Ritchie says that someone ‘fabricated minutes’…
The Ritchie interview (first part above) at the beginning of Hearts and Minds. There is a lot of detail in there to pick over. But on the main theme, Ritchie details a commitment (and the two UUP Ministers) to share her legal advice (both internal and external) with the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, and the Minister of Finance. But she is adamant that the commitment to report to the Executive meeting was illicitly added to the official minutes.
Sorry Mick, I must have misread your reply. All of a sudden I see the answer to my question.
One thing is becoming clear the SDLP having been doing a lot of off the record briefing, from the leaks while the meeting was in progress to understandings by bloggers (you).
Transparency not going to enter this equation at some point?
That’s the big question Frank, and I don’t have an answer to that. To shamelessly repeat myself:
The longer term question revolves around the matter of whether this supposedly democratic institution is capable of delivering any clear outcomes on any given subject, or it is rather a largely rhetorical device for keeping Northern Ireland’s famously troubled politics off the streets?
As to the question of leaks, take the Minister’s allegation that the front page of the Newsletter contained information privileged to a very limited number of individuals, together with a headline explicitly suggesting her job was on the line.
Mick,
btw: does that clarification not make the claim to have only seen the contentious item the night before a bit spurious if she had seen and objected to it a week previously? If others agreed that version it then becomes an item for discussion at the meeting and not some last minute revelation as has been being pushed? It’s agenda item 1, minutes from the last meeting with Ritchie’s objection part of the discussion? Or do the SDLP expect disputed minutes agreed/amended before the meeting? Seems like minuting procedure was followed correctly by the civil service.
Oh and on impropriety allegation have a look at this:
Minister Ritchie will take legal advice and report back to the Assembly.
Minister Ritchie will take legal advice and report that back to the Assembly.
One word, some bad handwriting or a slight error in memory and it becomes something entirely different.
Though of course it could all be a conspiracy involving the DUP, SF, civil service and a cast of thousands.
Detail Frank. What she saw on Monday was not a draft minute. I understand it was more of a memo. That would also explain the tightness of the Anderson/Poots line of Tuesday. Of course they might just be telling the truth. In the end: transparency is your only man!
Nope, she is ambivalent on that.
Indeed, Mick. Some on this site were questioning how Robinson could have know what her legal advice was, that debate was finished when Ritchie herself informed us she agreed to and did tell him. Without openness it’s just the word of eight (and the note taker) against three.
“The longer term question revolves around the matter of whether this supposedly democratic institution is capable of delivering any clear outcomes on any given subject, or it is rather a largely rhetorical device for keeping Northern Ireland’s famously troubled politics off the streets?”
Well put Mick and I suppose now is a good chance to say that the analysis on slugger has been great over the last couple of days and everything has unfolded pretty much concurrently with some quality insight provided.
Noel Thompson has only one questioning style – confrontational. Every time he succeeds in lowering the level of his interviews to an arguement. He won’t just talk to his guests positions, he never tries to draw out a position so the viewers can derive a level of understanding. Yes, sometimes a no nonsense confrontational approach is appropriate but not EVERY time. It is so annoying watching him go through the same routine every time.
This is a complex issue with allegation, counter allegation and legal manouvres….sometimes we need a guests position to be developed which he should endevour to encourage when appropriate….either he is not capable of this or is unaware that
its the same shite every time. Why would someone want to tune in every week to hear Noel Thompson argue with his guests?
USA
Thousands of people tune into listen to Noel Thompson because they have faith that he will ask the hard questions and not let our politicians give spin to every question.
We want proper answers so long live Noel!!!!!
Gosh, Chris, because conspiracy, collusion and state-sponsored deceit have proved to be so uncommon, eh?
I’m still waiting for the day, if ever, when we find out exactly how many people on any and all sides are on Her Majesty’s payroll. Is it the government side-briefing the government to oppose the government because the government refused money earmarked for the government? It couldn’t get any more farcical, but I honestly wouldn’t surprised.
I know one thing for sure, I’m pretty much sick of all this closed-door politics nonsense.
“Detail Frank. What she saw on Monday was not a draft minute. I understand it was more of a memo. That would also explain the tightness of the Anderson/Poots line of Tuesday.”
The difference there being that Poots would have been present at the Monday Executive meeting, whereas Anderson wasn’t.
So did Anderson take Poots’ word over Ritchie? And why?
Yesterday’s statement by the Executive goes some way towards clarifying things, but I wish they’d release the (disputed) minutes of the previous meeting. Under the ‘apologies’ section, it should clarify whether Gildernew was present.
If she WAS present (but reportedly abstained in the vote on the previous minutes), then could it be that the Sinn Fein Ministers simply weren’t paying enough attention on the 8th when Ritchie’s course of action was agreed, but only Gildernew had sufficient ‘balls’ yesterday to admit that?