McGuinness, who says he’s a Catholic, is entitled to his beliefs and to state them, but if he is judging the cardinal, then perhaps he should consider just how well he and his colleagues, through their actions, lived up to their responsibilities both to the state they profess to love and to their faith.

Nasa chips in here.  And provides the wider view. Image credit: ESA and the HFI Consortium, IRAS.

But it’s really ESA’s gig.

“What makes these structures have these particular shapes is not well understood,” says Jan Tauber, ESA Project Scientist for Planck. The denser parts are called molecular clouds while the more diffuse parts are ‘cirrus’. They consist of both dust and gas, although the gas does not show up directly in this image.

There are many forces at work in the Galaxy to help shape the molecular clouds and cirrus into these filamentary patterns. For example, on large scales the Galaxy rotates, creating spiral patterns of stars, dust, and gas. Gravity exerts an important influence, pulling on the dust and gas. Radiation and particle jets from stars push the dust and gas around, and magnetic fields also play a role, although to what extent is presently unclear.

Bright spots in the image are dense clumps of matter where star formation may take place. As the clumps shrink, they become denser and better at shielding their interiors from light and other radiation. This allows them to cool more easily and collapse faster.

And Will adds the Catholic Communications Office statement to “clarify media reporting on Cardinal Seán Brady”

1. The State’s first Child Abuse Guidelines came into effect in 1987 and the Church’s first guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, were published in 1996.

2. In late March 1975, Fr Seán Brady was asked by his bishop, Bishop Francis McKiernan, to conduct a canonical enquiry into an allegation of child sexual abuse which was made by a boy in Dundalk, concerning a Norbertine priest, Fr Brendan Smyth.

3. Fr Brady was then a full-time teacher at St Patrick’s College, Cavan. Because he held a doctorate in Canon Law, Fr Brady was asked to conduct this canonical enquiry; however he had no decision-making powers regarding the outcome of the enquiry. Bishop McKiernan held this responsibility.

4. On 29 March 1975, Fr Brady and two other priests interviewed a boy (14) in Dundalk. Fr Brady’s role was to take notes. On 4 April 1975, Fr Brady interviewed a second boy (15) in the Parochial House in Ballyjamesduff. On this occasion Fr Brady conducted the inquiry by himself and took notes.

5. At the end of both interviews, the boys were asked to confirm by oath the truthfulness of their statements and that they would preserve the confidentiality of the interview process. The intention of this oath was to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry’s evidence and to ensure that the process was robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth.

6. A week later Fr Brady passed his findings to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action.

7. Eight days later, on 12 April 1975, Bishop McKiernan reported the findings to Fr Smyth’s Religious Superior, the Abbot of Kilnacrott. The specific responsibility for the supervision of Fr Smith’s activities was, at all times, with his Religious Superiors. Bishop McKiernan withdrew Brendan Smyth’s priestly faculties and advised psychiatric intervention.

To repeat myself,

If Peter Hain’s improper political motivation had been equally exempted from scrutiny would his Interim appointment have been ruled unlawful?

And as Mark Devenport said at the time

In short, this judgment looks to have cut the legs off any future attempt to judicially review the OFMDFM and to provide a “carte blanche” for meetings without officials and note takers present.

But never fear, if you disagree in the future with an OFMDFM decision, you don’t need to turn to the courts, because our ministers, as Mr Justice Gillen notes “are accountable to the Assembly where they are likely to be questioned and scrutinised”. And we all know just how effective the Assembly has been at carrying out that job in the past.

Although a BBC report notes Cardinal Séan Brady’s statements in December last year.

However, in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE last December, the cardinal said he, himself, would resign if he found that a child had been abused as a result of any managerial failure on his part.

“I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign,” he said.

At that time, the cardinal apologised on behalf of the Church after an Irish government report revealed abuse over decades, a systematic cover-up by the Church and a lack of action by Irish police.

He said: “No-one is above the law in this country.

“Every Catholic should comply fully with their obligations to the civil law and co-operate with the Gardai (Irish police) in the reporting and investigation of any crime.”

And, as Crooked Timber’s Maria Farrell notes

The Irish adult voices of raped children are joined by American ones; people now grown up who were raped and abused by Fr. Smith when he was sent away from these shores and off to where he wasn’t known and could start again. A Connecticut woman poignantly asks why she was repeatedly raped by a priest who had been sent to America instead of to the police. An Irish woman asks why no one went to the police. If they had, she might have been saved. Many might have been saved.

Will Crawley widens the story out onto the European stage

Last month, reports began to surface of historic abuse cases in several elite Jesuit boarding schools in Germany.

The German Catholic Church is now dealing with multiplying new reports of physical and sexual abuse, including some linked to a renowned choir once led by Pope Benedict’s brother, Fr Georg Ratzinger.

As the domino effect of reporting continues, the wave of abuse revelations reached the Netherlands by late February, with scores of victims coming forward.

By March, the scandal had spread to Switzerland, where 60 new cases have now come to light.

And in the past few weeks, more abuse cases have emerged in Austria and Poland.

This weekend, a Vatican spokesman denounced “aggressive” efforts by the media to personally implicate the Pope in the unfolding child abuse crisis as questions were raised about the handling of a priest accused of molestation in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising when the future Pope was archbishop in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Last Friday, the Pope met the President of the German Bishops’ Conference to discuss the wider sex abuse crisis, just as an archbishop in Austria was breaking ranks to call for a public discussion about the future of the mandatory celibacy rule for priests.

Some informed Vatican sources now predict that the text of Pope Benedict’s pastoral letter to the Irish church will need to be expanded to include churches across Europe as full realisation dawns that the clerical sex abuse crisis now facing the church is a European problem, not just an Irish one.

29. The Committee heard the phrase “with hindsight” on a number of occasions throughout the course of the inquiry. It is essential that those central to this incident take the opportunity to look back at their roles, and those that they interacted with, and critically assess their performance. It is equally a necessity that changes will be identified and that these changes need to be implemented with all urgency. Paramount, in the view of the Committee, is the streamlining of the process, including the number of statutory bodies and other agencies involved in the process. The Committee believes that this can be achieved through the establishment of an Incident Management Team.

30. The Committee heard from most of the organisations that they were content that their individual processes, on the whole, were successful and that the main objective, that is protecting the public health, was achieved. The Committee acknowledges this as being important. However, the Committee would draw attention to the fact that this incident did not have a “happy ending” and that the Northern Ireland industry is still struggling with the ramifications of the incident, primarily the financial consequences that have to be absorbed. If such an incident occurs in the future, it is essential that these are considered and that a proportionate response that protects both the public health and the local and wider economies is taken. It is equally important that the industry is kept informed through a single communication source, such as the Incident Management Team.

31. The events leading up to and beyond 6 December 2008 have placed the Northern Ireland agricultural sector in a precarious position at a time whenever the pressures of the global economy are being widely felt by the industry. Whilst an aid package was eventually provided by the Northern Ireland Executive to the Northern Ireland industry, the Committee does not believe this to be sufficient, as the aid package was restricted to a very precise part of the industry. The Committee calls on the authorities in both jurisdictions to revisit their respective schemes, given the benefit of hindsight and assess how aid can be provided to those currently considered ineligible to ensure that the financial risks being faced by these businesses disposing of slurry, milk and retail materials are negated.

And specifically on the lack of communication between the Irish Minister and the Northern Irish Minister

Communication

16. The Committee considers the absence of appropriate communication to be the most significant weakness identified during the course of the inquiry and that this was the single most critical contributory factor to the near-collapse of our industry in Northern Ireland.

17. The Committee believes that it is totally unacceptable for the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development to learn of the total recall of Irish pork and pork products by chance whilst watching a news programme in the late evening of Saturday, 6 December 2009. This is despite a meeting having been held earlier that day between the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Health and Children, the Chief Medical Officer, the FSAI and officials from the relevant statutory bodies in the Republic of Ireland.[5] The Committee believes that it should have been incumbent on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Republic of Ireland to have contacted the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland immediately following this meeting. [added emphasis]

18. The Committee is particularly alarmed as this failure to communicate the seriousness of the situation and the unilateral decision to recall these products by the Irish authorities was taken despite being aware that a number of farms in Northern Ireland had received this bread and that some 9,000 live pigs are exported to Northern Ireland per week, representing approximately 18% of the total pigs slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland.[6]

19. The Committee has noted the very positive work that had previously been taken by officials in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in respect of, for example, the All-Island Animal Health Strategy. However, the Committee remains concerned at the vast difference between the principles expressed in such strategies and processes against the practical outworkings that presented themselves during the first real test of these principles.

20. The Committee has also identified a number of other breakdowns in the communication processes and these are detailed as follows:

(a) The period between the confirmation of the test results and the initial contact with DARD;

(b) The identification of the Northern Ireland farms that had received the bread (Thursday, 4 December 2008) and communication of this to DARD (Friday, 5 December 2008). This presented a number of problems, including the fact that the contact was at too low a level, the initial contact did not contain any relevant details and that DARD were required to chase DAFF late into Friday afternoon for information regarding the incident;

(c) The FSAI contacted FSA UK in the first instance on Thursday 4 December 2008 but did not contact the FSANI directly. The FSANI was formally contacted by FSA UK two days later;

(d) The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development contacting her counterpart in the Republic of Ireland on 17 December 2008 regarding the eligibility of processors in Northern Ireland for compensation and the formal communication from Ministers at a North South Ministerial Council meeting on 23 January 2009 stating that they were unable to do so; and

(e) Because the recall was ordered (but not communicated to DARD) on Saturday 6 December, there was a dearth of information available to producers, processors and consumers on Monday 8 December 2008. This affected the ability of DARD and other agencies to provide clear decisions to industry stakeholders at what was a critical time in the process;

21. The Committee has previously commented in respect of the numbers of organisations that were (or should have been) involved through this process. The Committee is of the view that this also contributed to the poor communication witnessed because, as has been proven during this incident, the more elaborate the means of communication, inevitably the more ineffective it becomes. This can be evidenced by the number of Northern Ireland beef producers presenting cattle at abattoirs on Monday 8 December only to be advised that these animals were not permitted to enter the food chain and by farm businesses unable to access accurate information from a number of DARD offices.

And

But Mr Gormley questioned how the independent review team had come to its conclusion.

“No specific act or omission of mine has been brought to my attention which leads me to question my conduct,” he said.

He also asked why he had lost his job while others who were involved in the same “collective decision making process” had not.

“In performing my duties as a Non Executive Director of NIW I challenged certain aspects of the process undertaken by the Independent Review Team.

“I find it regrettable that of the 28 people interviewed by the Independent Review Team that I am the only individual who has not had an agreed record of his meeting with the IRT included by them in the records of their enquiries, or incorporated into their findings.

“It should be equally noted that over 70% of the issues identified in the internal audit and subsequently included in the IRT review occurred before I joined the organisation.”

He said that since he joined the board, he was not aware of any contract that was not compliant with the company’s procurement protocols.

...why is there still an irredentist rump, still carrying on as if it’s 1972, reducing a complex dispute over power and equality and national allegiance to something as naively simplistic as Brits Out?

It could be the men who murdered Kieran Doherty look around and see that the supposedly new Northern Ireland looks suspiciously like the old one. It could be they see a society still so bitterly divided, still so deeply segregated, that they believe they can exploit historical animosities, that they can capitalize on an almost reflexive tendency among most people in Northern Ireland to view things along narrow sectarian lines, as “us versus them,” an “us” that remains largely defined by a combination of religion and national identity.

And they may have a point. While the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have shown a willingness to not kill each other, they have been less enthusiastic about the prospect of actually living with each other. Northern Ireland remains very segregated, physically and psychologically. Most people live in neighborhoods that remain overwhelmingly populated by one of the two main traditions: Catholic nationalists, who aspire to unity with the Irish Republic, and Protestant unionists, who want to remain part of the United Kingdom.

And it comes at great cost, not least in the duplication of services:

Not only is there an official ethos of separate but equal, but an infrastructure underpinning it. There are three times as many so-called peace lines — elaborate walls separating working-class neighborhoods — than there were at the height of the Troubles, 88 of them at last count.

I walked through Protestant housing projects in North Belfast and noticed many vacant apartments. On the other side of the peace line, the Catholic projects were overcrowded. But there is no attempt to move Catholic families into the vacant apartments because, as they say in Belfast, even the dogs in the street know there’d be riots.

With segregation the status quo, there is an enormous duplication of public services, such as schools, community centers, and health clinics. The Alliance Party, the only major political party that draws substantial numbers from both sides of the divide, estimates that duplication of public services costs more than $1 billion a year, this in a place the size of Connecticut with a population of less than 2 million.

You can read the whole thing here

Bloody Sunday was a key moment in the rise of the Provisional IRA. Thirty eight years later, The Saville Report is being published following the Provos’ disbandment. It would be unfortunate if the changed political circumstances were to dictate the way parties in the North respond to the findings.

There has been a strangely muted reaction to the outrageous plans of the Northern Ireland Office for publication of the Report. In a separate development, an attack on the Inquiry by the prospective Minister for Justice at Stormont resulted not in clear demands that he stand down but in frantic efforts by Nationalist politicians to rescue him from his own behaviour.

The fact that groups once at war have made their peace with the British establishment should have no bearing on judgments as to what happened in Derry in 1972. The political wing of the Parachute Regiment, the New Labour Government, represented in the North by the former Tory Shaun Woodward, is not an honest broker in relation to the Saville Report but an uncritical supporter of the British Army, a facilitator in the cover-up of crime.

The fact that appalling atrocities were also carried out in the North by both Nationalist and Unionist paramilitary groups cannot be allowed to obscure the ugly role of British forces, exemplified in the Bloody Sunday killings. The main paramilitary groups have either left the stage or say that they are in the process of so doing. Nothing less should be demanded of the perpetrators of the Derry massacre.

If, as many of us are confident will be the case, Lord Saville and his colleagues find that the Bloody Sunday killings were unlawful, the demand of all who have campaigned for the truth should be for the disbandment of the Parachute Regiment.  I believe that that demand should be voiced loudly and insistently at local councils, at Stormont, at Westminster and in every forum where we can find a hearing.

Woodward’s thorough bad faith is clear from his determination that representatives of the British Government, including members of MI5, be given days to pore over the Report before the families or their representatives are allowed sight of it. This is the same MI5 which supplied Army commanders with false information about the Bogside in the days before Bloody Sunday and which has just been denounced by Britain’s top judges for perjury and collusion in torture in the Binyam Mohamed case.  Woodward’s suggestion is that MI5 should be invited to recommend the deletion of lines in the Report which, in its opinion, would put national security at risk. 

This, of course, was the exact reason given by MI5 in the Mohamed case for wanting the suppression of documents relating to torture. The appeal rejected MI5 bona fides with something approaching contempt.

Despite all this, I suspect that some in the audience will have been entirely unaware of the role Woodward intends for MI5 in relation to Saville. There has hardly been a major controversy about the matter. This, in my view, is because Nationalist politicians don’t want a row which might unsettle the institutions which they have become part of.

The same issue is raised even more sharply by the outburst from the prospective Minster for Justice at Stormont, Alliance Party leader David Ford.  A leaked email revealed that Ford - like some Unionist sectarians, right-wing Tories, the Daily Mail etc. - regards the Bloody Sunday Inquiry as “pointless”. He’s entitled to his view. But it is a view which, whatever about other ministries, ought to have disqualified him immediately from the job of supervising the justice system.

But, astonishingly, it was the larger of the two nationalist parties which rushed most quickly to his rescue, arranging a meeting with a number of relatives of the victims at extremely short notice and then issuing Ford with a clean bill of health. The fear was that if their chosen nominee for the position wasn’t rehabilitated pronto, plans for the devolution of policing and justice might be endangered.

Once again, politics trumped truth.

I don’t make it a secret that my own views on these matters are dictated by my politics. I am a socialist, and therefore a firm opponent of both militarism and paramilitarism. I base my hopes for the future not on a system which takes the division between the communities for granted but on the self-activity of the mass of working class people. So I have no stake in the Stormont system. Neither do I believe that the choice before us is between the Stormont deal and a return to all-out violence. These are things we can debate over the coming years.

But we don’t have the luxury of years when it comes to Bloody Sunday. I say that even those who do have a stake in the system should step back, take a hard look and ask themselves whether, in this instance, and perhaps without thinking the issues through, they have not allowed the system to take precedence over all other considerations.

Although it’s worth noting that the Crescent Capital news section includes an Irish News report on Fund III, “which Crescent fund managers claim will raise up to £60 million”, which reveals

Crescent says the pre-marketing phase to the third as yet un-named fund has already started, and its team is preparing to speak to institutional investors in America and Scandinavia, as well as Britain and Ireland, ahead of its proposed launch in early 2011.

Central to its plans will be securing a Europe-wide tender which Invest NI is launching in the spring.

Whilst of the last investment fund, Crescent Capital II in 2004, worth £22.5 million.

Investors in Crescent Capital two included Invest NI (£7.5 million), the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (£6 million) and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the second biggest pension fund in the US.

and

A spokesman for Invest NI told the Irish News: “Subject to board approval, we intend to go out to tender in the next couple of months to select fund managers for two new funds – a co-investment scheme and a development fund.

“The co-investment scheme would co-invest alongside Business Angels and seek to encourage the development of the Halo network.

“The proposed development fund will work alongside private investors to meet the gap in access to capital in the local venture capital market for investments between £450,000 and £1.5 million.”

And from Section 4 of the report - “Analysis of Failures by DRD as Shareholder”

4.1 Background

The Shareholder Unit (SU) in DRD was originally established as one element of the overall governance model appropriate to NIW as a government owned company. As noted previously, from 2008-09 NIW was categorised as an NDPB for public expenditure purposes. This was an indirect result of the deferral of domestic water charging which necessitated the continuation of funding by DRD. This change in status coupled with the overall desire of the DRD Accounting Officer to improve public accountability led to the governance architecture for NIW being strengthened in May 2008. [added emphasis]

And

4.3 Findings

A key issue for NIW has been and continues to be the confusion over organisational strategy and the status of the organisation as both a GoCo and an NDPB. This has created an incredibly complex governance and stakeholder environment involving the Utility Regulator, the SU; and from 2008-09, the additional overlay of NDPB accountability requirements. In addition to the complexity of the model, evidence presented to the IRT has highlighted the significant resource commitment required across the entire governance system to maintain the model. This governance structure is heavily demanding on both DRD and NIW and is reflective of the increased public accountability. [added emphasis]

IRT’s key finding for DRD, as Shareholder, relates the slow speed of response to the following events:

• strengthening NED capacity and ensuring this was in line with good governance;
• appointing a new CEO following the Chair’s appointment into dual role; and
• appointing the CEO of NIW as Accounting Officer immediately following reclassification of the organisation as an NDPB.

The IRT recognises that the delays outlined above were in part due to the complex political environment surrounding the Water Reform programme and in part due to the timeline required to secure inter-Departmental approvals and clarification with DFP. That said, these delays contributed to the creation of a governance environment that has led to the circumstances in which the governance failures noted in the previous section have occurred. However, this is no excuse for the failures in procurement which have been identified within NIW.

In terms of DRD’s role in the Internal Audit environment of NIW we consider that prior to May 2008 DRD was slow to act to ensure that NIW was taking internal audit matters seriously. Recent events have demonstrated that the DRD has given enhanced attention to NIW’s performance in following up audit recommendations. The Department has been encouraged by the increased attention this matter has received under the direction of the current CEO to whom it has given strong support and encouragement.

Update As Nevin notes in the comments zone, the Chairman and two of the three non-Executive directors sacked had been re-appointed to the Board of NI Water by the Minister in April 2009.

And DC’s Improbable blog lists the culprits

Here is the roll of shame, updated on 12 March (the last six signed in the last 24 hours)

Tredinnick, David Con
Simpson, Alan Lab
Russell, Bob LibDem
Pound, Stephen Lab
Dismore, Andrew Lab
Simpson, David Democratic unionist
McDonnell, John Lab
Campbell, Gregory Democratic unionist
Cohen, Harry Lab
Corbyn, Jeremy Lab
Drew, David Lab
Gray, James Con
Hancock, Mike LibDem
Hermon, Lady Ulster unionist
Key, Robert Con
Hemming, John LibDem
Bone, Peter Con
Davies, Dai Independent
Mates, Michael Con
Dodds, Nigel Democratic unionist
Wyatt, Derek Lab
Sarwar, Mohammad Lab
Hamilton, Fabian Lab
Winterton, Nicholas Con
Davies, Philip Con
Leigh, Edward Con
Barlow, Celia Lab
Ellwood, Tobias Con
Leech, John Lib Dem
Main, Anne Lab
Robinson, Peter Democratic unionist
McCrea, Dr William Democratic unionist
Paisley, Ian Democratic unionist
Brady, Graham Con
Cook, Frank Lab
Hall, Patrick Lab
Binley, Brian Con
Pugh, John Lib dem
Davey, Edward Lib dem
Weir, Mike Scottish Nationalist
Sharma, Virendra Kumar Lab
Abbott, Diane Lab
Williams, Mark Lib dem
Horam, John Con
Widdecombe, Ann Con
Browne, Jeremy Lib dem
Spicer, Michael Con
Maclean, David Con
McCafferty, Chris Lab
Buck, Karen Lab
George, Andrew Lib Dem
Vis, Rudi Lab
Walter, Robert Lab
Whittingdale, John Con
Farron, Timothy Lib Dem

Is there a clue in an earlier Irish Times report?

Detectives in Ireland have been working on the case since late last year with their counterparts in the US and Europe, including Sweden. Those arrested yesterday are from Algeria, Croatia, Palestine, Libya and the US. They are aged in their mid-20s to late-40s. The Irish Times understands the suspects were taken into custody on the basis of information supplied to the Garda by the FBI that came to light after surveillance of the suspects’ communications, including e-mails.