Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
Mick Fealty @ 07:28 PM
… she is adamant that the commitment to report to the Executive meeting was illicitly added to the official minutes.
Sorry to state the obvious: this has passed beyond the normality of political discourse (which is pretty elastic at the best of times). Someone, somewhere has a career gone to join that Norwegian Blue.
Either Richie is naive, desperate, and thrashing around (which does not seem likely on her performance to date) or she has blown the whistle on an horrendous conspiracy involving Ministers and complicit civil servants.
Someone (or more) has got to go.
Who thought the crunch would come this way?
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 07:48 PMNiave, desperate and thrashing around without a boubt watch this space over the next few days.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 07:57 PMsorry obvious typo replace with ‘doubt’
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 07:59 PMI didn’t think she stood up well to what was essentially quite gentle probing from Thompson on a serious allegation of fraudulent minutes. Shrill and almost hysterical at times.
She has accused the civil service and her Executive partners of serious malpractice, she will need to have something a little stronger than her recollection to see her through a process that could see the minute taker bringing her before a judge as she didn’t use parliamentary privilege. This one could be a real test.
Though the Executive itself is not under any real pressure as she is the most junior player and those that decide if it stands or falls aren’t in conflict.
Difficult times ahead for her as well if she is seeking to negotiate for her department with people she is accusing of pretty much illegal activity.
I get the feeling she has now lost the run of herself and needlessly put herself out on a limb over minutes instead of sticking to the issue, her decision, which was playing well with the electorate.
She kicked the ball onto a different pitch and she’s playing a bigger team at a completely new game.
Good stuff, very entertaining for an Assembly cynic.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:06 PMGiven that the Irish Department for Foreign Affairs, the British SoS, and the US Special Envoy were all putting pressure on her to toe-the-line in regard to funding organised criminals, and her own department’s civil servants ambushed her with “advice” at the last minute regarding the legality of her decision which was not consistent with independent legal advice that she then received, it seems there are a lot of people very upset and embarrassed that Ms Ritchie upheld common decency and sense against the forces arranged against her, showing that the public’s will and the politicians/bureaucrats will is out of kilter. It shows the amount of puppets there is in Her Majesty’s puppet administration, with PSF’s strings glistening in the spotlight.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:09 PMYou sound almost happy Frank.
Strange but I didn’t detect shrill or hysterical anywhere in the interview.I think the PSNI should be called in to examine every PC where the minutes were typed up to establish what was added/amended or whatever as I have to agree with Margaret on this one, SF and the DUP are carving the entire process up for themselves and will happily sink any of the other three ministers to get their own way. As a Nationalist, I can’t speak for the Unionist community but I can speak for my own. Come lection time, SF will be reminded of their entire performance in this debacle.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:13 PMHappy? Absolutely delighted at anything that shows the whole sham up for exactly what it is.
They all voted for PFI, they are all against workers (in addition to their numerous other failings) may the whole rotten edifice come collapsing down on each and every one of them.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:18 PMI don’t think she was shrill or hysterical either and in fact handled the interview very well given the pressure she is clearly under. Remember two other Ministers have not accepted the minutes either. She did keep bringing the issue back to the decision and actually put up a strong performance
What I am surprised about is that audio recordings are not made of executive meetings ( perhaps not for far of leaks?)
Does anyone think it really concievable that Margaret Ritchie if it was agreed to bring information back to the Executive before a decision would then ignore that and place her career in jeopardy. It is not as if she was itching to make the statement on UDA funding given that her deadline had already passed.
It’s not unknown for people not to say what they mean and to implicitly expect other people to
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:23 PMAbsolutely delighted at anything that shows the whole sham up for exactly what it is.
They all voted for PFI, they are all against workers (in addition to their numerous other failings) may the whole rotten edifice come collapsing down on each and every one of them.
Frank
Fancy a job as a Stormont lobbyist???? You clearly know how to charm them....
On the subject matter, Ritchie does appear to be losing it, know reduced to crying conspiracy over the minutes issue.
Surely she would have been better conceding the point and sticking to the main story- ie her decision to cut the funding. Then she would have been on much stronger ground; know she’s beginning to look and sound a bit desperate.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:29 PMSorry- that’s ‘now’ and not ‘know’ on both occasions used above.
Time for a rest.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:30 PMIf minutes were changed then heads must roll. If what she says is true then let’s hope that the local media push for those responsible to be hung out to dry.
There is also the allegation about Junior Doc and the property developer.
If both things are true then we must have action. If nothing is done and no one is held responsible then it is obvious that we are merely living in a sectarian carve up.
If she is wrong then she to must consider her position. But to be honest I hope she is right!!
And yes Frank, what about the poor and marginalised. When are we (akin to across the water)going to start talking about New SF.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:33 PMI hope Margaret Ritchie is right, too. But is she?
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:39 PMI note they chose this as the perfect time to collectively endorse a delayed water charge.
Or a water charge as the clear of thinking call it.
Seems they all learnt a lesson from Nu-Labour on trying to bury bad news or in this case lies for some. Even Ritchie was happy enough to endorse water charges while having this row.
Bury it in the minutes while arguing over minutes?
So they all did manage to come out of the meeting covered in shit. Another day on the hill.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:39 PM“Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said he was very disappointed and said the social development minister was “losing the run of herself"."
Hmm.
And add this to the comments by separated-from-Adolf-Hitler-at-birth Peter Robinson that the minister has obviously “lost it”.
I am beginning to wonder if the Assembly wants a woman about them. I mean, for all her faults, she has stood up to things far better than Giggles Gildernew has stood up to her officials in DARD. Similarly, the civil servants seem to have Arlene run ragged over in Environment. I don’t want to even think about how Ms Ruane is getting a running a kicking in Education.
Funny that, though...someone stands up to a morally - and I think ultimately, if it DOES come to a judicial review - procedurally correct decision, and the lads in the parties used to running things their own way suddenly feel threatened enough to cast aspersions on Ms Ritchie’s mental state…
For shame, boys...for shame.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:45 PMThe crunch here is that two unionist ministers agree with her that the record of minutes were not a fair and accurate account of what was said. They have found balls at last.
Both Empey and McGimpsey have been around politics for a long, long time. They have decades of experience in meetings, and later perusing for accuracy the minutes of them. It seems almost inconceivable that just as a matter of mere coincidence three people would wrongly feel minutes to be inaccurate.
I would have thought, as well, in the event of a dispute upon the accuracy of a minute by anyone who was present at a meeting they pertained to, then that minutes just could not be ‘passed’.
Margaret Ritchie has the DUP, SF, the NIO, senior civil servants, the British, the Irish and the American govs in opposition to what she has done.
But she has public opinion and a very experienced political party in the SDLP on her side. Let’s hope there is an ace or two up a sleeve somewhere that blows the truth of this whole messy business out into the open.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:48 PMi see the BBC reports that Nigel Dodds want an end to “parliamentary activity”
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:51 PMFrank you obviously come from the school of thought that water falls from the sky then it must be free. Was Durkan and Trimble’s tax forcing us to twice - yes it was, were we already paying for water yes we were, was it being spent on water services - no it wasn’t during long periods of Direct rule. How do we fix the water problem, I think the Review panel have come up with a sensible way forward and separate water charges are now gone.
But back to topic, it looks like the rest of the entire executive (including the UUP- agreed press release at the end of the mtg)now agree Ritchie’s comments are wrong, she’s definately losing it.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:54 PMJD,
Any chance of the wording of the press release the UUP agreed?
Cheers.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 08:59 PMHeaven help me, I never thought I’d be saying this, but well said, The Dubliner @ 09:09 PM.
Thanks to a Slugger tip, yesterday, I’ve had an odd hour reviewing Mary Clancy’s thesis on The United States and post-Agreement Northern Ireland, 2001-6 [http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the-lack-of-transparency-was-far-from-surprising/]
She starts from a premise that on balance, the United States has tended to side with the Irish government when disputes have arisen between Dublin and London.
That’s not significant in itself, but she spends some time looking at the activities of Richard Haass and Mitchell Reiss as the Bush Administration’s successive “special envoys” to Northern Ireland. Both have wikipedia entries, worth the trip.
What is astounding is that these apparatchiks had the licence to make policy on the hoof. Taking Clancy’s exposition at face value, they seem to have switched horses at whim. They certainly seem to be instrumental in undermining Trimble, in cahoots with Dublin, and promoting the DUP/SF (Paisley/Adams) duopoly we’ve been landed with. It also seems that Downing Street spent a lot of time and effort trying to keep up with the US/Dublin project, and being systematically outmanoevred.
May I therefore commend Clancy: she will provide ammunition for the conspiracy theorists, and grounds for second thoughts for cynics (like me) who need to re-appraise all this stuff.
So, for once, I don’t instinctively gag at the implications that Dubliner proposes.
Meanwhile, on the basis of what Clancy is saying, I’d like to know more about the activities of Dr Paula J. Dobriansky, Under-Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, and current occupant of the Special Envoy role performed by Haass and Reiss. She is a “neo-con”.
In summary, this Ritchie affair is either a load of hot air and piffle or an almighty stitch-up. Or to look at that from another perspective, it will tell us whether Robinson is merely a devious manipulator or the Anointed One (anointed by the US State Department, no less.)
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:00 PMWhy aren’t the media questioning the DUP about supporting funds for the UDA? Are they not against funding for republican groups? Surely the DUP are on record as being against funds for ex-prisoner groups.
The media have been very weak on this point. This is the time for journalists to do some critical work around possible DUP hypocrisy.
TYhe first thing the ed. of the Telegraph should do is ring the DUP and ask them do they support the CTI and if so why have they previously opposed ex-prisoner funding. If they have changed their attitude to this issue then lets see it explained in black and white.
Of course instead of H+M digging in on such issues we get an eegit with a guitar telling us that our political masters sound like the note B or C or whatever.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:02 PM“i see the BBC reports that Nigel Dodds want an end to “parliamentary activity”
What’s wrong, has he just begun to pick up on how popular Ritchie’s move is within unionism? Or is he trying to look as though he is rowing back from positions he has openly been adopting of late?
Or is it all part of the strategy to undermine the Ritchie position both from within the executive and outside?
Whatever it is, it’s pathetic!
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:04 PMYou have to see it against the background of the “briefings” by the puppet masters that were aimed at undermining her authority to act on the matter, and which the minister complained about. Clearly a lot of very powerful people have been caught out by her decision and they now have a more personal motive to conspire against her: if her position is seen as morally correct by the public, then their position must be seen as morally wrong. Ergo, they must persuade the public that they are dealing with an escaped lunatic with PMS who behaved irresponsibly despite the best attempt of the wise mandarins of state to guide her, etc, thereby diverting attention from their own exposed shortcomings.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:08 PMThe Northern Ireland parliament, with interruptions, has been a failure for over 80 years.
Time for a revolution methinks.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:10 PMMalcolm - it is an excellent paper - in my view however it reveals the lack of competence of the English civil servants.
I’m sure MI5 knew what they were doing as did the USA reps. - HMG not perhaps on message.Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:11 PMpaul
Did you not notice about a fortnight ago that the BBC and UTV suddenly started to take the DUP/SF/two governments line on all of this?
The u-turn was so sudden it was remarkable. Words must have been had in senior ears.So don’t expect them to be pitching for Ritchie in the slightest in all of this.
Posted by on Oct 18, 2007 @ 09:12 PM
