of reading "Fortnight" or the "irish Democrat" (the one P.B. Ellis writes for) than the tedious Irish Politcial Review.
It'll be interesting, nevertheless, to see how they turn Beverly Cooper-Flynn and John Ellis into helpless victims of the evil Brits....

by Jack Lane Sat Jun 30, 2007 13:51

'Yello' lists his allegations against the IPR and says:

' The accusations against the Irish Political review group are:

1-The publication attacks people because of their religion and ethnicity (Mansergh, etc.)'

So this is his/her number one accusation and must be the most serious.

Everything I or anyone else connected with the IPR ever said about Martin Mansergh (and he about us) is published and easily available.

Could 'yello' point to any evidence in it for his accusation?

by Who Sat Jun 30, 2007 17:00

Who is she anyway?
Beverly Cooper Flynn
Beverly Flynn
Mrs. Gaughan
Mrs. Flynn Gaughan
An taoiseach aleays address her as Beverly Cooper Flynn. Why?

by yello Sat Jun 30, 2007 17:46

Dear Mr. Lane:
First of all, thank you for abstaining from the bullying scatology of your associates Clifford and Alvey.
This is part of the problem:
"Given that she (Bowen) spied for a foreign power against this state, why should
she be claimed as an Irish writer? Her novels were a contribution to
English literature. That she is still defended by various influential
Irish academics, including Dr Mansergh, testifies to a collapse of
faith in the national tradition on the part of what might be called the
Irish intelligentsia. " Unpublished letter Apr. 13, 2004.
Why is Alvey saying Bowen should be expelled from the Irish canon and not, as the other poster
pointed out, Francis Stuart? Isn't an artist's ethnicity too complex (Is Kafka German,Austrian,Czech or Jewish?) to be reduced to such xenophic bullying? And Isn't such an attitude exceedingly dangerous at the time of a peace process in the North and the slow assimilation of Nigerians, Poles, Koreans into the "national tradition"? And what is so terrible about respecting the English national anthem during a match we won? (I'm sure similiar sentiments appeared in the Examiner and the Independent-are they part of a British conspiracy too?) Surely someone who worked for Haughey (god knows why) would fit into Alvey's narrow "national tradition"?
This thread is about (alleged) Irish Times bias against Fianna Fail, and I admit we have wandered slightly off the point. Perhaps Indymedia will open up a new thread where we can discuss the IPR and the problems people have with its views like grown-ups.

by Jack Lane Sat Jun 30, 2007 21:50

Dear 'Yello',

I asked you to back up your accusation about the IPR re Martin Mansergh and you have ignored my question. I think you have done so for the very good reason that you cannot find any evidence for your accusation. I cannot therfore take you seriously.

Martin Mansergh and the IPR have fundamentally different views on Irish history and politcs but I am sure both would agree that religion or ethnicity has nothing whatever to do with those different views.
The differnces are simply much more importtant than that. I am sure he appreciates that as much as the IPR does.

by Spinning Quickly Mon Jul 16, 2007 19:53

John Martin of IPR wrote:
"In this election I will be voting Fianna Fail for the first time. I don't consider this an abandonment of my socialist principles."

So you believe Bertie is a socialist???

by A Cynic Wed Aug 15, 2007 09:53

Eoghan Harris was made a senator for writing the same sort of stuff John Martin wrote.

by A Cynic Fri Sep 21, 2007 21:17

“Nationalism is the curse of the labour movement in Southern Ireland…It has been assumed that a national struggle for self-determination is automatically progressive and deserves the support of the working class,and in fact should be carried out by the working class if the national bourgeoisie are not up to the task.
“This view persists despite a host of great fighters against British imperialism who will go down in history as the most rabid reactionaries of the 20th century, like General Grivas, General Amin ,De Valera to name but three contemporary examples".

Jack Lane, "The Rights of Nations and the Duties of Communists". The Irish Communist, October 1973, pg. 26.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Fri Oct 12, 2007 09:57

Where have all the "yellos" gone?

What has happened to the little fella and his pseudonyms? The last that was heard of him was more than 3 months ago. He was given an errand by Jack Lane (see posting of 30/6/07) to produce evidence to support his accusation that the Irish Political Review “attacks people because of their religion and ethnicity (Mansergh, etc)”.

But no sign of “yello” since! Could the “BICO/Aubane arsonists” (see “cat’s-outta-debag” posting of 27/6/07) have burned down the University library where the evidence was to be found? Maybe he didn’t get to the library at all. Perhaps he was bludgeoned to within an inch of his life by “30 pamphlets” “(look at what happened to Roy Foster!)”. Worse still could the Official IRA have discovered his true identity a quarter of a century after it had beaten a friend of his mother (see “yello” posting of 29/6/07) and subjected him to a vicious scatological slagging because he “dared to criticise” Alvey and Clifford.

It’s all very puzzling. He wanted so much to discuss the IPR with other people “like grown-ups” but when the opportunity arose there was just silence.

by Peter O'Riordan Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:50

When is Jack Lane going to apologise for likening our greatest Taoiseach, a champion of Irish democracy, to Uganda's bloody dictator? I don't think Brian Lenihan would like that at all.....

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Fri Oct 12, 2007 17:38

Who should Jack Lane apologise to and why?

The British and Irish Communist Organisation in 1973 had no obligation to defend or praise de Valera.

Incidentally, I find it very encouraging that you should refer to de Valera as a champion of Irish democracy and the greatest Taoiseach. Such sentiments are rarely found outside the pages of the Irish Political Review.

The standard view is that de Valera was a narrow minded Catholic. And yet it was de Valera who called for an end to the Fethard-on-sea boycott, in contrast to Fine Gael. Neither did he support the fascist side in the Spanish Civil War.

The 1937 Constitution is given as an example of de Valera’s Catholicism, but it was opposed by Fine Gael because it was not Catholic enough. The Irish Times opposed it not on liberal grounds but because it was a further step in loosening the imperial connection.

The fact that a distorted view of de Valera’s legacy has achieved currency is not the fault of Jack Lane or the B&ICO. It is the responsibility of Fianna Fail which has been in power for the bulk of the period since the death of de Valera in 1975.

by Peter O'Riordan Sat Oct 13, 2007 09:36

John dodged the question immediately. He throws a tantrum when Major McDowell makes racist remarks about the Irish in
a private conversation (and keeps repeating it) , but ignores it when Jack Lane does it in a magazine intended for public circulation.

Cognitative dissonance in action.
You read about people like Lyndon Larouche, Gerry Healy and other political cultists in the news, but it's quite a shock
to find a group of them operating in Millstreet..
And John, Denis O'brien will be writing a cheque for your thirty pieces of silver soon.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:05

The accusation that Jack Lane made a racist remark in a publication is a very serious charge. “Yello” was not able to substantiate it. Now we have a repetition of the allegation.

Please give references and quotes to back up the allegation or, alternatively, have the decency to withdraw it.

by nonFF Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:05

Three liberal items in Dev's constitution: 1. provision for referendum to change it 2. Judicial review of imprisonment 3. Naming of religious minorities incl Jews, but not Muslims due to insufficient numbers then.

Franco's Spain criminalised Protestants, and as for Jews...

by nonFF Sat Oct 13, 2007 13:04

Two other essential features of Bunreacht were 4. Separation of powers of legislature and judiciary 5. universal franchise

by Peter O'Riordan Sat Oct 13, 2007 17:11

Jack Lane was a member of the Stalinist B&ICO and an apologist for British Imperialism. I consider any form of Imperialism to be innately
racist-however, I admit I have yet to find a full-blown racist remark in Lane's writings.
Don't gloat, though-where I come from Stalinism and British Imperialism are nothing to be proud of....

(Were you threating legal action?).

by Legal Eagle - The Order of Druids in Ireland Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:34

Ireland 4%

Me 94%

They'll probably commit me for 'Obsessive Delusional Elation' :-)

(That's what Druidry does to One).

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon Oct 15, 2007 09:36

It is arguable that racism is inherent in all imperialisms, but Athol books has made a convincing case that it is inherent in British Imperialism (see Hitler’s English Inpirers by Manuel Sarkisyanz).

Does defending the unionist population’s right to national self determination in the 1970s make one an apologist for British imperialism? I don’t think so. Of course, the right to national self determination is not absolute. If Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom the national rights of the minority Catholic population will be denied. If, on the other hand, there is a United Ireland, the national rights of the Protestant population will be overridden.

From a socialist point of view the question is: what is in the interests of the working class?

In the 1970s conditions for the working class in the United Kingdom were better than those in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic was also dominated by the Catholic Chuch (e.g. no contraception, divorce etc). Also, British imperialism appeared at the end of its tether. Prime Minister Heath saw Britain’s future as part of the European community. In those circumstances we advocated integration of the North with the UK.

But to quote John Maynard Keynes: “when circumstances change, I change”.

Since the 1990s conditions for the working class in the South have improved. In particular pension provision is more generous than the UK. British imperialism has found a new role for itself as the junior partner of American imperialism. The UK has adopted an obstructive role in Europe and the Catholic Church is no longer the power that it was in the South.

The B&ICO and the IPR have been consistent all along. Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. No internal solution is viable in the long term. The choice is between movement towards the UK or the Republic. Under current circumstances, particularly with Fianna Fail’s recent moves to organise in the North, we are sympathetic to a movement towards the Republic.

However, any moves towards a United Ireland should not be at the expense of abandoning the anti-imperialist culture of the Republic. It should not require a re-writing of history in the interests of British imperialism. The Southern State should not be required to celebrate the blood sacrifice of the Somme, since the foundation of the Irish State had its origins in 1916 which rejected the view that Germany was our enemy.

by Turps Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:51

Interesting candid explanation for B&ICO turnarounds, JM. A few questions, and this is not a comprehensive response to the above controversy:-

1. What do you and friends think about the tyrannical murderous and soul-destroying regime of Joseph Stalin, whose writings inspired you in the 1970s? Was Solzhenitsyn right in his observations of Stalin's Russia?

2. The ideological power of the RCC is much diminished - but what has partly filled its place? Is this qualitatively any better?

3. Can we in the republic commemorate the Irish soldiers who died in the Great War without buying into the British imperialist interpretation of that war? Will this bring us closer to the trust of Ulster Unionists who have bought that historical interpretation?

4. Bertie has said he's a socialist - is there any evidence to justify the assertion?

5. I find the loose cannon Irish nationalist Desmond Fennell an unlikely bedfellow of the B&ICO remnant. He defended the Irish nationalism you people steadily attacked in past years. How come he happens to be writing and publishing books with your lot?

6. Any brief comments on two infamous turnabouts, Myers and Harris? Have they anything in common with your group attitudes?

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:08

Some of the questions relate to before I became a member (1983). In general, I am reluctant to go into too much detail because you could spend your life trying to defend this or that position 30 years ago or more. In the meantime the world moves on and there are more pressing matters in the here and now to deal with. Below is a brief response to your questions in the same order you posed them:

1) To put it mildly your question is loaded. Articles that appeared in our publications on Stalin were never like those in CPI – ML publications (hail the glorious life of Joe Stalin etc). However:

a)Stalin was put in charge of the Bolshevik commission on nationalities and wrote some interesting material on the national question. (Many mainstream academics such as Robert Conquest, acknowledge his expertise on this question).

b)In the disputes between Stalin and Trotsky B&ICO found Stalin’s positions more coherent. Trotsky was certainly not a liberal alternative. Indeed, he was more authoritarian than Stalin.

c)Regarding the Gulags, the B&ICO denounced Khruschev’s criticism of Stalin as lacking any substance. The B&ICO’s position was that the most substantial criticism of Stalin was from Solzhenitzn. We published numerous sympathetic reviews of Solzhenitzn’s books in the 1970s (in Problems of Communism).

d)On economics we rejected the Khruschev revisionist new economics. We rejected the idea that the “socialist commodity” was a Marxist concept.

2) Yes, it is indeed an open question whether the country is better off with the collapse of the RCC. The problem with the liberalism in this country is that it was not fought for. A kind of mindless liberalism has entered the vacuum as a result of the internal collapse of the RCC.

3) The problems with commemorating the Irish soldiers in the first world war is that the advocates of this most definitely buy into a pro-imperialist position. Secondly, what are we commemorating? In my view most of them were victims of poverty (although some went in a spirit of adventure like Tom Barry). Commemorating them is, in effect, endorsing a British view of the war. The IPR does not accept this view.

4) Is Bertie Ahern a socialist? I don’t know. Fianna Fail is an all class alliance. There are “socialist” as well as capitalist aspects to its policies.

5) Describing Desmond Fennell as a loose cannon is a bit contemptuous. Fennell was an early exponent of a two nations theory (he claims he arrived at this independently of the B&ICO and it was completely different in form). Nevertheless it recognised the substance of Ulster unionism.

6) The Irish Political Review has contempt for Myers and Harris.

by Turps Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:52

Well you've answered, though I'm not satisfied altogether. Glad to learn you agreed with Solzhenitsyn's revelations about the Gulag when his books came out. Don't know anything about the economic theory of the 'socialist commodity' so can't comment there. I doubt that state marxist economics will appeal to many people nowadays since it failed in the USSR and Mao's China, and people in N. Korea would prefer bread to A-bombs any day.

When I said Fennell was a loose cannon Irish nationalist I didn't intend contempt, only to state he thought his own thing about nationalism and other matters then and now, and seems to have a lot of strings to his bow - hard to keep up with his racing thoughts. It kind of seems a strange route he travelled from the old Sunday Press to the now IPR. ( I get it from Books Upstairs sometimes, but I'd never join you on account of your, eh...colourful past and liquorice allsorts present.)

I seriously distance myself from you on attitudes to Stalin. You are a bit blase when you say he had interesting things to say about nationalities in Russia. Look man, he used mass deportation against certain ethnic groups, mass imprisonment and mass executions.

Fair dos that you don't empathise with Myers and Harris. FF 'socialism' at least has its humourous side and I know some sincere neighbours who will vote that party until they die.

by Bronterre O'Brien Mon Oct 15, 2007 16:25

'Two nations' theory is an age-old imperialist ploy. And its role in Irish politics should be viewed in this context.

http://india_resource.tripod.com/hist-2nation.html

The two nation nonsense basically says: its a tribal conflict and if we, the imperialists leave, bloodshood will follow. This, or some variant of it, is a standard ploy of imperialisms. Pick up any newpaper and see its latest version in Iraq.

To think for a split second that Fianna Fail and its leadership is 'socialist' is laughable. To think that Fianna Fail stands for the self-determination of the Irish people is equally ludicrous.

Eoghan Harris has worked ceaselessly to defeat the Irish freedom movement. His appointment to the Senate by the leader of Fianna Fail, Ahern, is a reward for his anti-republican, pro-imperialist politics.

To base one's position of whether Ireland should submit to the empire on whether the Catholic church is strong or not, or on whether economic conditions in the 'South' are good or not, is so simple-minded that it does not merit a response.

The Belfast Agreement is a great success for the Anglo-American empire. It involves the subordination of all of Ireland, North and South, economically and politically, to this imperial design. Fianna Fail played a key role in all this, and its move north is part of the imperial project.

'Two nations' propaganda over 20 or so years paved the way for giving the Unionist minority a veto on Irish self-determination.

Supporters of Fianna Fail, such as Harris and Bico/Aubane are colluding with the imperial control of the Irish people. And propounding a shallow green nationalism is a cover for this project of collusion.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Mon Oct 15, 2007 18:34

The two nations theory as developed by the B&ICO does not say that the North is a tribal conflict or that if the imperialists leave there will be bloodshed

Although I accept that divide and rule policies are an old tactic of imperialism, there is an internal basis for a separate nation in Northern Ireland arising out of the different systems of land tenure in both parts of the island as well as cultural differences. The pamphlet which expounded the two nations theory – The Economics of Partition - begins with a quote from Peadar O Donnell: “Partition arises out of the uneven development of capitalism, sentiment won’t remove it.”

At different times in its history Ulster unionism has shown itself capable of asserting its nationality in opposition to the British State. It is not merely a product of imperialism.

As indicated the right of nations to self determination is not absolute. Also, nations can express their right to self determination in different ways. The Irish (predominantly Catholic) nation in the South fought for independence. The nation in the North wished to remain part of the United Kingdom.

De Valera, in practice – if not by his rhetoric - accepted partition. He refused calls by Northern nationalists for Fianna Fail to organise in Northern Ireland. He also denied representation by Northern nationalists in the Dail. His thinking (rightly or wrongly) was that the Free State was fragile. It had not been consolidated and in such circumstances politics in the North was a distraction.

When the North blew up in 1969 the successors to de Valera failed to respond in a competent way. They could not decide whether they wanted to aid the Catholic minority defend themselves against the loyalist mobs or use the crisis to advance the cause of a United Ireland. It succeeded in neither objective. Jack Lynch allowed himself to be bounced by the British ambassador into bringing Haughey and Captain James Kelly to trial for implementing government policy.

Fianna Fail suffered an internal collapse as a result. Indeed the national culture of the country was undermined and this led to historical revisionism. The country became embarrassed by its own culture. This is the revisionist project which the IPR/Aubane is opposing. Revisionism has extended from academia into the mainstream media.

Harris is an arch revisionist. However, he was not appointed to the Seanad for that reason. It was because he dissented from the media consensus opposing Bertie Ahern. The revisionists within the media oppose Fianna Fail because it has been the party that has consistently developed the State away from the influence of Britain (e.g. Bunreacht na hEireann, repossession of Treaty ports in 1938 and neutrality during the second World War).

Britain’s interest in Northern Ireland is as a means to exercise influence over politics in the South. I agree that there are dangers in the current political settlement in an increase in British influence in the South.

Finally, the idea that Aubane/IPR is colluding with British imperialism is a joke. Aubane/IPR has done more than anyone, including Sinn Fein, to oppose the revisionist project in our history.

by Bronterre O'Brien Tue Oct 16, 2007 03:12

Aubane/BICO's political stance is confused and contradictory.

To assert that land tenure determines nationality is absurd.

The 'two nations theory' type of thinking was, and is, a longtime imperial ploy (see the link above re India) and is a basic theme of revisionist thinking. And this thinking and propaganda created the political climate that led to the Belfast agreement, which gives a veto to Unionism on Irish self-determination.

The so-called 'pan-nationalist front', including its key players, Fianna Fail and Irish America, was instrumental in the Anglo-American empire's triumph in Ireland known as the Good Friday Agreement. (And Britain at this point is the junior partner in the empire, something Aubane has failed to notice).

The use of Shannon as a key logistical node in the empire's torture and violence ventures, the membership of Ireland (all of it) in the 'Anglo-Saxon' Echelon intelligence and surveillance agency, the subjugation of Irish labour power to exploitation by U.S capital... just a few of Fianna Fail's collaborative efforts to aid the Anglo-American ruling class.

Fianna Fail's move north is part of the overall subjugation process. Those who support Fianna Fail, including Senator Harris and Bico/Aubane are colluding in this imperial attempt to control the Irish political economy, and are acting to the detriment of the Irish people.

Harris was not appointed to the Senate because of one appearance on TV. Ahern was well aware of Harris's pro-imperial, anti-republican history. He rewarded Harris because Harris, like Ahern and Fianna Fail, is fearlessly on the side of power, property and privilege.

Supporting Ahern while attacking Harris shows the confusion in the political thinking of BICO/Aubane. Rallying to the 'Legion of the Rearguard', and the 'Soldiers of Fortune' is giving aid, encouragement and comfort to the Irish empire loyalists. You are in the same camp as Harris. And wearing a green cloak cannot hide this.

by Vicky Tue Oct 16, 2007 07:34

The 'triumph of the GFA' whether imperialist or otherwise was endorsed by huge majorities in two referenda 72 per cent in NI and 92 per cent down here. So different from the treaty vote in the first Dail 57-64. So in the two referends the people on this island exercised self-determination. If we want a unified state (St. Augustine: make us united but not yet) we'll have to work steadily for mutual understanding, and let time and god do the rest.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Tue Oct 16, 2007 09:25

It’s not easy to summarise the two nations theory as developed by the B&ICO in a couple of sentences. The different systems of land tenure enabled tenant farmers in the North to accumulate capital and facilitated the development of the linen industry. This was impossible for the rack rented peasantry in the South. This was not the only determinant of a separate nationality but was an important one.

If you don’t accept that there is a separate nation in the North how do you explain the political behaviour of Ulster unionism in the last 100 years? In my view it has behaved as a separate nation even to the extent of asserting this by force of arms against the British state.

You say Aubane failed to notice that Britain is a junior partner in American imperialism and yet yesterday in one of my posts I mention this very fact!

As I have said I regard your accusation that the IPR/Aubane is giving aid to Irish empire loyalists as a joke. No one has done more to combat revisionism: e.g. exposing Peter Hart’s books; confronting the media (the Irish Times and RTE) publishing books on patriots such as Sean Moylan and Sean O Hegarty etc etc.

What have you done?

by Turps Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:55

The unionist population has paradoxically behaved like a nation separate from the G Britain they passionately cling to in UK 'unity' - but are unionists provincial rather than national? If they wish to cease being a 'province' (they often call Ulster a province, to the wry bemusement of Cavanites, Donegallites and Monaghanites) would they have the same moral claim as Scotland and Wales to separate nationhood?

by Bronterre O'Brien Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:15

As I outlined above Fianna Fail shows its loyalty to the Anglo-American empire by allowing Shannon to be used for torture flights and troop transfers, by Irish membership in Echelon, the 'Anglo-Saxon' spy agency, and by subjugating the Irish people to Anglo-American economics. Fianna Fail have used state power to implement Anglo-American neoliberal economic policy resulting, for instance, in those unable to afford medical care dying because they can't access procedures readily available to those with money.
And Fianna Fail by being the main player in the Belfast Agreement ensured that the process of subjugating all Ireland, politically and economically, to the Anglo-American empire is well under way.
The notion that the people of the 26 counties voted for the Good Friday Agreement is false. The British ruling class do not allow entities outside the United Kingdom to change structures within it. The people in the 26 counties modified the constitution to facilitate the Agreement. While the change to Articles 2 and 3 received most attention Article 29 was also altered. It diminished Irish sovereignty and allows the British Government and its sub agencies, through the cross-border bodies, to have power over Irish social and economic policy. This renegotiation of the Irish connection to England was successfully carried out under Fianna Fail leadership. The political climate for such an abdication of sovereignty was created by revisionism and all the spurious arguments for the two-nations theory.
Fianna Fail is playing a comprador role in subjugating all of Ireland to imperial economic and political control. Those who support Fianna Fail such as BICO/Aubane and Senator Harris are loyal to this imperial project.

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Tue Oct 16, 2007 16:59

Turps, I suppose the ultimate test of a nation is its ability to mobilise itself in arms. The unionists in the north and the nationalists in the South passed this test.

Are Scotland and Wales separate nations? There are cultural differences between them and the English, but in my view their claims are less clear cut than the Ulster unionists for the reason mentioned above.

Bronterre, I think we will have to agree to disagree on some points. While Fianna Fail is not perfect we think it is worthwhile engaging with it while reserving the right to criticise it. The Irish State has gone out to attract US capital in order to create high value jobs in this country. I don’t accept that the country has subordinated itself to American capital. In some cases (e.g. Digital in Galway) when the multinational left the expertise gained by Irish people working in Digital was used to create new Irish owned companies.

I agree that Britain has dangled the carrot of a United Ireland as a means to have greater influence on politics in the Republic of Ireland.

Bronterre, the common ground between us is our opposition to the revisionist project in academia and the media. As I suggested in the Pearson thread I hope you will continue to support us in our attempts to undermine this revisionist project despite your disagreements with us on other matters.

by Great Cthulhu Tue Oct 16, 2007 19:42

"The ultimate test of a nation is its ability to mobilise itself in arms.".

Those of us who are pacifists would have to strongly disagee with you. You should read Jonathan Schnell's "The Unconquerable World"
if you get the chance.

by Turps Tue Oct 16, 2007 23:45

So Scotland and Wales will have to mobilise themselves militarily to prove the ultimate test of nationhood? Can't they simply have self-determining referends? By your nationhood standard Stalin was probably logical when asking How many divisions has the Pope?

by John Martin - Irish Political Review Wed Oct 17, 2007 17:13

It would be great if Scotland did not have to mobilise in arms against England in order to be independent. If only it could all be decided sensibly with a referendum!

Britain might allow Scotland some local autonomy, but it is unlikely that it will allow it to pursue an independent foreign policy. I am with Bronterre on this point.

If Scotland acquiesces that will be an indication of the depth (or lack) of national feeling on this question.

This is not to say that moral questions are not important. As indicated by Pat Walsh in a recent issue of the Irish Political Review, Stalin was wrong to assume that power rests only with those with battalions. The Pope has power as head of a world wide religion. The very fact that he has no battalions adds to the moral force of what he says whatever one might think of his pronouncements. He has an influence across nations which few other world leaders have.

by Turps Thu Oct 18, 2007 00:51

If strong moral power can exist, indeed persist as in China and pre-Gorbachev Russia, does this in some way undermine marxist theory about ruling ideas in society filtering down from the superstructure. "The ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of its ruling class."

Granting the historical fact that the RCC has sided with the powers temporal in many societies (Constantine's decision to become Christian and make it the official religion of the ailing Roman empire was the first such instance) nevertheless there have been times of oppression where the RCC and other churches seeped down into the substructure (catacombs) and persisted with an anti-superstructural furtive alternative moral system. In the Polish Solidarnosc movement of 1970-1990 this alternative trade union/popular education/samizdat substructural alternative system struggled to become eventually part of the superstructure again.

I pose a question of basic epistemology for marxists: where do ideas come from? [epistemology = the philosophical thinking about knowledge and its veracity] It's not a theoretical question, because on another thread it has been alleged that ideas on human rights prevalent in the contemporary world have no spiritual/church origins but come from human beings alone.

Maybe on the matter of independence for Scotland the using up of natural gas deposits will also undermine the wish to break free of the UK.

by Rita Cahill - Socialist workers party Sat Dec 29, 2012 04:38

Hi I have just posted up on my wall on face book where Alan shatter and Oireactas in the upper house are signing a bill to get FOI on your health details, we have to stop it, if you can get this message to Richard Boyd Barrett, it has been handed in to Oireactas on 29th dec 2012 Friday

by Joe McIvor Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:00 joemcivor at gmail dot com

As a sitting TD , the chair of the IAWM, a leading member of PB4P etc, Richard Boyd Barrett is a busy man and very hard to reach Rita.. I have tried to contact him on other issues - such as the IAWM's support for the CIA-backed Syrian and Libyan " rebels "- on several occasions ,but have never received a reply from him.. I note your party affiliation. Richard is also a member of the SWP so you might find it easier to contact him yourself on this issue ,which seems to be a very important one.. I haven't been able to find anything about it anywhere else on the net. More details would be very welcome.