Should Kathleen Lynch Resign

Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
I'm not someone who would ever vote for her or support her but I dislike the tabloid mob mentality that exists where you judge someone on the basis of last utterance.
 


Utopian Hermit Monk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,900
I don't think she should resign.


http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrz9gG85fQc

"dat's not de Irleand I want ta live in, and it's not de Ireland dat de majority of people out dere want ta live in"

(I dearly wish Kathleen would learn to pronounce 'th' - even more irritating than Bertie! :roll: )
 

supamolli

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
194
I didn't like her "if I offended anyone I apologise" comment on TV3 as if the offence was in some way subjective.

She did offend and she should apologise for offending the victims. No ifs.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
adamirer said:
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...
Absolutely. What I see at issue in both cases (and many others) is the political system representing bogus concerns, while real concerns don't get a look-in.
odie1kanobe said:
I'm not someone who would ever vote for her or support her but I dislike the tabloid mob mentality that exists where you judge someone on the basis of last utterance.
I don't see a tabloid mob mentality in the comments on these threads. I do see a reluctance by some to just engage with the issue.
 

Paul.M

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
12
How could Gilmore sack her and at the same time justify cozying up with a fellow Labour member who used OUR Ministerial car and OUR petrol while WE were paying his wages to trawl the Phoenix Park looking for call boys?

Speaking of Ministerial cars, did Dick Spring's Greyhound recover from that crash some years ago???

The high moral ground is not a place the Labour Party would be at all familiar with!
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Schuhart said:
adamirer said:
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...
Absolutely. What I see at issue in both cases (and many others) is the political system representing bogus concerns, while real concerns don't get a look-in.
odie1kanobe said:
I'm not someone who would ever vote for her or support her but I dislike the tabloid mob mentality that exists where you judge someone on the basis of last utterance.
I don't see a tabloid mob mentality in the comments on these threads. I do see a reluctance by some to just engage with the issue.

Issue is she wrote a letter stating parents were good people. Son is a rapist but she wasn't writing about him she was writing about the parents. Was she incorrect ? Have you evidence to prove that they are not of good character ?
 

gentleben

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
19
Kite said:
How could Gilmore sack her and at the same time justify cozying up with a fellow Labour member who used OUR Ministerial car and OUR petrol while WE were paying his wages to trawl the Phoenix Park looking for call boys?

Speaking of Ministerial cars, did Dick Spring's Greyhound recover from that crash some years ago???

The high moral ground is not a place the Labour Party would be at all familiar with!
Bit of a nasty scumbag arent you to bring that up?

I would respect her if she resigned but is it really neccessary? I think not.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
odie1kanobe said:
Issue is she wrote a letter stating parents were good people. Son is a rapist but she wasn't writing about him she was writing about the parents. Was she incorrect ? Have you evidence to prove that they are not of good character ?
Firstly, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the perpetrator's parents.

However, it is extremely disingenuous for you to describe the letter in the way that you do, particularly as the author is acknowledging it was bad judgement to write it.

The letter was supplied in the context of the rapist's sentencing. Its purpose was not to just, in isolation, laud the good standing of his parents. It was supplied for the purpose of supporting his lawyer making a case for a mitigated sentence. Which simply brings us right back to the point I made several posts ago
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?
 

Paul.M

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
12
Bit of a nasty scumbag arent you to bring that up?

I would respect her if she resigned but is it really neccessary? I think not.[/quote]


Unlike being an ostrich with my head in the sand!!
Did a Labour Minister trawl the Phoenix Park for rent boys??
Did a Labour Minister have a crash with a greyhound in the boot of a state car??

A curse on all politicians who treat us public with contempt be they from FF, FG Lab, PD, Green, SF Socialist etc.

And a little poem for those that see no evil, speak no evil or will hear no evil about the very few scumbag politicians we are forced to endure.


The Gombeen Man. By Joseph Campbell:
“Behind a web of bottles, bales,
Tobacco, sugar, coffin nails,
The gombeen like a spider sits,
Surfeited; and, for all his wits,
As meagre as the tally-board
On which his usuries are scored”
Ps. Remember the times when we could speak no wrong of Charlie the robber??
 

alfie

New member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2
Any member of the labour party can bring forward a complaint against her. That was done in the same constituency when Joe O'callaghan made comments that were deemed racist a number of years ago
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Schuhart said:
odie1kanobe said:
Issue is she wrote a letter stating parents were good people. Son is a rapist but she wasn't writing about him she was writing about the parents. Was she incorrect ? Have you evidence to prove that they are not of good character ?
Firstly, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the perpetrator's parents.

However, it is extremely disingenuous for you to describe the letter in the way that you do, particularly as the author is acknowledging it was bad judgement to write it.
She is only doing so becasue she has been hounded to do so.
Little voluntary in doing it.

She has done nothing wrong and guilt by association is not a crime.
 

Kf

Active member
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
272
She defintely should not resign, she was elected by the people of Cork NC and they, and they alone, should be the judges of her action.

Though her party must take action to make clear there distaste for her letter.

I think a simple solution to this nonsense of these letters is for the law to be passed that says that any legislators writing to Judges can be seen as attempting to infulence the independence of the judicary and therefore should be penalities applied.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
odie1kanobe said:
She is only doing so becasue she has been hounded to do so.
Little voluntary in doing it.
Indeed, and she probably only wrote the letter originally because she felt hounded to. She's quite the victim of circumstance.
odie1kanobe said:
She has done nothing wrong and guilt by association is not a crime.
I don't know what 'guilt by association' is supposed to mean. She contributed (in a small way) to a case being compiled on behalf of a rapist seeking a shorter sentence. That's the action I see as of interest. I'm not suggesting she did anything illegal, simply unwise. I'm quite sure many other TDs do much the same. I do indeed feel the conclusion is that TDs should bear in mind that when they decide to make representations on behalf of bogus causes, that the rest of their electors might have an interest.
Kf said:
She defintely should not resign, she was elected by the people of Cork NC and they, and they alone, should be the judges of her action.

Though her party must take action to make clear there distaste for her letter.
I feel this is the start and end of it. Its right that we know of this action, and its right that we form an opinion on it. But you are correct - ultimately its up to the people of Cork NC to decide at the next election if, on balance, they want to vote her in again.
Kf said:
I think a simple solution to this nonsense of these letters is for the law to be passed that says that any legislators writing to Judges can be seen as attempting to influence the independence of the judicary and therefore should be penalities applied.
I disagree. I feel that this would lead us to passing legislation that effectively said 'TDs should not behave like gobshites all the time'. The solution is much simpler. TDs will stop behaving like gobshites when we stop asking them to behave like gobshites, and stop tolerating them when they behave like gobshites on behalf of others.

I think the solution is exactly what we've seen in this case. Lets just avail of whatever opportunities present themselves to let TDs know what we think of them when they behave like gobshites.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
Schuhart said:
odie1kanobe said:
She is only doing so becasue she has been hounded to do so.
Little voluntary in doing it.
Indeed, and she probably only wrote the letter originally because she felt hounded to. She's quite the victim of circumstance.
odie1kanobe said:
She has done nothing wrong and guilt by association is not a crime.
I don't know what 'guilt by association' is supposed to mean. She contributed (in a small way) to a case being compiled on behalf of a rapist seeking a shorter sentence. That's the action I see as of interest. I'm not suggesting she did anything illegal, simply unwise. I'm quite sure many other TDs do much the same. I do indeed feel the conclusion is that TDs should bear in mind that when they decide to make representations on behalf of bogus causes, that the rest of their electors might have an interest..
So is someone accused and found guilty of a crime NOT allowed to have a case put together for mitigating circumstances ?

Irish law sees that somehow differently and acts accordingly.

In what way was the case BOGUS ?

Again I ask the question were his parents decent people which is all she stated.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
odie1kanobe said:
So is someone accused and found guilty of a crime NOT allowed to have a case put together for mitigating circumstances ?
Can I suggest you stop being disingenuous? Its not as if anyone is fooled by this kind of hyperbole.

Reasonable people will simply see the irrelevance of your comment as (I suspect you know) the issue is not whether someone is entitled to claim mitigation. Its whether someone, in this case the local TD, wants to support that claim.
odie1kanobe said:
In what way was the case BOGUS ?
The concern is bogus. Where's the need for KL to make this intervention? Is there a shortage of real problems needing representation?
odie1kanobe said:
Again I ask the question were his parents decent people which is all she stated.
I refer you to my earlier post, which already addresses this statement. I don't particularly see why you are repeating a point that has already been illustrated to be irrelevant. I doubt anyone else does either.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
There's times you read a sentence in a story and just go 'Oh, FFS'.
Senator Kathleen Lynch, Labour spokeswoman on equality, today said that, in the context of reports of an increase in human trafficking, there are “huge concerns” over what might have happened to the Kenyan girls after they vanished.
I wonder if stiffer sentencing for sexual offenders might help to allay her concerns.
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,559
Website
-
I just can't take her seriously on an issue involving abuse of young people

Lynch slams Church report - News - Cork Independent

Sure, it fits in with Labours apparent policy of having a very mild go at the Church to appease some of their vote. The optics look good. But of all people to haul out, not sure she is appropriate. As her husband is her PA, you'd think even he could point out over the dinner table that there is a cheek writing a letter on behalf of a person accused of sexual assault and then complaining about how others handle the issue. She made a mistake, granted, but are there not other TDs who could be better placed to comment?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top