• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Should Kathleen Lynch Resign

earlyandoften

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
16
pikey said:
earlyandoften said:
pikey said:
But do you think she is the only TD to make representations like this ? Is it possible this has happened in manslaughter or serious assault cases ?
And if I may broaden the discussion Consider this , In Limerick Willie O Dea is legendary for " getting things for people " and his "can do " attitude . I wonder is it beyond the bounds of possibility that he may have helped a ne'er do well get a medical card or a house or whatever ? ( theres no evidence to suggest he has , but its possible,just using him as an example )
Why did you use Willie O'Dea as an example and not Michael Ring or John Gormley or Tony Gregory?
Also does it matter if others have been doing it? is your argument that because other haven't been caught she should get away with it?
If she's a member of the front bench she should be demoted.
I mentioned Willie cause Im in his constituency and know many people who have said ' willies grand , he'll help you with this , that and the other ' . I cant say anything with certainty about the others . My argument is that if there is a culture of TDs making representations then it is hypocritical/unfair to just vilify one . I am not partisan , I despise all politicians in equal measure .
Seems to me you can't say anything with certainty about anyone. I've heard Jan O'Sullivan is great, I've heard Michael Noonan is great and Peter Power and Kieran O'Donnell too.
Truth is no politician can get you a house or a medical card or anything that you are not entitled to. They may like to pretend they can and may even try to intimate that they helped you get the medical card but if you're not entitled to it you won't get it. But even if they could it's a whole lot different to write a letter as a character witness for a convicted rapist that you know the judge will see.
 


Richie Nixon

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
34
I do recall Bobby Molloy standing aside in Galway West in 2002 for a similar incident. It shows that the PDs do still have some level of standards and public empathy.

However, TDs must be so careful what they say and what they do. And her claims about the niceness of the family is worrying. It smacks of "another decent man hounded out of office"
 

earlyandoften

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
16
Richie Nixon said:
I do recall Bobby Molloy standing aside in Galway West in 2002 for a similar incident. It shows that the PDs do still have some level of standards and public empathy.

However, TDs must be so careful what they say and what they do. And her claims about the niceness of the family is worrying. It smacks of "another decent man hounded out of office"
If Bobby Molloy and the the PDs have or had these levels of standards and public empathy he wouldn't have written the letter and he wouldn't have had to stand aside. Just because he resigned is no reason to praise him.
 

Paul.M

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
12
Unfortunately yes, as someone that was a frontrunner on woman’s rights I can’t believe she was so stupid in this matter.
A real pity that all the hard work put in by her and her relations (Ciaran Lynch TD and Cllr. Cathrine Clancy) will be affected for years to come, yet the prawn sandwich Labour members in Cork who do sweet FA, keep their heads down and treat the workers of the Country like something they dragged onto their Persian carpet on their Gucci slippers will tut tut and get re-elected time and time again.
 

Tintern1

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
12
Do letters like these, coming from elected representatives, to the judiciary (by way of defence counsel), not violate the separation of powers?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Tintern1 said:
Do letters like these, coming from elected representatives, to the judiciary (by way of defence counsel), not violate the separation of powers?
Why would they as they are not seeking to change a decision but looking at mitigating circumstances.

She did bugger all wrong as she gave a character statement regarding scummys parents.
 

Tintern1

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
12
Why would they as they are not seeking to change a decision but looking at mitigating circumstances.

She did bugger all wrong as she gave a character statement regarding scummys parents.
But the letters are attempting to influence a judge by way of obtaining a less severe sentence, thereby potentially influencing his decision in that regard?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Tintern1 said:
Why would they as they are not seeking to change a decision but looking at mitigating circumstances.

She did bugger all wrong as she gave a character statement regarding scummys parents.
But the letters are attempting to influence a judge by way of obtaining a less severe sentence, thereby potentially influencing his decision in that regard?
Nope her letter was clearly testifying to the good character of her parents.

Anybody who believes Judges are that easily swayed by a politicians letter needs to get to know a few judges who would quickly dissaude them of that idea. They are Independent and have a low opinion of political interference.
 
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
88
odie1kanobe said:
Tintern1 said:
Why would they as they are not seeking to change a decision but looking at mitigating circumstances.

She did bugger all wrong as she gave a character statement regarding scummys parents.
But the letters are attempting to influence a judge by way of obtaining a less severe sentence, thereby potentially influencing his decision in that regard?
Nope her letter was clearly testifying to the good character of her parents.

Anybody who believes Judges are that easily swayed by a politicians letter needs to get to know a few judges who would quickly dissaude them of that idea. They are Independent and have a low opinion of political interference.
If this letter was only about her parents and nothing to do with trying to have an impact in sentencing, why was it in the court?
 

Tintern1

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
12
Anybody who believes Judges are that easily swayed by a politicians letter needs to get to know a few judges who would quickly dissaude them of that idea. They are Independent and have a low opinion of political interference.
Surely that's the point, there should be no political interference full stop.

Judges are humans after all, and have the same weaknesses and strengths as anyone else.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
PaintingMedium said:
odie1kanobe said:
But the letters are attempting to influence a judge by way of obtaining a less severe sentence, thereby potentially influencing his decision in that regard?
Nope her letter was clearly testifying to the good character of her parents.

Anybody who believes Judges are that easily swayed by a politicians letter needs to get to know a few judges who would quickly dissaude them of that idea. They are Independent and have a low opinion of political interference.
If this letter was only about her parents and nothing to do with trying to have an impact in sentencing, why was it in the court?[/quote]

It was put forward by the defense barrister.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Tintern1 said:
Anybody who believes Judges are that easily swayed by a politicians letter needs to get to know a few judges who would quickly dissaude them of that idea. They are Independent and have a low opinion of political interference.
Surely that's the point, there should be no political interference full stop.

Judges are humans after all, and have the same weaknesses and strengths as anyone else.
Its not political interference as the TD is exercising their right to write on behalf of a constituent be it right or wrong.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
odie1kanobe said:
It was put forward by the defense barrister.
In fairness, can we stop playing silly buggers with each other.

If it wasn't intended for use by the defense barrister, what was the intended audience for the letter? Did the perpetrator's parents want to comfort themselves when home alone by reading a letter from a TD saying they were good stock? Or did they intend to hang it outside their gate to stave off mobs of torch bearing neighbours intent on burning them out?

Is it not reasonably clear that the intent of the letter was exactly what it was used for - as an indirect character reference for the rapist. It cost nothing, it did nothing, but why does it exist at all? Where was the pressing need to assure a judge that the rapist came from a good home, as if that was something that should mitigate his sentence?

Also, should a TD blindly support all constituents? Say she was also approached by the parents of the plaintiffs in this case. Should she write a second letter telling the judge they are decent people profoundly upset by the whole matter, with the clear implication that the sentence should take account of their hurt? Where does that take us?
 

rinderpest

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
1
Excuse my ignorance of the court system, but I'm puzzled. If a barrister for either side gives any document to the judge at any stage in proceedings, I would have thought that would have to be done openly. In this instance, say, the defence barrister would read out Lynch's letter and say who it was from, rather than simply handing it to the judge with a nudge and a whisper. And yet it seems from the coverage that it was only when the judge took it upon himself to mention the letter that it came to light. If that is the case, then the most important issue is not when if ever it is appropriate for TDs to send such letters; the most important issue is rather how such back-channels of communication are legal at all. It should be a crime to try in secret to influence a judge's deliberations.
 

Limerick Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
4,596
Richie Nixon said:
I do recall Bobby Molloy standing aside in Galway West in 2002 for a similar incident. It shows that the PDs do still have some level of standards and public empathy.

However, TDs must be so careful what they say and what they do. And her claims about the niceness of the family is worrying. It smacks of "another decent man hounded out of office"

The Bobby Molloy case was quite different, his office tried to obtain the judge's telephone number on Molloy's behalf, as he wished to talk to Judge to request him to read two letters from the sister of the defendant, the victims aunt, who was supporting her brother against accusations of sexual abuse by the defendant's daughter. The Judge in the case returned the letters unopened to the defendant's legal saying that they were not of interest to him in deciding what sentence was appropriate. The victim in the case said this to Joe Duffy on "Liveline" this afternoon.
 

Boss Croker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
352
Website
www.shergar.com
This is no longer a question just for Kathleen Lynch. It is now a matter for Eamon Gilmore. This is a serious moral test for Gilmore and the Labour party.
Kathleen is in a big hole. Every time she opens her mouth, she digs it deeper. She threatens to drag Gilmore and the party into the hole with her. And they all end up getting buried.

I would prefer if she had the guts to resign as a TD and take her medicine. That would be the honourable and moral thing to do and would regain her some self-respect.

Failing that, Gilmore should immediately -as the bare minimum:
Sack her as Spokesperson on Equality (!!!!!!)
Expel her from the Dáil party and remove the whip
Tell her to publicly announce that she will not contest the next Dáil or any other election.

However, I suspect that even that will not be enough to prevent serious damage to Labour in Cork and Munster generally... and on Gilmore as Leader.

The real solution is to call for her immediate resignation.

Who will speak out on this? Michael D - who is always lecturing us on the evils of 'clientilism'. Joan Burton? Liz McManus? Jan O'Sullivan? Those who remain silent condone Lynch's action.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Schuhart said:
odie1kanobe said:
It was put forward by the defense barrister.
In fairness, can we stop playing silly buggers with each other.

If it wasn't intended for use by the defense barrister, what was the intended audience for the letter? Did the perpetrator's parents want to comfort themselves when home alone by reading a letter from a TD saying they were good stock? Or did they intend to hang it outside their gate to stave off mobs of torch bearing neighbours intent on burning them out?

Is it not reasonably clear that the intent of the letter was exactly what it was used for - as an indirect character reference for the rapist. It cost nothing, it did nothing, but why does it exist at all? Where was the pressing need to assure a judge that the rapist came from a good home, as if that was something that should mitigate his sentence?

Also, should a TD blindly support all constituents? Say she was also approached by the parents of the plaintiffs in this case. Should she write a second letter telling the judge they are decent people profoundly upset by the whole matter, with the clear implication that the sentence should take account of their hurt? Where does that take us?
It is up to the TD to use their own Judgement of whether she should write the letter.

The hanging mob want he tarred and feather but she has done nothing wrong.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
odie1kanobe said:
It is up to the TD to use their own Judgement of whether she should write the letter.
Indeed, so clearly we can then comment if she decides to write a letter.
odie1kanobe said:
The hanging mob want her tarred and feather but she has done nothing wrong.
No, very specific questions have been raised suggesting she made a very poor decision not fully addressed in her later statement. These very specific questions have not been really answered. Hence, I suppose, the retreat into meaningless generalities like the hanging mob want her tarred and feathered.

Or are we to take it that Kathleen Lynch is of good stock, and is good stock, and hence should be above all questioning.
 

michael1965

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
143
CJH's old adage "Never apologise, never explain" seems to be Odie1 and Returning Officer's motto here. But, fair play to Kathleen Lynch for doing both. I think her letter was only a half-hearted and slightly ambiguous gesture of support, unlike many many others, where politicians have made much more serious efforts to get sentences reduced. I think the best thing is in future, all these representations be put in the public domain, and let people decide case by case. who should be "hanged, tarred or feathered". Knowing that, might concentrate the minds of politicians as well to decide who exactly they are representing.
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
She made a bad decision. End. Of.
She didn't break any laws, she's merely guilty of questionable judgment. I personally wish all TD's would think before sending letters, but maybe thats too much to ask. To go around with placards (at Labour HQ this lunchtime) saying Labour supports rapists, is just a bit much.

Do people not remember our dear leaders, amongst many others including our CURRENT justice Minister B. Lenihan, trying to secure the day release of Philip Casey, who killed Anne Ryan when drink driving? Lenihans words seem very apt...

“[…] He (Sheedy) does come from a very good family. He is in his occupation an architect. He is a respected member of the local community in Coolmine. I know him to be of good character. A custodial sentence in this case would lead to the destruction of his career as an architect”.

and unlike Lynch/Casey, Sheedy got released... Or maybe its just that, as shown in the last Dail session, some don't think drink driving (leading to death of an innocent woman) is serious...
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top