Originally Posted by free-man
I was under the impression that Defamation cases are specifically excluded from Legal Aid, did something change in the law recently on this. Even if it was included, the means testing would exclude a large proportion of society from it being entirely free.
I would however be somewhat in agreement with your other points on disclosure.
Yes I agree, if we're to curb the fraudulent welfare claims then this level of transparency would be welcome. We would also have a timely and up to date figure for the unemployment register which would not be open to spin and manipulation by politicians.
Fair enough no? If your working you can pay it and still take a defamation to the courts (if you feel you will win). If your not working your not going to be defamed for abuse of public sector expenses.. right?
That is, in fact, a different argument, which may be why you find the logic flawed.
There are two possible arguments here:
1. that oversight of named employee's expenses will keep them honest
2. that it's public money, and therefore we have the right as taxpayers to see what is done with it.
The problem is that argument 1 applies equally to being able to see your taxes, welfare claims, etc - anywhere where what you say has an impact on the public purse - while argument 2 applies to any public money - so, the details of any grants, doles, etc.
What we don't have is an argument that applies to public sector workers only, and that completely overrides any right to privacy they have.
In this case it is in fact a form of settlement.
That's not at issue - what's at issue is whether you need to be able to immediately see the names of the people claiming the expenses, or whether that unfairly invades their privacy and opens them up to baseless speculation and defamation.
It's impossible for anyone to claim that it does not open the named civil servants up to baseless speculation, because that's already happened on this thread.
The costs of a libel case can easily hit a few hundred grand - that's not the cost of losing, but the cost of taking the case. Essentially, only the wealthy can afford to take such cases:
Libel laws are theoretically under review, but that's been the case for a good few years now. As it stands, though, no ordinary citizen can realistically afford to start a libel case. They have no recourse or shield but the care of others.Citizens who feel wronged by press coverage relating to them have no option but to go before the Courts. The high cost of litigation means that many individuals who have genuine grievances cannot afford to defend their right to a good name as no Civil Legal Aid exists for libel.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
There was no need to publish the names of the people concerned. As it was structured data they could easily have been removed. I hope the people concerned take it up with the data protection commisioner. Why should your name and where you work and expenses be published on the Internet? It's a violatin of privacy and data retentin. The responsibility for violating privacy is with Gavin Sheridan.
I note that Mr. Sheridan is now working with Mark Little. Will Mr Sheridan be publishing the names and expenses for RTE too? If not, why not? Maybe follow up with the FOI of expenses incurred by RTE personnel in writing their various books while using publicly-paid for resources?
It seems this is the latest in hypocritical FOI requests from Irish bloggers. Mulley too with his serial FOI requests doesn't examine RTE news department expenditure. On the countrary, he praises them (Lisa Perrera one to watch?), presumably out of commerical interest.
And David Coughlan is right. There will be severe repercussions for FOI requests now. And rightly so.
The publication of individual names is of no relevance to anybody who has a genuine interest in public sector / public spending reform.
'Named civil servant Joe Bloggs claims €250 in 'home' mileage' tells says nothing other than the fact that Joe Bloggs got €250.
Where did he go? Was there a public transport alternative? Did any other colleagues claim mileage for the same trip when they could have car pooled?? Was the trip absolutely necessary or was it just a handy junket to clock up some sweet mileage €€s??? Haven't a clue!
We cannot judge whether this claim was 'legitimate' or not.
On the other hand, civil service mileage rates published here ([]Circular 13/2008: Motor Travel Rates - Department of Finance - Government of Ireland) is a real eye opener. It is cear that, legitimate or not, civil service mileage rates are far too generous and in serious need of revision.
Publishing lists of named individuals is a distraction from the bigger picture. It tells us nothing.
Can we agree that anything paid for by the taxpayer should be open to scrutiny, this includes welfare and public sector expenses but not taxes of any individual.
I'm arguing the case for transparency in all areas where the taxpayer is footing the bill. This includes welfare payments, public sector expenses etc
If this in fact the case with libel then of course this system needs to be reformed too. If all that happened out of this debate was to allow any citizen to clear their name if defamed then it is a positive step forward.
Until the libel laws are made more inclusive then I would agree to leave off the lower grade names.
who didn't release the justification field the gov.
What does the Irish President spend their time doing. Work in progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Good luck with trying to bring any case to the courts on public servant salary. You'll run out of funds before you get within an asses roar of the courts.
You seem to have misunderstood. I wasn't asking for your theoretical agreement. I was asking that you put your theory into practice, and publicly declare what state funds you have received.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote