Unique visitors to this blog 15,207. That's 1,246 new readers this week. Thank you for sharing and re-tweeting this blog.
'Social Warfare' is the second installment of the 'Ramshorn Republic' trilogy of true stories. The first part 'To Hell or the High Court' is available here:
I've walked on the dark side to get here, but here, I am. My cancer story 'Ippy Ever After' is available here:
I am not a member of any Political Party, Organisation, Movement or Golf Club.
If this is your first visit to this blog I recommend a look at the Forensic Reports in blogs 4 and 16.
If this is your first visit to this blog I recommend a look at the Forensic Reports in blogs 4 and 16.
Our level of liberty was a lottery of birth,
Determined by the longitude and latitude of our delivery,
I choose to use my freedom, after all,
They can't shoot me.
Determined by the longitude and latitude of our delivery,
I choose to use my freedom, after all,
They can't shoot me.
Dermot Ahearn had every reason to hand the lot over to An Garda Siochana but he didn't. Instead he replied to the Dail question from John Bruton with:
The matter has been examined by senior officials in the Department. I understand that the examination has been finalised and that the Department concerned is in the process of writing to the person concerned.
You have to ask, if it took the Department almost two years to conduct their 'examination' with falsified/forged documents, witch-hunt investigations and a clear and deliberate conspiracy to cover up, then just how did Superintendent Lambe decide that there was no evidence eighteen months earlier with no investigation of any kind and no communication with the Department?
On the 28th of February 2002, a letter was sent from the Secretary General of the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs to X. In his letter, Eddie Sullivan stated:
On the 28th of February 2002, a letter was sent from the Secretary General of the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs to X. In his letter, Eddie Sullivan stated:
I refer to the investigation carried out by the Department into complaints made by or on your behalf about, inter alia, the conduct of an interview by a Social Welfare Inspector and to my decision to have a review of the investigation undertaken by two senior department officials from outside the area concerned.
A copy of the report is attached for your information.
I have accepted their findings that there is no evidence to support or sustain serious allegations of misconduct made against the officer concerned.
The 'Attached Report' was in fact two documents,
a) The 'Report' of the Review Team Dated 18th July 2001 &
b) The 'Addendum Document' dated 29th November 2001.
Both of these documents were cobbled together and a one page 'Overall Summary' was added as the final page. This overall summary stated:
a) The 'Report' of the Review Team Dated 18th July 2001 &
b) The 'Addendum Document' dated 29th November 2001.
Both of these documents were cobbled together and a one page 'Overall Summary' was added as the final page. This overall summary stated:
The Review Team concludes that there is no evidence to support or sustain the serious allegations of misconduct made against the inspector.
But that is not why the Review Team was set up. In May 2001 the Review Team identified exactly the two specific reasons for which the Review Team was set up. The Review Team was set up to establish:
1. Whether the investigation already carried out comprehensively considered all of the allegations.
2. Whether the investigation already carried out equally vindicated the rights of ;
a) X
b) Sean Kelly
Within six weeks, the Review Team had carried out their review of the investigation and had reported back to the Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan.
On the question as to whether John Glennon and Dave Redmond had comprehensively considered all of the allegations, the Review Team established that:
1. Whether the investigation already carried out comprehensively considered all of the allegations.
2. Whether the investigation already carried out equally vindicated the rights of ;
a) X
b) Sean Kelly
Within six weeks, the Review Team had carried out their review of the investigation and had reported back to the Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan.
On the question as to whether John Glennon and Dave Redmond had comprehensively considered all of the allegations, the Review Team established that:
* It was not appropriate that the Regional Manager should foregone due process by forming a personal view on the likely outcome
* (John Glennon) believed that the allegation was so outrageous that he would not even put it to the inspector for comment.
* Allegations were not put, or properly put, to the inspector for his comment.
On the second specific question, as to whether the investigation carried out by Glennon and Redmond equally vindicated the rights of a) X, b) Sean Kelly, the Review Team established that:
* The Absence of due process in relation to these allegations is a defect in the investigative process and one that requires attention.
Eddie Sullivan had the review he asked for six months before he wrote to X. In that intervening six months Senior Management of the Department was undeniably aware that Sean Kelly had, with the approval, logistical support and written endorsement of Senior Management, falsified/forged documents, added these documents to X's files (again with management support and approval) and even sent falsified/forged documents to X by post.
The establishment of the 'Review Team' and further delaying tactics by Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan, were scurrilous distractions deliberately orchestrated to give Sean Kelly and the Senior Management of the Department multiple opportunities to vilify X in word and in action.
The other thing that got buried in the Review Team distraction tactic, was the original Investigation Report by John Glennon and Dave Redmond. Buried in the detail of the Review Team report and addendum it states:
The establishment of the 'Review Team' and further delaying tactics by Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan, were scurrilous distractions deliberately orchestrated to give Sean Kelly and the Senior Management of the Department multiple opportunities to vilify X in word and in action.
The other thing that got buried in the Review Team distraction tactic, was the original Investigation Report by John Glennon and Dave Redmond. Buried in the detail of the Review Team report and addendum it states:
This report should be read in conjunction with the report of the persons who investigated the allegations.
Needless to say, this report was not sent to X. It had been promised to X by Glennon a year earlier and then he had refused to hand it over. The Department minions were desperate to keep this report out of X's hands. Still are.
On the 4th of March 2002, X telephoned Dave Redmond, Regional Directors Office. She had one simple question for Dave 'Was Sean Kelly's call part of his normal duties?'
Dave confirmed yet again that Sean Kelly's call to X's home was not a part of his normal duties.
On the 5th of March 2002, a letter was sent from Garda HQ to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. In this letter it states:
Dave confirmed yet again that Sean Kelly's call to X's home was not a part of his normal duties.
On the 5th of March 2002, a letter was sent from Garda HQ to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. In this letter it states:
I have been informed by the Superintendent at Ashbourne that there is no personal data held on computer at Ashbourne Garda Station in relation to (X).
For the second time, An Garda Siochana denied that any details of X's complaint, statement or any evidence of an investigation existed.
On the 8th of March 2002, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner wrote to Mr. Eltin Moran, Data Protection Manager, Department of Social Community and Family Affairs. Data Protection had been asking the same question for eight months without answer:
On the 8th of March 2002, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner wrote to Mr. Eltin Moran, Data Protection Manager, Department of Social Community and Family Affairs. Data Protection had been asking the same question for eight months without answer:
A question which needs to be clarified is whether Mr. Kelly had the data 'for the purpose of enabling' him 'to carry out his duties'. You are requested to indicate therefore the specific purpose for which the Department held X's data and also the purpose for which Mr. Kelly accessed it.
This time Data Protection made it clear that an answer was expected immediately:
As this matter is outstanding for a considerable length of time, a response is requested as a matter of urgency.
On the same day, X telephoned the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and informed them that as per Dave Redmond, Sean Kelly's call to her home was not a part of his normal duties.
On the 12th of March 2002, a letter was sent from Eltin Moran (Social Welfare) to the Data Protection Office. The only available extract from Eltin's letter states:
On the 12th of March 2002, a letter was sent from Eltin Moran (Social Welfare) to the Data Protection Office. The only available extract from Eltin's letter states:
The record indicates that Mr. Glennon confirmed that the visit was part of a routine exercise being carried out by field officers on the day in question.
Eltin had been asked for a 'specific purpose', his reply was third party hearsay, and that from the Data Protection Manager of the Department. Corrupt, incompetent moron.
On the 25th of March 2002, X wrote to the Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan and stated:
On the 25th of March 2002, X wrote to the Secretary General, Eddie Sullivan and stated:
As per the report of the review team, section 1.3 states that this report should be read in conjunction with the report of the persons who investigated the allegations. It is imperative that I receive this information immediately as I have been waiting well over a year for this report.
On the 27th of March, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner wrote back to Eltin Moran (SW Data Manager) in regard to his tawdry, incompetent reply:
I would appreciate if you would state under what legislation the Social Welfare was working when he called X's home in the context of the review exercise referred to in your letter.
Specific legislation, not 'he said', 'she said' excuses. The very same day Eltin sent his reply to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner:
My understanding of the circumstances of the Social Welfare Inspector's visit to X is that he was reviewing her entitlement to Unemployment Assistance
So there we have it, crystal clear, undeniable, in writing, the specific legislation relied upon by Sean Kelly to access X's information was the specific legislation for reviewing X's entitlement to Unemployment Assistance.
No problem there then? Wrong.
X was not in receipt of Unemployment Assistance, never had been.
Part 20 coming soon.
No problem there then? Wrong.
X was not in receipt of Unemployment Assistance, never had been.
Part 20 coming soon.
