Thursday, November 09, 2006
SDLP: Judgement arises from a ‘culture of side deals’…
Patricia Lewsley sees wider implications for the High Court’s judgement that Peter Hain was in breach of the Ministerial Code of Practice:
Today’s ruling is a big and welcome setback for the culture of side deals that has bedevilled the process for so long. The appointment was unfair to victims and placed the interim Victims Commissioner in a very difficult position. The SDLP’s problem was never with Bertha McDougall – rather with the nature of her appointment. The Secretary of State and the DUP must have realised the position this would have placed her in yet for political expediency they carried on with their plans. Using victims and survivors needs and rights as political pawns should never have happened. It should not be allowed to happen again.”
Mick Fealty @ 06:33 PM
The SDLP were pioneers of the side deal, whenever they were the largest nationalist party. John Hume would get the key decision makers together and they would all go off into a corner to organize a wee deal out of earshot of everyone else.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 06:40 PMI agree with CS hasn’t P Lewsley a cheek but that is what we expect from the SDLP nowadays, just because they are no longer in the position to do deals they are crying in their soup. Other are now in that position, come on SDLP, if it was good enough for the SDLP ie. John Hume and then Mark Durkan then it’s good enough for others now.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 06:52 PMCS and TB-
Can you name for me an occasion when the SDLP got someone appointed to a position such as this, one which by its very definition requires absolute impartiality and transparency? I notice neither of you seem too fazed by what Hain and the British Government did, but prefer to snipe from the sidelines. Grow up.
Getting back to the issue in question- Hain must now come clean and reveal exactly what the appointment of Mrs. McDougal involved, otherwise he must resign.
Political parties here are required by law to be transparent with their finances (to the extent which said law can practicably go). And rightly so. Yet the British Government which passed the aforementioned law took it upon itself to appoint a person to a ÂŁ50k a year job, but in so doing displayed absolutely no transparency or accountability.
Employers here are required to adhere to employment and equality legislation. And rightly so. The recruitment of a Victims’ Commissioner should have been equality-proofed to the highest standards given its importance and sensitivity, yet the British Government made its appointment paying no regard to the employment and equality rules which it expects everyone else to adhere to.
This is unacceptable.
The side-dealing of Hain- which in effect resulted in an appointment based not on what Mrs. McDougal is, but rather who she knows (as evidenced by the DUP claiming it as a victory)- harks back the worst abuses of democratic norms under the old Stormont Regime.
It seems that the ideals of Basil Brooke survive him- anyone who believes in equality and fairness must oppose this.
The side-dealing of Hain- which in effect resulted in an appointment based not on what Mrs. McDougal is, but rather who she knows (as evidenced by the DUP claiming it as a victory)- harks back the worst abuses of fair employment norms under the old Stormont Regime.
It seems that the ideals of Basil Brooke survive him- anyone who believes in equality and fairness must oppose this.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 07:55 PMApologies for the repetition of the last two paras there…
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 07:57 PMWould everyone here just think for one moment of one other woman who was appointed to a quango: Monica McWilliams.
I never remember anyone asking me about that appointment. Yet I never went to the courts over it, and as the niece of the late Charles Haughey, she is not exactly without very serious political baggage.
Mrs McDougall does not have baggage like that. Like too too many others she too is a victim, and a survivor.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 09:30 PMAh yes Doreen, she is a victim and a survivor. The issue and difficulty is that she only believes in the victim status for one side of the community, and refuses to acknowledge the legitmacy of victims of state violence and collusion.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 10:06 PMCan you name for me an occasion when the SDLP got someone appointed to a position such as this, one which by its very definition requires absolute impartiality and transparency?
El Mat, let’s be sensible here. The way the process is being worked out at the moment is a way that the SDLP were entirely happy with - when they had a finger in the cake. I remember their cosy chats with the Irish government, British government and UUP - with everyone else shut out - all too well. It’s a damn shame that the SDLP weren’t standing up for inclusivity and impartiality back in the days when they would have been able to make a difference.
What we need is a proper all party talks process.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 10:09 PMI concur with Comrade Stalin. Until very recently Dirty deals, back-door deals, side door deals and back room deals were undoubtably being done by the SDLP. Not having the political clout is one thing but whinging and wailing is now becomming the trademark of the former majotity Nationalist/Republican party. Perhaps this explains why over one third of its vote now prefers to stay at home or vote for alternatives.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 11:26 PMAgain CS- can you name me an incident when the SDLP sought the circumvention of the norms of recruitment to get someone appointed to such a senior role?
As regards cosy chats- political parties are entitled to chat to whoever they choose, and no one is denying that right, regardless of who is in the ascendency. The problem comes when those chats result in debacles such as we saw with the appointment of Mrs. McDougall at the behest of the DUP. Plus, if cosy chats bring peace, as Hume-Adams did, then I don’t see the problem- again, this was for the greater good, rather than for partisan self-interest. To equate talks which brought about peace and stability in the 1990s with latter-day dirty side-deals is wholly inaccurate and disingenuous.
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 11:26 PMI’ve mentioned it before, I’ll mention it again.
If Bertha’s appointment is considered dubious can her report on the future remit and role of the Victims Commission be considered any less dubious?
Her report is due to be published soon, just before her year in office expires, will this report be binned?
Should it be released or given any credibility at all?
Can she define the remit of a role she shouldn’t have been appointed to?
Back to the drawing board?
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 11:27 PMmiss fitz- the issue and difficulty is that she only believes in the victim status for one side of the community,
Ill think you ll find she belives victim status for EVERYONE murdered or injured by terrorits from either side -
so please none of your bigotry here please fitz
Posted by on Nov 09, 2006 @ 11:39 PMThis is not bigotry UUP, but a subject well covered here in the past and a matter of public record. It started with Bloomfield who created the notion of a hierarchy of vicitms and has continued since then. Accomodation here will only come with the full acceptance that there are 2 perspectives to our story and one side should not dominate.
Can you elucidate a little on your charge of bigotry?
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:01 AMfitz, terrorits killed or injured are NOT VICTIMS and neither are theire families,,,in fact their skum who got their just rewards
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:09 AM“and refuses to acknowledge the legitmacy of victims of state violence and collusion”
Where has she said this?
Where is it a matter of public record?
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:11 AMBertie
It goes back to the time of her appointment and her refusal to recognise the victims of collusion. At the time, she said that there was a definition for victim, which was the Bloomfield definition which of course completely tuled out state victimsPosted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:18 AMMisfitz
What exactly is the Bloomfield definition and what exactly did she say about it?
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:20 AMIs your google broken?
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:30 AMWe Will Remember Them: Sir Kenneth Bloomfield
http://www.nio.gov.uk/bloomfield_report.pdf
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:35 AMno
I am not the one making the allegation.
Besides what do I search on that gives me the answer about what Bertha mc dougal has said about the defintion.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:37 AMWhy two stories on this? Especially when one is just another lazy Lewsley press release?
To repeat:
I know from Bertha’s own mouth, she presented DUP type arguments on sectarian headcounts for funding distribution to the European Commission when asking for monetary support but didn’t present the more broadly supported alternative arguments based on meeting need or promoting reconciliation and truth.
She is a very nice woman and talks very freely.
I don’t see how a discredited political appointee nominated by the DUP who fronted their arguments to the neglect of others can present a credible basis for the future remit of the Commission in her forthcoming report.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:39 AMI can find no other defintionof victim in the livk you gave apart from something about surviving injured and those who care from them and the bereaved.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:47 AMBertie, these quotes from the Bloomfield report appears to be fairly neutral:
“Nevertheless, this Commission must aim its effort at a coherent and manageable target group. These I define as the surviving injured and those who care for them, together with those close relatives who mourn their dead.”;
“Third, I believe the interests of victims would be better served by the creation of a collective voice, in the form of a Standing Conference of Organisations Supporting the Victims of Violence. This may not be easy to achieve, given the sensitivities of particular categories of victim, but I believe some such step is required to raise the profile of the entire issue.”
He also made the point that it would be unfair for the victims to receive lesser consideration than the prisoners and ex-prisoners.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 01:28 AM[Play the ball! - edited moderator]
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 01:40 AMMark,
She makes an interesting point that I’ve not heard made elsewhere. It is certainly worthy of note, if not lengthy discussion.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 01:49 AMwhy was my last post deleted. If read carefully i did not play anyone - it was entirely conditional on republican trolls advocating there murderous ilk as victims
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 01:57 AM
