• 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.

Why is Shatter covering up failure of prison visiting committee?


Thady Quill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
413
Alan Shatter has refused to publish a report by the prison-visiting committee of St Patrick’s Institute for Young Offenders because it failed to identify serious issues detected by the Inspector of Prisons.

The committee - all political appointees - clearly failed to their job properly, and identify the litany of abuse listed by Judge O'Reilly (all of which was accepted by Shatter). Was this because of idleness, incompetence or indifference? or some variation of Stockholm Syndrome where they came to identify with the prison staff?

Whatever the reason the public are entitled to see the unvarnished report and come to their own conclusion. But yet again, Shatter has reneged on FG's promise of more openness in government.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0119/1224329049390.html
 
Last edited:

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
I notice you didn't bother with a link. So either through laziness or design, you fail to mention the fact that this isn't the final report. It's been submitted and sent back for review specifically because it didn't reflect the judges findings.

It's what an adult in his position would do: send it back for further work to address the possible HUman rights issues as opposed to getting to getting into some stupid public battle with them.

Shatter refuses to publish prison report - The Irish Times - Sat, Jan 19, 2013

However, Mr Shatter has asked the St Patrick’s committee to “review” its 2011 report and draft an amended version that would take into account Judge Reilly’s much more damning findings.
I don't disagree that they appear to need to change the scope and manner of their reviews, but by Shatter making them go away and revise the report/review, he's taking real steps to affect those changes. I don't see what benefit there would be in accepting and publicising a mediocre review. Get them to do a proper review.
 

Thady Quill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
413
I notice you didn't bother with a link. So either through laziness or design, you fail to mention the fact that this isn't the final report. It's been submitted and sent back for review specifically because it didn't reflect the judges findings.

It's what an adult in his position would do: send it back for further work to address the possible HUman rights issues as opposed to getting to getting into some stupid public battle with them.

Shatter refuses to publish prison report - The Irish Times - Sat, Jan 19, 2013



I don't disagree that they appear to need to change the scope and manner of their reviews, but by Shatter making them go away and revise the report/review, he's taking real steps to affect those changes. I don't see what benefit there would be in accepting and publicising a mediocre review. Get them to do a proper review.
Look again -there is a link.
And we want to see the original report so we know what they really thought.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Who cares? It's not the final report. It just seems a bit ludicrous to me. I have people who work for me producing reports. If it's not to my standards I send it back to them and tell them to fix it. I don't submit it as the final version and send it to my managers and publicise it and then "Hey look at what a rubbish job my people did!!!!!!!"
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
37,438
Is it cause he's Jewish?
 

jwallz96

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
110
I think the man is entitled to make sure the report is accurate, the very same people would be giving out if Shatter published a report that was found to be inaccurate. You can't win sometimes. And asking for a review is not ordering a change, and no one should try to imply that either, they may very well review it and decide there's nothing wrong with it and publish it anyway, unlikely, but still a possibility. Give the man a chance
 

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
23,296
You beat me to it.
Me too! Bloody tricky sneaky Kilkenny bogger - actually, Drummed is clearly a Jew too. Can't trust em, sneaky sods!

Good Lord, even deepest Kilkenny has em now!
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
Me too! Bloody tricky sneaky Kilkenny bogger - actually, Drummed is clearly a Jew too. Can't trust em, sneaky sods!

Culchie Jews.

Nowt worse.
 

jpc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
4,339
The visiting committee is a political jolly junket.
Guys from Cork go to Donegal and visa versa.
Part of the quango culture.
 

Thady Quill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
413
Is it cause he's Jewish?
The defence of the braindead! I do not give a toss what Shatter's religion is - but you obviously do!
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,538
Who cares? It's not the final report. It just seems a bit ludicrous to me. I have people who work for me producing reports. If it's not to my standards I send it back to them and tell them to fix it. I don't submit it as the final version and send it to my managers and publicise it and then "Hey look at what a rubbish job my people did!!!!!!!"
Would you not be inclined to review who your people are? After all if they're failing to spot the very things you're paying them to spot then they're doing a rubbish job.
I'm not saying Shatter is wrong in this case but that there is a broader issue here regarding who is appointed to these positions, what qualifies them for the position and whether they should be removed from that position.
 

jwallz96

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
110
Would you not be inclined to review who your people are? After all if they're failing to spot the very things you're paying them to spot then they're doing a rubbish job.
I'm not saying Shatter is wrong in this case but that there is a broader issue here regarding who is appointed to these positions, what qualifies them for the position and whether they should be removed from that position.
Fair enough, that's easily argued, and there are undoubtedly plenty of people working in the various govt departments who shouldn't be, although there could be other factors to blame too, things may have changed between the reports (unlikely though)
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Would you not be inclined to review who your people are? After all if they're failing to spot the very things you're paying them to spot then they're doing a rubbish job.
Sure, but the first step would surely be to say "This is crap, go away and fix it." If it keeps up then you dump them all. But you've got to give them the chance to fix things.

I'm not saying Shatter is wrong in this case but that there is a broader issue here regarding who is appointed to these positions, what qualifies them for the position and whether they should be removed from that position.
Oh sure. Remember the committee interviews for these sort of posts we were promised?
 
Top