Some more quotes from Our Saviour

Finally got around to grabbing some quotes from the Brian Lenihan interview on Monday’s Breakfast with Newstalk. Some of the nonsense is terrifying. Will be throwing bits of this into the Quotes from Brian Lenihan collection.

“The bank [of Ireland] has been put on a sound commercial footing, it’s clearly able to operate on world markets, it’s clearly going to be able to liberate itself from state support and attract funds into this country and lend to the wider economy.” – Breakfast with Newstalk Monday

Followed by a bit of banker hero-worshipping…

“Mr Richie Boucher left this country last Monday morning on a boat to England because of the volcanic ash and saved the taxpayer €1.5bn by getting these people to invest in Bank of Ireland, that’s what happen last week. During the week there was a controversy about his pension and he decided – in the national interest to support the Croke Park agreement, and also to ensure the banks plans to insure pensions in their own bank could be adavanced – that he would forego rights which he had and which flowed from a reduced salary which was sanctioned for him. That’s the situation in Bank of Ireland”.

Then this load of dross which Ivan Yates does a good job trying to cut through in an brilliant exchange… Continue reading “Some more quotes from Our Saviour”

Dempsey correspondence

I sought from the Department of Transport:

1) Any and all communications between the Department and the Minister (and vice versa) from January 4, 2010 to January 10, 2010, inclusive. This may take the form of emails or notes of phone calls, or any other form of communication.

I received a series of emails sent from his office (Veronica Scanlan) to the Minister’s personal email address. There is no evidence in the release that Mr Dempsey sent any email to the Department during the course of his holiday in Malta. The fact that he’s using a personal email account is in itself curious, especially in regard to what is, and is not, subject to the Act.



Contrary, I believe, to the Act, redactions have been applied to the documents without any stated exemption being used. Information contained in the released has been blacked out, without even an explanation. The Department also said no logs are kept of phonecalls, so none exist. This may revolve around the use of the word ‘logs’ as oppose to ‘itemised phonebills’ perhaps. I will be following this up at internal review.

So it seems we have this: The Minister’s secretary forwarded some emails, press releases, news articles to the Minister’s personal email address while he was on holidays. That would appear to be extent of the Minister keeping fully briefed on the situation.

Noel Dempsey and Malta

Readers will recall that back in January, when snow ground the country to a halt, our Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey was on holidays in Malta. Speaking later into the week of his holiday, Mr Dempsey claimed he was in constant communication with the Department. I submitted an FOI request for the following, on January 11, 2010.

1) Any and all communications between the Department and the Minister (and vice versa) from January 4, 2010 to January 10, 2010, inclusive. This may take the form of emails or notes of phone calls, or any other form of communication.

2) A log of all non-personal phonecalls made from the mobile phone of the Minister between January 4, 2010 and January 10, 2010, inclusive.

3) A log of all calls made to the mobile phone of the Minister from the Department between January 4, 2010 and January 10, 2010, inclusive.

4) The Minister’s diary between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009, inclusive.

5) The FOI requests log for the Department from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, inclusive.

6) The ministerial portfolio given to the Minister upon his becoming Minister for Transport in June 2007.

Let me make one thing clear from here, before I outline the saga of getting this information. If I were a cynic I would speculate that there was political interference with this request. It is not unknown for this to happen with FOI requests.

I submitted the request on January 11. The Department, upon receipt, has 20 working days in which to make a decision and issue the records. This meant I could expect to receive a reply by late February, at the very latest.

On March 4, 2010, I emailed the FOI officer, asking as to the status of the request. I pointed out that the 20 day limit had passed, and that technically the request was now a deemed refusal, and I was now entitled to an internal review, though I did not invoke Section 42 (internal reviews can take 3 weeks). I received an out of office reply, and that the FOI officer would return on March 5. I waited.

On March 8, 2010, I again emailed the FOI officer, CCing another person in the Department. I again sought information on the status of the request. I received a reply that it was being checked. I received no further reply.

On March 16, 2010, I again emailed the FOI officer, seeking the status of my request. I received a reply that the Deciding Officer who was supposed to handle my request, was on leave. It was stated that the Department regretted the inconvenience. I received no further communication.

On March 24, 2010, I again emailed the FOI officer and the Deciding Officer, seeking the status of my request. I received no reply. Later that week I called the FOI officer, and sought again to have my request actioned. I was again promised that it would be issued. I waited.

On April 19, 2010, I emailed the FOI officer. 14 weeks had passed since my request was submitted. I informed the Department that if I did not receive a reply by the end of the week, I would be seeking an internal review under Section 42, due to deemed refusal. I received a reply, committing the Department to release by the end of the week, along with an apology for the delay.

I waited until the following Monday April 26, and had still not received a reply or the records in question. I therefore sought an internal review due to deemed refusal. I then received an email saying the documents had been posted.

By Wednesday April 28, I had not received documents by post, and therefore sought them electronically. I received them late in the day on April 28. However there are a number of issues with the issued documents, and the time elapsed, and I have now sought an internal review under Section 42.

15 weeks and 4 days from submission to release. That’s almost a full quarter of a year. The Department offered no explanation as to why it took so long to release. I will publish the documents I received shortly.

Libertas left-overs – "Anyone for a flat screen? Two for a fiver"

Not our usual but intriguing and bizarre, in these dour times, such things are worth the odd post.

Lisbon nay-sayers and failed euro-election contenders Libertas left behind a veritable treasure trove of hi-tech hardware in their abandoned Brussels offices when they jumped ship last year.

[…] Among the items strewn across this graveyard of Libertas’s obsolete cause are a handful of enormous flatscreen televisions, two ceiling-mounted projectors, a 5000 euro colour printer/copier, and six Sky decoders (yes, SIX).

Via Berlaymonster, the usually reliable Brussels lobby-gossip blog. More ‘ere.

1998 clip from '@LastTV' on Irish banking

… and economy.

I’ve been doing some archive trawling for audio to use on a project I’m working on. Most of the useful is on media websites – RTE.ie mainly – but the clip below I found on Youtube. In hadn’t seen it before, have a look…

It’s by Tom Prendeville – apparently formerly of Magill and Hibernia magazines – a Google search of his name returns results for relatviely recent articles on economics in the Herald, HotPress and, oddly, Garda Review. Might be another Tom Prendiville though, I’m not sure. There is some talk online of a Tom Prendiville currently working in the Indo group. The guy in the video above may well have left journalism, anyone who can shed some more light, do let us know…

That sign-in thing

So some cheeky journalist has apparently sought details of how often Members of the Oireachtas actually go to work. It is expected to be released around now. One Member of the Seanad was not happy about this at all though. Senator Michael McCarthy (Labour) said [emphasis mine]:

There has been a huge chipping away at the terms and conditions of Deputies and Senators and at those of their colleagues on cash-strapped local authorities. After the introduction of the swiping system on 1 March, one would have imagined that journalists’ appetites regarding where Members are and what they are doing would have abated somewhat. However, a freedom of information request has been made, the response to which, incidentally, will cost the State money, as to how many people swiped and how often they swiped for a two-week period in March. Given the enormous economic difficulties faced by thousands of people, one would imagine that journalists’ time would be better spent in concentrating on the real issues.

Ah yes, the real issues. Down with those media types, trying to bring greater accountability to the parliament.

For my own purposes, I will be seeking the results of that FOI, writing a fresh one, and then possibly integrating attendance records into KildareStreet.com. I wonder what Mr McCarthy will think of that.

Terrible costly for the Oireachtas to click a few buttons, and export a spreadsheet, so it is. I do have another FOI in with them which has been extended by four weeks. More on that later in May.

Yet more strange bike-scheme related decisions

There has always been something odd about the development of the bike-for-billboards scheme. Contracts were kept secret from councillors; the council refused to release contracts to journalists under FOI; by international standards a disproportionately small number of bikes were introduced for a large number of lucrative billboards; the majority of profit is going to the billboards-and-bikes company, not the council. I could go on. Just weird stuff that doesn’t add up, and lots of it. Even the Green Party’s Ciaran Cuffe termed it a “dodgy deal” back in August ’08.

The story got yet odder in the last few days when it emerged more structures, yet to be erected, will be exempt from planning permission, despite many applications for such structures having been rejected by An Bord Pleanala in the past. This will result in 10 per cent more advertising for the company running the scheme, JC Decaux. Continue reading “Yet more strange bike-scheme related decisions”