Clear, Transparent, Responsible and Accountable.

Let's Express Posted on by

So yesterday the Government announced that our pubs cannot open and in fact may not be allowed to open again this year. Michael’s announcement was worded carefully as he made sure we all understand that this had nothing to do with himself or his Government. It was all the fault of the virus and the best the Government could possibly do is to take the expert medical advice offered.

Let’s look at that a moment. Pubs are privately run businesses, mostly family owned in this country. Back in March the virus itself did not visit every pub in the land and order the owners to close their doors. Without Government intervention, some pub owners may have voluntarily closed while most others would have continued business as usual. But Government did intervene and all of them were ordered to close by law. So the burning question now is, who’s responsible? The Government always speaks of the need for transparency and clarity in all things. So being completely clear and see-through, the virus didn’t close the pubs, the Government did.

Also, besides transparency and clarity, the Government incessantly reminds us of the need for accountability and responsibility in all walks of life. So if the Government closed the pubs then the Government are both responsible and accountable for the huge loss of revenue suffered by all of these private businesses. It doesn’t get more transparent than that!

But the Government have possibly shifted the blame when they say they are following the advice of the medical experts in this matter. That medical community is represented by National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET), and if you dig down on this website you’ll discover a plethora of snouts in the trough. It reads like every medical association in the country is involved, all feeding recommendations into the decision making and then taking money out of it naturally. This begs the question then, do all of these bodies share the accountability and responsibility for pub losses? Are they the ones responsible and accountable? Leading on from that, should they all have to financially compensate the pub industry collectively for all losses incurred?

But NPHET maintains that they only ‘advise’ the Government and they cannot force pubs to close for example. It is not they who make the final decisions. However, the Government Ministers maintain that they cannot ignore professional advice either so who’s really making the decisions? More importantly, where’s the transparency and clarity and whose is the accountability and responsibility for the fallout from such decisions? This same conundrum applies to every private business adversely affected by the laws of the lockdown. Who pays the piper?

When I was a lad, each and every one of us had responsibility for our own health and welfare. Doctors were an option as were the inevitable tablets they prescribed, but given that you had to pay for this out of your own pocket, the choice was your own. The State might help in some cases but mostly, it was up to the individual to decide what was best for themselves. This included our reaction to the winter flu season. Some caught it and battled on, some avoided it and some took to the bed for a week of chicken soup and hot tea. Of course, many died also. Our annual flu season normally takes a couple of hundred souls quietly away with it. In all of it though, the flu was a topic of conversation, normally tagged onto to the daily weather chat.

You can see the transparency and clarity there and the attendant accountability and responsibility. You got the flu, you were clearly sick and though it was nobody’s fault, you were stuck with it. So you decided to take time off work and then you lost some pay because the choice was your yours, your responsibility. It happened to me twice in this way over the years. But with that personal responsibility came the personal authority to decide things for yourself. You could take up smoking, you could get pissed in the pub or you could eat a giant meal in one sitting and it was nobody’s business but your own.

Fast forward to the new century and it appears that the Government has removed your own authority in personal matters, (The Nanny State), and taken over those responsibilities for your actions. This is the only way they can have the authority to ban you from smoking in the pub and subsequently close that pub due to a bad flu. So the buck now stops with Central Government and if they assume such authority for our choices then they must accept the responsibility that goes with it. Taken to its natural conclusion then, the pub owners have a right to demand compensation from the Government for losses incurred due to the lockdown. Indeed, their customers could claim for a level of upset as well.

Or do you see it differently?

Free press my arse!

Let's Express Posted on by

Growing up in this free democratic Western society during the seventies, I have an abiding memory of the fairness of the media. Most of the important issues of the day were reported in an even-handed manner by giving both sides of the argument. If you think about it, the implication was that by giving the rounded information, the reader would be equipped to make up their own mind. This is what a true democratic free press is all about. When only one side is presented then by similar implication you are being instructed on what to think and believe.

The Observer on Sunday was a broadsheet with a small print size and few ads. If a report were published on, for example, unrest in Israel at the time, then one page would be headed, “The view from the Israeli’s” while the facing page would be entitled, “The Palestinian View.” These two opinion pieces, written by two different but competent journalists, would be laden with facts, figures and dates, both accounts would cover the same incidents and yet both would utterly contradict the other almost entirely. It was quality journalism with intriguing insights into the issues behind the incidents. After such a long read you could sit back and reflect and you might come to the conclusion that they both had valid points or you might choose sides. Similarly, the BBC television stations utilised the same practice when presenting important news stories, that is, an in-depth look at the issue in question, which offered both sides of the argument. Our own RTE TV often did likewise.

Fast forward fifty years and the supposed quality newspaper today is the Guardian, the sister publication of the Sunday Observer. It is sad to report though that now we are only given one side of any news item published and it is inevitably the politically correct Neo-con version of events presented as a fait accompli needing no analysis by the reader but rather slavish acceptance that this can be the ‘only’ acceptable account. The BBC does the same thing now. Five of the six main TV stations in the USA will also be parroting the same narrative as will the Washington Post and the New York Times. These organs consider themselves to be the leading opinion formers in our free Western Society but I wonder?

As an example of what I am getting at, there is an article in today’s Guardian concerning China. In it they assert that, “In just the last two months, China has ordered the closure of a US consulate in the country’s southwest in response to a similar move from the US; fought a deadly border clash with India, an unresolved border that threatens to erupt again; seen the abrupt end of the so-called “golden era” of relations with the UK; engaged in a war of words with Australia, bringing relations close to an all-time low; forced a draconian national security law on Hong Kong, earning international condemnation; and fallen further into a rivalry with the US that is forcing other countries to choose sides. Increasingly, they are choosing the US.” Just that paragraph alone is worth dissecting to discover what might be the other side of the stories.

Firstly, the closure of a US consulate in China’s southwest was , as they tell us, a response to the US provoking them by doing it first. The Chinese reaction therefore the the classic diplomatic tit-for-tat practised by all countries in a similar situation. If the Yanks respond by closing the Chinese Embassy in Washington then you can expect the Chinks will do the same in Beijing. So the real story should be about the Americans initiating the conflict. But the paragraph goes on, “(China) fought a deadly border clash with India, an unresolved border that threatens to erupt again.” The first point to make is that it wasn’t deadly, not by a long shot. Soldiers from both sides fought a hand-to-hand battle killing no one. There is a snide implication in the tone of the article that might suggest to you the Chinese were responsible whereas in reality, we don’t know who started the row with both sides blaming the other.

The next point made is that, “(China) has seen the abrupt end of the so-called “golden era” of relations with the UK. The use of ‘so-called’ suggests that the writer is being sarcastic and that no such golden era ever existed, implying that the UK has always been hostile to China. If so, then he should have stated that. Then the writer accuses China of being, engaged in a war of words with Australia. Big deal! Sticks and stones and all that but it is not news surely. He adds that China has, fallen further into a rivalry with the US, without specifying the nature of the rivalry he is referring to. For the last ten years the Chinese have been growing their export markets in a most capitalistic fashion as they compete in the open markets with everybody else and there is nothing unusual about that. Militarily, the US spends more each year than the next six biggest spenders on defence, one of which is China, so the Chinese are hardly competing with them in this arena. So where, I ask, is this newer and deadlier rivalry he writes about?

But the point he makes that gets to me is that, (China) forced a draconian national security law on Hong Kong, earning international condemnation. This accusation is the most important point he wishes to make but it is buried amongst the other noise in order to slide it by you. Let’s look at the facts of this though. At midnight on the 1st July 1997, the United Kingdom ended administration for the colony of Hong Kong and returned control of the territory to China. Originally they had a hundred year ‘Lease” on Hong Kong and this expired. You can read about it here.

But basically the British gave it back and it became an integral part of China with the sole proviso that Hong Kong could continue with its capitalist system for a further fifty years. That was not a problem because the whole of China had become capitalist by that time. However, the British could not insist that Hong Kong remain a democracy given that China was governed by communism so the clear understanding then in 1997 was that Hong Kong would fall under a communist system of central Government while retaining capitalism as their economic doctrine and that’s what happened.

But China was communism with a capitalist economy so no change there. Residents who did not want this were free to leave and indeed, the UK facilitated this by offering UK citizenship to any residents who wished to avail of it. So for twenty years, Hong Kong proceeded normally with little change in the day-to-day lives of its inhabitants. In the last few months though, Hong Kong witnessed serious rioting with death on the streets, mass violence and destruction of both public and private property. It seemed to come from nowhere and the Chinese Government accused foreign security agencies of inciting the violence and paying cash to the participants for it. They may be right on that score but you won’t read about it in the Guardian if they are. At any rate, the Chinese allowed the local Hong Kong authorities to handle the problem until the leaders of the rioting began to plead with the West to intervene militarily. The correct analogy to make at this point would be, if spontaneous rioting erupted in New Orleans and lasted several months before the ringleaders pleaded with China and Russia to intervene militarily, how do you think Washington would respond? The National Guard would flood New Orleans, introduce a curfew and kill anyone on the streets after it. There would be mass arrests, special courts and prison sentences of thirty to life duly dished out. The Guardian would then most probably report that democracy had prevailed and the terrorists were behind bars where they belong.

In the case of Hong Kong, China imposed a national security law called the anti-sedition law, which targets the crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, with penalties as severe as life in prison. In the US, incitement to secession is considered to be treason, with all that implies. The US is engaged in a world wide war against terrorism, using it as the justification for invading several foreign countries. Subversion is a crime punishable by prison. The accusation of collusion with foreign forces is the basis of Russia-gate and efforts to impeach Trump, so if secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion are forbidden under our own democratic laws in the West, what is the issue with China applying the same laws in their territory?

So let’s read that paragraph again. “In just the last two months, China has ordered the closure of a US consulate in the country’s southwest in response to a similar move from the US; fought a deadly border clash with India, an unresolved border that threatens to erupt again; seen the abrupt end of the so-called “golden era” of relations with the UK; engaged in a war of words with Australia, bringing relations close to an all-time low; forced a draconian national security law on Hong Kong, earning international condemnation; and fallen further into a rivalry with the US that is forcing other countries to choose sides. Increasingly, they are choosing the US.” Looks a bit different now, doesn’t it?

I am certainly not pro-Chinese nor am I anti-West, but I would like to read fair and impartial accounts of world affairs, particularly on the pages of what has been traditionally a quality newspaper. I do not want to read the kind of impartial, one-sided shite above though and such obvious tainted propaganda will not help in forming my opinions under any circumstances.

The tabloids don’t even sink as low.

Some Unwanted Common Sense

Let's Express Posted on by

It emerged during last week that our newly appointed Agriculture Minister served a three-month driving ban in 2016 after being found by Gardaí to be drink-driving in the aftermath of an All-Ireland football final.

To non-Irish readers it should be understood that if he was returning from an All-Ireland football final, then on the day he was one of hundreds of drivers who’d probably had one too many. The logical and reasonable limit of two to three pints that stood for years was changed to a point now where a mere half pint of beer could put you over the limit today. This raises the question then, is the driver being reckless or is the limit far too low?

Anyway, Cowen was also driving on a provisional licence at the time. He was issued with a fine and a three-month ban but did not appear in court as the amount of alcohol in his system did not reach the level required for prosecution. Now that’s interesting! The amount of alcohol in his system was so low that he couldn’t even be prosecuted. We learn from this that far from being an irresponsible piss-head behind the wheel, Barry had merely consumed maybe a sole glass of wine, perhaps with his lunch, and he was in no way impaired in his driving but was instead a victim of an over zealous stupid law.

Now when we say a law was broken we also say that the punishment must fit the crime, in this case, a three month driving ban and a fine. Nowhere is it suggested that Cowen flouted this so he did the crime and he did the time so to speak. Case closed and Barry has nothing now too apologise to anyone for in my opinion. It was four years ago and everyone has moved on with their lives.

Well, most people have but not Susan Gray, who founded PARC, (Promoting Awareness Responsibility and Care on our roads). In 2006 after her husband Stephen died in a road traffic collision involving an unaccompanied learner driver in 2004, Susan decided to set up her pressure group PARC. She told RTÉ’s Prime Time last night that the Minister was ignoring the “elephant in the room” and said Cowen had not answered any of her group’s outstanding questions. In her case those questions involve whether he did or did not drive his car with ‘N’ or ‘L’ plates displayed.

Look a little closer at this though because the accident with a learner driver that her husband Stephan died in, is being used to garner support for her point of view and condemnation of the Minister. But no proof has been furnished to us to show that the learner driver in question was at fault for that accident and indeed, the word ‘accident’ denotes a lack of pre-meditated intent from either party. Accidents happen in all walks of life and while they are unfortunate we are stuck with them. Furthermore, can Susan guarantee us that if the learner driver on the day was displaying such plates then the accident would never have happened? No she cannot!

Of course, once Susan got her spoke in, another road safety campaigner who lost his wife and daughter in a tragic accident involving an unaccompanied learner driver, invited Barry Cowen to visit their graves. I really loathe this kind of emotional blackmail. We all have sympathy with anybody who loses a loved one for whatever reason but don’t use it for self promotion.

The other thing that got to me about this storm in a teacup is that critics of Cowen, both inside and outside of politics, are trying to destroy his career and get him to resign. For example, Labour leader Alan Kelly called on Cowen to tell the Dáil, prior to his apology yesterday evening, whether he had ever driven without a driving licence. This is plain old points scoring and a bullshit question to boot. In the short history of this State we had a year designated by Government where people without a licence could simply buy one without as much as a driving lesson and thousands availed of it because it was the law that year, such is the calibre of our elected legislators. The truth about driving is that we all learn it through trial and error.

Then TD Paul Murphy said the fact that Cowen was permitted to make a statement to the Dáil without having to take questions from opposition leaders was not right. In English that means that Paul is miffed he didn’t get the chance to embarrass a sitting Minister in public, thus elevating his own self-important image in the voter’s eye.

But the biggest hypocrite in this must be the Taoiseach. Earlier yesterday. Micheál Martin said that no politician is above the law, and millions around the country spat out what they were drinking in bewilderment. Martin more than anybody knows that politicians here are above the law, in fact they make the fucking laws and worse than that, he knows that the rest of us know that too. Michael also knows, as we commoners know, that we have too many laws already and too few Gardai to enforce them. Like the rest of us he knows that many of the laws on our statute books make no sense at all, many are years out of date, many are obscure and not at all clear as to their intent and many are simply ignored by both the lawful and the lawless. It is technically still a crime for a taxi to be on the road in this country without a bale of hay on board to feed the horse, (that no longer pulls the taxi).

Add to that the fact that Michael barely got across the line in his bid to be the country’s leader, had only just appointed Cowen as Minister and was under assault from senior members of his own party who felt entitled to a Ministry themselves. Under such circumstances, why did he pick now to put the knife in Cowen’s back.

Where’s the leadership and which gallery is he playing to in his condemnation of his close colleague?

Black Lives

Let's Express Posted on by

Like most people, I am watching the unfolding events across the USA. When it comes to ‘Facebook’ I’m a lurker but I do take a ramble in there to read other posts. In this regard I keep coming across accounts of police brutality in the States including many murders for what the authors claim is for no reason. They tend to be hard to believe but it is the incessant nature of these claims that makes one think there must be something in it.

So the video footage of George Floyd’s unlawful killing came as no shock to me. Such footage of similar killings always seem to be doing the rounds on Facebook. My hesitation to believe or condemn it all is based on my knowledge of video editing and special effects software. The industry is so far ahead on realism that anything can be video faked, including a murder and when you view it, it’s so very believable.

But I do believe the Minneapolis man was unlawfully killed by a policeman and by extension therefore, the street protests are both morally justified and legal under the First Amendment. Americans have the right to free speech and peaceful protest and any effort at suppression of that in regard to this murder would be wholly wrong.

However, while peaceful protest is right and proper, looting and rioting is not. The looters and rioters are committing criminal acts and should be hunted down, arrested and tried for their crimes. They are hijacking a perfectly legitimate cause to break-in and steal things they want, they are damaging property, endangering lives and throwing rocks and petrol bombs when challenged. That is lawlessness and the state can either confront it or let it happen and increase in intensity until all civil structures break down and it’s each man for himself.

“Black lives matter,’ is a laudable banner to march under but it quickly gets out of control as we saw with the Rodney King murder in L.A. in 1992 and several times since then. I have no doubt that black people, or African Americans or whatever politically correct phrase is currently in vogue, are getting a raw deal in the US and always have done. Perhaps their deal is not as raw as that given to the native Americans but they are treated unjustly and it is an issue that Americans need to address.

Mind you, footage of the nightly looting and rioting going on now is hardly an incentive for Americans to address anything other than restoring law and order and then making an example of several unfortunate black guys to make such a thing unattractive in the future. If that happens, and Trump wants it to, then the question becomes who is ultimately responsible for it?

Is it that stupid policeman who committed murder or the lawless bastards who took advantage of it?

 

Append: A reader has pointed out to me that Rodney King was not murdered. Perhaps I had murder in my head as I typed because indeed, Rodney King was not murdered by the Police but was savagely beaten 37 with batons and kicked seven times as well. It was the video footage of this appearing that set off the LA riots at the time, the real point I was trying to make.