Skip navigation

Tag Archives: culture

 

Perhaps Deaglán de Bréadún cannot write completely as he pleases in his Irish Times column, ‘Synger’ – An Irishman’s Diary on Synge Street CBS in the Sixties* or perhaps he’s unaware that the Department of education had rules. Nevertheless it should be pointed out that the column reinforces a mistaken view of what was permitted in Irish schools by way of beating children. If it is said without qualification that corporal punishment was permitted in schools, the statement is so lacking as to be a virtual lie but it is a lie which protects very many brutish retired teachers and perhaps some that are still working.

The truth is that while beating a child was permissible, the Department of Education had explicitly circumscribed that permission by a set of rules which – if obeyed – would have protected children from almost all of the beatings.

In other words, the majority of these teachers were in breach of their employer’s rules and were committing criminal assaults to satisfy their own perverse ends. It is quite simply not the case that in harsh times they were doing what was permitted or what was usual in society generally. Let’s be clear: what they did was explicitly forbidden.

Prepare to be surprised. The following are rules of the Irish Dept. of Education:

Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression.”

In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons.”

No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.”

Teachers should keep a copy of these rules and regulations suspended in their schoolrooms in a conspicuous place.”

The pretence that it was otherwise is an instance within the shabby practice adopted in Ireland when dealing with child abuse. The practice is to avoid personal responsibility so that the state or the culture at the time can be blamed. The state may pay damages, the Taoiseach may apologise. However, not only will the guilty never be brought to account but their ill-gotten pensions will be paid.

It is not certain that it needs to be so. There was a time when it was believed that a pension was personal property beyond the reach of the state and the only course when dealing with an ill-gotten pension was the possibility of considering it a criminal asset. Since austerity it is clear that pensions are not untouchable.

Like those still alive who committed greater crimes in residential schools and Magdalene laundries, and who rigged illegal adoptions, it is completely unacceptable that guilty national and secondary teachers should be permitted to live blamelessly on comfortable pensions.

___________________________

* http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/synger-an-irishman-s-diary-on-synge-street-cbs-in-the-sixties-1.2767159

 

Advertisements

An acquaintance of mine stupidly ran a business into the ground. Because he did it during the economic downturn he can still turn up at the Lions Club and lie about his “misfortune”. Something similar but far more serious is happening in the public service and specifically in the health service. A handy cover story prevents blame.

It goes like this: A case of extreme and wilful neglect in a hospital is reported. The “establishment” begin an enquiry which inevitably concludes “a system failure” and makes recommendations. Meanwhile, the “anti-establishment” blame the government and “austerity”. The result is that the perpetrators get away with the offence. A police investigation? Don’t be ridiculous.

One such case occurred recently in Beaumont hospital. Mr. Gerry Feeney, an elderly citizen, went there. He was treated in A and E and then for five days in an emergency overflow ward. Everyone is aware of the daily reports about underfunding, especially in Emergency wards. Nevertheless, Mr. Feeney was well treated. He was looked after, fed and respected. This is basic.

Despite his medical condition, he was then transferred to a geriatric ward and the crimes began. He was left sitting in his own urine and excrement. He was starved. Always so concerned about looking smart, he was left in public with with the lower half of his body exposed. The details are available in press reports.*

Had this been a case of parental neglect, the perpetrators would have been removed from the parental role and would face charges before the courts.

Imagine how many times, day after day, that hospital staff and outsourced/contract staff saw this man and decided to neglect him. There is no way to deflect blame. This wasn’t a mishap or a systems failure. This wasn’t due to lack of training or resources. This wasn’t the fault of the management suits. This wasn’t the fault of the government. This was criminal, wilful neglect.

Certainly in Ireland there is a well-developed method of evading personal responsibility; no-one ever did wrong, it is always down to “culture”, “the way things were”, the state etc. Generally this nonsense must stop but in this instance there is a pernicious variant. Inhumane activity – the work of perpetrators – is being afforded a screen. The offences are being obscured and – revolting as it might be to use the word – dignified by a political debate.

There is no place in the public service for someone who would walk by a citizen starving, exposed and dirty. There should be no place outside of jail for someone who would decide to commit such offences.

______________________________________________________________________________
* http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gerry-feeney-treated-with-no-dignity-in-beaumont-niece-says-1.2118446
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0225/682839-beaumont-hospital-inquiry/
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/health-news/gerry-feeney-family-demands-answers-5232367

I seem to keep on returning to the notion of integrity. I don’t know why it doesn’t feature in public discussion of Ireland’s growing list of scandals, so many of which were caused by failure to speak up and do what was clearly the right thing.

The usual excuse for hiding in a crowd which is doing wrong or behaving stupidly is fear. That is understandable and a reason to forgive lack of integrity – until the nature of the fear is examined. If integrity might lead to death or injury or even losing one’s job, then let’s be forgiving. However, if the fear is no more than a vague feeling that one might lose out on a promotion or worse a fear of being excluded from a group of chancers or fools, then no! In such circumstances a lack of integrity is completely unacceptable and a person so lacking – especially one who has demonstrated the flaw – cannot have or continue to hold a position of responsibility. Does that seem harsh? It is and it needs to be because in Ireland at least we’ve been far too tolerant of the cowardly sleveens whose overriding virtue is to fit in and get along with people.

Here’s Fintan O’Toole laying the blame on an excess of loyalty and suggesting that showing integrity involved paying a high price: “We’ve seen this time and again: in the crushing of the internal auditors who warned that our major banks were up to their white-collared necks in skulduggery; in the systematic protection of child abusers by the Catholic Church; in the extreme reluctance of many health professionals to shout stop when they saw dangerous and even deadly practices; in the parade of politicians coming out to assure us that Charles Haughey was a patriot to his fingertips who would no sooner take a bribe than he would kiss a Brit; in the vicious shouting-down of those who suggested that the property boom might be a bubble.” *

“Crushing”? “Vicious shouting down”? This is silly exaggeration. If a person cannot speak up in the face of a shouting or overbearing fool, he/she is either too timid or too lacking in integrity to continue. Moreover, the position of the timid would be improved if proven lack of integrity were not tolerated and indeed punished when found out.

Ireland is about to appoint a new Garda (police) Commissioner and the talk is of the need to recruit outside the force or outside the country. This is evasive rubbish, prompting a straight response: If there is no one in Garda management with sufficient expertise, experience and integrity to be promoted, then they should not be in Garda management.

In the same article Fintan raises “a squalid event” in Waterford: Garda assault and the perversion of justice when a surveillance camera was turned away. Gardaí went to jail but Fintan also mentions the decent Gardaí who gave evidence of wrongdoing and implies that some did not. The latter should be gone by now because they have shown themselves to be the wrong stuff.**

Similar can and should be said of the quiet failures in so many institutions and professions whom Fintan (above) is prepared to whitewash in the lime of “culture” and exaggerated fear or ignore in a zealous attempt to get a handful of senior sacrificial victims.

A bricklayer found out as unable for or unsuited to the job would have to find alternative work. A professional found out as lacking a modicum of courage and integrity should have to find alternative work just as quickly.
_________________________________________________
* http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/if-institutional-ireland-were-a-stick-of-rock-the-words-loyalty-is-prized-above-honesty-would-run-through-it-irish-authorities-always-choose-loyalty-1.1741919

** https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/garda-ombudsman-corrib-comments-and-the-wrong-stuff/

I’ve been lazy and far too slow to write about the way in which automated systems are being designed to exclude citizen participation. As some of you may know, I was banned from FB for a period because of a particular comment I posted and I still cannot see how the comment could have caused any problem whatsoever.* I’ve failed to get an explanation from FB by way of their on-line reply forms. I discovered that they have a phone number in Dublin. I called and was met with the familiar, “Press 1 or 2 or 3 …” runaround. Selecting 1 produced a recording telling me that I was dealing with an on-line company and that I should use the on-line forms which I’d already found were ignored. OK, so many large organisations – including the HSE ** – take the view that dealing with citizens is done by way of mass media only. However, while the HSE press office will respond to a citizen, FB make it absolutely clear that they will talk only to accredited and “legitimate” journalists. If this interests you, from Ireland call 01 5530550 and select 3 to hear what for me is an extraordinary message.
______________________________________________________________________________
* https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/on-being-silenced-on-facebook-and-unable-to-discover-why/
** HSE is Ireland’s Health Services Executive.

I can’t put a date on it but I recall being in the canteen in RTE and asking one of my former colleagues in engineering to give me a quick rundown on this “internet thing”. Over diagrams and talk I became fascinated. I have to say that it was the abstract communication part of the technology that interested me more than the content possibilities. My recollection too is that I was using e-mail for a considerable time before I had anything resembling today’s net access. However, very soon after I had the net, I became aware of chat sites, i.e. very early social media.

Two things struck me. Firstly, I was working for RTE and the real time “chat” suggested citizen participation in TV current affairs. I wrote on that but failed to convince the Head of News and Current Affairs who reckoned that if it was to be used at all, it was more suited to entertainment. To spare his blushes I won’t name the Head but rest assured that I’ve reminded him over the years. (He’s a good bloke and takes the slagging well.)

Secondly, while I was arguing the potential, I was depressed by the content of these early chat sites. There was little or no, what might be termed, serious discussion. Some chat “rooms” were fine; ordinary people were having ordinary communication about mundane matters. The participants were civil, they exchanged information and well wishes across continents. I liked them and got to know some of them. However, many of the “rooms” and “sites” were devoted to intercontinental rudeness and abuse; people entered these rooms with just one thing in mind: to be nasty. In those days a “troll” referred to someone present in the room but not participating in the discussion. Trolling did not then refer to an increasing experience: ordinary discussants being subjected to abuse from people who simply wanted to ruin their chat. It seemed that this marvellous system would become a vehicle for intercontinental abuse.

Time has delivered a better outcome but that nasty strand has endured, indeed it’s flourished. In the early days the participants were mostly American and for a short time I considered the possibility that the vile speech, peppered as it was with “asshole” and “motherfucker”, was an American phenomenon. It wasn’t. This feature of the net that was established in the early days has attracted adherents across the globe and in large numbers. Anyone unfamiliar with this kind of vile, aggressive content can have a look at it by reading the comments under many of the music videos on You Tube. Discussion of the music can be informed or it can be pleasant, facile, fan-stuff but also it is routinely a shooting gallery for the ignorant and abusive.

Two related things can be said. Firstly, my experience of on-line participation has led me to the view that people behave on-line more or less as they do in the other parts of their lives. Decent people don’t become on-line monsters. They may avoid controversy or seek out flossy celebrity-centred talk, they may gossip with friends, they may keep up with family and friends, they may be active among people with a similar interest and crucially those who participate in serious discussions will do so on-line. It is therefore vital that few people follow John Waters of the Irish Times into a poorly informed technical determinism that sees attempts at on-line discussion as futile because the net is the preserve of idiots.* The truth is that just as the net is a good way of staying in touch with friends, it can also – with a bit of effort – be a good way of finding contending views and attracting useful criticism.

There is a tendency – particularly among those who don’t use it or who make little use of it – to see the net as particularly problematic. I’m reminded of a time when I was researching industrial/workplace vandalism and I came across a quote along the lines of, “Those people who break trees and park benches at night, where do you think they go during the day?” My point is that the web these days is where everyone – including the bad – goes. It is to be expected that forms of dreadful behaviour all too familiar in everyday life will appear on- line. It shouldn’t be more tolerated on line than anywhere else.

It is decades since I first heard someone say that they’d been abused on-line and that they were not going back. I argued that like resisting violence at football matches or reclaiming the streets, it is important that decent people do not vacate the space. The idea would be that the bad would be smothered by a mass of human decency and offenders would be reported and tackled. It can and has worked but there’s a problem in the way that many people use the net and the problem is facilitated by the way the net is developing.

Long before the net relative isolation was risky. In extreme cases abuse occurred in institutions, schools, prisons, camps, clubs, training – even families – areas into which good people could not or did not peer in numbers. Moreover, small, tight groups of friends attracted the person who would control by various forms of intimidation including manipulation of members’ need to belong.

Advice: Stay in the open. Don’t allow close association with any group to become overly important.

There is now considerable fear over net participation but it is misplaced. The fear should be – as always – over relatively closed groups and increasingly there are relatively closed groups on-line. Reports of parents shocked at what is going on are commonplace. Shock is not acceptable; it’s a lame excuse. There is a disgraceful acceptance of the line that young people are good at computers but older people just don’t know about it. It’s time to be intolerant of this nonsense and say that incompetence in this regard is as weird as locking oneself in the house and refusing to use broadcasting and text would have been two decades ago. Any parent – any citizen – who is not active on-line is failing. However, mere activity is not enough. It must go that bit further into understanding that the dangers present in life are present on-line. The basics haven’t changed.

Advice: Stay in the open. Don’t allow close association with any group to become overly important.

“Young people are good with computers.” Repeating it over and over again or making it a staple in mass media discussion doesn’t make it any less untrue. Saying now that young people are good with computers makes as much sense as saying forty years ago that young people are good with televisions. Young people today certainly use information technology a lot but their use tends to be quite limited. Moreover the whole thrust of development is towards a more limited use.

The great gift of the web is access to information but, we’re told, the information will be overwhelming unless it is managed. So begins the drift away from the open web as algorithms make recommendations based on past behaviour and like-minded FB friends determine taste, trends, acceptable behaviour and views.

I had a running gag a couple of years back when lecturing for Information Studies. On the way to lectures I would walk through a large open area in UCD which was equipped with very many on-line PCs providing easy access for students. I took to counting the number in use and the proportion of that number using FB. I then reported my findings to students at the start of the lecture. It was never the case that FB users were in a minority. Now, I use FB a lot and I like it but it was around then that I realised the extent to which FB had for perhaps the majority of users become the net. Since then all manner of apps have appeared whose express purpose is to make life easy by eliminating the need to search, to choose, to face something new, disturbing, distressing, confrontational or challenging.

Increasingly people do not surf the net as of yore. They rely on links, recommendations. This has two outcomes which I want to mention here. Firstly, in my own area of interest, political communication, it reduces the possibility of deliberative citizenship. ** Secondly, it is socially isolating, confines people to relatively tight groups wherein the nasty stuff familiar from media reports and scares can go unchecked.

I realise of course that there is considerable published material which argues that the net internationalises concerns that in the past locals could have swept under the carpet but this is not inconsistent with a view of net use which is relatively closed. An occasional report of injustice or protest or cruelty “going viral” does not mean that on-line pressure to conform from friends or information-management apps are not effective.

So, what’s the outcome of all this? Firstly, it should be emphasised that a portion of life has moved. It has gone on-line and it has brought with it ordinary concerns of life as well as familiar dangers. It is as important on-line as it is in the rest of life not to become isolated. In political communication the term used is “bubble”. Confinement in a bubble is like the older metaphor of an echo chamber. It’s about becoming closed off from discourse by over-reliance on a tight group of like-minded friends – no matter where they are in the world! “Cocoon” might be a better word as in most cases there are individuals fleeing to a security where they will be untroubled by questions, doubt, argument and counter-argument. “Cocoon”, however, doesn’t convey the menace which many parents have come to fear. “Gang” gets closer to the reality. Gangs are characterised by an us-against-world-mentality, rules, secrecy, discipline, leaders who are charismatic but border on insane, enforcers, penalties for breaking the rules and fear of the ultimate sanction: exclusion, banishment. “Gang” also suggests that this is a very old, familiar and serious problem.

The open web can seem scary with its cacophony, scams, intruders, liars, pornographers, schemers, predators, conspiracy theorists, religions, crackpots, healers and dealers but it is also rich in information, debate, cooperation and it has human decency aplenty. What evil is there lurks – as in the wider world – in the shadowy corners, cracks and alleyways. It’s both safe and stimulating on-line if a citizen has the confidence to wander the wide boulevards and engage openly with others. The same cannot be said for social media and restrictive apps which filter, create bubbles, cocoons and gangs. Mature citizens should be encouraged to use the confused expanses of open web to inform themselves and to participate. Yes, that old metaphor of the web as an agora is reappearing here. Younger and vulnerable citizens are safer and more likely to learn something new out on the open web.

In closing here’s a bit of advice for parents. Don’t overly limit a young person’s time on line. With limited time they’ll head straight for their little gang. Give them whatever it takes – time, skill, encouragement, money, example etc. – to see the possibilities to be free, inquisitive and participative on-line. A parent in an attack of self-pity might ask if they are failing as a parent if they can’t or don’t have a life on-line? Unfortunately, the answer is yes!
____________________________________________________________________________
* http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/if-you-re-reading-this-online-stop-1.1525539
** https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/republican-citizens-on-facebook-need-to-choose-their-friends-deliberately/

I was never in favour of abolishing the Seanad. My reasons were to do with mass political communication which many would dismiss with one of censorship’s favourite labels: “academic”. Now, however, there is a more pressing reason to vote No.

I won’t go on too much about the communication aspect but some explanation is required. My interest is political communication and the information – i.e. data and argument – that a citizen requires to participate in public controversies. One of the requirements is access to a range of viewpoints. The Seanad wasn’t designed with this in mind but in its design there was a suggestion of comprehensive debate, something rare and something that could be altered to do the job.

Election to the Seanad is by way of some universities and by way of industrial panels – agriculture, labour and the like. Commentators have pointed to the quality of Seanad speakers delivered by the universities but also to the exclusion of any particular industrial component to the panel elections which came to be dominated by routine inter party competition. There have also been nominations by Taoisigh which sought to recruit particular perspectives. In summary, the Seanad is designed for the most part to institutionalise and deliver sectional perspectives but this simply hasn’t happened.

Had it happened, it would not have been a great success for political communication – or rather for the kind of political communication which the republican or participative citizen needs. It is corporatist thinking. The assumption is that all political debate is based on self-interest and competition for resources. It is the traditional Fianna Fáil way and has become the standard media perspective in Ireland. It has indeed an appealing democratic veneer. Its notion of representation is that voices must be heard from regions, classes, industries, NGOs, lobbies etc. The problem of course is that they may all be saying the same thing: “Me! No, me! No, no, me, me!” This is an intensely conservative position which can often give the appearance of radicalism as when a bit of extra resources for a “deserving” group is championed.

It could be different. Think about this as a specification to be handed to the designers of a new Seanad: It is required that the Seanad reflect not the interests of select groups but that it publicly and fully thrash out all issues on which it deliberates. In summary my long standing position on the Seanad is that it has a promising design which needs to be changed.

Enough of that. We are facing a referendum to abolish the Seanad. The reason we are facing this now has nothing whatsoever to do with arguments put forward over the years that the Seanad is elitist, undemocratic or unnecessary. No, this is happening because the Taoiseach and his advisors can see clearly that there is a growing, right wing, anti-state, anti-politics constituency and he has decided to feed it by sacrificing the Seanad. The cusp of competition for political support now is this large group (There’s no knowing its size yet.) of angry people. It is certainly odd that FG which prides itself on defending democracy should now be prompted in this direction. With the exception of revolutionaries seeking a crisis which might be exploited, the desire among leftists to attach to – even to lead – such people borders on incomprehensible. It seems to be based on a belief that anyone or group opposing austerity and willing to take part in protest is progressive – even socialist. In other words, the very people that might be expected to stand in the way of a populist move to the right are competing to lead it.

Two things remain to be addressed. Firstly, a no vote might be equally attractive to a member of the anti-state/anti politics (ASAP) grouping; “no” would be a rejection of a government proposal. However, there doesn’t seem to be anyone on the No side canvassing support on this basis.

Secondly, ASAP may be nothing of consequence. My concern with it grew slowly. I watched Occupy and spoke to some of its adherents. I attended anti-property tax meetings. I live an ordinary social life and take part in conversations. On this anecdotal level ASAP gives cause for concern in terms of what they say, the aggressive stance taken and their numbers. There’s more, however. Published polling data shows firm support for right wing parties, that parties seek ASAP support suggests the existence of data that make that course worthwhile and the utter dominance of the ASAP perspective in the media all combine to support a case for treating ASAP very seriously.

The Taoiseach has reduced this referendum to a question of for or against cutting the number of politicians. That proposal is close to the hearts of the ASAP people. In these particular circumstances people who have been in favour of abolishing the Seanad for other reasons should consider voting No. A Yes gives encouragement to an extremely individualist brand of politics and many of those that I’ve heard advocating abolition of the Seanad over the years certainly don’t belong on that side.

“The jury expressed the opinion that something should be done to prevent boys getting possession of firearms.” – Recorded by the inquest jury into the death of 2 year old, Herbert Lemass, in early 1916.*

A little boy, called Herbert, died of a gunshot wound to the head because his 16 year old brother, John, was “fiddling with a revolver”.This happened in the family home on Capel Street, Dublin and a sister witnessed it. Anyone reading this unaware of the people involved would assume that the revolver belonged to an adult family member or perhaps an adult visitor to the house. However, John – or Seán outside of the family – was a member of the Irish Volunteers as was his 17 year old brother, Noel. Seán joined when he was fifteen and went on to fight in the GPO a few months after he had accidentally killed his little brother. After the GPO surrender he avoided arrest because of his age.**

The founding myth of the Irish State is bloody but the establishment view is that it is heroic and that questioning is “revisionist” and a bad thing. When it comes to light that a fifteen year old was allowed to join a rebel army and was given a gun to take home, it doesn’t prompt even the Irish Times to comment. Quite a number of children were among the volunteers and the excuse offered is that this shouldn’t be judged from today’s perspective. Normal shock and outrage are soothed by talk of things being different back then. Apart from the fact that the British considered Seán a child and let him go, the jury’s note at the top of this piece illustrates that in 1916 arming a child was as crazy as it would be today.

There’s nothing new or specifically Irish in mature adults sending young impetuous kids to their deaths. However, in Ireland a national newspaper can publish on the shooting in 1916 of a toddler by his big brother and not even ask what kind of nutters put the gun in his hand and what kind of parents allowed it to happen?

________________________________________________________
* http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/revelation-of-family-tragedy-provides-insight-into-lemass-s-political-persona-1.1469508 This is a front page report on a longer piece by the historian, Eunan O’Halpin, “Lemass’s Silent Agony”, published in the Irish Times Weekend Review of July 20th 2013

** http://test.scoilnet.ie/Res/maryodubhain100899224214_2.html

While there are no details as yet as to the motivations of the murderers of the English soldier at Woolwich, the web is already alive with opponents and defenders of Islam. More significantly for those of us who value public discourse, many thoughtful and tolerant people are taking the position that Islam – and by extension all religion – is not a problem. Paradoxically it is this kind of blanket tolerance that can lead to trouble.

For as long as religion is “respected” in public discourse, particular religions will be attacked because of the actions and statements of their most extreme adherents.

When we discuss values and matters concerning values, religion has to be ignored and certainly cannot be allowed become a trump card. For example, debates about abortion cannot be side-tracked by stuff about respect for catholic beliefs and nastiness to gays cannot be permitted because the speaker believes in Islam. When a society takes seriously claims that something should be or not be because God or a prophet said so, it encourages belief as opposed to argument. Every single cruel, divisive and – yes! – inegalitarian belief should be hauled out from under religious cloaks and tackled.

When that has been established, we can say with some confidence that an act of barbarity had nothing to do with religion.

John Fallon reported in the Irish Times today that David Duffy, the CEO of Allied Irish Banks, intends a clean-up within the bank.* However, what is reported is that David Duffy has joined Fianna Fáil and Sinn Fein in asking citizens yet again to go WAWA (“We are where we are”). Yes, here we go again. What he proposes is that past wrongdoing be attributed to “culture” and that the bank makes a fresh start without getting rid of wrongdoers.

The wrongdoing in question is managers borrowing from their own bank to become developers or investors. David Duffy is clearly of the view that this is not just a bad practice but unethical and lacking in integrity. He is resolute that it will never happen again and that if it does, the manager will be dismissed.

The problem of course is that it can’t be wrong today but not wrong yesterday. That’s where the old reliable WAWA escape clause comes in and it’s all too familiar: “No one is guilty; it was the culture”. It’s a constant refrain in Ireland today. It is offered as an excuse for all sorts of failure and for crimes: failure to speak up while the economy was ruined, child abuse, political murders, laundry slavery and now dodgy borrowing by bank managers has been added to the list.

It is simply not credible that the chancers who were involved in these loans will now suddenly become people of integrity fit to be managers in an important institution. It is not acceptable that the CEO of this institution is prepared to go WAWA and to leave those not fit for office in place.
____________________________________________
* http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2013/0223/1224330416276.html?via=bnews

The Higher Education Authority’s document, Completing the Landscape Process for Irish Higher Education, can be accessed here: http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1497

While it is a disgrace, we can of course to have some fun. Complete bollocks invites derision. Ok, ok, ok, let’s play before getting to the serious point. As slagging goes, I think this will do:

A Prayer for The Landscape Process

For the sake of the stakeholders let us pray that the landscape process is robust and sustainable with sufficient key drivers, outcomes and benchmarks, that it is fit for purpose and in accordance with best practice, that its diversity of mission matches the diversity of needs, pathways, clusters and linkages and that its knowledge transfer services can keep pace with its rolling programme of thematic reviews. Amen.

Fun over! Jesus wept; this is the Higher Education Authority! Talking in bafflegab, unspeak or complete bollocks betokens managerialism which must be rooted out of the public service. The Minister for Education or the Oireachtas Committee on Education could take a stand by sending this report back marked “Unacceptable. Rewrite.” It is probable that without the scaffolding of fashionable buzzwords and phrases, the entire structure of the report would fall apart. Let’s put the question in a crude and easily understood form: without the complete bollocks is there anything of substance here?

 

Deciding which political values will motivate policy is a great public controversy and it is one which the left is losing.

Contrast the following quotations.

Young people are “bringing a completely different set of values to the workplace. They’re not interested in a permanent pensionable job. They’re not interested in someone to mind them . . . They are interested in experiences and satisfaction and will move if the work is not satisfying for them.

“Organisations can satisfy that today because they are not providing permanent pensionable jobs. So there’s a completely different psychological relationship, and a really different type of commitment, between the employer and the employee. It’s far more contractual.” – Dr Melrona Kirrane, an organisational psychologist at DCU Business School, quoted by Joe Humphreys in the Irish Times January 12th 2013

http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2013/0112/1224328726217.html?via=rel

In this article radical individualism is presented by Joe Humphreys as realism, youthful, progressive, satisfying.

Now try something very different.

“We know that the present economic morass through which we are struggling did not come about by accident. We know it came about because of a failed paradigm of economic policy, undeclared assumptions, skewed values, and the growth of a culture where our assets were valued and utilised on purely material considerations. It was a version of economics that was rooted in a radical individualism and a theory of infallible efficient markets delivered through policies of light or no regulation. We are all now grappling with the enormous consequences of that failure and must now move forward to a better model – one that will build social cohesion and provide a sustainable basis for economic development. We must reject the notion of normative citizens being reduced to the status of disaggregated rational utility maximisers in our theories and policies.” – President Michael D. Higgins at the Trinity Economic Forum, Friday, 3rd February, 2012  http://www.president.ie/speeches/trinity-economic-forum/

Michael D. bangs on in this vein regularly. He tends to be presented in the media as everyone’s favourite old uncle. He is heard with respect and ignored and all the while the causes of the economic collapse are pushed as antidotes under the pretence that they are new.

In day to day conversations and on Facebook I’ve been avoiding speculation and talking instead about a range of possibilities as to what could have gone so wrong in Galway University hospital which has an excellent record. It is however time now to speculate for a very good reason.

Speculation on the events leading to the death of Savita Halappanavar has for some time now been fuelling arguments for and against the enactment of legislation – as recommended by the Supreme Court a full two decades ago – to regulate and clarify the Irish constitutional position: that an abortion is permissible to protect the life of the mother. It needs to be emphasised that the only circumstance in which this young woman’s death has relevance to the debate on the need to move on such legislation is if there is any scenario in which the medical staff weighed the baby’s life against the mother’s and favoured the baby.

The reason I am about to speculate is that the most likely happenings in Galway are being ignored in favour of accounts which can be used to engage in the current debate. However, the most likely account has enormous significance for the abortion debate beyond the rare cases of risk to a mother’s life but a long way short of anything that could be described as liberal abortion law, never mind abortion on demand.

Incidentally, while I’m attracted in principle to the view that there should be no speculation and therefore no debate until an enquiry has established the facts of what happened, in practice holding such a line was never possible and is completely irrelevant now after weeks of comment.

The following is most likely what happened. I can only assume that it is ignored by media because it is irrelevant to the current spectacular row over the need for legislation to protect the life of a mother.

The death of Mrs. Halappanavar was the first maternal death at Galway University Hospital in 17 years. [i] We are not, therefore, talking about a hospital with a poor record. Moreover, despite all the allegations about “Catholic country” comments and missing notes – both of which need thorough investigation – it doesn’t seem remotely likely that the hospital staff were unaware of the legal or Catholic church position but for some unexplained reason decided to favour the baby’s life over the mother’s life. On the contrary it is, I think, safe to assume that the staff involved were caring, experienced and familiar with law and Catholic doctrine.

It is virtually certain that if at any moment from her first entering the hospital, it became clear that Mrs. Halappanavar’s life was in danger, these staff would have performed an abortion. So what happened? Here is the most likely explanation.

Mrs. Halappanavar was miscarrying, i.e. the baby at that age was doomed to die. However, Mrs. Halappanavar was not yet in mortal danger and there were no indications that she might die. Because, Catholic teaching and Irish law give an equal right to life to mother and to baby until the mother’s life is threatened, an unfortunate baby with just a short time to live would be monitored and allowed to die naturally. A mother’s distress, discomfort or illness would be irrelevant. Threat to life is the sole criterion for legal abortion in Ireland.

The truth that Irish media have been neglecting is that Mrs. Halappanavar’s treatment and death have very likely got nothing whatsoever to do with clarifying a mother’s superior right to life when her life is threatened but a great deal to do with the treatment/management of miscarriage. The position in Ireland is that abortion is not a permissible part of that treatment/management.

I’ve no information on how often abortion might be considered in the treatment of miscarriage but it does seem to be an issue for Catholic hospitals outside Ireland.

“The experiences of physicians in our study indicate that uterine evacuation may not be approved during miscarriage by the hospital ethics committee if foetal heart tones are present and the pregnant woman is not yet ill, in effect delaying care until foetal heart tones cease, the pregnant woman becomes ill, or the patient is transported to a non–Catholic-owned facility for the procedure.”[ii]

If in Ireland we are using the death of a young woman to inform or fuel an important public controversy, it is vital that the full controversy be aired or that the relevant controversy be aired or at the very least that the relevant controversy not be ignored.


[ii] Freedman, L.R. et al “When There’s a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals” in American Journal of Public Health. 2008 October; 98(10): 1774–1778. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

David Black, a prison officer, a public servant, was murdered this week. [i] It was an appalling crime but it’s just not plausible to say so without saying the same of earlier similar acts. No doubt the perps. will say that that they are “fighting” for Irish freedom from Britain or for Irish “unification” and that what they did was part of a continuing struggle dating back to the early 20th century or earlier. [ii] In Ireland over the years we’ve adopted a number of pivotal moments, glorifying violence before a moment and condemning violence after it, just as SF and others now treat the Good Friday agreement and the peace “process”. They seek to portray themselves as unlike today’s killers. They want to do what has been done before: be part of a new establishment which condemns the latest political murders. It’s a depressing pattern. As the various claimants to be the heirs polish their boots for centenary marches, [iii] it might do some good if a few of them at least realised that they had plausibility problems.

I’ve written before about managerialism [i] (as opposed to management) as a self-serving, parasitic weight on a huge range of enterprises. The HSE seems to be particularly burdened. Here’s a quotation from Kitty Holland in The Irish Times (Saturday, October 13, 2012):

“A HSE spokeswoman says a procurement process had been completed this year for the provision of enhanced home-care packages for which private and voluntary operators can tender. The packages include occupational therapy, physiotherapy and chiropody as well as home-help hours.

‘The arrangements commenced on July 1st, 2102, for a minimum of 12 months. The new arrangements refer to new packages to be allocated during that time,’ she says. A number of providers have won the contracts in each region, and about three-quarters of those are private operators.” [ii]

 

We’ve joked about management-speak or bafflegab [iii] for years; it is an amusing symptom of a deep malaise. However, it does help us to locate the malaise. When we hear of the composers of “mission statements”, “standard operating procedures”, “core competencies” and the likes, we should no longer laugh but approach the source with a view to excising it.

Anyone on the staff of the HSE who thinks that it makes sense when talking about home care to say that, “a procurement process had been completed this year for the provision of enhanced home-care packages for which private and voluntary operators can tender.”, must GO and go soon before they do any further damage. There must be some managers in the HSE who can be relied upon to manage in the meaningful sense of the word. It’s time they showed a little integrity and spoke up.

 

It’s not necessary for me to expand here on the difference between home-care and a standardised package which can be procured from competing operators because any thinking person is perfectly aware of the difference. One would have to be baffled by one’s own bafflegab, blinded by ambition, indoctrinated beyond the reach of common sense or plain stupid to think seriously that home-care is a product.

 

A leftist response might talk about this in terms of the move to privatise but privatisation is simply a consequence – a very profitable – consequence of what is happening here. Leftists would do better to think in terms of a powerful clique – even cult – having gained control over management and administration.

 

This is managerialism and its practitioners are confined neither to public nor private industry. When they assume control, the service or industry will be changed to operate in their interests. At this stage they are fairly large in number, so getting rid of them will cause unemployment but it will have to be done. They are redundant and should be treated as such. The problem will be finding real managers who can reorient an enterprise to its real purpose.

I should explain at the outset that this post is very different to those that usually appear on my blog. I’m writing here about dogs, specifically retrievers. You see, I’ve been a fan of the Flatcoated Retriever (Here) for a very long time. After years away from gundogs, I acquired Stevie, aka Hallatonoak Robur, in 2009. He almost immediately rekindled my interest in working and training. I’ve been having fun with great people – in the fresh air and in beautiful locations.

As is my wont, I’ve also been thinking about these wonderful working dogs and what the 19th century people who bred selectively in order to create them were up to. My starting point is admiration for the appearance, working ability and character/temperament of primarily the Flatcoat but also the other breeds with which I’ve trained: Labradors (Here), Chesapeakes(Here), Goldens (Here) and Irish Water Spaniels (Here). [Plus an Italian Spinone (Here) years ago and a Portuguese Water Dog (Here) recently. While the former couldn’t be persuaded to retrieve, the later did retrieve but as far as I know it’s not a retriever but a water dog being put to work as a retriever and that just may echo the origins of all the retriever breeds.]

There is a long running debate in retriever circles about dogs bred for shows and dogs bred for working. This division tends to be polarised around rival archetypes which, as far as I can make out, are much worse in the imaginings of the debaters than the really existing dogs favoured by their respective camps The fear is the emergence of sub-breeds within each breed, type a) being the big beautiful show dog who no longer has any working ability, and type b) being the working dog who bears only a passing resemblance to what the breed is expected to look like.

What tends to happen is that people gravitate towards either the working or the show camp. Those interested in working – primarily those who participate in field trials (There’s a hyperlink to trials below.) can be dismissive of show dogs and their breeding. Triallers often say that they don’t care what a dog looks like as long as it can do its job. I’ve learned to take this view with a pinch of salt as there’s no evidence that anyone wants to allow cross-breeds to work and compete. Moreover, for people who don’t care about appearance, triallers spend a lot of time talking about “style” in a working dog.

Those interested in showing (Here) are almost never dismissive of working dogs. On the contrary they tend to express admiration. However, for a variety of reasons they prefer not to work their dogs.

Kennel club rules for showing and for working competitions (tests and trials) provide strong motivation for the division in that working dogs can accumulate a lot of winning rosettes before having their appearance scrutinised, while it was decided relatively recently that show dogs are allowed to become “champions” without showing any ability to work as a retriever.

The obvious response is to let them at it as long as everyone is having fun and the dogs are well treated.

There is, however, a third camp and it’s the one with which I identify. Here the view is – crudely -something like this: If it doesn’t look like a retriever AND it doesn’t work like a retriever, it isn’t a retriever. This is the view that each and every animal’s appearance should not be out of place in a show ring and that each one should be able and willing to work.

There are a couple of approaches within this dual-purpose camp. There are those who admire and want to maintain the beautiful animals with their working ability and some of these people both show their dogs and work their dogs in competition with animals bred specifically for either working or showing. Another approach is to link the gundog character/temperament to its working genes. Everyone, the argument goes, likes gundogs because they are cheerful and friendly. For this reason they are favourites as family pets. The claim is that they are like this because they’ve been bred so; the friendly outgoing character is essential to working with other dogs and humans. The fear is that if retrievers are bred for appearance alone without regard to working, the familiar temperament will decline. In short the pet owner might say something very like the third-camp position. The pet owner would probably reckon that if it doesn’t look like a retriever and hasn’t a retriever’s temperament, it isn’t a retriever.

Among those interested in working retrievers, the ambition is to make-up a field trial champion. This is achieved by winning field trials. These are competitions in which dogs are sent to retrieve freshly shot game which has been left lying to facilitate the trial. (Here) It’s a demanding standard and judges make it so. The handlers direct their dogs – often at a considerable distance – by whistles and hand signals. A successful retrieve is when the dog picks the game and returns it to hand.

The rationale is that field trials identify the very best working dogs which can then be used for breeding.

At this point I’d expect that some readers with no knowledge of gundogs will have spotted the problem. It’s this: field trials identify the dogs that are best at field trials. The question turns to the degree to which the trials are a good or an adequate test of working ability. Moreover, the nature of the work, as will emerge below, can be questioned.

Now a very tetchy debate opens up. Triallers argue that a trial IS a typical day out shooting and that the winning dog is clearly the best working dog. Others who don’t attend trials but who work their dogs picking-up (retrieving) at a driven shoot (Here) or rough shooting argue that the trialling dog is too controlled or even poorly built to impress at a day’s shooting. Essentially they are saying that a trial and a day’s shooting are very different. My view on this particular debate is that the two activities are indeed very different. However, I’ve seen no evidence that a trialling dog is anything less than very good when working at a shoot. My view in other words is that while a trial doesn’t bear a very close resemblance to a shooting day, trialling dogs are at least competent and often wonderful dogs to have at a shoot. Incidentally, the same goes for the summer working tests (here) when retrievers fetch dummies because the game season is closed; the same trialling dogs tend to win. Oddly enough, despite the identical correlation, I’ve never heard it argued that working tests on dummies can identify the best dogs.

Recently I was out “shooing” wayward pheasants back towards their pens (Here) with Mary Murray of Riverrun Chesapeakes (Her blog is here) and we did a lot of talking. (That woman is a mine of information.) What was on my mind was the making of the retriever breeds and what they were for. Because of my recent contact with Chesapeakes, I came to see what I’d read about: they are much less, let’s say, demonstrative than Flatcoats. Now, it has seemed clear to me for some time that a gundog’s character/temperament is created along with its working ability, e.g. you can’t have a dog among other dogs and among humans unless it is reasonably sociable.

However, the Chesapeake was required to do something very unlike that asked of the other retrievers: he/she was required to guard the wildfowler’s boat when it was left unattended. This “guarding” seems very much a characteristic of the breed and clearly if it is ignored or bred out, the breed will be changed. (No,no,no, I’m not saying that the Chesapeake is aggressive and needs to be treated with caution. That’s not my limited experience of hanging out with them. “Aggression” involves going forward; “Guarding” involves staying put.)

It struck me that if one were interested in maintaining the Chesapeake away from its Bay (Here) and commercial wildfowling, one would have to devise tests/trials that reflect what the dog was created to do. However, these days most – though not all – tests/trials are derived from the driven shoot. While of course the Chesapeake can compete in these, they very likely do not constitute an adequate or completely relevant test.

If I had written that last sentence a week ago, it would have appeared thus: While of course the Chesapeake can compete in these, they very likely do not constitute an adequate or completely relevant test and they equally likely confer a distinct advantage on the retriever breeds created for driven shoots. What has changed, what has upset my line of thinking?

It’s this: the driven pheasant shoot, the battue, (Here) seems to have arrived in England after 1860. (Here) Now, if one allows a couple of decades for the practice to become widespread, an odd thought begins to form: most or possibly all of the retriever breeds were established before the driven pheasant shoot became commonplace. It may be the standard workplace for a retriever today but it doesn’t seem possible that it is what they were bred to do. Sure, they’ve adapted to it and they are working well but it may not be what is required to keep the essentials and particularly the essential differences of the breeds.

Two thoughts emerge. If all retriever work were the same, there would not be the number of different breeds – especially on one island, Britain. Secondly, so very, very much of the breeding goes back to water dogs but water tends to be scarce at the battue. (I’m becoming overly fond of that bit of French!) Mind you, many of the best Labradors in Ireland spend a great deal of their time in lakes and bogs. My friend, Stevie, is from the English midlands but he has taken to bogs and water like it answers some old calling.

This leads towards a conclusion that would be quite upsetting for many of those who work their retrievers. It would seem that the work they do today and the competition exercises which are based on them may be failing to test the breeds for the purposes for which they were intended. Certainly there are driven shoots – lots of them – where the birds come down in rough and inaccessible places but against that I’ve been asked in a field trial to send my dog for a bird that I’d normally walk out a pick up myself (I should add that I was always grateful to a judge for a handy retrieve!) and in working tests ludicrously easy retrieves over ground not far from lawn quality are often used to separate dogs on equal scores. These dogs were bred to find game on ground that requires exceptional scenting ability, on ground that is not easily accessible to humans, from boggy ground and water, and to work relatively independently, knowing the job better than their handler.

It may not be important that today’s dogs be brought back to face work of this kind but I just can’t see these wonderful breeds remaining relatively unchanged if this does not happen. I think it would be worth the effort to change today’s rules to ensure that it does happen.

I use FB quite a lot. I behave there much like I do in the wider world. I use it to stay in touch with family, friends and acquaintances. I’m kept informed of events. I see and share interesting pictures. I really enjoy the spoofing and slagging of some very bright people. Significantly, I also participate in debates there. Now, if “debate” has any meaning, at least some of my FB fiends must have views quite different to mine.

Here’s an interesting proposition: As social media increasingly replace the open web for many people, those among them who value debate, who recognise their need to be confronted by contrary, challenging viewpoints, will have to choose at least some of their on-line friends very deliberately. Because a constant, unrelieved, cosy consensus is not what they want, they may have to seek out antagonistic friends. Perhaps I mean agonistic friends but let’s not quibble.

I’ve been a student of Political Communication for a long time now – since I was introduced to it by Brian Farrell (David’s dad) the best part of thirty years ago. I’d be embarrassed to say how long it took me to realise that I was studying Citizenship.

The conventional view is that there are two very basic approaches to being a citizen: the liberal approach and the republican approach. The liberal wants to choose privacy, to be left alone to enjoy life untroubled by debates, public controversy, politics generally, and wants to be informed only if decisions are to be made which might affect that private way of living. The republican by contrast wants to be involved in all matters affecting the direction of the republic. The two approaches of course are no more than models – extreme ends of a spectrum of participation. However, a citizen cannot avoid taking a decision on roughly what is to be their degree of participation and by implication what ought to be the practice of others.

By inclination I find myself well over towards the republican end. I try to be tolerant of those who want to avoid involvement or to keep it to a minimum and I try to encourage citizens – especially younger citizens – to be discursive, argumentative, involved. This tends to annoy those who would prefer a quieter life and it draws them into what they most want to avoid: a controversy and a basic one at that. They argue that no one wants to hear contrary information and argument, and that those who hold contrary views should keep them to themselves.

Now, in the period dominated by mass media – i.e. before the arrival of ICTs – this dispute centred on the concept of public service. One view was that the market should determine content. If consumers created a demand for news, controversy, opinions, challenges, then a supplier would meet that demand. If not, then there was simply no demand and to insist on supplying such material was authoritarian waste. The opposing view was that this content constituted a public good and in the event of a market failing to deliver, supply should be secured by regulation or by a state provider, e.g. a national public broadcaster.

Things have changed considerably as the web – especially social media and apps – has grown in significance.  Nowadays the web can be essentially liberal in that content is increasingly tailored to suit the individual. What the individual requires is determined by looking at real preferences expressed in purchases and on-line activity. With the help of algorithms a person on-line need never be troubled by the new, the contrary, the challenging. Indeed on FB a click will remove from Friends anyone likely to disagree, question or challenge in any way.[1]

While social media provide a communication environment which is the liberal citizen’s dream, they make life difficult for the republican citizen. Their design protects the user from the new, the challenging, and the serendipitous. It could be argued that while people increasingly leave older media and come to rely on social media, their attention will be drawn to a rich array of exciting material recommended by friends. However, that would happen only if at least some friends were not of a like mind. No, a citizen who chooses to rely on social media and who wants to participate in public controversy – i.e. who really does want to be a republican – will have to make an effort.

The republican citizen on FB will have to examine his/her list of friends, likes etc. specifically with a view to being challenged. He/she will be aware that while talking to like-minded people about agreeable or personal matters is important and pleasurable, it is not enough. The republican citizen needs Facebook friends and contacts with whom to have strong disagreements. There is just one way to address that need: seek out those with whom one disagrees or those who are likely to say or do something new and challenging and send them a friend request.

However, the republican on FB will run into a problem. The problem is that not all – perhaps very few – putative antagonistic friends will want debate. The republican will learn that liberal citizenship is probably the majority position. It may come as a surprise that dislike of challenge is not confined to conservatives. Many who take up seemingly progressive positions don’t like it either. The republican will have to cope with disappointments. The friend who puts forward interesting ideas but “unfriends” (or should it be “defriends”?) anyone who posts a counter argument regarded as threatening to his/her dogma or assumed status will have to be written off and replaced.

Decades after Herbert Marcuse spoke of the role of media in closing down the universe of discourse an almost perfect medium for tedious liberal communication has developed. Of course it doesn’t signal the end of discourse, politics, participation but it does mean that a republican will have to assume greater responsibility for creating his or her own debating chamber.


[1] I’ve restricted this discussion to social media but the use of apps takes the user a further step away from the riches of the open web.

Here’s Vincent’s piece marking Rousseau’s 300th birthday. http://www.politico.ie/irish-politics/8644-rousseau-distrust-representative-democracy-well-founded.html

There are two basic arguments for the move away from direct democracy to representative democracy. Firstly, there’s the numbers argument: The population is too large for everyone to attend the meeting, so we’ll elect representatives. There is a debate emerging on changes being made possible by the ICTs but I don’t want to pursue it here.

The second argument is generally forgotten. This is the argument that taking part in informed debate requires a level of education, absorption of facts and arguments, deliberation and judgement, and that all of this is so time consuming that we have to professionalise. However, representative democracy shouldn’t lock the masses out of the consideration of great issues because we have media to promote and relay the information and arguments to the citizens, facilitating a functioning public sphere.

The whole thing goes off the rails when the representatives don’t deliberate and argue, the media don’t demand deliberation and argument, and the citizens are generally content with political gossip.

It used to be possible to contrast the liberal notion of citizenship with its more participative republican rival. The liberal citizen would like to be left to a comfortable private life unconcerned – apart from voluntary work – with public affairs. The republican citizen would like to be involved in all matters of controversy concerning the republic. Something different has now emerged or re-emerged: the peasant.

Of course I’m being provocative by using the word “peasant”. I could come up with an obscure term that would offend no one and would hide the connection with a genuinely peasant approach to politics.

Peasant societies were characterised by inequality, acceptance and occasional revolts. Rulers knew that there were limits. Peasants made demands. A little change here and a little change there kept the system going until …    I could write a long essay on the emergence of the modern world but I’ll spare you.

The point is that we now have a considerable degree of acceptance that there is a “political class” which is seen to be essentially bad and all powerful but which can be frightened into concessions on “issues” organised and defined by “activists” who “work on the ground” or “in the communities” to “raise awareness”. This leaves the universal approaches of socialism, liberalism, conservatism and their derivatives seemingly irrelevant.

When someone says that they reject right and left, that the political class is all the same, he/she should be taken very seriously. It is an expression of post-political beliefs reinforced by media professionals who deride politicians, see no need for rigorous political discourse and treat all information and argument equally. That person who rejected left and right might be happy to be labelled, say, “a post-politics activist” but would very likely go ape at “peasant” or “peasant organiser”.

There is course another view: that what we are looking at is complex capitalism and again a whole other essay beckons. Suffice it to say that Marx knew a peasant when he saw one!

 

I’m back a few days from a short holiday in Monte Estoril, Portugal. That’s a lovely little town between Estoril and Cascais. At the bottom of the hill there’s the railway station and the sea but between the two there’s something really interesting, something that would be regulated beyond use in Ireland. I’m talking about a wide promenade that stretches some miles from Cascais to Azarujinha Cove.

Yes we have promenades and walks in Ireland and we have parks aplenty but increasingly they are dominated by the rules of joyless NANNY! In Ireland a public walkway or park would typically be signed thus:

No horses

All dogs must be kept on leads

No football

No cycling

No skateboards

No smiling

Ok, I made up the last one but there are often other bans and restrictions on normal enjoyment of open space.

Contrast this with the promenade in Portugal. There were dogs, cyclists, skateboarders, runners, walkers, kids having kickarounds, people in bars and restaurants, lying out in the sun, swimmers, frisbee players etc. etc. Were we mired in dog shit and in fear of being mangled by crazed cyclists? Well, there was some dog dirt until it was cleaned up and I did see a segway clip a wall – its rider took a tumble but was helped by those nearby.  However, it needs to be emphasised that people, animals and activities shared the relatively confined space without difficulty. People were tolerant and courteous; they were unafraid of each other or pets. Sure, there were rules but they were designed to increase the uses to which the promenade could be put.

Incidentally, cyclists brought their bikes on to the train and cycled off down the platform when they alighted.

It seems to me that Ireland is increasingly an intolerant and unfree place to live. Ordinary pleasures are restricted by petty rules driven by a daft, authoritarian desire to eliminate all risks. Anything that could possibly lead to a problem or an accident is likely to be banned.

It is not liberals but socialists who should do most to stop and then reduce our over-government. I say this because socialists rely on state power to tackle inequality and a range of social ills and it is socialist reform which will be most damaged by a loss of public confidence or even a rise in public antagonism to regulation. Silly, petty rules discredit the constructive use of state power. It is time to review all of our rules. Any rule, for which a truly compelling reason cannot be advanced, should be deleted. A start could be made by removing from our public areas those oppressive signs which outlaw simple pleasures.

Incidentally, an acquaintance of mine had an Official walk about a mile of deserted Sligo beach in order to tell him that his dog wasn’t allowed swim but must be kept on a lead. And another, in a park close to where I live I watched as an official drove his pick-up truck across a field in order to prevent a seven year old girl from riding her bike. This is madness. Stop it. We need to be closer to Portugal than Portrane.

Here is an article by Eileen O’Brien in The Irish Times of May 22nd 2012. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0522/1224316501691.html

She is a teacher troubled by her past, “To every child I struck when I was teacher … sorry.” She invites victims to contact her so that she might offer individual apologies and “to open some sort of dialogue on the subject.” The intention here is not to make little of her public contrition. What she has done is brave and sadly unprecedented. There is, however, a problem with what she says.

The article could be naively accepted as a decent woman apologising for her participation in brutal behaviour which was permitted by the state. She is claiming not only that she regrets what she did but that what she did was permitted. The truth is that in this article she admits violating the rules governing her performance as a teacher and she should face sanction.

Firstly, she refers to her activities in the 70s and 80s. It needs to be established just how far into the 80s she went because corporal punishment has been prohibited in schools since 1982. Interestingly, teachers’ immunity from criminal prosecution was not removed until the passing  of the Offences Against the Person (Non-Fatal) Act in 1997, article 24 of which states: “The rule of law under which teachers are immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils is hereby abolished.”

Secondly and on this there is certainty, she explicitly admits to breaching Department of Education rules. She describes keeping her stick available as a threat and for use on children. This despite a clear Department rule: “No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.” (The other rules re corporal punishment can be found here: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/rewarding-guilty-teachers/)

It is usual for teachers who beat children to offer in their defence that it was common and approved at the time. It was certainly common but equally certainly it was highly regulated and those regulations were violated. It would be preposterous to accept by way of explanation that teachers weren’t aware of the rules; anyone in any job has an obligation to be aware of the regulations governing their post.

It is unacceptable that any public servant who flouted state rules should remain in employment or remain in receipt of any pension attaching to their job.

 

Think about the following. It’s from Noel Whelan’s piece in the Irish Times of Saturday, May 12th.  He’s referring to the BAI report re Primetime Investigates but the added emphasis is mine.

“Among the report’s most important revelations is that, contrary to some media reports, the key decision to proceed with the broadcast was not made on the hoof.  A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place the previous Friday, including the producer and reporter of the programme, the executive producer of Prime Time Investigates, the editor of RTÉ current affairs and the director of RTÉ news, together with legal department representatives.

There was unanimous agreement to proceed among production and editorial staff despite awareness of Fr. Reynolds’s willingness to take a paternity test. They were convinced their story was accurate, and made a series of ‘highly subjective assumptions, which served to reinforce their certainty’”. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982387.html )

I’ve already written (https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-prime-time-scandal-needs-plain-talk-and-a-realisation-that-management-practices-and-systems-are-seldom-unique/) about Irish journalism’s failure to call a spade a spade in commenting on this mess. There’s only so much refuge to be found in “groupthink”, “hubris” and ineffective management. Publishing an allegation of paternity about a man offering to take a paternity test was (Say the word!) stupid.  My piece also raises the question of utterly basic management and it is to this that I want to return.

Look again at the half dozen or so words to which I added emphasis: “A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place” .  The words sit there attracting not even their author’s comment, their significance lost. Those present at that meeting have many fine qualities, are high achievers and are people of ability but that they sat through a formal meeting without seeing the need to have a record of what transpired is alarming. Now, a meeting might have been called at which it was made clear that it was “unofficial”, that it was “just a chat among colleagues” and which didn’t seriously address the issue. This would attract a range of other criticism but it wouldn’t be quite so (Here comes the word again!) stupid or signal a complete absence of routine management.

The innocence of those present is as telling as the lack of subsequent comment. It suggests that slipshod practice is commonplace. Now that’s a depressing thought with implications beyond restoring trust in journalism.