Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week October 14, 2012
Posted by Garibaldy in Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week.trackback
What I admire most about the Sindo is its consistency. So you can get a story entitled Austerity is poison for the Irish economy which, amidst all the rants about slashing the public sector, says this
If the IMF is right, then all of the pain and sacrifice of the past four years has been in vain. If the troika were doctors rather than economists, they’d have been struck off long ago
This week, the Sindo is more unashamed than normal in its defence of the interests of the middle class, with the defence of private schools the central theme across several articles. Eilis O’Hanlon tries to play the accusation of sectarianism to protect private schooling (note the comments on Israel snuck in to try and strengthen the case).
The Labour Party used to have to wrestle with its conscience before declaring victory and doing the wrong thing anyway. Now its conscience doesn’t even bother fighting back, because it knows there’s no point, leaving Labour to look around desperately for other opponents with whom to play the macho political street fighter.
And what better way to pretend to still be socialists than to beat up on some passing churchgoer whilst calling it integrity? First up were the Catholics, as Labour pulled the plug on the Vatican Embassy in one big Yah Boo Sucks gesture.
Then it was those crazy Jews in the firing line as Labour TDs broke off from totting up their projected pensions for a while to join the campaign against Israel’s blockade of Gaza. You tell ‘em, brothers. Now it’s the turn of Protestants, as Labour suddenly wants to get stuck into fee-paying schools.
Eilis O’Hanlon, meanwhile, is a rebel with a cause. And, perhaps surprisingly, it’s about reclaiming our heritage stolen by the English.
It’s about time Ireland reclaimed that old Tory mantle from the English. It belonged to us first. What we need now is real Irish Tories : rebels, outlaws, who can take on the vested interests and stand behind the middle class, who want homes not unrepayable debts, and businesses not handouts, because those people have always been the backbone of this country and always will be — and, as David Cameron said, “we should never, ever be ashamed of saying so”.
And what a stunning success a country with the likes of Eilis as its backbone has been.
This week’s winner leaves the rest in the dust.
This way lies a totalitarian State: the Fine Gael and Labour elite, with the trade union movement, aided and abetted by RTE, are in control of the political, economic and social discourse and outcome. We should be worried.
Not who you might think, but Jody Corcoran.
rebels, outlaws, who can take on the vested interests and stand behind the middle class
I am trying very hard to imagine Robin Hood or Ned Kelly as stolid home-owners running their own businesses. I am not getting very far.
I’m trying to imagine how imaginary rebels take on vested interests and stand behind the middle class, when those two categories might clearly overlap… some back-stabbing perhaps?
“Britain has flirted with socialism from time to time, but there was never a serious appetite for it in Ireland, even in the worst times. Margaret Thatcher practically had to start a revolution to transform Britain into the sort of bourgeois, property-owning democracy which Ireland always was.” The jaw just drops at the absurdity of such a comment, even in an article that’s practically collapsing under the weight of idiocy. It’s breathtaking that she manages to combine multiple absurdities into these two short sentences…
to beat up on
Is this the normal usage in Ireland?
An embarrassment of riches in today’s edition. Just to add a couple, there’s Daniel McConnell quoting the head of the Croke Park Implementation Body, who states that there’s no explicit increments or allowances in the CPA, and that whether they are protected by the agreement depends on what your definition of pay is (and there’s no definition in the agreement), then adding 2 and 2 to make 5 jumps to:
Hmmm.
Also, a silly mistake by Ulick O’Connor, who states in a piece about Edward Carson that
Which isn’t true. Carson successfully defended the Marquis of Queensbury against Wilde’s complaint of criminal libel (not unreasonably, as Queensbury would have been jailed if found guilty. But he didn’t participate in the prosecution, and attempted in influence the government in dropping the charges after the first trial.
It’s not a huge mistake, and a common misconception, but you’d expect a bit better from someone who’s byline on the column states that he wrote a play about the two men.
The Hunt and Corcoran articles are mad beyond belief.
And well done to O’Hanlon for calling for a massive bailout for middle-class home owners in the very same sentence that she decries handouts and says the middle-class doesn’t want them.
Actually that was a mistake on my part, now corrected. O’Hanlon it was who made the remarks about private schools and religion. So Eilis is a rebel with two causes, not just one.
“And well done to O’Hanlon for calling for a massive bailout for middle-class home owners in the very same sentence that she decries handouts and says the middle-class doesn’t want them.”
+1
Tellinghow much the supposed boosters of the ‘middle-class’ feel the need to indulge in their vainglorious rhetoric which is simultaneously – and characteristically – conceited and self-pitying in the same breath.
Listen, if you can bear it, to this morning’s Marian Finucane show. A panel consisting entirely of pro-business types chats companionably about how we need more ‘flexibility’, unions are a thing of the past, Cameron’s idea about workers surrendering rights for shares is an idea worth looking at etc. There isn’t an employee in the room, never mind a trade unionist.
Later, they’ll all be down the yacht club, chatting companionably about RTE’s ‘left wing bias’.
Hi Croc,heard that this morning and it was nauseating stuff anytime unions were vaguely mentioned in a favourable way there was a massive but… right after it.A civil servant(spawn of Satan) texted in about how poorly paid she is but not one of our champions of transparency,honesty and flexibliity dared to say how much they earn a week, the least well paid must have been Lucinda Creighton and what’s she on 1,500 a week?Wonder what Quinn,Dunphy,Finunance,the Chocolate Pusher and the cough cough financial expert take home a week? This is what pases for news,debate in “the best country in the world to do business in “
Fergal, do you ever hear RTE’s midweek current affairs output? Maybe it’s different then, though I doubt it. I’m just wondering whether the guest list is skewed towards the ‘pro-business’ types at weekends, just as business programmes are scheduled for weekend mornings. Maybe the plutocrats are fuming in their limos on weekdays, as they listen to a parade of lefties on the Pat Kenny show, and storm the studios on Saturdays and Sundays to set the record straight.
Or maybe not.
Crocodile, you must be living in a valley somewhere like those East Germans who could never get West German telly. Have you never seen RTE’s classic 20 part series ‘The Tenets of Marxist-Leninism’? It’s repeated every year, you must have seen it? Or what about the lives of Irish marxists? Or the Kieran Allen breakfast phone-in on RTE1 or RBB ina shui to make sure that RTE can’t be accused of not considering the first language in its relentless dissemination of marxism. I’m looking forward to tonight’s ‘The Week in Politics’ which, the ‘RTE Guide’ tells me, is an extended 90 minute special on the subject ‘The Class Struggle in Ireland Today: How the Working Class and Take the Fight to the Boss Class’. You probably missed the last few ‘Frontlines’ which explored in detail the issue of paying the bondholders, the plight of low paid workers and how to fund and enlarge the public sector as a response to crisis? What about the recent series ‘Public Sector Heroes’? Or the ‘Primetime’ investigations into shadow banking in the IFSC and Digicell’s activities in Haiti? You should get a saor view box soon if you’re not to miss out on the real RTE.
Let’s not forget the annual May Day broadcast of Fidel’s speech to the masses in Havana.
You have to be on €100,000+ to be in the RTE Commintariat.
If people on less than that have opinions they can keep them to their own class.
‘Concern is rising in the Government that the IMF/ECB/EU Troika will warn that “Croke Park is not working” when they conclude their eighth review of the bailout agreement, scheduled to begin next week.’
Is this the same IMF who believe austerity isn’t working?
Is there any chance they might actually be more worried by crippling bank debt? Any leaks to that effect?
but then the IMF is probably just another part of the quasi-socialist elite who run the country and are determined to protect public sector fat cats wherever they find them.
Speaking of mad journalists, Nick Cohen of ‘The Observer’ finds that the Tories are actually fine, decent human beings doing their best in the worst of circumstances, yuck: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/14/nick-cohen-nice-tories-horrible-policies
He’s one of these people who will forever be fighting a battle of the past – he’ll never escape from it. Your Eoghan Harris would be another of that ilk, I think.
I stopped reading him after the Iraq invasion in 2003 and, from what I can see, he never seems too keen on dwelling upon the human cost of ‘decency’. Indeed, the ‘decent left’ must be in a bit of bind these days given that they’re no doubt gung-ho for a crack at Iran but have to put out of their pretty (and not so pretty) little heads that their last crusade has resulted in an Iraqi government that seems 100% behind Iran. Has anyone visited ‘normblog’ since 2007, what’s the latest thinking on the, cough, ‘decent’ left?.
In his correction to the popular illusion that Carson prosecuted Wilde, Smiffy asserts that Carson tried to persuade the government of the day to drop that prosecution. I’m not sure on what he bases his statement. Certainly Carson refused to rule out the possibility of such a prosecution in Court when he could have done so. Presumably, he was acting on Queensbury’s instructions, but, had he been concerned, he could have made non prosecution a precondition for taking the case. Of course, all this is of less immediate relevance than the idiocies of the Indo, but it is as well to get things right.
Wilde was prosecuted for gross indecency by the Crown, not by Queensberry in a private prosecution. I cannot see how Carson could have prevented a prosecution by ruling it out during the libel trial or making non-prosecution a condition precedent of taking the case for Queensberry. (Incidentally, the latter suggestion would be legally unenforceable.)
Perhaps they are told by editors that they have to sound madder every week to sell papers. It’s not working, is it? The attitude to PS is quite close to incitement to hatred at times.
Rosencrantz, Wilde was indeed prosecuted by the crown, but this was because the judgement in his private action was that the words of which he complained were justified, giving the crown an handle for its prosecution. Queensbury (sic) could have got off without the justification defence but Carson (perhaps egged on by the Marquess) insisted. (its in Ellman’s life of Wilde.)
As far as taking the Marquess’ defence was concerned, Carson was in a strong position. He could have refused the brief (He nearly did) or insisted on terms that would have given Wilde a chance of escaping prosecution. Instead he went for the kill.
There are not that many defences to libel. Most of them still require you to prove that what you were saying is true in some respect. I haven’t read Ellman’s book and I do not have his reasons for making that claim, but they sound very suspect to me. By the by, Wikipedia tells me that Carson did ask the Solicitor-General to ease off on Wilde and cites Ellman’s book as a source for this.
Under the ‘cab rank’ rule, Carson would have been bound to take the case so long as the correct fee was offered and he was available to do it. Refusing to take it on political grounds would have been a breach of professional ethics. As is hamstringing your defence or prosecution on grounds of personal distaste.
The person who should have refused to take the case was Wilde. The entire prosecution was ill-conceived and the result of spectacularly poor advice. We can certainly be angered that Wilde was persecuted for nothing more than his sexuality but I fail to see how blaming Carson for any of it does any good.
The libel laws have been changed at least once since Wilde v.Queensbury. There was the possibility that Wilde would lose his costs without being prosecuted under the notorious Labouchere amendment. (The alleged libel was, after all, not that Wilde was gay but that he was posing as such).
Carson need not have given reasons for not taking the case (He is known to have refused to take cases against those whose hospitality he had enjoyed), but he could have insisted, had he been inclined to fight the case in his own way.
I have not seen the wikipedia ref, but if it is based on Ellman, I would recommend the late Rosencrantz to go to the organ grinder rather than the monkey.
However, I agree with him the Wilde was foolish to take his action. (He was influenced by the egregious Douglas) and that he was prosecuted under piece of legislation of which there is little to say in favour.
The libel laws have been changed at least once since Wilde v.Queensbury. There was the possibility that Wilde would lose his costs without being prosecuted under the notorious Labouchere amendment. (The alleged libel was, after all, not that Wilde was gay but that he was posing as such).
How? How would they go about doing this?
It was Queensberry who was being prosecuted. Had he lost, he would have faced jail of up to 2 years. The prosecution of Wilde had not entered into the equation at this point. In fact, Wilde’s legal team would have known about the evidence against him and perhaps could have withdrawn the case and only faced a bill for legal costs. They did not, and I am at a loss to think why.
I would recommend the late Rosencrantz
This is a really, really weird thing to say. As for me going to the primary source, it is a little extreme to have me go out and purchase a book so I can provide the answers you failed to. You apparently have Ellman’s book, why can’t you look this stuff up and tell us?
Ah, “the late Rosencrantz” is a humorous reference to your online name, isn’t it? It’s not particularly weird. Am I missing something?
Ah, I missed that. I still haven’t had my morning cup of tea. Nevermind.
“I have not seen the wikipedia ref, but if it is based on Ellman, I would recommend the late Rosencrantz to go to the organ grinder rather than the monkey.”
I used Alvin Jackson’s short book on Carson as the source for my comment. Jackson references H. Montgomery Hyde’s biography of Carson.
Okay, Rosencrantz, I hope you enjoyed your tea. However, here is the reference you wanted:
‘Clarke [Wilde's counsel] hoped that Carson would accept a verdict of not guilty, “not guilty” having reference to the word “posing” and to Dorian Gray and the epigrams in the Chameleon. Nothing would then be conceded about Wilde’s acts of sodomy as itemised in the plea of justification. Wilde agreed; but in the event Carson insisted, and Clarke had to consent, that the whole plea must be allowed, that is, Queensberry was justified in calling Wilde a sodomite in the public interest. The judge instructed the jury so to rule.’ – Ellman. Oscar Wilde, P.425, hardback edition.
It will be noted that Ellman does not raise the question of whether Carson was acting on his client’s strict instructions. I am prepared to concede the possibility. Certainly, of all the parties involved, the Marquess was the most spiteful. Also, if Carson was only obeying orders it would explain his attempts, alleged by Hyde, to stop the subsequent state prosecution, a prosecution he must have known was made more certain by his/his client’s stand.
Finally, Rosencrantz, as far as having to go to extra expense in these austere times and but buy Ellman’s book, I would hope that you are contiguous to a library that would stock the great work.
Thank you for this. It is very interesting
I am still unconvinced, however, and I still take the view that Wilde should have withdrawn the case at the outset rather than press on. He would have known the evidence against him and should have bowed out early. Instead he waited until the prosecution case had closed and he had already been roasted by Carson in the witness box.
It does not follow that the ‘not guilty’ verdict would have avoided a prosecution. The Crown still could have sought the evidence that the Marquess had accumulated and used ti to support a prosecution. This is, I understand, what they actually did – and we cannot exclude the notion that the Marquess pressed some of his associates to bring such a prosecution.
A very sorry tale and a sorry end to a very, very brilliant man.
Actually, in a shining example of my own laziness, I have come across Neil McKenna’s biography of Wilde on GoogleBooks.
Interesting stuff. McKenna states that it was Mr Justice Collins who refused to accept the ‘not guilty’ verdict to ‘posing as a sodomite’ rather than Carson. (page 372)
He also states that Queensberry instructed his solicitor, Charles Russell, to write to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Hamilton Cuffe, and include copies of their witness statements and a transcript of the trial. There was some speculation that Russell informed Cuffe – in a private meeting – that if a prosecution against Wilde was not taken, Queensberry would expose high ranking members of the Liberal Party as sodomites. Naturally, Cuffe saw that a warrant for Wilde’s arrest was issued.
Book is here: http://books.google.ie/books?id=L2MjYhMLYqwC&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=Charles+Gill+Oscar+Wilde&source=bl&ots=H_BdkmD_vH&sig=rBAWxGYwzwgVP3fgi4kEbV41ePc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KYN9UMrRKsS5hAeF_IDgBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Gill%20Oscar%20Wilde&f=false
Very interesting responses.
As far as the libel verdict is concerned I have not found the page reference on Google books, but I will try to find it in old-style form to check. Did Ellman get it wrong or did McKenna. It should be added that while a simple ‘not guilty’ verdict would not have protected Wilde, the ‘justification’ one made his prosecution more certain.
The revelation about Queensberry blackmailing the government into prosecuting is new but not surprising to me.
Finally, Carson’s attempts to neutralise prosecution plans need investigation, too. I have not found HMHyde very reliable since reading his whitewash job on the Londonderrys.
“Finally, Carson’s attempts to neutralise prosecution plans need investigation, too. I have not found HMHyde very reliable since reading his whitewash job on the Londonderrys.”
Best of luck with that.