Moriarty was right to judge

[farnaby]

We are failing to stamp out corruption because we refuse to let those investigating it make ethical judgements about those under investigation.

Some criticism has come Moriarty's way for his use of unabashed use of terminology that could be damaging to a person's reputation. Some, by no means Lowry or O'Brien supporters, express concern that a tribunal should only reveal and report the facts in a dispassionate manner and leave ethical judgement to others. This stance, while seeming to show admirable balance and objectivity, will result in the continuance of corruption and nepotism in Irish society.

I posted this in another Lowry-related thread:

How can you investigate corruption if you drain the investigation of the ethical terminology needed to identify it?

Whether or not you believe in the fact-value gap, facts do not speak for themselves. We have had far too much legalistic over-sensitivity to condemning wrong-doing by our representatives and business leaders. We have allowed Ahern, Lowryand O'Brien to name but a few to use any means at their disposal to obfuscate and create doubts over selected facts to dismiss the whole case against them. And if we allow it to continue we will be far the worse off for it.

I applaud the judge for actually judging, using a set of values the majority of us share - that public representatives should not evade tax, or abuse their position for financial betterment, or show favour to particular businessmen for whatever reason.

http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...t-staff-5.html

We are conditioned by liberal (in the widest possible sense) thinking to avoid making any judgemental comment on individuals, in case we by conscious or unconscious prejudice denigrate their character unfairly. We have emerged from a society that was too quick to judge and thus exclude people (on the basis of Catholic morality), and so have swung to the another extreme of 'who do you think you are to judge me'. And we allow the powerful to adopt the principle that if it's not illegal, it's alright.

There is a middle ground. In theory we as a state and nation share clear republican values and virtues that are about more than the letter of the law. Place the actions of Ahern, Lowry et al beside (small-r) republican ideals and watch them squirm.

If a judge who spends 14 years investigating an instance of corruption (having ro****************************************** after ro****************************************** placed before him) cannot make a strong ethical judgement on those under investigation then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

good post farnaby. +1

[darkhorse]

Some criticism has come Moriarty's way for his use of unabashed use of terminology that could be damaging to a person's reputation. Some, by no means Lowry or O'Brien supporters, express concern that a tribunal should only reveal and report the facts in a dispassionate manner and leave ethical judgement to others. This stance, while seeming to show admirable balance and objectivity, will result in the continuance of corruption and nepotism in Irish society.

Moriarty was forced to use such unabashed terminology to make his case. The reason being that there are so few facts and witnesses to support his conclusions. Hence he had to bulk it up with pages upon pages of weak circumstantial evidence, his own assumptions and inferences and personalised attack.

[Ringsend Charlie]

The problem is that the Republican values that existed in the founding of the state were whittled away in the 20's when many Republicans in CnaG became persona non grata. The state in the 20's started out as excessively deferential to the wealthy and the powerful. Dev added in the church in the 30's and did however bring in some improvements but still continued the downward descent. There has not been one Govt. since 1970 that does not have the severest blackmarks against them, the worst being Cosgraves Govt in the 70's and the Ahern years and recent one in joint second place.

Equity before the law and an end to cronyism, now wouldn't that be nice.

[farnaby]

Moriarty was forced to use such unabashed terminology to make his case. The reason being that there are so few facts and witnesses to support his conclusions. Hence he had to bulk it up with pages upon pages of weak circumstantial evidence, his own assumptions and inferences and personalised attack.

What else can a corruption investigation uncover except circumstantial evidence? The acts of giving someone money and that person doing something beneficial for the giver cannot be causally linked without mind-reading or a receipt! Denying the validity of such evidence and making no attempt to interpret it equates to a failure to investigate corruption. It is impossible to prove corruption like one would prove a scientific theory but that is the standard Ahern, Lowry and co want us to apply, knowing full well it will fail.

As for the accusation 'personalised attacks', that is today the last refuge of the scoundrel. Again, any negative judgement can be dismissed as an attack as if to do so makes it unjustified. I am quite happy for the judge to make a personalised attack on Lowry because he is a person who deserves it!

[darkhorse]

What else can a corruption investigation uncover except circumstantial evidence? The acts of giving someone money and that person doing something beneficial for the giver cannot be causally linked without mind-reading or a receipt! Denying the validity of such evidence and making no attempt to interpret it equates to a failure to investigate corruption. It is impossible to prove corruption like one would prove a scientific theory but that is the standard Ahern, Lowry and co want us to apply, knowing full well it will fail.

Not true at all. Most if not all corruption cases worthy of the name will provide a 'smoking gun' and and at least one witness to corroberate the corruption story.
In this case the judge didnt have a single witness to verify his conclusions - all 17 civil servants involved, 5 Ministers, 2 Barristers and Professor Michael Andersen among others completely reject his findings. Not did he have a proven money trail or a 'smoking gun'. DOB proved that he purchased a property in Spain and, in an unrelated transaction later, ML borrowed money from the same third party which he later returned in full - again proven fact. The Judge chose to distort these facts to fit in with his own idea of what happened.

[Desperate Dan]

We are failing to stamp out corruption because we refuse to let those investigating it make ethical judgements about those under investigation.

Some criticism has come Moriarty's way for his use of unabashed use of terminology that could be damaging to a person's reputation. Some, by no means Lowry or O'Brien supporters, express concern that a tribunal should only reveal and report the facts in a dispassionate manner and leave ethical judgement to others. This stance, while seeming to show admirable balance and objectivity, will result in the continuance of corruption and nepotism in Irish society.

I posted this in another Lowry-related thread:



http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...t-staff-5.html

We are conditioned by liberal (in the widest possible sense) thinking to avoid making any judgemental comment on individuals, in case we by conscious or unconscious prejudice denigrate their character unfairly. We have emerged from a society that was too quick to judge and thus exclude people (on the basis of Catholic morality), and so have swung to the another extreme of 'who do you think you are to judge me'. And we allow the powerful to adopt the principle that if it's not illegal, it's alright.

There is a middle ground. In theory we as a state and nation share clear republican values and virtues that are about more than the letter of the law. Place the actions of Ahern, Lowry et al beside (small-r) republican ideals and watch them squirm.

If a judge who spends 14 years investigating an instance of corruption (having ro****************************************** after ro****************************************** placed before him) cannot make a strong ethical judgement on those under investigation then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

First class.
I hope Mr Moriarty an co. realize that vast majority of people support and believe him. No matter what that little runt obrien spews out is unbelievable. The runt has been caught with his pal LOWry with their pants down.

[Eye of Angkor]

First class.
I hope Mr Moriarty an co. realize that vast majority of people support and believe him. No matter what that little runt obrien spews out is unbelievable. The runt has been caught with his pal LOWry with their pants down.

Spot on.

Those who are sidling up to O'Brien in the media should not be forgotten either. No wonder there has been such toleration of corruption in this State for so long!

[leftsoc]

Spot on.

Those who are sidling up to O'Brien in the media should not be forgotten either. No wonder there has been such toleration of corruption in this State for so long!

I agree totally. Those in the media who are defending O'Brien and implicitly condoning the villification of a decent man doing his duty (Moriarity) think they are being cute hoors, looking after their futures. We as consumers and thus as their ultimate paymasters, should not forget any of the spin being trotted out to justify O'Brien.

Everyone should write to the editors, marketers and the Press council about each and every incidence of indefensible arguments in favour of O'Brien.

[hammer]

I believe Moriarty absolutely.

I`m sick of word games.

The coincidences are ASTONISHING