Sunday Tribune 26 April
Gary Douche should not have died in Mountjoy. Those are the words of the man who beat him to death there in 2006. Nobody should die in Mountjoy, but they do, as in other prisons across our state.
Douche was in a holding cell to protect him from other prisoners. His killer, Stephen Egan, was there because the jail was overcrowded. He had been transferred from the Central Mental Hospital without his anti-psychotic drugs. I'll spare you the details of what happened.
We only ever hear what passes as life in Irish jails when someone like Gary Douche is killed. Attacks happen every day. As of 9 March, we had 3,790 prisoners and only 3,611 beds in our powder-keg prisons. They are operating at 105% of their capacity. While Douche lay dying in Mountjoy, there were 526 other inmates sleeping in the jail which had a capacity for just 470. There are now 633.
Four thousand prisoners doesn't seem like an overwhelming number to deal with. So why do we have overcrowding? It costs the state an average of €97,700 a year to house a prisoner. Do the maths: we have overcrowding because we're strapped for cash.
Justice minister Dermot Ahern made two announcements last week. The first was the publication of the Fines Bill 2009. At any given time, there are about 15 people in prison for non-payment of fines. The Bill allows defaulters pay by instalment as an alternative to jail.
The second heralded a plan to rehabilitate sex offenders. Prisoners who volunteer for therapy will be released early and electronically tagged. This will incentivise serious offenders to undergo treatment.
Both plans have merits and while I agree with the first, I don't with the second. Sex offenders are notorious recidivists and should do their time. Out of 578 released since 2003, only 42 had completed the Sex Offender Programme.
The optics are fine: TV licence fee defaulters stay out of jail and offenders get treatment. Look closer and you'll notice something both plans have in common: they free up prison space. Does the government believe releasing paedophiles is the answer to overcrowding? Or releasing short-term prisoners? Last year, anyone serving less than 20 months in Mountjoy's women's unit was released to make room for more serious offenders.
Or how about letting potential killers out on bail?
On 8 April, Ahern said that our bail laws can't be tightened because of prison overcrowding. There's no room for suspects who might not be granted bail. That's an admission of defeat.
Ahern knows that 25% of all serious crime is committed by people on bail (CSO, 2008). This includes rape and murder. Between 2004 and mid-2008, 90,000 serious crimes were committed by bailed suspects.
In 2007, despite garda objections, Tipperary man Jerry McGrath was granted bail after being arrested for assaulting a five-year-old girl. A month later, McGrath murdered mother-of-two Sylvia Roche Kelly. Her husband has accused the state of giving McGrath freedom which he used to carry out the killing.
Ahern has linked reform of the bail laws to overcrowding. His solution is early release. This will, inevitably, breed more crime. Our penal system is a revolving door which will soon be spinning faster than a government press secretary.
Every time the overcrowding issue comes up, the standard answer is 'Thornton Hall'. This 2,200-bed super-prison will solve everything. The problem is, Thornton Hall isn't being built. It's been "in the pipeline" for the past three years due to negotiation problems with the builders. There's a first: disharmony between the government and the construction industry.
The Prison Service can move quickly when it needs to, though. It's currently being investigated for awarding €100m of contracts to one building company – Glenbeigh Construction – without putting them out to public tender. The justice department secretary general, Sean Aylward, has defended the service saying it had to move quickly due to… overcrowding. Where there's a will there's a way.
Last week the government scrapped the unused electronic voting system that has cost us over €51m. Then there's the pay-offs to junior ministers and bonuses to 'veteran' TDs. All the money it has wasted could have been put towards Thornton Hall or some interim solution, like reopening Spike Island or the Curragh detention centre.
The former military camps at Rockhill House, Lifford, Monaghan and Longford could be used as 'boot camps' for young offenders, like Thorn Cross centre in Warrington. This is a voluntary scheme where prisoners sign up to learn respect and self-esteem. They are given construction courses leading to placements with local builders. If we had an Irish version, an offender could end up building Thornton Hall rather than residing in it.
The crime rate is rising and the government must protect us, inside and – more importantly – outside prison. Opening the gates is not the solution, minister. Stop wringing your hands about the bail laws and dreaming of Thornton Hall. Use the idle facilities we already have. Continuing to pack prisoners in will result in more Gary Douches. Continuing to let them out will result in more Sylvia Roche Kellys.
We don't want any more like them on our conscience. Find the space now.
dkenny@tribune.ie
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Stagg's debate about legalising cannabis is stone mad
Sunday Tribune 19 April
It might have been the greatest economic plan ever conceived. Then again, it might not. Last week, I suggested raffling the country's toxic assets to raise money. I suggested we call this lottery The Blotto. As stupid ideas go, I thought it couldn't be beaten. It has.
Labour's Emmet Stagg has now suggested that the government legalise cannabis and tax it. The country should go from stoney broke to stoned and broke. Hurray.
Last Tuesday, he debated the idea with campaigner Grainne Kenny of Europe Against Drugs. 'Debate' is not the right word – it was more of a 'scrap'. Grainne lit into him, firing off facts about health, etc, while Emmet countered by calling her a fanatic.
He said he didn't know of anyone who died from cannabis use and that "drinking too much milk" is bad for you. Grainne boiled over, accusing him of not having done any research.
He called her a dictator. Grainne dug into him again. At the end, it was clear that, in Stagg's mind, he had beaten the 'mad oul wan' (my words, not his).
The mad oul wan is my mother, by the way. She told me she was annoyed with herself for losing her temper. As a hack, I've never commented on the drugs debate or defended Grainne before – she's capable of defending herself.
I will say, though, that her passion comes from the experience of quietly helping families with drugs problems. She sees hardships that most politicians only read about.
To tell you the truth, the drugs debate is not something I lie awake thinking about. I have other things to worry about – like paying bills. Stagg's comments have forced me to go on the record here and give an opinion. It's just that, an opinion, and it may be wrong. I don't agree with legalisation. This is not because the mammy says drugs are bad for me, but because I believe it's illogical.
I drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and I accept the evidence that both are bad for me. I would expect anybody who smokes dope or promotes its legalisation to say the same.
Cannabis abusers, for example, run the risk of becoming psychotic. Here's a statistic: the number of teens presenting with mental health problems rose 22% (between April 2003/2004) after the UK downgraded cannabis. It has since 'upgraded' it again. As Stagg points out, this country already has problems with alcohol and tobacco.
Department of Health figures released last week show that one in five of us have been assaulted by a drunk. Over a quarter of us binge drink once a week. Cigarette smoking kills 7,000 people a year according to the Irish Cancer Society. Cannabis also intoxicates and can cause lung cancer. Where is the logic in legalising it, and increasing its usage, when we already have a problem with legal drugs?
Why would a government that is effectively outlawing cigarettes legalise cannabis? To beat the drug dealers? That's illogical too. The dealers will just sell other drugs. Do we then legalise cocaine? Or ecstasy? Or heroin?
At what age can you start smoking cannabis? Stoners don't generally make good students, so do we limit its use to those who have finished secondary school? Age restriction doesn't work with alcohol, so it won't work with cannabis. Do we bother with age restriction at all?
How much cannabis can you smoke before you are legally intoxicated? How many units/joints will put you over the limit? Will we have a 'joint' Oireachtas committee to look into all of this?
Of course, not all cannabis smokers will become psychotic or get cancer. They won't all graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will. Cannabis is not a harmless drug and anyone who says it is is either lying or hasn't done their research.
We need a debate on this issue by people who know what they're talking about. Stagg's contribution, last Tuesday, was devoid of any revelations other than "too much milk's bad for you". Children of Ireland, put down the Avonmore and toke on this. I suppose it will be our patriotic duty to get stoned, seeing as how we're doing it for the economy.
Stagg sounds like a man who has heard the words 'election' and 'coalition' blowing in the wind. He wants to raise his profile with young voters and win a portfolio before he retires. If not, and he really believes his drug tax will help the economy, then we can forget about ever electing a credible alternative to this government.
Every day we learn more about the ineptitude that has left us facing a future full of social problems, like rising drug abuse. The country needs hope. We need to know that someone out there has a solution. We don't need Stagg's nonsensical economics undermining that hope.
Eamon Gilmore must now clarify where his party stands on the only issue that concerns me and thousands of prospective voters today – the economy. Is Labour in favour of taxing drugs to fix it? Is that the best your party has to offer us? Is that it?
God help us if it is.
dkenny@tribune.ie
It might have been the greatest economic plan ever conceived. Then again, it might not. Last week, I suggested raffling the country's toxic assets to raise money. I suggested we call this lottery The Blotto. As stupid ideas go, I thought it couldn't be beaten. It has.
Labour's Emmet Stagg has now suggested that the government legalise cannabis and tax it. The country should go from stoney broke to stoned and broke. Hurray.
Last Tuesday, he debated the idea with campaigner Grainne Kenny of Europe Against Drugs. 'Debate' is not the right word – it was more of a 'scrap'. Grainne lit into him, firing off facts about health, etc, while Emmet countered by calling her a fanatic.
He said he didn't know of anyone who died from cannabis use and that "drinking too much milk" is bad for you. Grainne boiled over, accusing him of not having done any research.
He called her a dictator. Grainne dug into him again. At the end, it was clear that, in Stagg's mind, he had beaten the 'mad oul wan' (my words, not his).
The mad oul wan is my mother, by the way. She told me she was annoyed with herself for losing her temper. As a hack, I've never commented on the drugs debate or defended Grainne before – she's capable of defending herself.
I will say, though, that her passion comes from the experience of quietly helping families with drugs problems. She sees hardships that most politicians only read about.
To tell you the truth, the drugs debate is not something I lie awake thinking about. I have other things to worry about – like paying bills. Stagg's comments have forced me to go on the record here and give an opinion. It's just that, an opinion, and it may be wrong. I don't agree with legalisation. This is not because the mammy says drugs are bad for me, but because I believe it's illogical.
I drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and I accept the evidence that both are bad for me. I would expect anybody who smokes dope or promotes its legalisation to say the same.
Cannabis abusers, for example, run the risk of becoming psychotic. Here's a statistic: the number of teens presenting with mental health problems rose 22% (between April 2003/2004) after the UK downgraded cannabis. It has since 'upgraded' it again. As Stagg points out, this country already has problems with alcohol and tobacco.
Department of Health figures released last week show that one in five of us have been assaulted by a drunk. Over a quarter of us binge drink once a week. Cigarette smoking kills 7,000 people a year according to the Irish Cancer Society. Cannabis also intoxicates and can cause lung cancer. Where is the logic in legalising it, and increasing its usage, when we already have a problem with legal drugs?
Why would a government that is effectively outlawing cigarettes legalise cannabis? To beat the drug dealers? That's illogical too. The dealers will just sell other drugs. Do we then legalise cocaine? Or ecstasy? Or heroin?
At what age can you start smoking cannabis? Stoners don't generally make good students, so do we limit its use to those who have finished secondary school? Age restriction doesn't work with alcohol, so it won't work with cannabis. Do we bother with age restriction at all?
How much cannabis can you smoke before you are legally intoxicated? How many units/joints will put you over the limit? Will we have a 'joint' Oireachtas committee to look into all of this?
Of course, not all cannabis smokers will become psychotic or get cancer. They won't all graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will. Cannabis is not a harmless drug and anyone who says it is is either lying or hasn't done their research.
We need a debate on this issue by people who know what they're talking about. Stagg's contribution, last Tuesday, was devoid of any revelations other than "too much milk's bad for you". Children of Ireland, put down the Avonmore and toke on this. I suppose it will be our patriotic duty to get stoned, seeing as how we're doing it for the economy.
Stagg sounds like a man who has heard the words 'election' and 'coalition' blowing in the wind. He wants to raise his profile with young voters and win a portfolio before he retires. If not, and he really believes his drug tax will help the economy, then we can forget about ever electing a credible alternative to this government.
Every day we learn more about the ineptitude that has left us facing a future full of social problems, like rising drug abuse. The country needs hope. We need to know that someone out there has a solution. We don't need Stagg's nonsensical economics undermining that hope.
Eamon Gilmore must now clarify where his party stands on the only issue that concerns me and thousands of prospective voters today – the economy. Is Labour in favour of taxing drugs to fix it? Is that the best your party has to offer us? Is that it?
God help us if it is.
dkenny@tribune.ie
Sunday, April 19, 2009
One way to solve the economic crisis – get Blottoed
Sunday Tribune, 12 April
It is Easter Sunday and I bring you tidings of great joy. That's right, 'great joy', for tomorrow night there will arise from our midst two new millionaires. Hallelujah. On Tuesday morning, when everyone else is glumly listening to Mourning Ireland, two lucky people will be chuckling away under their respective duvets thanks to the National Lottery's Millionaire draw.
Have you bought a ticket? Don't worry if you haven't as I've even better news for you: I have a plan to make us all a few bob and rescue the country from the knacker's yard. It's this: we hold a big raffle. A VERY BIG raffle. The WORLD'S BIGGEST RAFFLE EVER, in fact.
Last Tuesday, Brian Lenihan announced that he's buying a load of useless land and half-finished buildings on our behalf. He calls them "toxic assets". Every day, their value is getting smaller, but someday, someone, somewhere may buy them. That's what he's hoping for, at any rate. My plan is, instead of leaving these "toxic assets" lying idle, we (drum roll, please)… raffle them. As this brilliant idea came to me after a few budget-free scoops, I propose to call this land Lotto, the 'Blotto'.
Here's how it works: Brian is blindfolded (nothing new there) and chooses one toxic deed from the pile in his office. Let's say it's for an unfinished street. This is then put up for the Blotto. Tickets are sold worldwide, priced at €50 each. As there are 80 million people who claim Irish ancestry, that's a guaranteed €4bn already. Then there's the Chinese – they love a gamble and there's a billion of them. There's loads of Africans too. See the potential? Some lucky Blotto player will win a (half-finished) street for €50. They can then sell it back to the developer at a reasonable price and he can finish it off using cheap Irish labour. The state, the winner and the developer all make a profit. The houses are then sold at pre-boom prices. 'Blotto! It could be you!!'
There's even a precedent for Blotto. In 1984, horse trainer Barney Curley raffled his Middleton Park mansion, selling 9,000 tickets at £200 each. Last October, Tony Browne from Corbally, Co Limerick, decided to do the same with his €352,000 home (he reckoned 800 tickets at €500 each would do the trick).
The authorities have played Blotto before as well. In November 2002, Cork City Council raffled 40 homes to 600 people. The pathetic state of the affordable housing scheme was highlighted when the council put the applicants' names in a hat and offered to sell a cut-price house to the first 40 out.
But why stop with toxic assets? We could Blotto places we don't like and are costing us money. Like the gang-ridden 'Island' area of Limerick where the cost of policing is outrageous. We could market it as "a disarming corner of the Shannon estuary with abundant wild life".
Once a month, we could buy special 'Madonna Blotto' tickets, with the winner getting adopted by that nice old lady. Well, what's Malawi got that Ireland hasn't? Apart from more money, of course.
Why not Blotto the entire country? Maybe not – the Germans might win us. Any road, that's my rescue plan. Now consider the government's plan.
The plan is to bleed us dry with new levies and rescue their wealthy friends by buying up their "toxic" land for €90bn. Some of this land may never be eligible for planning permission. What then? Does the government plan to force permission through?
The government believes it's "fair" to spend €90bn cleaning up their friends' mess and then levy people on the minimum wage. That's €18,000 a year. To put that figure in context, during the first 10 months of 2008, €23,000 was spent on serviettes and crockery at Leinster House's catering facilities.
While we are being screwed, the drinks and racing industries are left unscathed. You can't get a job or pay your mortgage, but you can drink yourself to death or gamble your house on the horses. That's an interesting message to send the electorate.
Where were the incentives in this
budget? Why wasn't VAT lowered? If even 1% was chipped off, it might have encouraged those who have money to spend it. As for jobs, if the government manages to dispose of "toxic" land, the only employment generated will be in the construction industry – the same industry that got us into this mess.
Social problems are rising and last week the gardaí said that cutbacks are hampering their ability to respond to calls for help. The government that failed to protect us from the bankers is now failing to protect us from criminals.
Brian Lenihan's bludget is brutal in every sense of the word and, like the regime that spawned it, is utterly devoid of any original ideas. It's the final proof that we need a National Government – fast. It makes the Blotto Plan look positively inspired.
Here's an idea: let's Blotto Lenihan and see how many tickets we sell. I bet we'd shift more if we Blottoed one of those paintings of bare-chested Brian Cowen.
Either way, you're looking at the ultimate booby prize.
It is Easter Sunday and I bring you tidings of great joy. That's right, 'great joy', for tomorrow night there will arise from our midst two new millionaires. Hallelujah. On Tuesday morning, when everyone else is glumly listening to Mourning Ireland, two lucky people will be chuckling away under their respective duvets thanks to the National Lottery's Millionaire draw.
Have you bought a ticket? Don't worry if you haven't as I've even better news for you: I have a plan to make us all a few bob and rescue the country from the knacker's yard. It's this: we hold a big raffle. A VERY BIG raffle. The WORLD'S BIGGEST RAFFLE EVER, in fact.
Last Tuesday, Brian Lenihan announced that he's buying a load of useless land and half-finished buildings on our behalf. He calls them "toxic assets". Every day, their value is getting smaller, but someday, someone, somewhere may buy them. That's what he's hoping for, at any rate. My plan is, instead of leaving these "toxic assets" lying idle, we (drum roll, please)… raffle them. As this brilliant idea came to me after a few budget-free scoops, I propose to call this land Lotto, the 'Blotto'.
Here's how it works: Brian is blindfolded (nothing new there) and chooses one toxic deed from the pile in his office. Let's say it's for an unfinished street. This is then put up for the Blotto. Tickets are sold worldwide, priced at €50 each. As there are 80 million people who claim Irish ancestry, that's a guaranteed €4bn already. Then there's the Chinese – they love a gamble and there's a billion of them. There's loads of Africans too. See the potential? Some lucky Blotto player will win a (half-finished) street for €50. They can then sell it back to the developer at a reasonable price and he can finish it off using cheap Irish labour. The state, the winner and the developer all make a profit. The houses are then sold at pre-boom prices. 'Blotto! It could be you!!'
There's even a precedent for Blotto. In 1984, horse trainer Barney Curley raffled his Middleton Park mansion, selling 9,000 tickets at £200 each. Last October, Tony Browne from Corbally, Co Limerick, decided to do the same with his €352,000 home (he reckoned 800 tickets at €500 each would do the trick).
The authorities have played Blotto before as well. In November 2002, Cork City Council raffled 40 homes to 600 people. The pathetic state of the affordable housing scheme was highlighted when the council put the applicants' names in a hat and offered to sell a cut-price house to the first 40 out.
But why stop with toxic assets? We could Blotto places we don't like and are costing us money. Like the gang-ridden 'Island' area of Limerick where the cost of policing is outrageous. We could market it as "a disarming corner of the Shannon estuary with abundant wild life".
Once a month, we could buy special 'Madonna Blotto' tickets, with the winner getting adopted by that nice old lady. Well, what's Malawi got that Ireland hasn't? Apart from more money, of course.
Why not Blotto the entire country? Maybe not – the Germans might win us. Any road, that's my rescue plan. Now consider the government's plan.
The plan is to bleed us dry with new levies and rescue their wealthy friends by buying up their "toxic" land for €90bn. Some of this land may never be eligible for planning permission. What then? Does the government plan to force permission through?
The government believes it's "fair" to spend €90bn cleaning up their friends' mess and then levy people on the minimum wage. That's €18,000 a year. To put that figure in context, during the first 10 months of 2008, €23,000 was spent on serviettes and crockery at Leinster House's catering facilities.
While we are being screwed, the drinks and racing industries are left unscathed. You can't get a job or pay your mortgage, but you can drink yourself to death or gamble your house on the horses. That's an interesting message to send the electorate.
Where were the incentives in this
budget? Why wasn't VAT lowered? If even 1% was chipped off, it might have encouraged those who have money to spend it. As for jobs, if the government manages to dispose of "toxic" land, the only employment generated will be in the construction industry – the same industry that got us into this mess.
Social problems are rising and last week the gardaí said that cutbacks are hampering their ability to respond to calls for help. The government that failed to protect us from the bankers is now failing to protect us from criminals.
Brian Lenihan's bludget is brutal in every sense of the word and, like the regime that spawned it, is utterly devoid of any original ideas. It's the final proof that we need a National Government – fast. It makes the Blotto Plan look positively inspired.
Here's an idea: let's Blotto Lenihan and see how many tickets we sell. I bet we'd shift more if we Blottoed one of those paintings of bare-chested Brian Cowen.
Either way, you're looking at the ultimate booby prize.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A gag that's not funny... and is a threat to democracy
Sunday Tribune, April 5
Picture this: Bertie Ahern picks up the Sunday Tribune, sees a portrait of himself in the nude on page one and immediately despatches his art dealer with a brown envelope to buy it. Bertie doesn't want an unflattering picture of himself in the public domain. The only aras he wants the public to connect him with is the one in the Park.
Plausible? Highly. True? Unfortunately not. The preceding scenario formed a newspaper's April Fool's gag last week and I'm not ashamed to admit that I fell for it. That's the thing about Bertie – you wouldn't put anything past him. For a man who loves the limelight, he's fiercely protective of his privacy. He doesn't like the papers showing him up. That is probably why, under his stewardship, the VAT on newspapers rose to 13.5% – the highest in Europe (Britain has zero VAT). It probably also explains why his administration published a Privacy Bill in 2006 to curb the power of the press. Naughty press, Fianna Fáil will learn youse.
That bill was subsequently 'parked' to give the now year-old Press Council time to prove itself effective at dealing with media complaints. Last week, another Ahern – Dermot – announced that he is going to introduce the legislation. Why? Because "there seems to be a growing disregard for the privacy of the individual". Note the word "seems". According to who? Who has been calling for a privacy law? Was it Dermot Ahern himself?
Ahern knows the value of privacy. For example, the equality minister now knows it's better to keep his views on homosexuals private. Back in 1993 he agreed with Fine Gael's Brendan McGahon that gays were deviants. Once the press highlighted this, he was branded homophobic.
His dealings with the family of terror chief Michael McKevitt might have been kept private if the press hadn't reported that he forwarded an email on his behalf to Michael McDowell. The press hasn't done Ahern any favours. Could this be personal?
The new law forbids "surveillance", "stalking/harassment" and "disclosure of documentation" – all legitimate weapons in the journalist's armoury. Documents that can't be published will include publicly available material from, among others, county council planning files and the Land Registry Office. Without the disclosure of such documents, the extent of planning corruption in north Dublin may never have come to light.
Without "stalking", the documentary that led to the beef tribunal might not have been made. In that programme, journalist Susan O'Keeffe approaches beef baron Larry Goodman for a comment as he is leaving mass and pursues him until he drives off. Under the new rules, Goodman could have got an injunction and halted production. Similarily, Brendan O'Brien's legendary "stalking" of Martin 'The General' Cahill might not have been aired. The print labours of Veronica Guerin would have been hampered too.
With the new restrictions, Seanie Fitz might be able to get an injunction against a newspaper revealing that he's enjoying a nice holiday in Spain.
The new law states that invasions of privacy are justified when they're in good faith, the public interest and fair. Sounds reasonable? It isn't. It's 'Catch 22': for an invasion of privacy to be justified, you must invade someone's privacy to prove it. However, you can't invade someone's privacy because that's not justified without proof. A reporter who is stymied by an injunction can be found to have broken the rules just because he was unable to finish his investigation.
So, again, who has asked for this privacy law? Take a guess. Last year, Dublin City University released a study which revealed that two-thirds of all privacy complaints over the past 25 years had come from public figures, chiefly politicians.
The hypocrisy at the heart of this law is staggering. In February, minister Ahern was forced to introduce new European legislation requiring telephone operators to store details of all calls made for two years. Under Irish law, they had to store them for three years. All your calls, emails and internet usage are logged by the government. How about a privacy law against that?
Ahern's announcement last week was all the more telling because of its timing. It came just weeks after this newspaper broke the Brian Cowen portraits story. This was a clear threat to the press. It was a slap on the wrist for getting uppity and a direct attack on the fundamental right to freedom of information.
We don't need this law. The press ombudsman is doing a good job of correcting rogue journalism. It's independent, fast and binding. As it's free, the public aren't put off complaining by legal costs. That's good for democracy, unlike privacy laws and VAT on newspapers.
This brings us back to Bertie, as it was his administration that dreamed up this nonsense. When I read the April Fool's portrait gag about him last week, it struck me that the words 'Ahern' and 'gag' were entirely appropriate given the decision to silence the press.
Forget about Cowen: Bertie deserves to be hung in the National Gallery.
I'll start building the scaffold…
dave@davekenny.com
Picture this: Bertie Ahern picks up the Sunday Tribune, sees a portrait of himself in the nude on page one and immediately despatches his art dealer with a brown envelope to buy it. Bertie doesn't want an unflattering picture of himself in the public domain. The only aras he wants the public to connect him with is the one in the Park.
Plausible? Highly. True? Unfortunately not. The preceding scenario formed a newspaper's April Fool's gag last week and I'm not ashamed to admit that I fell for it. That's the thing about Bertie – you wouldn't put anything past him. For a man who loves the limelight, he's fiercely protective of his privacy. He doesn't like the papers showing him up. That is probably why, under his stewardship, the VAT on newspapers rose to 13.5% – the highest in Europe (Britain has zero VAT). It probably also explains why his administration published a Privacy Bill in 2006 to curb the power of the press. Naughty press, Fianna Fáil will learn youse.
That bill was subsequently 'parked' to give the now year-old Press Council time to prove itself effective at dealing with media complaints. Last week, another Ahern – Dermot – announced that he is going to introduce the legislation. Why? Because "there seems to be a growing disregard for the privacy of the individual". Note the word "seems". According to who? Who has been calling for a privacy law? Was it Dermot Ahern himself?
Ahern knows the value of privacy. For example, the equality minister now knows it's better to keep his views on homosexuals private. Back in 1993 he agreed with Fine Gael's Brendan McGahon that gays were deviants. Once the press highlighted this, he was branded homophobic.
His dealings with the family of terror chief Michael McKevitt might have been kept private if the press hadn't reported that he forwarded an email on his behalf to Michael McDowell. The press hasn't done Ahern any favours. Could this be personal?
The new law forbids "surveillance", "stalking/harassment" and "disclosure of documentation" – all legitimate weapons in the journalist's armoury. Documents that can't be published will include publicly available material from, among others, county council planning files and the Land Registry Office. Without the disclosure of such documents, the extent of planning corruption in north Dublin may never have come to light.
Without "stalking", the documentary that led to the beef tribunal might not have been made. In that programme, journalist Susan O'Keeffe approaches beef baron Larry Goodman for a comment as he is leaving mass and pursues him until he drives off. Under the new rules, Goodman could have got an injunction and halted production. Similarily, Brendan O'Brien's legendary "stalking" of Martin 'The General' Cahill might not have been aired. The print labours of Veronica Guerin would have been hampered too.
With the new restrictions, Seanie Fitz might be able to get an injunction against a newspaper revealing that he's enjoying a nice holiday in Spain.
The new law states that invasions of privacy are justified when they're in good faith, the public interest and fair. Sounds reasonable? It isn't. It's 'Catch 22': for an invasion of privacy to be justified, you must invade someone's privacy to prove it. However, you can't invade someone's privacy because that's not justified without proof. A reporter who is stymied by an injunction can be found to have broken the rules just because he was unable to finish his investigation.
So, again, who has asked for this privacy law? Take a guess. Last year, Dublin City University released a study which revealed that two-thirds of all privacy complaints over the past 25 years had come from public figures, chiefly politicians.
The hypocrisy at the heart of this law is staggering. In February, minister Ahern was forced to introduce new European legislation requiring telephone operators to store details of all calls made for two years. Under Irish law, they had to store them for three years. All your calls, emails and internet usage are logged by the government. How about a privacy law against that?
Ahern's announcement last week was all the more telling because of its timing. It came just weeks after this newspaper broke the Brian Cowen portraits story. This was a clear threat to the press. It was a slap on the wrist for getting uppity and a direct attack on the fundamental right to freedom of information.
We don't need this law. The press ombudsman is doing a good job of correcting rogue journalism. It's independent, fast and binding. As it's free, the public aren't put off complaining by legal costs. That's good for democracy, unlike privacy laws and VAT on newspapers.
This brings us back to Bertie, as it was his administration that dreamed up this nonsense. When I read the April Fool's portrait gag about him last week, it struck me that the words 'Ahern' and 'gag' were entirely appropriate given the decision to silence the press.
Forget about Cowen: Bertie deserves to be hung in the National Gallery.
I'll start building the scaffold…
dave@davekenny.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
How to run a household on less than €4,000 a week
Sunday Tribune, 29 March
It was one of the great comic performances of the Celtic Tiger era. Pee Flynn on The Late Late Show, grinning like he had a coathanger in his gob after telling the audience how he ran three households on £100,000 a year. Poor out-of-touch Pee, the poster boy for gombeen politics. Who else would claim to spend so much on housekeeping?
Another Fianna Fáil man, perhaps?
Zip forward 10 years and Offaly councillor Ger Killally is bemoaning the high cost of housekeeping. Killally, a former running mate of Brian Cowen, sobbed as he told a judge he needs €4,000 a week to meet household expenses. FOUR GRAND A WEEK. That's €192,000 a year – six times the average industrial wage.
Councillor/auctioneer Killally, who has admitted he made secret profits from land deals and resigned his party's whip, was ordered by the Commercial Court not to reduce his assets below €8m in February. Last Tuesday, he pleaded to have those assets unfrozen to make ends meet. He wept as he detailed his outgoings, which included problems with his underfloor heating and the expense of raising two small children, with another on the way. He was "in between" cars, as his 2008 Audi SUV had been damaged in a road accident. He can't afford to repair it. Oh, and his mobile phone has been cut off.
Killally is actually a victim of the Celtic Tiger. If it wasn't for the boom, he wouldn't be living in a nine-bedroom castellated monster-mansion with all those bills to pay. He deserves our sympathy. Imagine having to struggle with a €4,000-a-week housekeeping bill. There aren't many of us who have faced that kind of challenge. With the exception of Fiona Nagle, of course.
Remember Fiona? She's the socialite wife of Breifne O'Brien, the Dublin tycoon who has been ordered to pay €16m to investors in his alleged 'pyramid scheme'.
Fiona is a former receptionist and party organiser who told Image magazine in 2006 that she never "sticks to one designer". A few Chanel pieces "always rise to the top of the pile", she said, adding that Roland Mouret makes her "feel like a woman". Her "diamond butterfly ring from Van Cleef & Arpels goes with jeans or evening wear". Well it would, wouldn't it?
In January, Nagle – who is not accused of any wrongdoing – also pleaded with a judge to unfreeze the family's assets. She said she needed money to cover her household expenses. Coincidentally, like Killally, she also needed €4,000 a week to pay her bills. Diamond polish obviously isn't cheap (not that I'd know).
Nagle must really be short of a few bob as, last month, a judge had to instruct gardaí to bring her to court for non-payment of parking fines. The warrant was withdrawn and she has since ponied up. Still, at least she had a car to park illegally, unlike poor Ger Killally.
A week later, Nagle pleaded with the media to respect her privacy. There's an irony in that: a PR person asking the press to stay away. It was not as ironic, however, as hearing a Fianna Fáil man blaming the crash for his ruination. It was Fianna Fáil, after all, that sowed the seeds of it with the property boom, from which he profited. It was his former running mate that was at the financial helm when everything went belly-up.
It was Fianna Fáil that refinanced the banks and then let an old-age pensioner give it two fingers over a €1m bonus. Only a hard-necked Tiger stalwart like Michael Fingleton could believe he deserves that and a €28m pension. Is he mad? He's in his 70s – it's not like he has a lot of time left to spend it all. Does he have housekeeping bills like Killally and Nagle? Does his house cost €4,000 a week to run?
You really have to marvel at how out of touch these people are. They just don't get it: the party's over. The rest of us have known this for months. No one, except perhaps Fingleton, is running up housekeeping bills of €4,000 a week any more. We're drawing the dole or taking pay cuts.
On Friday, Judge Peter Kelly said Killally must come to his sense and reduce his living expenses. So the councillor will just have to stop crying and get on with life. He'll have to learn how to shop with an eye for a bargain, just like us. (Eurospar has a €3.49 deal on a cabbage/turnip/carrots combo.) He may even have to use public transport and wear slippers now that the underfloor heating is shot.
Here's an offer for you, Ger. Why don't you hire me as your housekeeper? I know how to run a household on less than €4,000 a week. Come on, give me a call. I've a load of mince in the freezer and can be at your place, making your dinner, by tomorrow evening.
I have to admit that when I read about your housekeeping plight last week, the tears ran down my face as well.
Well, where would we be without our sense of humour?
dkenny@tribune.ie
It was one of the great comic performances of the Celtic Tiger era. Pee Flynn on The Late Late Show, grinning like he had a coathanger in his gob after telling the audience how he ran three households on £100,000 a year. Poor out-of-touch Pee, the poster boy for gombeen politics. Who else would claim to spend so much on housekeeping?
Another Fianna Fáil man, perhaps?
Zip forward 10 years and Offaly councillor Ger Killally is bemoaning the high cost of housekeeping. Killally, a former running mate of Brian Cowen, sobbed as he told a judge he needs €4,000 a week to meet household expenses. FOUR GRAND A WEEK. That's €192,000 a year – six times the average industrial wage.
Councillor/auctioneer Killally, who has admitted he made secret profits from land deals and resigned his party's whip, was ordered by the Commercial Court not to reduce his assets below €8m in February. Last Tuesday, he pleaded to have those assets unfrozen to make ends meet. He wept as he detailed his outgoings, which included problems with his underfloor heating and the expense of raising two small children, with another on the way. He was "in between" cars, as his 2008 Audi SUV had been damaged in a road accident. He can't afford to repair it. Oh, and his mobile phone has been cut off.
Killally is actually a victim of the Celtic Tiger. If it wasn't for the boom, he wouldn't be living in a nine-bedroom castellated monster-mansion with all those bills to pay. He deserves our sympathy. Imagine having to struggle with a €4,000-a-week housekeeping bill. There aren't many of us who have faced that kind of challenge. With the exception of Fiona Nagle, of course.
Remember Fiona? She's the socialite wife of Breifne O'Brien, the Dublin tycoon who has been ordered to pay €16m to investors in his alleged 'pyramid scheme'.
Fiona is a former receptionist and party organiser who told Image magazine in 2006 that she never "sticks to one designer". A few Chanel pieces "always rise to the top of the pile", she said, adding that Roland Mouret makes her "feel like a woman". Her "diamond butterfly ring from Van Cleef & Arpels goes with jeans or evening wear". Well it would, wouldn't it?
In January, Nagle – who is not accused of any wrongdoing – also pleaded with a judge to unfreeze the family's assets. She said she needed money to cover her household expenses. Coincidentally, like Killally, she also needed €4,000 a week to pay her bills. Diamond polish obviously isn't cheap (not that I'd know).
Nagle must really be short of a few bob as, last month, a judge had to instruct gardaí to bring her to court for non-payment of parking fines. The warrant was withdrawn and she has since ponied up. Still, at least she had a car to park illegally, unlike poor Ger Killally.
A week later, Nagle pleaded with the media to respect her privacy. There's an irony in that: a PR person asking the press to stay away. It was not as ironic, however, as hearing a Fianna Fáil man blaming the crash for his ruination. It was Fianna Fáil, after all, that sowed the seeds of it with the property boom, from which he profited. It was his former running mate that was at the financial helm when everything went belly-up.
It was Fianna Fáil that refinanced the banks and then let an old-age pensioner give it two fingers over a €1m bonus. Only a hard-necked Tiger stalwart like Michael Fingleton could believe he deserves that and a €28m pension. Is he mad? He's in his 70s – it's not like he has a lot of time left to spend it all. Does he have housekeeping bills like Killally and Nagle? Does his house cost €4,000 a week to run?
You really have to marvel at how out of touch these people are. They just don't get it: the party's over. The rest of us have known this for months. No one, except perhaps Fingleton, is running up housekeeping bills of €4,000 a week any more. We're drawing the dole or taking pay cuts.
On Friday, Judge Peter Kelly said Killally must come to his sense and reduce his living expenses. So the councillor will just have to stop crying and get on with life. He'll have to learn how to shop with an eye for a bargain, just like us. (Eurospar has a €3.49 deal on a cabbage/turnip/carrots combo.) He may even have to use public transport and wear slippers now that the underfloor heating is shot.
Here's an offer for you, Ger. Why don't you hire me as your housekeeper? I know how to run a household on less than €4,000 a week. Come on, give me a call. I've a load of mince in the freezer and can be at your place, making your dinner, by tomorrow evening.
I have to admit that when I read about your housekeeping plight last week, the tears ran down my face as well.
Well, where would we be without our sense of humour?
dkenny@tribune.ie
Pope vs Messiah: the conflict that will define modern Ireland
Sunday Tribune, 22 March
There he was, the little Taoiseach: bassett-hound cheeks blushing, trying to stop his tongue flopping out the side of his mouth as it does when he's happy. If he had a tail, he'd have wagged it.
After all the flak at home, Brian Cowen was finally enjoying himself. He had come bearing gifts (a begging bowl of Irish weeds) and got a pat on the head and a good aul' feed at the White House. More important, he'd got Obama to promise to visit Offaly.
Nice one.
When Gordon Brown visited Washington, he only got a few manky DVDs – and he's blind in one eye, lads.
"Jaze, but tha' was some craic," said Cowen the next morning, as he popped a Panadol and changed his socks for the flight home. "Hould on a sec though, who're them lads?" he asked, pointing at the four rows of bearded gentlemen waving at him from across the aisle.
"Guantanamo Bay, boss," replied his aide. "You adopted them last night."
"Wha'? How did tha' happen?"
The aide raised an imaginary glass to his lips and tilted it a couple of times. Jaze, thought the Taoiseach, Obama spiked my pint.
"Don't worry," said the aide, "we'll shave them and stick them in Carlow along with the 48 other lads we have coming over from Burma. No one will notice."
Before take-off, Cowen checked his voicemail. "Jaze lads," he sighed, "looks like the Pope's coming to Ireland too."
And so, Ireland is now facing visits from the world's two most powerful men: one bringing a message of hope, the other bringing a boot to kick our pagan backsides. One represents the material world, the other the spiritual. One is liberal, the other ultra-conservative. Cowen must be hoping they don't want to come on the same day.
Last week, the Telegraph newspaper reported that Pope Benedict will tour Britain next year and is considering coming here as well. Unlike the euphoria over Obama, there's been no great rejoicing at the prospect of him visiting us.
What kind of reception will each man get? Sociologists will be watching closely, because the Pope's welcome will, inevitably, be measured against Obama's. The result will define post-Celtic Tiger Ireland.
If the public had to choose between both visits, it would probably pick Obama. It's easy to see why. He is handsome, healthy and young. The Pope is stern, stooped and ancient. Barack says "Yes, we can", Benedict says "No, you can't". The former sees stem-cell research as a boon to mankind, the latter sees it as dooming mankind. Obama stands for hope, Benedict says hell really exists.
Then there's the Hitler Youth thing. Oh, and the condoms. Benedict visited Cameroon last week and said the church still opposes the use of condoms, even in a country with an Aids epidemic. Cameroon, by the way, has the world's fastest-growing Catholic population. Well it would, wouldn't it, considering he won't let them wear condoms.
So how would Ireland benefit from a visit by Benedict? Would it yank us back in line? Probably not. When John Paul II visited he was given a hero's welcome, but his trip didn't halt social change. Since then, we've introduced divorce, contraception, exposed church scandals, etc.
We now prefer sound bites to sermons, so if Benedict's visit is to bring hope, he's on a loser compared to Obama. When the civil-rights hero comes, the multitudes will hang on every word. The Pope's visit, on the other hand, will probably be marked by civil-rights protests. It would be disastrous for Catholicism if the Irish booed Benedict and greeted Obama like the Messiah. It would deal the ailing church here yet another sucker punch.
For this reason, Benedict should not come to Ireland. Obama's popularity would only highlight his lack of it. Besides, he'd be better off at home rethinking the rules on condoms.
Unlike the Pope, Brian Cowen is benefiting from the Obama effect. Yes, the visuals at the White House were awful: at one stage he looked like a bullfrog trying to catch a fly with his tongue. That said, he actually did a good job, even if Obama spiked his pint and made him adopt some Guantanamo lads. The word is, however, that Cowen's having the last laugh on the president.
Apparently, he's asked them to do security for his visit.
March 22, 2009
There he was, the little Taoiseach: bassett-hound cheeks blushing, trying to stop his tongue flopping out the side of his mouth as it does when he's happy. If he had a tail, he'd have wagged it.
After all the flak at home, Brian Cowen was finally enjoying himself. He had come bearing gifts (a begging bowl of Irish weeds) and got a pat on the head and a good aul' feed at the White House. More important, he'd got Obama to promise to visit Offaly.
Nice one.
When Gordon Brown visited Washington, he only got a few manky DVDs – and he's blind in one eye, lads.
"Jaze, but tha' was some craic," said Cowen the next morning, as he popped a Panadol and changed his socks for the flight home. "Hould on a sec though, who're them lads?" he asked, pointing at the four rows of bearded gentlemen waving at him from across the aisle.
"Guantanamo Bay, boss," replied his aide. "You adopted them last night."
"Wha'? How did tha' happen?"
The aide raised an imaginary glass to his lips and tilted it a couple of times. Jaze, thought the Taoiseach, Obama spiked my pint.
"Don't worry," said the aide, "we'll shave them and stick them in Carlow along with the 48 other lads we have coming over from Burma. No one will notice."
Before take-off, Cowen checked his voicemail. "Jaze lads," he sighed, "looks like the Pope's coming to Ireland too."
And so, Ireland is now facing visits from the world's two most powerful men: one bringing a message of hope, the other bringing a boot to kick our pagan backsides. One represents the material world, the other the spiritual. One is liberal, the other ultra-conservative. Cowen must be hoping they don't want to come on the same day.
Last week, the Telegraph newspaper reported that Pope Benedict will tour Britain next year and is considering coming here as well. Unlike the euphoria over Obama, there's been no great rejoicing at the prospect of him visiting us.
What kind of reception will each man get? Sociologists will be watching closely, because the Pope's welcome will, inevitably, be measured against Obama's. The result will define post-Celtic Tiger Ireland.
If the public had to choose between both visits, it would probably pick Obama. It's easy to see why. He is handsome, healthy and young. The Pope is stern, stooped and ancient. Barack says "Yes, we can", Benedict says "No, you can't". The former sees stem-cell research as a boon to mankind, the latter sees it as dooming mankind. Obama stands for hope, Benedict says hell really exists.
Then there's the Hitler Youth thing. Oh, and the condoms. Benedict visited Cameroon last week and said the church still opposes the use of condoms, even in a country with an Aids epidemic. Cameroon, by the way, has the world's fastest-growing Catholic population. Well it would, wouldn't it, considering he won't let them wear condoms.
So how would Ireland benefit from a visit by Benedict? Would it yank us back in line? Probably not. When John Paul II visited he was given a hero's welcome, but his trip didn't halt social change. Since then, we've introduced divorce, contraception, exposed church scandals, etc.
We now prefer sound bites to sermons, so if Benedict's visit is to bring hope, he's on a loser compared to Obama. When the civil-rights hero comes, the multitudes will hang on every word. The Pope's visit, on the other hand, will probably be marked by civil-rights protests. It would be disastrous for Catholicism if the Irish booed Benedict and greeted Obama like the Messiah. It would deal the ailing church here yet another sucker punch.
For this reason, Benedict should not come to Ireland. Obama's popularity would only highlight his lack of it. Besides, he'd be better off at home rethinking the rules on condoms.
Unlike the Pope, Brian Cowen is benefiting from the Obama effect. Yes, the visuals at the White House were awful: at one stage he looked like a bullfrog trying to catch a fly with his tongue. That said, he actually did a good job, even if Obama spiked his pint and made him adopt some Guantanamo lads. The word is, however, that Cowen's having the last laugh on the president.
Apparently, he's asked them to do security for his visit.
March 22, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
This is not a rebel column: Bono still makes me proud
Sunday Tribune, 15 March
It was in the summer of 1983 that the strange man asked my little sister what she was having for tea. She was 12 and I recall her holding the receiver away as if it had farted in her ear. “What’s up?” I asked. She had been in the hall for five minutes since the phone rang.
“He’s messing,” she said, alarmingly.
“Who’s messing?”
“Burgers,” she told the mystery caller adding, to me, “he says he’s Bono, but I’ve told him he’s not. He won’t go away. I want my burgers.” The phone was nearly back on the hook before the penny dropped. “MUUUUUMMMM! Come quick!” I roared, grabbing it.
I’d better explain. It really was Bono, but in my sister’s defence, you don’t expect rock stars to phone up asking what’s for tea. My mother is an anti-drugs campaigner and was producing a charity video with him called ‘Bands Against Drugs’. Bono had brought in the biggies: Lou Reid, Peter Gabriel, Sting. You won’t remember the video, but I mention it because Bono did it without fanfare.
For the past month, Bono has been slow-roasted at the stake over his tax affairs. In 2006 – before the recession – U2 decided to move part of its business to Holland to cut its tax burden. Annoyance over this has re-ignited and all Bono’s extraordinary achievements have been thrown onto the blaze along with him. What’s galling is that his detractors are mainly from my generation – the people who took such pride in U2’s conquest of the world.
The mob has forgotten that Bono is a rock star and could spend his time snorting coke with hookers. Instead, he uses it, and his own money, lobbying for an end to poverty. Bad Bono. Why can’t you be more like Keith Moon?
Bono is one of our most successful businessmen ever. We used to be proud of our top entrepreneurs. Why not him? He spends a lot of money here, employs people and – whether we like it or not – U2 is a business and is entitled to protect its interests. With the abuse he’s getting, you’d swear he punches kittens for fun.
Granted, sometimes his pronouncements are too high-falutin’ for our tastes, but he’s also known for being down-to-earth with fans and hacks. However, if you’re in the media, it’s not ‘cool’ to like Bono. Still, when he plays Croker, every bar-stool critic will want to be there.
U2 have given more to this country than is quantifiable in cash, and for little thanks. They wrote the soundtrack to our youth. If you’re too young to remember the Dandelion Market there will always be someone older to claim they were there for their first gig. (Like the GPO in 1916.)
Whenever I hear “This is not a rebel song …” the hairs still stand up on the back of my neck. When ‘War’ hit number one in the depths of the recession I nearly burst with pride: four Dubs were cracking the UK charts. My generation thought, ‘maybe we can succeed’. U2’s success gave us hope.
Then came the moment that a thousand Riverdances couldn’t match: the world watching as a mullet-haired Irishman mesmerised Wembley. Bono’s performance at Live Aid was possibly the greatest feat of crowd control since JC and the loaves and fishes. (Maybe.)
I’m not Bono’s PR and don’t want, or need, anything from him. He doesn’t need me to defend him from the mob but, like many others, I’m sick of the small town begrudgery he has to endure. There are plenty of other heads to stick on spikes (Bertie, bags get Bertie!).
On Tuesday we celebrate our national day. In any other country Bono and the lads would be at the head of the parade. How often have you said you’re Irish, when abroad, and been answered with “Ah, Ireland… Bono, U2.”?
There is some positive news for U2, though. The Dubliner magazine has just published its poll of the Top 10 things that make us proud to be Irish. U2 are at number eight, just ahead of the Irish breakfast roll. In 1983 my sister’s burgers were more popular than Bono. In 2009, he’s edged past some sausages.
Top of the list is our sense of humour. I hope Bono still has his.
F**k the begrudgers.
dkenny@tribune.ie
It was in the summer of 1983 that the strange man asked my little sister what she was having for tea. She was 12 and I recall her holding the receiver away as if it had farted in her ear. “What’s up?” I asked. She had been in the hall for five minutes since the phone rang.
“He’s messing,” she said, alarmingly.
“Who’s messing?”
“Burgers,” she told the mystery caller adding, to me, “he says he’s Bono, but I’ve told him he’s not. He won’t go away. I want my burgers.” The phone was nearly back on the hook before the penny dropped. “MUUUUUMMMM! Come quick!” I roared, grabbing it.
I’d better explain. It really was Bono, but in my sister’s defence, you don’t expect rock stars to phone up asking what’s for tea. My mother is an anti-drugs campaigner and was producing a charity video with him called ‘Bands Against Drugs’. Bono had brought in the biggies: Lou Reid, Peter Gabriel, Sting. You won’t remember the video, but I mention it because Bono did it without fanfare.
For the past month, Bono has been slow-roasted at the stake over his tax affairs. In 2006 – before the recession – U2 decided to move part of its business to Holland to cut its tax burden. Annoyance over this has re-ignited and all Bono’s extraordinary achievements have been thrown onto the blaze along with him. What’s galling is that his detractors are mainly from my generation – the people who took such pride in U2’s conquest of the world.
The mob has forgotten that Bono is a rock star and could spend his time snorting coke with hookers. Instead, he uses it, and his own money, lobbying for an end to poverty. Bad Bono. Why can’t you be more like Keith Moon?
Bono is one of our most successful businessmen ever. We used to be proud of our top entrepreneurs. Why not him? He spends a lot of money here, employs people and – whether we like it or not – U2 is a business and is entitled to protect its interests. With the abuse he’s getting, you’d swear he punches kittens for fun.
Granted, sometimes his pronouncements are too high-falutin’ for our tastes, but he’s also known for being down-to-earth with fans and hacks. However, if you’re in the media, it’s not ‘cool’ to like Bono. Still, when he plays Croker, every bar-stool critic will want to be there.
U2 have given more to this country than is quantifiable in cash, and for little thanks. They wrote the soundtrack to our youth. If you’re too young to remember the Dandelion Market there will always be someone older to claim they were there for their first gig. (Like the GPO in 1916.)
Whenever I hear “This is not a rebel song …” the hairs still stand up on the back of my neck. When ‘War’ hit number one in the depths of the recession I nearly burst with pride: four Dubs were cracking the UK charts. My generation thought, ‘maybe we can succeed’. U2’s success gave us hope.
Then came the moment that a thousand Riverdances couldn’t match: the world watching as a mullet-haired Irishman mesmerised Wembley. Bono’s performance at Live Aid was possibly the greatest feat of crowd control since JC and the loaves and fishes. (Maybe.)
I’m not Bono’s PR and don’t want, or need, anything from him. He doesn’t need me to defend him from the mob but, like many others, I’m sick of the small town begrudgery he has to endure. There are plenty of other heads to stick on spikes (Bertie, bags get Bertie!).
On Tuesday we celebrate our national day. In any other country Bono and the lads would be at the head of the parade. How often have you said you’re Irish, when abroad, and been answered with “Ah, Ireland… Bono, U2.”?
There is some positive news for U2, though. The Dubliner magazine has just published its poll of the Top 10 things that make us proud to be Irish. U2 are at number eight, just ahead of the Irish breakfast roll. In 1983 my sister’s burgers were more popular than Bono. In 2009, he’s edged past some sausages.
Top of the list is our sense of humour. I hope Bono still has his.
F**k the begrudgers.
dkenny@tribune.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
