Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The Government chief whip Regina Doherty has said that Fine Gael’s attempts to implement water charges in the past was “a cock up”, as the political row over the controversial charges continued.
Speaking on RTÉ’s Saturday with Claire Byrne, Doherty said that the party had made a “catastrophe” of trying to introduce water charges in the country.
This comes as a political row over the final report of the water charges committee between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil threatens to undermine the confidence and supply arrangement between the two parties.
“I’m not blaming Fianna Fáil for the catastrophe that we made of this for the last number of years,” said Doherty.
“I completely and utterly accept that what we put forward – how we put forward the particular policy that we wanted to put to the Irish people was a cock-up.
No bones, no standing behind doors, it was a cock-up.
In a heated panel discussion, Doherty clashed with Fianna Fáil’s justice and equality spokesperson Jim O’Callaghan over the report, which is due to be voted on by committee members next week.
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs have been at loggerheads all week over the report, with public back and forth barbs being traded between high-profile members of each party (including Environment Minister Simon Coveney).
Fine Gael states that the report as is – which calls for the scrapping of water charges, the end of the metering programme and refunds for all who have paid already - would violate EU laws around conservation.
The party has said that it will not sign off on recommendations on water it states violate EU law.
Fianna Fáil, for its part, have claimed that the Fine Gael leadership contest – touted to be between Ministers Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney – was getting in the way of the governing of the country.
TDs claim that Simon Coveney had expressed support for the deal reached by the water committee last week, but had radically changed tack since then and come out against it.
Fine Gael – for its part – contends that Fianna Fáil had given in to the “populist” position put forward by the Sinn Féin and Solidarity-PBP TDs on the committee.
‘Downright stupid’
Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell came in for strong criticism from all members of the panel today for what was labelled as a “personal attack” on Fianna Fáil Environment spokesperson Barry Cowen.
In a post on his Facebook page earlier this week, Farrell levelled strong criticism towards Barry Cowen and other members of his family who had served in politics.
The Dublin Fingal TD criticised policy decision enacted by Barry Cowen’s father, Ber Cowen, when he served as a TD in the late-70s. He also criticised Cowen’s brother Brian Cowen, who served as Minister for Finance and Taoiseach during the late-2000s.
“It’s not something that I could ever subscribe to,” Regina Doherty told Claire Byrne this afternoon in relation to the post.
When you actually have to revert to being personal between two politicians of two political parties I think you’ve lost the argument and I think that’s pity.
Jim O’Callaghan also criticised the post by Farrell.
“I don’t like the idea of politicians referring to the families of other politicians,” he said.
“Alan Farrell is perfectly entitled to criticise Fianna Fáil for its stance on water policy.
But what he shouldn’t be doing is making personal attacks at people’s family.
Former Environment Minister and Labour Party TD Alan Kelly also criticised Farrell’s post, saying it was “downright stupid”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How bout longer sentences for the people committing the crimes and then in turn there will be less people needing to hide behind the screens
@Dlow Brown: careful, the liberal left brigade and their allies the Irish Council for Civil Liberties will have you shut down for hate speech!
@Damien Mooney: your an idiot the vast majority of people want longer sentences regardless of political leanings
@Kevin Finnegan: can please elect some of this vast majority so that they reflect they opinions of the vast majority.
@Dave Doyle: Judges aren’t elected.
@Lisa Saputo: the elected officials make laws….those laws can include mandatory minimum sentences or whatever the law makers set as the law. The law makers need to be tougher…IMHO. Then the judges will not be able to squirm out. We could very easily have a 3 strikes out law
@Dave Doyle: @Dave Doyle: well said. The ‘vast majority’ are happy to peddle faux outrage. Signing the latest petition on change.org to have Martin Nolan fired while banging furiously into their keyboards such inane comments as “there are no words”
“Should rot in hell”
“Suspended sentence a joke”
“Down with this sort of thing”
“Have they no homes to go to”
@Kevin Finnegan: ah right, so this elusive bunch of people known as ‘the majority of people’ elected you as their spokesman? What are you and your merry band of followers doing about lenient sentences then, apart from writing asinine, meaningless sentences into the journal.ie ? How many letters have you sent to the dept of justice and law reform, and the DPP herself, asking that lenient sentences be reviewed? Perhaps we could meet up and pursue a strategy, I’ve sent several so far this year with a few more ready to go.
Or are you happy to peddle your faux outrage on Facebook in the faint hope that Ms Loftus will log into the journal.ie and read your comments and discover the horror of Martin Nolan’s work?
@Damien Mooney: haha I’ve never met or talked to anybody who was like you know what our criminal justice system really does the job well why should people get long sentences sure just give them a slap on the wrist and it’ll be grand! And as to what I do about it I try my best to be informed and vote for someone who shares my belief that there needs to be serious reform. It’s gas that you started going of on all that when my original comment was about you basically saying only people on the right care about stuff like this
@Damien Mooney: haha faux outrage you know f&ck all about me but sure believe whatever you want and just smear people on the left to make yourself feel good
About time this has been the norm in the UK for years
@Sonya Couch Dillon: VERY TRUE, & also in fact, ( to save some extra, IMO, monies on the transport of Criminals, as they are mostly brought to & from the Courts by private securicor type firms ) Judges & Govenors can order a video-link from the prison to the Court, & that goes from your Tax evader to the more Heinous Murderer type crimes & Screens & video-link testimonies have been in use in the UK for some time now, although there is some speculation that the “evidence” may not be as pure as an actual person in the Courtroom as opposed to a “link”.https://www.eyenetwork.com/judicial/court-video-link/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxtPYBRD6ARIsAKs1XJ5wX0SUMQncL-BPsfdJr4WF7O-F_chW3TUUB9Y0sWu05GVoEJE1GcYaAvHVEALw_wcB
@Michael Kelly: Video link in operation here too, but our system is slightly different. A prisoner has a right to be present . As for the private security companies , too easily infiltrated by crime gangs.
@Michael Kelly: Careful there, You’re interfering with the super incomes of the legal profession!
Now get wrid of the stupid “reducing”of sentences and let them serve a full sentence. Also lock up repeat offenders for robbery, serious assault or any repeated crimes.
@Mick12:
The reduction in the sentence on foot of a plea of guilty is pragmatism on the part of judges to reduce the waiting list of cases. The reduction is relatively small and criminals convicted of serious sexual offences are listed on the sex offenders register so that there are legal grounds for monitoring them closely after they have served their sentences.
@Mick12: Will never happen here. Sure would’nt it be an injustice not to fill the pockets of the poor auld Ambulance chasers.
Long over due ,glad to see some one is listening .
More prisons please and longer sentences. That is what people want. Imagine the money saved from criminals not being able to father children, save on children’s allowance, save on future criminals ever being born, save on council housing, save on dole money for future offspring etc etc.
Indeed , aren’t we all behind a screen giving evidence in some way
@Noel Walsh: deep
@Noel Walsh: give it a rest noel
@Noel Walsh: Did you forget to switch accounts before replying to yourself?
@Free comment ratings: Ha ! He’s got you there Noel !
This is all about gradually changing the rules of evidence in order to tip the balance against the accused (who in any just society must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law). What it will lead to is the thwarting of justice, where more innocent men, who have been maliciously (falsely) accused of rape or sexual assault, will be convicted and their lives destroyed. It is the holy grail of feminazis and the large misandrist element within the media, and certain political organisations, to prevent the full and fair cross-examination of complainants in court (such cross-examination being necessary in order to get to the truth and a just outcome in such cases). It is all part of the downgrading of evidence and examination.
Where man-haters want to get to is the point where all requirements for evidence and examination are dispensed with, and a potentially innocent man’s life can be destroyed in law simply by the word of a woman, even if she is not telling the truth.
I agree entirely with the contents of the ministerial order (and a new sentencing guideline) however the aspect preventing cross examination (as reported above) is incompatible with Art 38.1 and the established dicta in [In Re Haughey, 1IR1, 1971] and European conventions. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a challenge to that section of the order alone. Imagine acting for yourself and, in your own defense you weren’t allowed ask certain questions or challenge the prosecution evidence or put your own case forward in rebuttal. Just doesn’t seem right.
Even the headline in this media article is deliberately misleading. Complainants during such cases are not “victims”, as in the middle of a trial (particularly trials involving alleged sexual offences) it has not yet been proven that a crime has been committed, nor that the accused has done it. One only becomes a “victim” if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in court that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is guilty.
have your say