• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Sec. General of Department of Justice implicated in Equality Authority Leak


corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
It seems bizarre, to say the least, that the prison service refuses to tell an employee under what terms and conditions he is being employed.


This one will run and run.
Yes, but the issue is the now Sec Gen allegedly giving information to the Priests bishop during an investigation where there is a legal impediment to so doing. Very damaging if true.

This whole thing gives credence to the allegation that there is something more than budgetary concerns over the spangling of the EA.
 

John_C

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
129
I'm in two minds about this. The Dept. was clearly wrong in how they treated the Chaplin but this article looks very much like the Equality Authority, or someone sympathetic to it, is releasing dirt into the press to take revenge on the Dept.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
I'm in two minds about this. The Dept. was clearly wrong in how they treated the Chaplin but this article looks very much like the Equality Authority, or someone sympathetic to it, is releasing dirt into the press to take revenge on the Dept.
It undoubtedly is for that reason all right but, the issue is, if it is correct then possibly the Department had an ulterior motive for shafting the Authority. Revenge for dobbing in the Sec Gen to the Gardai.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,801
possibly the Department had an ulterior motive for shafting the Authority.
While many suspected that may be the case at the begining, it now seems more and more likley that that is the case.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,289
While many suspected that may be the case at the begining, it now seems more and more likley that that is the case.
This kind of thing is a classic aftermath effect of political infighting. What will be interesting now will be the response. However the dangerous thing would be to come down on one side or the other without any hard evidence being produced.

Regards...jmcc
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
This kind of thing is a classic aftermath effect of political infighting. What will be interesting now will be the response. However the dangerous thing would be to come down on one side or the other without any hard evidence being produced.

Regards...jmcc
No, your right. Its a wait and see. Someone in the establishment is not taking it lying down though. That information could only have come from official sources within the public service. Methink Justice might have overstepped the mark on this one.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
I notice that all the gentlepersons who were so vociferous in criticising the Equality Authority in recent days are conspicuously quiet now.

Perhaps it is because there is now some substance to various posters allegations that the Authority was victimised by the Department.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,000
What a wonderful republic we live in.

The Secretary General of the Department of Justice is the subject of a complaint for committing a criminal offence. And the Irish Times reports that the actus reus of this offence, leaking private information to the priest's employer, has already been proven to a civil standard before the Equality Tribunal. More than that, the Department of Justice did not appeal and paid compensation as ordered.

Meanwhile, the priest is out of his job, the Secretary General continues in his (where he is the most senior civil servant in the Department of Justice!), and - along with his trusty Minister - uses spending cuts to undermine those parts of the law of the republic with which he disagrees, along with victimising the statutory agency which was duty-bound to call foul on his suspected breach of the law.

(Normally, I wouldn't comment on a matter that may come to trial, but after the "John Bruton voting" thread, it seems to be fair game on this site.)
 

code twinkle

Active member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
156
Questions regarding Alyward

What a wonderful republic we live in.

The Secretary General of the Department of Justice is the subject of a complaint for committing a criminal offence. And the Irish Times reports that the actus reus of this offence, leaking private information to the priest's employer, has already been proven to a civil standard before the Equality Tribunal. More than that, the Department of Justice did not appeal and paid compensation as ordered.

Meanwhile, the priest is out of his job, the Secretary General continues in his (where he is the most senior civil servant in the Department of Justice!), and - along with his trusty Minister - uses spending cuts to undermine those parts of the law of the republic with which he disagrees, along with victimising the statutory agency which was duty-bound to call foul on his suspected breach of the law.

(Normally, I wouldn't comment on a matter that may come to trial, but after the "John Bruton voting" thread, it seems to be fair game on this site.)

Well said.

I've raised this a few days ago but it seems more pertinent now in light of the Alyward allegations.

As part of its onslaught on the rights infrastructure in this country, the govt is refusing to include "the promotion of human rights" as one of the acceptable aims of a Charity under the Charities legislation going through the Houses at the moment. This is pretty unusual in terms of similar legislation the UK or in the EU and can only be seen as part of the general vindictiveness of the D/Justice from which Crowley also suffered.

What's interesting is the Senator David Norris is on record in the House as actually narrowing down the operator behind this and other attacks on the human rights sector to one senior civil servant in the D/Justice. What he said the other day is this:

"Senior civil servants in Departments are driving Government policy. I am sure that is the case. It is inappropriate to name the particular senior civil servant in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but the Minister will know exactly who is involved."
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
What a wonderful republic we live in.

The Secretary General of the Department of Justice is the subject of a complaint for committing a criminal offence. And the Irish Times reports that the actus reus of this offence, leaking private information to the priest's employer, has already been proven to a civil standard before the Equality Tribunal. More than that, the Department of Justice did not appeal and paid compensation as ordered.

Meanwhile, the priest is out of his job, the Secretary General continues in his (where he is the most senior civil servant in the Department of Justice!), and - along with his trusty Minister - uses spending cuts to undermine those parts of the law of the republic with which he disagrees, along with victimising the statutory agency which was duty-bound to call foul on his suspected breach of the law.

(Normally, I wouldn't comment on a matter that may come to trial, but after the "John Bruton voting" thread, it seems to be fair game on this site.)
Your fine. The facts are obviously so as the Times would have had the article checked for accuracy and libel prior to going to press.

Its not the kind of story you would carry unless you are very sure of your facts.

I notice, however, that is not being picked up elsewhere. Carol Coulter obviously has a source within the public service at a relatively high level.

People should be slow to draw concrete conclusions as between the allegation of illegality and the cuts to the Authority.

The inference of the Article is clear.
 

code twinkle

Active member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
156
Your fine. The facts are obviously so as the Times would have had the article checked for accuracy and libel prior to going to press.

Its not the kind of story you would carry unless you are very sure of your facts.

I notice, however, that is not being picked up elsewhere. Carol Coulter obviously has a source within the public service at a relatively high level.

People should be slow to draw concrete conclusions as between the allegation of illegality and the cuts to the Authority.

The inference of the Article is clear.
Does she say that? Would the first assumption not be that it came from Crowley?
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
Does she say that? Would the first assumption not be that it came from Crowley?
Say what?

Crowley is the obvious choice but the man may have more than one disaffected former junior.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,000
And we can only imagine the outcry if, under similar facts, a Fine Gael/Labour government had a go at a state agency promoting the Irish language.

When I say "similar facts", I mean if the most senior civil servant in the relevant department clearly had a falling out with the management of an agency, was himself investigated for unlawfully interfering in its work and failed to appeal an adverse finding.

Without any doubt, many of the same people who let this scandal pass them by (or who think it's great craic and a nice little stroke), would be jumping up and down, complaining not just at how the cuts damage the cause of the Irish language, but at how they showed a state conniving in unlawful behaviour and - worse - victimising those who report unlawful behaviour as part of their job description and duty to the state.

And bad as it would be for the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to act in this way, we're talking here about the Department of Justice.
 
Last edited:

kerrynorth

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
1,525
(Normally, I wouldn't comment on a matter that may come to trial, but after the "John Bruton voting" thread, it seems to be fair game on this site.)
Why not? In both cases they were brought into the public domain by the media, not p.ie.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
Why not? In both cases they were brought into the public domain by the media, not p.ie.

I think, Kerry, he is referring to the difficulties, legal, you can experience when repeating a libel or when a matter is Sub Judicae.

I take your point though.
 

kerrynorth

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
1,525
I think, Kerry, he is referring to the difficulties, legal, you can experience when repeating a libel or when a matter is Sub Judicae.

I take your point though.
Its not Sub Judicae - there are no charges brought in either case....yet. What Libero may be alluding to is that in the event of charges being brought then a Jury needs to be enpanelled that has to come to the case with an open mind. However, there is nothing being said here on p.ie that I am sure is not also being said in many pubs, even if those discussions are not on record for posterity.
 

RainyDay

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
2,552
The Tribune broke the story of Aylward's leak last year - see
Exposed: top civil servant's leak cost state 40,000

It will be most interesting to see what happens now. It is blindingly obvious that this has absolutely nothing to do with money. It is also obvious who is really in charge at the Dept Justice (hint:it's not Dermot Ahern).
 
Top