sluggerotoole--2020-08-14--The controversy over the use of nuclear weapons has never gone away…

Although the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the Second World to an abrupt end , the controversy over the use of nuclear weapons has never gone away .
We are far less credible of the justification of military necessity and a desire to save lives than people in 1945 were , and while we know more about what happened than contemporaries did , the context in which the events occurred is less familiar .
It is difficult to overstate that the fighting in east Asia/ western Pacific was a toxic race war , where the Allies barely regarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had become exercises in extermination .
Similarly , the mentality of the Japanese leadership was entirely irrational by any modern standard and virtually incomprehensible .
The junta running Japan was quite prepared to see tens of millions of their countrymen die rather than sully their honour by submitting .
Finally , President Truman was operating within the agreed Allied framework of Unconditional Surrender .
The policy ensured Hitler could not survive the Third Reich and when President Roosevelt introduced it in January 1943 , it was assumed Japan would quickly fold once Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved wishful thinking .
Something designed to ensure the destruction of National Socialism became a dogma that ensured the defeat of Japan would be apocalyptic in its violence .
The main arguments against dropping the Bomb are based on the assumptions that Japan was already defeated , was about to surrender , and that atomic weapons are uniquely cruel and barbarous .
Taking each in turn , it is true to say that to the Western military mind Japan was hopelessly defeated , but the men at the head of the Japanese military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 60 divisions – 2,000,000 men ready to defend the home islands along with 10,000 aircraft and 3,300 suicide boats .
[ 1 ] The military chiefs were confident they could give the Americans a bloody reverse on the beaches of Kyushu and salvage an acceptable peace , a view that was not changed by the second bomb on Nagasaki .
That evening , General Anami , the Japanese minister of war , told the war cabinet in the presence of the Emperor : ‘ I am quite sure we could inflict great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we fail in the attempt our hundred million people are ready to die for honour , glorifying the deeds of the Japanese race in recorded history.
’ [ 2 ] On 13 August , Onishi , father of the Kamikazes urged : ‘ If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [ suicide ] effort , victory shall be ours !
’ [ 3 ] The Japanese military leaders were ready to negotiate peace , but they were not prepared to surrender by the usual understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still wanted to haggle over terms , which included hanging on to the conquered territory they still held – eastern China and the modern states of Taiwan , Malaysia and Indonesia .
Hirohito , who albeit late in the day , did the right thing and brought the lunacy to an end , when asked by Prince Asaka on 12 August , again after Nagasaki , if the war would continue if the Allies intended to remove the kokutai ( national essence including the institution of the monarchy ) replied , ‘ Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japanese were prepared to negotiate before Hiroshima but Nagasaki moved them to their bottom line – the retention of the emperor .
It is also overlooked that the bombs gave the Japanese a means of surrendering while retaining some semblance of honour as Masatake Okumiya , a senior officer in the Imperial Japanese Army , explained : It is a view backed up by Marquis Kido , Emperor Hirohito ’ s closest advisor : It is telling that Kido said Japan ‘ could not ’ rather than ‘ would not ’ stop fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to its own customs and culture .
The committee system of government had no single figure with the authority to impose a decision and it proved virtually impossible for the cabinet to find unanimity as its civilians could not control the military and the military could not control itself .
In the end , Hirohito had to dispense with tradition and protocol and force the hand of his ministers .
His intervention undoubtedly saved the lives hundreds of thousands who would have died had the war been fought to a conclusion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more terrible than any other , has merit as they continue to kill months , years and even decades after their use , but the conventional fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the RAF firebombing of the German city of Pforzheim killed a higher proportion of its population than Nagasaki .
[ 7 ] Little however can be proved by such comparisons and it is ridiculous if not obscene , to speculate if death by one form of burning is somehow preferable to another .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented had the weapons been demonstrated to the Japanese but in practice , there were too few bombs to allow that .
They were produced one at a time and only four were made over July and August 1945 .
[ 8 ] One was required for the test and a demonstration would have reduced the atomic arsenal to two .
The Japanese would needed to have been told about the bomb or sent a film of the test but that would have removed the shock of a surprise attack and endangered American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been saving their aircraft for the expected invasion , would be sure to challenge any B-29 arriving over their airspace .
The Allies could of course , have modified their surrender terms but it can be equally argued the Japanese could have surrendered long before they did .
Having chosen to ignore the warning contained in the Potsdam Proclamation , some responsibility for what subsequently happened must rest with the Japanese government .
Arguments that Japan was only days from surrender before Hiroshima are derived from Western logic , the failure to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction of Hiroshima indicates otherwise .
If the Japanese were about to surrender why did they not do so after the first bomb ?
When was the surrender going to happen ?
September ?
October ?
Later ?
The debate between hawks and doves within the Japanese war cabinet could have gone on for months .
Truman though had other options to the Bomb .
Every piece of important infrastructure could have been systematically destroyed by conventional means from the air .
Japan could have literally , been bombed back into the Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have tightened its chokehold to the point where next to nothing could be imported or moved between the home islands .
In such a scenario millions of Japanese would have died a slow death through starvation and disease , an outcome that in terms of raw numbers would have been far worse , though not as dramatic as mushroom clouds .
The Soviets were the wildcard in the mix .
With no quick Japanese surrender , the Red Army may well have pressed onto the northern island of Hokkaido , which they planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a race to Tokyo .
Alternatively , Truman could use his trump card , and drop the Bomb .
If he did not , Hokkaido and perhaps northern Honshu would have come under Soviet occupation .
By ending the war quickly , nuclear weapons may have prevented Japan from being divided in the same manner as Germany or Korea .
The bombs are now part of Japanese folk memory and no one can expect the victims to look upon their use favourably .
The fate of the two cities seems unnecessarily cruel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without atomic weapons ; the difficulty is in determining exactly how and when .
The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were expendable in a battle of wills between an uncompromising American president and their own , equally obstinate , government .
Using the Bomb in Truman ’ s own words was ‘ no great decision ’ .
[ 9 ] He saw it as the quickest and easiest way to bring the war to an end .
The other options : negotiations , limited invasion , siege or continued conventional bombardment carried great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which was how far would the Red Army advance before the Japanese finally threw in the towel .
Compared with those great issues and the sixty or more millions that had already died , the fate of two enemy cities seemed of little import .
The purpose here is not to justify what Truman did but to attempt to explain it .
From the distance of time his actions appear callous , even vindictive but he was struggling with circumstances he had limited control of , and he was , it must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Humanitarian concerns cut little ice in the supercharged atmosphere of 1945 .
LIFE magazine was a mainstream American publication .
Its 6th August editorial called for ‘ classic statesmanship ’ to end the war on terms that included the retention of the emperor .
[ 10 ] A week later , the 13th August issue that covered the atomic bombs , also carried a cameo that probably captured the mood of the day .
Entitled ‘ A Jap Burns ’ , the article showed photographs of the last moments of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in flames after being blasted by an Australian flamethrower .
The pictures were accompanied by the following commentary : ‘ … the flamethrower is easily the most cruel , the most terrifying weapon ever developed .
If it does not suffocate the enemy in his hiding place , its quickly licking tongues of flame sear his body to a black crisp .
But so long as the Jap refuses to come out of his holes and keeps on killing , this is the only way.
’ [ 11 ] In a sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadly the same reasons , although on an infinitely larger scale .
As I alluded to in the previous article , he regarded the Japanese as ‘ beasts ’ .
History has shown that once an enemy is regarded as something less than human , any restraint on the violence that can be inflicted upon them quickly evaporates .
Photo by WikiImages is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

Although the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the Second World to an abrupt end, the controversy over the use of nuclear weapons has never gone away. We are far less credible of the justification of military necessity and a desire to save lives than people in 1945 were, and while we know more about what happened than contemporaries did, the context in which the events occurred is less familiar. It is difficult to overstate that the fighting in east Asia/ western Pacific was a toxic race war, where the Allies barely regarded the Japanese as human and where battles had become exercises in extermination. Similarly, the mentality of the Japanese leadership was entirely irrational by any modern standard and virtually incomprehensible. The junta running Japan was quite prepared to see tens of millions of their countrymen die rather than sully their honour by submitting. Finally, President Truman was operating within the agreed Allied framework of Unconditional Surrender. The policy ensured Hitler could not survive the Third Reich and when President Roosevelt introduced it in January 1943, it was assumed Japan would quickly fold once Germany was defeated. That, however, proved wishful thinking. Something designed to ensure the destruction of National Socialism became a dogma that ensured the defeat of Japan would be apocalyptic in its violence.
The main arguments against dropping the Bomb are based on the assumptions that Japan was already defeated, was about to surrender, and that atomic weapons are uniquely cruel and barbarous. Taking each in turn, it is true to say that to the Western military mind Japan was hopelessly defeated, but the men at the head of the Japanese military saw things very differently. Japan had over 60 divisions – 2,000,000 men ready to defend the home islands along with 10,000 aircraft and 3,300 suicide boats.[1] The military chiefs were confident they could give the Americans a bloody reverse on the beaches of Kyushu and salvage an acceptable peace, a view that was not changed by the second bomb on Nagasaki. That evening, General Anami, the Japanese minister of war, told the war cabinet in the presence of the Emperor:
‘I am quite sure we could inflict great casualties on the enemy, and even if we fail in the attempt our hundred million people are ready to die for honour, glorifying the deeds of the Japanese race in recorded history.’[2]
On 13 August, Onishi, father of the Kamikazes urged: ‘If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [suicide] effort, victory shall be ours!’[3]
The Japanese military leaders were ready to negotiate peace, but they were not prepared to surrender by the usual understanding of the term. Even after Nagasaki they still wanted to haggle over terms, which included hanging on to the conquered territory they still held – eastern China and the modern states of Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Hirohito, who albeit late in the day, did the right thing and brought the lunacy to an end, when asked by Prince Asaka on 12 August, again after Nagasaki, if the war would continue if the Allies intended to remove the kokutai (national essence including the institution of the monarchy) replied, ‘Of course’.[4] The Japanese were prepared to negotiate before Hiroshima but Nagasaki moved them to their bottom line – the retention of the emperor.
It is also overlooked that the bombs gave the Japanese a means of surrendering while retaining some semblance of honour as Masatake Okumiya, a senior officer in the Imperial Japanese Army, explained:
‘… the Japanese had never lost a war. Japan had always won. Thus, both the government and the military people didn’t know how to deal with losing a war. They didn’t have any experience of defeat and didn’t know how to end it. In that situation, it was easier to continue the war rather than make the courageous decision to lose it.’[5]
It is a view backed up by Marquis Kido, Emperor Hirohito’s closest advisor:
‘… the atomic bombings and Russia’s entry into the war against Japan helped to bring about the end of the war. If those events had not happened, Japan at that stage probably could not have stopped fighting.’[6]
It is telling that Kido said Japan ‘could not’ rather than ‘would not’ stop fighting. Japan’s predicament was partly due to its own customs and culture. The committee system of government had no single figure with the authority to impose a decision and it proved virtually impossible for the cabinet to find unanimity as its civilians could not control the military and the military could not control itself. In the end, Hirohito had to dispense with tradition and protocol and force the hand of his ministers. His intervention undoubtedly saved the lives hundreds of thousands who would have died had the war been fought to a conclusion.
The third argument, that atomic weapons are more terrible than any other, has merit as they continue to kill months, years and even decades after their use, but the conventional fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the RAF firebombing of the German city of Pforzheim killed a higher proportion of its population than Nagasaki.[7] Little however can be proved by such comparisons and it is ridiculous if not obscene, to speculate if death by one form of burning is somehow preferable to another.
Another argument says the bombings may have been prevented had the weapons been demonstrated to the Japanese but in practice, there were too few bombs to allow that. They were produced one at a time and only four were made over July and August 1945.[8] One was required for the test and a demonstration would have reduced the atomic arsenal to two. The Japanese would needed to have been told about the bomb or sent a film of the test but that would have removed the shock of a surprise attack and endangered American airmen as the Japanese, who had been saving their aircraft for the expected invasion, would be sure to challenge any B-29 arriving over their airspace.
The Allies could of course, have modified their surrender terms but it can be equally argued the Japanese could have surrendered long before they did. Having chosen to ignore the warning contained in the Potsdam Proclamation, some responsibility for what subsequently happened must rest with the Japanese government. Arguments that Japan was only days from surrender before Hiroshima are derived from Western logic, the failure to respond either to the Potsdam Proclamation or the destruction of Hiroshima indicates otherwise. If the Japanese were about to surrender why did they not do so after the first bomb? When was the surrender going to happen? September? October? Later? The debate between hawks and doves within the Japanese war cabinet could have gone on for months.
Truman though had other options to the Bomb. Every piece of important infrastructure could have been systematically destroyed by conventional means from the air. Japan could have literally, been bombed back into the Stone Age. Meanwhile the naval blockade would have tightened its chokehold to the point where next to nothing could be imported or moved between the home islands. In such a scenario millions of Japanese would have died a slow death through starvation and disease, an outcome that in terms of raw numbers would have been far worse, though not as dramatic as mushroom clouds.
The Soviets were the wildcard in the mix. With no quick Japanese surrender, the Red Army may well have pressed onto the northern island of Hokkaido, which they planned to invade in September 1945, sparking a race to Tokyo. Alternatively, Truman could use his trump card, and drop the Bomb. If he did not, Hokkaido and perhaps northern Honshu would have come under Soviet occupation. By ending the war quickly, nuclear weapons may have prevented Japan from being divided in the same manner as Germany or Korea.
The bombs are now part of Japanese folk memory and no one can expect the victims to look upon their use favourably. The fate of the two cities seems unnecessarily cruel, as the war could have been ended without atomic weapons; the difficulty is in determining exactly how and when. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were expendable in a battle of wills between an uncompromising American president and their own, equally obstinate, government. Using the Bomb in Truman’s own words was ‘no great decision’.[9] He saw it as the quickest and easiest way to bring the war to an end. The other options: negotiations, limited invasion, siege or continued conventional bombardment carried great political and military risks, not least of which was how far would the Red Army advance before the Japanese finally threw in the towel. Compared with those great issues and the sixty or more millions that had already died, the fate of two enemy cities seemed of little import.
The purpose here is not to justify what Truman did but to attempt to explain it. From the distance of time his actions appear callous, even vindictive but he was struggling with circumstances he had limited control of, and he was, it must be remembered, a product of his time. Humanitarian concerns cut little ice in the supercharged atmosphere of 1945. LIFE magazine was a mainstream American publication. Its 6th August editorial called for ‘classic statesmanship’ to end the war on terms that included the retention of the emperor.[10] A week later, the 13th August issue that covered the atomic bombs, also carried a cameo that probably captured the mood of the day. Entitled ‘A Jap Burns’, the article showed photographs of the last moments of a Japanese soldier on Borneo as he writhed in flames after being blasted by an Australian flamethrower. The pictures were accompanied by the following commentary:
‘… the flamethrower is easily the most cruel, the most terrifying weapon ever developed. If it does not suffocate the enemy in his hiding place, its quickly licking tongues of flame sear his body to a black crisp. But so long as the Jap refuses to come out of his holes and keeps on killing, this is the only way.’[11]
In a sense, Truman was doing the same thing for broadly the same reasons, although on an infinitely larger scale. As I alluded to in the previous article, he regarded the Japanese as ‘beasts’. History has shown that once an enemy is regarded as something less than human, any restraint on the violence that can be inflicted upon them quickly evaporates.
Photo by WikiImages is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-08-15--Northern Ireland Centenary: This country

This is about the centenary of Northern Ireland .
But first , a slight detour .
In Lucy Caldwell ’ s , ‘ Multitudes , ’ one of her characters describes the heartache of watching her teenage school friend move from Northern Ireland to England .
“ They ’ ve had enough is what Susan ’ s mum says .
She just can ’ t take it anymore .
‘ This country , ’ she says to my mum .
‘ This country , ’ my mum says back to her , and neither of them says anything else.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it describes one part of my complicated relationship with the place I call home .
This country .
This wee , awkward , mad country .
So complex and different that , as I write this , I have to remind myself that people disagree that Northern Ireland is a country .
This country .
This frustrating place with its conflict , history and politics that often seem stuck in the dark ages .
Growing up , friends would talk of leaving and living elsewhere .
Some of them did and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you tell people .
You ’ re stamped with a label the minute you ’ re born .
You have to carry the weight of it all whether you want to or not .
Other parts of the world , other parts of the United Kingdom , don ’ t have to deal with this crap .
Every time I leave Northern Ireland , I long to return .
When I go to Britain , the “ mainland , ” I don ’ t fit in .
They think I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seem to know Northern Ireland exists .
I don ’ t see myself in the Republic , in its flag or its traditions .
There ’ s no place for me there .
I might be the only person who feels like this but if you take Northern Ireland out of the equation , where do I belong ?
The answer is nowhere .
I have raged it at , hated it at times but I belong here .
I can point on a map to the six counties and call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weirdness and frustrations , I feel proud of it .
That feeling doesn ’ t arise from listening to politicians but looking at the people who live here .
So , the centenary .
Where do my ramblings fit in ?
Months ago , in a pre-covid world , I attended a panel discussion about the centenary alongside Sam McBride and Joe Austin .
They were great and I was terrible .
As I rambled I said that , unconsciously , I had always thought of 2021/2022 as the centenary of Northern Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the same thing , yes , but there is a difference .
In 1921 , Ireland was split in two .
For some , it meant sanctuary .
For others , tragedy .
Given my background , it shouldn ’ t be a surprise that I ’ ve always thought of 1921/1922 as the date that marks the birth of my homeland .
Of course I feel a sense of belonging here .
It shouldn ’ t be a surprise that my friends from a catholic , nationalist background look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It represents the moment that they were cut off from their community and left inside a country that alienated them and treated them badly .
For them , it ’ s the centenary of partition .
For me , it ’ s the centenary of Northern Ireland .
Boris Johnson has announced plans to appoint a panel to advise the government on how to commemorate Northern Ireland ’ s 100th birthday .
We ’ ve been told to expect a celebration of our people , culture and traditions .
Jim Allister is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been some perplexity about people wanting to celebrate .
Given the link between Northern Ireland and people ’ s identity , it should be expected .
It ’ s an important date for many .
Some are doing a very job of pretending to be shocked that Michelle O ’ Neill doesn ’ t sound too keen on Boris ’ big plan .
Anyone who does this shouldn ’ t be taken seriously .
I highly doubt nationalists and republicans are going to be buying Jim ’ s minted coins .
People need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say I ’ ll be busting out the champagne , but I ’ ll be commemorating and marking the occasion .
I have no problem with others celebrating but it needs to be respectful .
Celebration without reflection is pointless .
I dread a tone-deaf series of events which presents one side and one point of view .
I fear a commemoration which ignores the complexities of the history we ’ re commemorating .
Northern Ireland is more diverse than orange and green .
We need to hear from people who rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a focus on the next 100 years .
We shouldn ’ t pretend that the past 100 years have been wonderful either .
My friend was murdered in a street in Derry during “ peace time.
” Three thousand people died during the Troubles and we haven ’ t the decency to pay the victims a proper pension .
My only hope , no matter happens , is that we ’ ll listen to one another and understand each other ’ s point of view .
Will it happen ?
I highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : if we do this badly , it could be a disaster .
It ’ s impossible to cover the nuances and complexities of the commemoration in one article .
Still , it ’ s always good to have a reality check .
I suspect most people in Northern Ireland will flick the channel over when centenary discussions begin next year .
They ’ ll shake their head as they tune into Come Dine With Me and consider making another cup of tea .
This country , they ’ ll mutter , and @ @ @ @

This is about the centenary of Northern Ireland. But first, a slight detour.
In Lucy Caldwell’s, ‘Multitudes,’ one of her characters describes the heartache of watching her teenage school friend move from Northern Ireland to England.
“They’ve had enough is what Susan’s mum says. She just can’t take it anymore.
‘This country,’ she says to my mum.
‘This country,’ my mum says back to her, and neither of them says anything else.”
The scene has always stuck with me because it describes one part of my complicated relationship with the place I call home. This country. This wee, awkward, mad country. So complex and different that, as I write this, I have to remind myself that people disagree that Northern Ireland is a country.
This country. This frustrating place with its conflict, history and politics that often seem stuck in the dark ages. Growing up, friends would talk of leaving and living elsewhere. Some of them did and never came back. Things are complicated here, you tell people. You’re stamped with a label the minute you’re born. You have to carry the weight of it all whether you want to or not. Other parts of the world, other parts of the United Kingdom, don’t have to deal with this crap.
But there’s a truth:
Every time I leave Northern Ireland, I long to return. When I go to Britain, the “mainland,” I don’t fit in. They think I’m a ‘paddy’ and they don’t seem to know Northern Ireland exists. I don’t see myself in the Republic, in its flag or its traditions. There’s no place for me there.
I might be the only person who feels like this but if you take Northern Ireland out of the equation, where do I belong? The answer is nowhere. I have raged it at, hated it at times but I belong here. I can point on a map to the six counties and call this place home. With all its weirdness and frustrations, I feel proud of it. That feeling doesn’t arise from listening to politicians but looking at the people who live here.
So, the centenary. Where do my ramblings fit in? Months ago, in a pre-covid world, I attended a panel discussion about the centenary alongside Sam McBride and Joe Austin. They were great and I was terrible. As I rambled I said that, unconsciously, I had always thought of 2021/2022 as the centenary of Northern Ireland, not the centenary of partition. It’s the same thing, yes, but there is a difference.
In 1921, Ireland was split in two. For some, it meant sanctuary. For others, tragedy.
Given my background, it shouldn’t be a surprise that I’ve always thought of 1921/1922 as the date that marks the birth of my homeland. Of course I feel a sense of belonging here. It shouldn’t be a surprise that my friends from a catholic, nationalist background look at the same date and think differently. It represents the moment that they were cut off from their community and left inside a country that alienated them and treated them badly. For them, it’s the centenary of partition. For me, it’s the centenary of Northern Ireland.
Boris Johnson has announced plans to appoint a panel to advise the government on how to commemorate Northern Ireland’s 100th birthday. We’ve been told to expect a celebration of our people, culture and traditions. Jim Allister is planning the merchandise.
There’s been some perplexity about people wanting to celebrate. Given the link between Northern Ireland and people’s identity, it should be expected. It’s an important date for many.
Some are doing a very job of pretending to be shocked that Michelle O’Neill doesn’t sound too keen on Boris’ big plan. Anyone who does this shouldn’t be taken seriously. I highly doubt nationalists and republicans are going to be buying Jim’s minted coins. People need to accept that.
I can’t say I’ll be busting out the champagne, but I’ll be commemorating and marking the occasion. I have no problem with others celebrating but it needs to be respectful. Celebration without reflection is pointless. I dread a tone-deaf series of events which presents one side and one point of view. I fear a commemoration which ignores the complexities of the history we’re commemorating. Northern Ireland is more diverse than orange and green. We need to hear from people who rarely get a voice. There needs to be a focus on the next 100 years.
We shouldn’t pretend that the past 100 years have been wonderful either. My friend was murdered in a street in Derry during “peace time.” Three thousand people died during the Troubles and we haven’t the decency to pay the victims a proper pension.
My only hope, no matter happens, is that we’ll listen to one another and understand each other’s point of view. Will it happen? I highly doubt it. One thing is certain: if we do this badly, it could be a disaster.
It’s impossible to cover the nuances and complexities of the commemoration in one article. Still, it’s always good to have a reality check. I suspect most people in Northern Ireland will flick the channel over when centenary discussions begin next year. They’ll shake their head as they tune into Come Dine With Me and consider making another cup of tea. This country, they’ll mutter, and say nothing else.


sluggerotoole--2020-08-15--#InConversation podcast with Greg Keefe from Queen’s about rebuilding our cities and societies after

#InConversation podcast with Greg Keefe from Queen’s about rebuilding our cities and societies after Covid-19…

Greg is one of my favourite guests .
He is a very imaginative thinker who really makes you see the world in a new light .
He has a very down to earth casual manner that explains complex topics is an accessible way .
You will be guaranteed to learn something interesting from our chat .
Greg is Head of the School of Natural and Built Environment .
He is an academic and urban designer with 25 years of experience .
In this podcast we chat over a wide range of topics : Pandemics affect city design , desire lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who enjoy their jobs like working from home , the importance of boredom , overprotected kids , why cars kill cities , driverless cars , the future of the office , why young people should be the focus for city investment , how electric bikes and scooters can transform cities , how working from home can revitalise our regional towns , why thinking of Northern Ireland as a hyper low-density city can transform government services and much more… Let me know what you think of the chat in the comments .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ | Google Podcasts or Spotify

Greg is one of my favourite guests. He is a very imaginative thinker who really makes you see the world in a new light. He has a very down to earth casual manner that explains complex topics is an accessible way. You will be guaranteed to learn something interesting from our chat.
Greg is Head of the School of Natural and Built Environment. He is an academic and urban designer with 25 years of experience. In this podcast we chat over a wide range of topics:
Pandemics affect city design, desire lines, how industrialisation compartmentalised life, people who enjoy their jobs like working from home, the importance of boredom, overprotected kids, why cars kill cities, driverless cars, the future of the office, why young people should be the focus for city investment, how electric bikes and scooters can transform cities, how working from home can revitalise our regional towns, why thinking of Northern Ireland as a hyper low-density city can transform government services and much more…
Let me know what you think of the chat in the comments.
Powered by RedCircle
You can subscribe to Slugger Podcasts on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts or Spotify


sluggerotoole--2020-08-15--The tricky decision of whether or not to take Statins…

I came to statin treatment in a bizarre way .
I went to my bank to arrange a loan and having agreed to the amount the bank asked for additional life cover .
The life assurance company , in view of my advancing years ( I was 48 ) , required a medical and everything came back tip-top except my cholesterol level that weighed in at a handsome yet shocking 9.2 ( average is 5.2 ) .
I was put on a statin and a decision on the life assurance reserved for six weeks at which time my cholesterol was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the life assurance company quoted a rate that could only apply to a ninety-year-old with a terminal illness so I told them to stuff it and threatened to change banks ; a tactic I should have used in the first place .
I got my loan without the life premium but now I had a cholesterol problem .
Two years later , having reflected on the science , I stopped taking the statin and I felt much better .
My high cholesterol level , a genetic gift from the maternal side of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely a coronary risk factor so I reduced my overall risk by means other than taking a daily statin .
My statin gave me migraine a condition I had never experience before and there was at that time a signal in the medical literature , a weak signal , suggesting that long-term statin use and degenerative brain disease might be linked .
So , I stopped them .
Ten years later a chest pain incident on Cavehill caused me to visit my GP , who after telling me to stay off Cavehill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which turned out anything but routine .
I was whisked into hospital and a stent inserted into one of my coronary arteries .
I was severely admonished by a consultant for stopping my statins and I was back on a higher dose .
In the1980s reducing cholesterol to reduce heart disease was first established and became an unassailable fact .
The initial treatments were impossible to take and therefore statins , with their outstanding efficacy and safety , were a God-send when first introduced in the late 1980s .
The now-famous statin studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simvastatin Survival Study ) and the WOSCOP ( West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study ) , established beyond reasonable doubt that where cholesterol levels are reduced the number of heart attacks and heart deaths fall .
So good were the study results that current UK guidelines recommend that anyone with a 10 % chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 year should take a statin .
Great !
Not so great actually .
Two medical authors ; James Le Fanu and Malcolm Kendrick among others have written critically on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use data from the main studies to make the case that over the last 40 year we may all have been part of a mighty medical and financial con .
For heretics , they are pretty good at maths and slowly lead numeric illiterates such as I , through the details of the study numbers .
The studies present population statistics showing that there is a 30 % reduction in heart deaths in those taking statins but these studies prove less predictive for individuals .
The individual benefit is calculated using a measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ; for primary prevention ( not having heart disease ) 250 people must take a statin daily ( be treated ) for 5 years to avoid one coronary death .
That can ’ t be right I hear you say but it is .
A more recent review of studies by BMJ found that three-quarters of trials reported no mortality benefits from statin use and have reported no benefit from heart diseases at all .
But even if , as some trials suggest , you are less likely to die of heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up dying of something else such as cancer .
Even in high-risk patients , such as I , 39 people need to take a statin for five year to avoid one heart event , that is , 38 high-risk patients get no benefit .
Authors in the BMJ study comment that normally the existence of such contradictory evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or a modification of the theory ( lowering cholesterol reduces deaths ) but this evidence has been largely ignored as it does not fit the prevailing orthodoxy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the listed side-effects and they are not trivial .
Muscle pain , memory lapses , exhaustion ; I just thought I was getting older not that I was being poisoned by my own life-saving medicine .
I am genuinely anxious that people reading this and taking statins do not stop until they get the right information for themselves and then , and only then , with informed choice .
Cholesterol is not all bad ; it makes sex hormones and is a component of every cell in your body .
Those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from this over the age of 60 ; there seems to be protection against infection and cancer as we get older .
I reason I must die of something and if higher cholesterol guards against cancers as I age , I will not need to worry too much about how life assurance actuaries define my chances of survival or my ability to get a bank loan .
( 5 ) BMJ Evidence-based medicine Hit or Miss : the new cholesterol targets ( 6 ) Other scientists respond to the BMJ report Photo by @ @ @ @ @ @

I came to statin treatment in a bizarre way. I went to my bank to arrange a loan and having agreed to the amount the bank asked for additional life cover. The life assurance company, in view of my advancing years (I was 48), required a medical and everything came back tip-top except my cholesterol level that weighed in at a handsome yet shocking 9.2 (average is 5.2). I was put on a statin and a decision on the life assurance reserved for six weeks at which time my cholesterol was down impressively to 5.1 mmol/L. Then the life assurance company quoted a rate that could only apply to a ninety-year-old with a terminal illness so I told them to stuff it and threatened to change banks; a tactic I should have used in the first place. I got my loan without the life premium but now I had a cholesterol problem.
Two years later, having reflected on the science, I stopped taking the statin and I felt much better. My high cholesterol level, a genetic gift from the maternal side of the family, is not a disease, merely a coronary risk factor so I reduced my overall risk by means other than taking a daily statin. My statin gave me migraine a condition I had never experience before and there was at that time a signal in the medical literature, a weak signal, suggesting that long-term statin use and degenerative brain disease might be linked. So, I stopped them.
Ten years later a chest pain incident on Cavehill caused me to visit my GP, who after telling me to stay off Cavehill, referred me for a routine cardiac assessment which turned out anything but routine. I was whisked into hospital and a stent inserted into one of my coronary arteries. I was severely admonished by a consultant for stopping my statins and I was back on a higher dose.
In the1980s reducing cholesterol to reduce heart disease was first established and became an unassailable fact. The initial treatments were impossible to take and therefore statins, with their outstanding efficacy and safety, were a God-send when first introduced in the late 1980s. The now-famous statin studies for example; the 4S (Scandanavian Simvastatin Survival Study) and the WOSCOP (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study), established beyond reasonable doubt that where cholesterol levels are reduced the number of heart attacks and heart deaths fall.
So good were the study results that current UK guidelines recommend that anyone with a 10% chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 year should take a statin. Great! Not so great actually. Two medical authors; James Le Fanu and Malcolm Kendrick among others have written critically on the safety and efficacy of statins. They use data from the main studies to make the case that over the last 40 year we may all have been part of a mighty medical and financial con. For heretics, they are pretty good at maths and slowly lead numeric illiterates such as I, through the details of the study numbers.
The studies present population statistics showing that there is a 30% reduction in heart deaths in those taking statins but these studies prove less predictive for individuals. The individual benefit is calculated using a measure called Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT); for primary prevention (not having heart disease) 250 people must take a statin daily (be treated) for 5 years to avoid one coronary death. That can’t be right I hear you say but it is. A more recent review of studies by BMJ found that three-quarters of trials reported no mortality benefits from statin use and have reported no benefit from heart diseases at all.
But even if, as some trials suggest, you are less likely to die of heart disease when you take a statin you end up dying of something else such as cancer. Even in high-risk patients, such as I, 39 people need to take a statin for five year to avoid one heart event, that is, 38 high-risk patients get no benefit. Authors in the BMJ study comment that normally the existence of such contradictory evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or a modification of the theory (lowering cholesterol reduces deaths) but this evidence has been largely ignored as it does not fit the prevailing orthodoxy.
I now realise that I have many of the listed side-effects and they are not trivial. Muscle pain, memory lapses, exhaustion; I just thought I was getting older not that I was being poisoned by my own life-saving medicine.
I am genuinely anxious that people reading this and taking statins do not stop until they get the right information for themselves and then, and only then, with informed choice. Cholesterol is not all bad; it makes sex hormones and is a component of every cell in your body. Those who have high cholesterol levels get some benefit from this over the age of 60; there seems to be protection against infection and cancer as we get older. I reason I must die of something and if higher cholesterol guards against cancers as I age, I will not need to worry too much about how life assurance actuaries define my chances of survival or my ability to get a bank loan.
Links:
(1) James La Fanu Too many pills
(2) A statin Nation.
(3) Carolina total Wellbeing cholesterol controversies
(4) European scientist controversies cholesterol
(5) BMJ Evidence-based medicine Hit or Miss: the new cholesterol targets
(6) Other scientists respond to the BMJ report
Photo by TheUjulala is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-08-16--We need to stop producing any new books, films and TV shows until we all have had a chance to catch

We need to stop producing any new books, films and TV shows until we all have had a chance to catch up…

One of the stresses of modern life is the tsunami of content out there .
Aside from the bottomless pit of social media and online news there has never been such a volume of everything .
On my TV I have the BBC iPlayer , Amazon Prime , Netflix , Disney+ , Apple TV , Britbox and NowTV .
The issue is I only watch about 1 hour of TV a day so it is impossible to even touch the surface of all the new shows out there .
Why so many services you might ask ?
Well , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you actually do want to watch is on a different service .
I like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver , but it is only on Now TV .
I like Grantchester and similar dramas but they are on Britbox .
You get the idea .
Sometimes I feel like just declaring TV bankruptcy , cancelling all the services and stop watching TV altogether .
But then a show comes along that you want to watch and you are off the wagon again… As for newspapers , I have subscriptions to the Irish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I also buy the Irish News and Daily Mirror for my parents and have a read of them as well .
My tipping point was when I got a trial subscription to the Economist , it was the straw that broke the camel ’ s back .
The sheer volume of content in the Economist and the regularity of it popping through my letterbox was too much to bear .
Let ’ s turn to books .
In today ’ s Guardian they report that an astonishing 600 books are to be published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are churning out more books than ever but we all have less time to read them .
With the enticing Kindle Daily Deals , my kindle is full of half-read books .
I still buy a lot of real books due to the bizarre fact that some print books are cheaper than their ebook versions .
Then there are podcasts .
I love a good podcast : I now listen to more podcasts than radio but even there we have seen an explosion of new content .
During lockdown , everyone seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start their own podcast including myself – but obviously my own is an essential listen .
I find the sheer volume of everything quite stressful .
I long for the simpler days when we just had a few TV stations to choose from .
Too much choice actually does stress us out , so it is not just me .
So my proposal is in 2021 we take a year off producing anything to give us all a chance to catch up on all the books , TV shows , podcasts , films @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might be hard to convince the global entertainment and media industries to embrace my plan in which case I might have to give plan B a go .
Over the past few months , I have given serious consideration to going to some remote island in Fermanagh for a digital detox .
I suspect I am not the first person to have this thought as there are actually a few retreat centres on Islands in Fermanagh .
Some yoga , nice healthy food , lots of walks , meditation and no feckin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , the problem with a retreat of a holiday is when you come back home and you are back into your old bad habits .
Until then I shall embrace the wise words of Declan Nerney , stop the world and let me off !
Photo by LubosHouska is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

One of the stresses of modern life is the tsunami of content out there. Aside from the bottomless pit of social media and online news there has never been such a volume of everything.
On my TV I have the BBC iPlayer, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV, Britbox and NowTV. The issue is I only watch about 1 hour of TV a day so it is impossible to even touch the surface of all the new shows out there. Why so many services you might ask? Well, it is that annoying thing where the thing you actually do want to watch is on a different service. I like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, but it is only on Now TV. I like Grantchester and similar dramas but they are on Britbox. You get the idea.
Sometimes I feel like just declaring TV bankruptcy, cancelling all the services and stop watching TV altogether. But then a show comes along that you want to watch and you are off the wagon again…
As for newspapers, I have subscriptions to the Irish Times and the New York Times. I also buy the Irish News and Daily Mirror for my parents and have a read of them as well. My tipping point was when I got a trial subscription to the Economist, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The sheer volume of content in the Economist and the regularity of it popping through my letterbox was too much to bear.
Let’s turn to books. In today’s Guardian they report that an astonishing 600 books are to be published on one day next month. We are churning out more books than ever but we all have less time to read them. With the enticing Kindle Daily Deals, my kindle is full of half-read books. I still buy a lot of real books due to the bizarre fact that some print books are cheaper than their ebook versions.
Then there are podcasts. I love a good podcast: I now listen to more podcasts than radio but even there we have seen an explosion of new content. During lockdown, everyone seems to have thought it a good idea to start their own podcast including myself – but obviously my own is an essential listen.
I find the sheer volume of everything quite stressful. I long for the simpler days when we just had a few TV stations to choose from. Too much choice actually does stress us out, so it is not just me.
So my proposal is in 2021 we take a year off producing anything to give us all a chance to catch up on all the books, TV shows, podcasts, films etc we have missed.
I suspect it might be hard to convince the global entertainment and media industries to embrace my plan in which case I might have to give plan B a go.
Over the past few months, I have given serious consideration to going to some remote island in Fermanagh for a digital detox. I suspect I am not the first person to have this thought as there are actually a few retreat centres on Islands in Fermanagh. Some yoga, nice healthy food, lots of walks, meditation and no feckin’ WIFI is just what I need.
Of course, the problem with a retreat of a holiday is when you come back home and you are back into your old bad habits.
Until then I shall embrace the wise words of Declan Nerney, stop the world and let me off!
Photo by LubosHouska is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-08-16--No one is safe until we’re all safe…

No one is safe until we’re all safe…

When a friend asked me to write a piece about Covid-19 , I was reluctant .
Apart from a short poem I ’ d written very early on in the pandemic , I found it difficult to pen additional thoughts in prose , for how could I add to what had already been said ?
But all of us have a Covid-19 story and perhaps it ’ s edifying to take time to look back and appraise our experiences thus far .
So here is part of my story – a journey that began on Friday 13th of March when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a connecting flight in Dubai en route .
During the days and weeks prior to leaving Oman I had been very mindful of a virus originating in China .
Perhaps it helped that my television viewing revolved around international news channels and WHO briefings – the warnings were being flagged up from as early as January .
It was therefore no great surprise that my passage through two international airports in March involved the unnerving sight of vacant shops in Duty Free , all ground staff masked and gloved , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , it was reassuring to find that the threat of the virus was at least being taken seriously .
Physical distancing is virtually impossible on a plane , so even at that time most of the passengers wore masks .
Nothing seemed untoward during the second flight , until after landing the pilot asked all passengers to remain seated while a sick passenger on board was taken off the aircraft first .
A medical crew duly boarded to assist a gentleman ( sitting two rows ahead of me ) , off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
Infectious with something – who knew ?
At the very least I thought the airline would caution us as to any ongoing precautions that might be needed on our onward journeys , but within minutes we were given the go-ahead to disembark .
All I received by way of information was a generic leaflet about Coronavirus as I left the terminal building to go and catch the coach up north .
On arriving home , I quarantined myself , just in case .
In terms of awareness of Covid-19 , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where I ’ d come from and where I ’ d arrived at and , to tell you the truth , it was more than a little disconcerting .
Had I been duped into thinking that the virus was more deadly than it actually was ?
Where was the real urgency from government television briefings in getting the Covid-19 message across ?
Why was there such a laissez-faire attitude from those we rely upon to tell us the truth ?
Eventually , I surmised that the answer was one of two : either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced that until bad things arrive with us , they will always happen to somebody else , or else our government was too arrogant to believe that they ever would .
Sadly , as time passed and the pandemic chewed its way into all our lives , I believe it was the latter .
My intention is not to write this piece in the guise of some political commentator , for I have no agenda in that respect .
But it ’ s frustrating that ordinary people like me are so often treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundamentals , which is completely disrespectful .
For this reason , I am adding my voice to the mix .
When the political leader of our country refuses to answer straightforward ( i.e .
awkward ) questions and then declares with a flourish of armography , ‘ Look , this is what the British people want !
’ I want to scream , ‘ No , Mr Johnson , you are wrong about that and if you want to know what this citizen wants , then I offer you my list : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put your hands up when you are found to be telling obvious lies .
I want you to say that little innocuous word , ‘ Sorry ’ , even if it nearly chokes you to do it – it is one of the most powerful words in the dictionary .
I want you to stop putting politics before people although I know you will never admit to that in a month of Sundays .
I want you to recognise that the majority of people in the UK actually did their damnedest to stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and blew that out of the water .
I want you and your colleagues to show more humility ( and actually mean it ) .
In short , I want you to be a lot more like the decent , ordinary people you claim to represent and who have suffered so terribly .
As I write this , the number of human beings who have died in the UK from Covid-19 is forty-six thousand seven hundred and six .
Forty-six thousand seven hundred and six people who no longer live and breathe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
Forty-six thousand seven hundred and six people who also had a Covid-19 story to tell until their own narrative came to an untimely and abrupt end .
Think about that .
My Covid-19 story continues like everyone else ’ s , with much uncertainty .
We are marred by this virus in different ways and to various extents , and it seems that this pandemic has a long way to go yet .
Globally and Internationally it may be difficult for the ordinary man and woman in the street to influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual level we can all play our part , adhering to the advice that , for most of us , is surely easy enough to comply with .
‘ No one is safe until we ’ re all safe ’ , the quote that has stayed with me since I first heard Dr Maria Van Kerkhove say it during a WHO briefing .
It ’ s a mantra I try to remind myself of when I get hot under the collar about having to wear a mask indoors or being unable to hug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most powerful weapon we have in battling Covid-19 is our combined resolve .
Let ’ s not waste it .
Photo by Alexandra_Koch is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

When a friend asked me to write a piece about Covid-19, I was reluctant. Apart from a short poem I’d written very early on in the pandemic, I found it difficult to pen additional thoughts in prose, for how could I add to what had already been said? But all of us have a Covid-19 story and perhaps it’s edifying to take time to look back and appraise our experiences thus far. So here is part of my story – a journey that began on Friday 13th of March when I flew from Muscat to Dublin, with a connecting flight in Dubai en route.
During the days and weeks prior to leaving Oman I had been very mindful of a virus originating in China. Perhaps it helped that my television viewing revolved around international news channels and WHO briefings – the warnings were being flagged up from as early as January. It was therefore no great surprise that my passage through two international airports in March involved the unnerving sight of vacant shops in Duty Free, all ground staff masked and gloved, and the eerie reality of almost-empty terminal buildings. Yet, it was reassuring to find that the threat of the virus was at least being taken seriously.
Physical distancing is virtually impossible on a plane, so even at that time most of the passengers wore masks. Nothing seemed untoward during the second flight, until after landing the pilot asked all passengers to remain seated while a sick passenger on board was taken off the aircraft first. A medical crew duly boarded to assist a gentleman (sitting two rows ahead of me), off the plane. Healthy, he definitely was not. Infectious with something – who knew? At the very least I thought the airline would caution us as to any ongoing precautions that might be needed on our onward journeys, but within minutes we were given the go-ahead to disembark. All I received by way of information was a generic leaflet about Coronavirus as I left the terminal building to go and catch the coach up north. On arriving home, I quarantined myself, just in case.
In terms of awareness of Covid-19, I was starting to register the disconnection between where I’d come from and where I’d arrived at and, to tell you the truth, it was more than a little disconcerting. Had I been duped into thinking that the virus was more deadly than it actually was? Where was the real urgency from government television briefings in getting the Covid-19 message across? Why was there such a laissez-faire attitude from those we rely upon to tell us the truth? Eventually, I surmised that the answer was one of two: either we, as human beings, are convinced that until bad things arrive with us, they will always happen to somebody else, or else our government was too arrogant to believe that they ever would. Sadly, as time passed and the pandemic chewed its way into all our lives, I believe it was the latter.
My intention is not to write this piece in the guise of some political commentator, for I have no agenda in that respect. But it’s frustrating that ordinary people like me are so often treated as though they have little grasp of the fundamentals, which is completely disrespectful. For this reason, I am adding my voice to the mix. When the political leader of our country refuses to answer straightforward (i.e. awkward) questions and then declares with a flourish of armography, ‘Look, this is what the British people want!’ I want to scream, ‘No, Mr Johnson, you are wrong about that and if you want to know what this citizen wants, then I offer you my list:
I want you and your colleagues to put your hands up when you are found to be telling obvious lies.
I want you to say that little innocuous word, ‘Sorry’, even if it nearly chokes you to do it – it is one of the most powerful words in the dictionary.
I want you to stop putting politics before people although I know you will never admit to that in a month of Sundays.
I want you to recognise that the majority of people in the UK actually did their damnedest to stick to the rules until Dominic Cummings went and blew that out of the water.
I want you and your colleagues to show more humility (and actually mean it).
In short, I want you to be a lot more like the decent, ordinary people you claim to represent and who have suffered so terribly.
As I write this, the number of human beings who have died in the UK from Covid-19 is forty-six thousand seven hundred and six. Forty-six thousand seven hundred and six people who no longer live and breathe and share this world with the rest of us. Forty-six thousand seven hundred and six people who also had a Covid-19 story to tell until their own narrative came to an untimely and abrupt end. Think about that.
My Covid-19 story continues like everyone else’s, with much uncertainty. We are marred by this virus in different ways and to various extents, and it seems that this pandemic has a long way to go yet. Globally and Internationally it may be difficult for the ordinary man and woman in the street to influence the pattern of events but on an individual level we can all play our part, adhering to the advice that, for most of us, is surely easy enough to comply with. ‘No one is safe until we’re all safe’, the quote that has stayed with me since I first heard Dr Maria Van Kerkhove say it during a WHO briefing. It’s a mantra I try to remind myself of when I get hot under the collar about having to wear a mask indoors or being unable to hug the people I care about. The most powerful weapon we have in battling Covid-19 is our combined resolve. Let’s not waste it.
Photo by Alexandra_Koch is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-08-17--NI Assembly has the opportunity to the fix the injustice of dodgy algorithms (and more besides)

I ’ ve been grabbing staycation time where I could .
Meantime aside from the death of John Hume , that damned algorithm that was supposed to moderate A level results blew up in everyone ’ s faces .
Everyone who chose to use it : the UK government in England , and every devolved institution in Scotland , Wales , and Northern Ireland .
Even the Republic has it coming over Leaving Cert results .
The core problem seems to have been pretty simple , all these administrations have chosen to use generalised past performance of their exam centres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I spoke to Nolan early last week when the story was still to break in Northern Ireland ( about 50 mins in ) … Dan Davies in the Guardian lays out the key fault pristinely : Now , given this is where the governments ( yes , one and all , including Northern Ireland and independently minded Scotland ) left the realms of common sense .
But it didn ’ t stop there .
One reason for the gross socio-economic bias ( which the UK Education department still seemed not to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in where downgrades fell ( Nolan ’ s last week is full real stories ) .
Scotland ’ s Education Minister spent nearly a week struggling to square these same circles , much to the delight of Tory MSPs ( who had clearly been re-assured the English version had ironed out these issues ) .
In the end , he gave up on trying to tackle grade inflation without any credible tools to hand and told students in Scotland that the teachers ’ estimates would stand .
Yay , for them at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the best of times ( Davies says there ’ s no better than a 70 % chance any two markers will agree on the same mark on the same paper ) .
In Northern Ireland , Carl O ’ Brien notes the weird distribution curve the algorithm has delivered here… Whilst the minister Peter Weir is sticking to his guns , O ’ Brien also notes the Ombudsman in the Republic has already put a shot across the southern Education minister ’ s bow… In Northern Ireland , Alliance and Sinn Féin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Assembly to debate the matter , which calls for students to be awarded the highest A-level grade from three options : • AS-level results ( which like Wales is still prevalent in NI ) ; • or the grade they were given through the now controversial algorithm .
All universities normally have tight turn rounds for places .
The cut off dates are in early September for appeals but many of the most popular courses will likely be full before an appeals process is complete .
Stormont is going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of places might be necessary , but in subjects like Medicine and Nursing , there is a tight funding limit set by the local Dept of Health .
Our universities , hit by the loss of lucrative overseas students this can not afford to dig into their reserves to sub students that sit outside Stormont ’ s pre-Covid such departmental spending limits .
The matter is urgent , and the SDLP ’ s Daniel McCrossan ( who has drawn praise from across the whole community ) is right to say it “ needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeat with GCSE results ” .
Tom Kelly in the Irish News strikes the right note : For any parent , it is not hard to put yourself in the shoes of kids who after months of social isolation and general aimlessness now face a period of indecision as the system tries to pull itself together .
This is another case in which by testing the boundaries of things that were ‘ always done this way ’ , Covid 19 provides another opportunity for the institutions of the Belfast Agreement to show they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of doing things rather differently to the way they have been done before to tackle the now grinding brake that educational inequality applies to our poorer students .
Having seen just how ropey and unequal the current system is towards larger institutions and those with poorer intake is , this ought to be a springboard for wider debate on how we handle our kids .
How about lobbying for the introduction of Texas ’ “ Top 10 % Rule ” ( h/t Chris ) in the UK ( or indeed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leveling up access to education from institutions right across the state ?
These ‘ dodgy ’ algorithms have only been set to reproduce the same biases inherent in the system as it already is .
If you think it daft to treat real people as averages , social media companies do it all the time .
It ’ s what increasingly mediates our social landscape and it is making the doing of practical politics almost impossible as politicians and civil servants look for machines to take the burn out of complexity .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet age to complain about irritating and then forget that it is us that we also need practical ideas to make things better than they have become .
We know well in Northern Ireland where such fatalism leads if we keep giving in to it .
More power to the Assembly ( and the Ombudsman ) to remind us that democratic power is accountable power .
And accountable is better and smarter than unaccountable .
The Executive ( as a collective ) should draw its breath and respond positively to the pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done right across the board !
Photo by skeeze is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

I’ve been grabbing staycation time where I could. Meantime aside from the death of John Hume, that damned algorithm that was supposed to moderate A level results blew up in everyone’s faces.
Everyone who chose to use it: the UK government in England, and every devolved institution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Even the Republic has it coming over Leaving Cert results.
The core problem seems to have been pretty simple, all these administrations have chosen to use generalised past performance of their exam centres to moderate the specific results of individuals.
I spoke to Nolan early last week when the story was still to break in Northern Ireland (about 50 mins in)…
Scotland u-turn over exam results – but NI exam body say there will be 'no change' in the approach here Is it fair to judge pupils on the past history of their school?@McCrossanMLA | @RobbieButlerMLA | @Chris_Lyttle | @mickfealty 🎧 https://t.co/oWe6qlX7PW pic.twitter.com/G95qOPBDuR — The Nolan Show, BBC (@BBCNolan) August 12, 2020
Dan Davies in the Guardian lays out the key fault pristinely:
The problem was fundamentally insoluble, from a mathematical point of view. If the system is dependent on exams to allocate the grades, but it can’t have the exams, then it can’t allocate the grades. No statistical method in the world is going to be able to give you good results if the information you’re looking for is fundamentally not there in the dataset that you’re trying to extract it from.
Now, given this is where the governments (yes, one and all, including Northern Ireland and independently minded Scotland) left the realms of common sense. But it didn’t stop there.
Davies continues…
Ofqual decided to apply its smoothing algorithm most rigorously to the cases where it had the most data, and not at all when there were too few data points to fit the algorithm to. Although that might be a wonk’s idea of a sensible estimation process, a moment’s reflection should have had someone involved saying something like: “Doesn’t that mean the algorithm is going to apply to big centres (like FE colleges) but not small centres (like public schools), which is a problem if it’s pulling the grades down a lot?”
One reason for the gross socio-economic bias (which the UK Education department still seemed not to have understood by the end of the week) in where downgrades fell (Nolan’s last week is full real stories).
Scotland’s Education Minister spent nearly a week struggling to square these same circles, much to the delight of Tory MSPs (who had clearly been re-assured the English version had ironed out these issues).
In the end, he gave up on trying to tackle grade inflation without any credible tools to hand and told students in Scotland that the teachers’ estimates would stand. Yay, for them at least.
Exam results can be arbitrary at the best of times (Davies says there’s no better than a 70% chance any two markers will agree on the same mark on the same paper).
In Northern Ireland, Carl O’Brien notes the weird distribution curve the algorithm has delivered here…
…more than a third – 37 per cent – of estimated grades allocated by teachers to A-level students were lowered in the final results. However, there was an overall rise in grades and a record highs for the top A* and A grades.
Whilst the minister Peter Weir is sticking to his guns, O’Brien also notes the Ombudsman in the Republic has already put a shot across the southern Education minister’s bow…
This is a totally different year for students, so we need go with fairness and equity first. Comparability of results to previous years should not be as important. Fairness and equity should trump comparability.
In Northern Ireland, Alliance and Sinn Féin supported an SDLP petition for the return of the Assembly to debate the matter, which calls for students to be awarded the highest A-level grade from three options:
AS-level results (which like Wales is still prevalent in NI);
their teacher-predicted grade;
or the grade they were given through the now controversial algorithm.
All universities normally have tight turn rounds for places. The cut off dates are in early September for appeals but many of the most popular courses will likely be full before an appeals process is complete.
Stormont is going to have to cut them some slack. Expansion of places might be necessary, but in subjects like Medicine and Nursing, there is a tight funding limit set by the local Dept of Health.
Our universities, hit by the loss of lucrative overseas students this cannot afford to dig into their reserves to sub students that sit outside Stormont’s pre-Covid such departmental spending limits.
The matter is urgent, and the SDLP’s Daniel McCrossan (who has drawn praise from across the whole community) is right to say it “needs corrected urgently now before we face a repeat with GCSE results”.
Tom Kelly in the Irish News strikes the right note:
This is a unique time. Covid-19 has robbed students of valuable schooling. And whilst exams are brutal and arbitrary measures of success, at least every student goes through the same process.
For any parent, it is not hard to put yourself in the shoes of kids who after months of social isolation and general aimlessness now face a period of indecision as the system tries to pull itself together.
This is another case in which by testing the boundaries of things that were ‘always done this way’, Covid 19 provides another opportunity for the institutions of the Belfast Agreement to show they matter.
And it should also raise the possibility of doing things rather differently to the way they have been done before to tackle the now grinding brake that educational inequality applies to our poorer students.
Having seen just how ropey and unequal the current system is towards larger institutions and those with poorer intake is, this ought to be a springboard for wider debate on how we handle our kids.
How about lobbying for the introduction of Texas’ “Top 10% Rule” (h/t Chris) in the UK (or indeed the Republic) as a practical way of leveling up access to education from institutions right across the state?
These ‘dodgy’ algorithms have only been set to reproduce the same biases inherent in the system as it already is. If you think it daft to treat real people as averages, social media companies do it all the time.
It’s what increasingly mediates our social landscape and it is making the doing of practical politics almost impossible as politicians and civil servants look for machines to take the burn out of complexity.
Meanwhile, it has become common practice in the internet age to complain about irritating and then forget that it is us that we also need practical ideas to make things better than they have become.
We know well in Northern Ireland where such fatalism leads if we keep giving in to it. More power to the Assembly (and the Ombudsman) to remind us that democratic power is accountable power.
And accountable is better and smarter than unaccountable. The Executive (as a collective) should draw its breath and respond positively to the pressure, and do what needs to be done right across the board!
Photo by skeeze is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-08-17--‘I’m talking about a culture change in government in Northern Ireland: I mean the civil service and

‘I’m talking about a culture change in government in Northern Ireland: I mean the civil service and politicians’

Evidence-based policy-making is largely absent from government in Northern Ireland , but the new Pivotal think-tank has been established to correct that , says its director Ann Watt .
She was speaking in the last of the second series of Holywell Trust Forward Together podcasts .
The aim of Pivotal “ is to help improve public policy in Northern Ireland , ” says Ann .
“ It ’ s got a strong emphasis on research and evidence and on using evidence better in public policy.
” The very first Pivotal report , published in November last year , made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lists and waiting times in the NHS locally , stressing that numerically the Northern Ireland waiting list is more than a hundred times longer than that in England , despite England being almost 30 times ’ larger in terms of population .
Pivotal is the first think-tank established specifically to consider governance in Northern Ireland , despite these being a normal feature of Great Britain , Ireland and most developed nations .
Pivotal is backed by the north ’ s two universities and Ann herself is a former Cabinet Office and Treasury civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got lots of experience in policymaking and policy delivery ” as well as “ a background in economics ” , she explains .
“ Evidence-based policymaking was very much central to what I did in my civil service days.
” By contrast , in Northern Ireland , “ there ’ s been a reluctance to take the tough choices ” , specifically in the NHS , “ which might not be popular , but actually would deliver a better health service in the longer run , ” says Ann .
She explains that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might mean reconfiguring services so that particular aspects of healthcare happen in specialist centres , rather than in a wider set of hospitals across the country.
” Coalitions always make decision-making more difficult , and Ann concedes that “ having a five party coalition makes government work more difficult ” .
She adds : “ I think it ’ s particularly difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive because you ’ ve got departments headed by different ministers from different parties and without a clear common purpose.
” This makes the natural ‘ silo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ann does not understate the challenge facing Northern Ireland , which was clearly evident from the RHI debacle .
“ I think that the big , big thing in our good government report [ published in March ] was the need for a real change in the culture at Stormont.
” This requires the parties and departments to work together , with more long-term policymaking .
While the process for agreeing a Programme for Government in Northern Ireland has been flawed , Ann argues that in itself “ it is a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she continues : “ I think it needs to be developed and refined and , really importantly , it needs to the genuine set of objectives that government are jointly bought into and committed to.
” Northern Ireland ’ s weaknesses in government go beyond the political parties and into the heart of the Northern Ireland Civil Service , as was evident from Sir Patrick Coghlin ’ s report into RHI .
“ One clear recommendation from the report is recognising the civil service doesn ’ t have the skills that it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that they have those skills , or getting external people in… .
At the very end of Sir Patrick ’ s introductory remarks , he talked about RHI being a project too far for Stormont .
It was just too complex , too technical .
You got the sense that there wasn ’ t a full understanding of it.
” Part of the required culture change for the NICS might be achieved through greater diversity in the workforce , bringing people in from other jurisdictions and with different experience .
“ Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got things to learn from other people is probably really falling short , because we ’ ve always got things to learn , ” observes Ann .
“ Every organisation , every individual , every team should be thinking , how can I continue to get better ?
How can I improve ?
One of the ways I ’ ve seen individuals and teams and organisations improve is , over time , being much more open and willing to learn from others and having those interchanges with others… There needs to be much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including from Pivotal and other think-tanks , academics and business groups .
“ When I talk about a culture change in government , yes I mean the civil service and politicians as well .
I think we have to have a situation where there is not a monopoly on policymaking amongst civil servants or politicians… they are not the only ones with good ideas… There is so much value in listening to and understanding the perspectives of people outside who may actually have far more expertise and far more insights about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more reports being prepared and is considering what Northern Ireland should look like in 20 years ’ time and what type of place its citizens want to live in .
Meanwhile , the Holywell Trust ’ s Forward Together programme is also moving to the next stage , with a book to be published in the coming weeks featuring ideas for making progress in Northern Ireland suggested by interviewees in the first series of podcast interviews .
A streamed panel event will take place on the 15th September to reflect on the observations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will itself form a new podcast to be released soon after .
The latest podcast in the second Forward Together series , featuring Ann , is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust .
It is funded by the Community Relations Council ’ s Media Grant Scheme .
Disclaimer : This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity , respect for diversity , and recognition of interdependence .
The views expressed do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council .

Evidence-based policy-making is largely absent from government in Northern Ireland, but the new Pivotal think-tank has been established to correct that, says its director Ann Watt. She was speaking in the last of the second series of Holywell Trust Forward Together podcasts.
The aim of Pivotal “is to help improve public policy in Northern Ireland,” says Ann. “It’s got a strong emphasis on research and evidence and on using evidence better in public policy.” The very first Pivotal report, published in November last year, made a big splash through its focus on waiting lists and waiting times in the NHS locally, stressing that numerically the Northern Ireland waiting list is more than a hundred times longer than that in England, despite England being almost 30 times’ larger in terms of population.
Pivotal is the first think-tank established specifically to consider governance in Northern Ireland, despite these being a normal feature of Great Britain, Ireland and most developed nations. Pivotal is backed by the north’s two universities and Ann herself is a former Cabinet Office and Treasury civil servant. “So I’ve got lots of experience in policymaking and policy delivery” as well as “a background in economics”, she explains. “Evidence-based policymaking was very much central to what I did in my civil service days.”
By contrast, in Northern Ireland, “there’s been a reluctance to take the tough choices”, specifically in the NHS, “which might not be popular, but actually would deliver a better health service in the longer run,” says Ann. She explains that “reform in health and social care… might mean reconfiguring services so that particular aspects of healthcare happen in specialist centres, rather than in a wider set of hospitals across the country.”
Coalitions always make decision-making more difficult, and Ann concedes that “having a five party coalition makes government work more difficult”. She adds: “I think it’s particularly difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive because you’ve got departments headed by different ministers from different parties and without a clear common purpose.” This makes the natural ‘silo’ division between government departments even worse.
Ann does not understate the challenge facing Northern Ireland, which was clearly evident from the RHI debacle. “I think that the big, big thing in our good government report [published in March] was the need for a real change in the culture at Stormont.” This requires the parties and departments to work together, with more long-term policymaking.
While the process for agreeing a Programme for Government in Northern Ireland has been flawed, Ann argues that in itself “it is a good step in the right direction.” But she continues: “I think it needs to be developed and refined and, really importantly, it needs to the genuine set of objectives that government are jointly bought into and committed to.”
Northern Ireland’s weaknesses in government go beyond the political parties and into the heart of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as was evident from Sir Patrick Coghlin’s report into RHI. “One clear recommendation from the report is recognising the civil service doesn’t have the skills that it needs in either training its own people up so that they have those skills, or getting external people in…. At the very end of Sir Patrick’s introductory remarks, he talked about RHI being a project too far for Stormont. It was just too complex, too technical. You got the sense that there wasn’t a full understanding of it.”
Part of the required culture change for the NICS might be achieved through greater diversity in the workforce, bringing people in from other jurisdictions and with different experience. “Any organisation that thinks it hasn’t got things to learn from other people is probably really falling short, because we’ve always got things to learn,” observes Ann. “Every organisation, every individual, every team should be thinking, how can I continue to get better? How can I improve? One of the ways I’ve seen individuals and teams and organisations improve is, over time, being much more open and willing to learn from others and having those interchanges with others… There needs to be much more openness to ideas from outside”, including from Pivotal and other think-tanks, academics and business groups.
“When I talk about a culture change in government, yes I mean the civil service and politicians as well. I think we have to have a situation where there is not a monopoly on policymaking amongst civil servants or politicians… they are not the only ones with good ideas… There is so much value in listening to and understanding the perspectives of people outside who may actually have far more expertise and far more insights about how policy works in practice.”
Pivotal has more reports being prepared and is considering what Northern Ireland should look like in 20 years’ time and what type of place its citizens want to live in. Meanwhile, the Holywell Trust’s Forward Together programme is also moving to the next stage, with a book to be published in the coming weeks featuring ideas for making progress in Northern Ireland suggested by interviewees in the first series of podcast interviews. A streamed panel event will take place on the 15th September to reflect on the observations in this second series of interviews, which will itself form a new podcast to be released soon after.
The latest podcast in the second Forward Together series, featuring Ann, is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme.
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.


sluggerotoole--2020-08-17--The TUV vision for the NI Centenary…

The TUV vision for the NI Centenary…

As linked to in Sarah ’ s post , I thought Jim Allister ’ s proposals to mark the anniversary deserved a wider audience .
From the document : Since the centenary marks not just the creation of Northern Ireland but the U.K. as presently constituted , this must be a national celebration ; A visit by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and royal address to the Northern Ireland Assembly and large scale Garden Party ; The flying of the national flag on all public buildings on each key date ; An additional public holiday in or about 3rd May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit of leading Royal Navy vessels ; A special Royal Mail stamp collection ; A specially minted commemorative coin , with presentation to every schoolchild and centenary specific classroom materials ; A specially commissioned logo to brand and promote all events ; A U.K. Government cabinet meeting in Belfast to mark the centenary with Prime Ministerial promotional visits to key tourist attractions ; An exhibition in the National Portrait Gallery in London of key NI figures in sports , military , arts , politics etc over our first 100 years , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Promotion of Northern Ireland industry , including our food and drink products ; Special honour and remembrance of all security personnel who gave their lives in defence of Northern Ireland , with a particular focus at the 2021 Remembrance Event in the Royal Albert Hall .
Quite a comprehensive list but he left out a few obvious things .
• Belfast City Hall should be lit up red , white and blue for the entire year , even during daylight .
• All black taxis should have Union Jack roofs , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every drink served in every bar must be accompanied with a toast to her majesty the Queen .
• All new iPhones sold during the year must have God Save The Queen as the default ring tone .
This will only apply to iPhones as Android users are godless heathens who are beyond redemption .
• A special garden party at Hillsborough Castle where guests are served canapés of buttered Belfast Bap filled with Tayto cheese and onion all washed down with milkman ’ s orange served in champagne flutes .
• A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every street in Northern Ireland .
What are your suggestions to help us mark this historic year ?
“ royal wedding cupcakes ” by Lola ’ s Big Adventure !
is licensed under CC BY

As linked to in Sarah’s post, I thought Jim Allister’s proposals to mark the anniversary deserved a wider audience. From the document:
Since the centenary marks not just the creation of Northern Ireland but the U.K. as presently constituted, this must be a national celebration;
A visit by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and royal address to the Northern Ireland Assembly and large scale Garden Party;
The flying of the national flag on all public buildings on each key date;
An additional public holiday in or about 3rd May;
A Red Arrows fly past and visit of leading Royal Navy vessels;
A special Royal Mail stamp collection;
A specially minted commemorative coin, with presentation to every schoolchild and centenary specific classroom materials;
A specially commissioned logo to brand and promote all events;
A U.K. Government cabinet meeting in Belfast to mark the centenary with Prime Ministerial promotional visits to key tourist attractions;
An exhibition in the National Portrait Gallery in London of key NI figures in sports, military, arts, politics etc over our first 100 years, which would then tour the rest of the U.K.;
Promotion of Northern Ireland industry, including our food and drink products;
Special honour and remembrance of all security personnel who gave their lives in defence of Northern Ireland, with a particular focus at the 2021 Remembrance Event in the Royal Albert Hall.
Quite a comprehensive list but he left out a few obvious things.
Belfast City Hall should be lit up red, white and blue for the entire year, even during daylight.
All black taxis should have Union Jack roofs, even the ones on the Falls.
Every drink served in every bar must be accompanied with a toast to her majesty the Queen.
All new iPhones sold during the year must have God Save The Queen as the default ring tone. This will only apply to iPhones as Android users are godless heathens who are beyond redemption.
A special garden party at Hillsborough Castle where guests are served canapés of buttered Belfast Bap filled with Tayto cheese and onion all washed down with milkman’s orange served in champagne flutes.
A giant 24/7 year-long parade that goes through every street in Northern Ireland.
What are your suggestions to help us mark this historic year?
“royal wedding cupcakes” by Lola’s Big Adventure! is licensed under CC BY


sluggerotoole--2020-08-17--NI deputy First Minister “choosing to ignore the requirement to comply with the rule of law to expre

NI deputy First Minister “choosing to ignore the requirement to comply with the rule of law to express a political advantage”

Worth noting the comments of Mr Justice McAlinden in Belfast High Court today , having read the arguments put forward in an application for a judicial review of the NI Executive Office ’ s failure to introduce the victims payments scheme .
Or , rather , Sinn Féin ’ s refusal to implement the scheme… From the BBC report “ I see it as one element within the Executive Office deliberately choosing to ignore the requirement to comply with the rule of law to express a political advantage , ” Mr Justice McAlinden told Belfast High Court .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it is a stance that this court will have no hesitation in describing in the bluntest terms and in requiring a remedy to be provided in the shortest timeframe.
” He said having read the arguments put forward by Ms McNern ’ s legal team and the Executive Office , his “ initial view ” of the issue was unlikely to change as a result of hearing the case in full .
Mr Justice McAlinden adjourned the judicial review hearing for a short period on Monday morning and asked the legal parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mr Justice McAlinden said he would hear the case in full , if the legal parties adopted “ entrenched positions ” and wished to proceed .
“ What I see here is there has been significant and unjustifiable delay , that delay can not be allowed to continue and this scheme , which is a scheme enacted by the Westminster parliament by primary legislation , followed up by regulations , this scheme is overdue and it needs to be brought forward and brought into operation as soon as possible for the benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many others , who quite clearly have suffered for long enough without their suffering being appropriately recognised by our society.
” [ added emphasis throughout ]

Worth noting the comments of Mr Justice McAlinden in Belfast High Court today, having read the arguments put forward in an application for a judicial review of the NI Executive Office’s failure to introduce the victims payments scheme. Or, rather, Sinn Féin’s refusal to implement the scheme… From the BBC report
“I see it as one element within the Executive Office deliberately choosing to ignore the requirement to comply with the rule of law to express a political advantage,” Mr Justice McAlinden told Belfast High Court. “That is a fundamentally inappropriate stance to take and it is a stance that this court will have no hesitation in describing in the bluntest terms and in requiring a remedy to be provided in the shortest timeframe.” He said having read the arguments put forward by Ms McNern’s legal team and the Executive Office, his “initial view” of the issue was unlikely to change as a result of hearing the case in full. … Mr Justice McAlinden adjourned the judicial review hearing for a short period on Monday morning and asked the legal parties to discuss whether they wished to proceed. Mr Justice McAlinden said he would hear the case in full, if the legal parties adopted “entrenched positions” and wished to proceed. “What I see here is there has been significant and unjustifiable delay, that delay cannot be allowed to continue and this scheme, which is a scheme enacted by the Westminster parliament by primary legislation, followed up by regulations, this scheme is overdue and it needs to be brought forward and brought into operation as soon as possible for the benefit of those individuals, like Ms McNern and many others, who quite clearly have suffered for long enough without their suffering being appropriately recognised by our society.” [added emphasis throughout]
[How blunt could he be? – Ed] Might I suggest a ‘breach of the Ministerial Code’ bluntness…
1.4. Under the Belfast Agreement and under sections 16, 18 and 19 of the Act, it is a condition of appointment that Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and junior Ministers, affirm the terms of the following Pledge of Office. (a) to discharge in good faith all the duties of office; [added emphasis] … (ce) to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed and to support all efforts to uphold it;
Adds And from the PA report in the Irish News
The judge said ministers did not have the right to “ignore or stymie” clear legislative provisions. “The message by doing so is a message undermining the rule of law,” he said. “In a post-conflict society one thing that every politician should be striving to do is to support the rule of law – not to pick and choose which laws to accept, which laws to adhere to and which laws to ignore. “Those are fundamental issues for our society and the politicians better get that message, and that message will be delivered by this court.” Mr Friedman suggested there was a duty on politicians in the north to “grow up”. The judge replied: “It is a case of politicians in this jurisdiction maturing, maturing into the role that they have sought for years, which is to be politicians. “It is a role which carries with it a requirement for compromise and a requirement to give and take, but it also carries with it a requirement to respect and promote the rule of law. “This is not an example of respecting and promoting the rule of law. “This is a patent example of an attempt to subvert the rule of law for political ends.”
Indeed.
Further from another PA report in the Irish Times
Mr Turley’s barrister Barry McDonald QC said a major point of constitutional importance was at stake in the case, one that affected the governance of Northern Ireland. He highlighted that the ministerial code of conduct at Stormont required ministers to respect the rule of law. “What this case demonstrated is that at the very highest level of government, ministers in the devolved administration think that if the law is not to their liking in any particular respect they can choose to ignore or even defy it,” said Mr McDonald. “In this case, both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister refused to comply with the legal regulations. We know the First Minister on the ground initially that the scheme should be funded by Westminster. And the Deputy First Minister on that ground, as well as on the ground that she didn’t agree with the terms of the scheme. “We know the First Minister is now prepared to comply but the Deputy First Minister isn’t.” Mrs Foster did not escape criticism during the hearing, as the judge challenged a suggestion made in the Executive Office’s joint submission that it was entitled not to comply with the regulations while the matter remained an issue of political dispute. He said both ministers had demonstrated a “fundamental lack of awareness” of the requirement to abide by the law. On the suggestion that Mrs Foster and Ms O’Neill believe the issue is not a matter for court intervention, Mr McDonald added: “Ministers, in our respectful submission, need to be disabused of that dangerous and wholly unconstitutional notion.”
And in a PA report on today’s [Tuesday] hearing in the High Court
“An argument in relation to who is entitled to compensation is being used as a reason to delay compliance with a statutory duty,” Mr Justice McAlinden said. “In doing so individuals who no-one disputes are entitled to claim these pensions, such as Ms McNern who was blown up on March 4, 1972, losing both legs, she has to wait and be kept out of her pension because of a political dispute over who should and should not be entitled to these pensions. “I cannot think of any other circumstances which would cry out more clearly for a declaration from the court of unlawful behaviour than this scenario.” The Deputy First Minister made it clear in correspondence to the Secretary of State that she will not designate a department to run the scheme because of concerns about the eligibility criteria, he pointed out. “What we are dealing with here is a quite clear and obvious legal requirement, which appears to have been disregarded for political ends,” Mr Justice McAlinden said. “That seems to be the fundamental striking at the principle of the rule of law, and that’s something the court cannot ignore and the court cannot tolerate. “The court must declare unequivocally the primacy of the rule of law.” Michael Humphreys QC, for the Executive Office, contended Ms O’Neill had acted in her capacity as vice president of Sinn Féin. But Mr Justice McAlinden said her position within the Stormont administration, and the obligations to comply with the law, cannot be ignored. The system was supposed to be in place nearly three months ago, he stressed. “The only sensible interpretation of what is happening here is that there’s been a deliberate decision to try and stymie this scheme because there’s a fundamental disagreement (over) who can and cannot apply for pensions,” the judge said. “You cannot mess about and delay taking that step because of a disagreement in terms of who is entitled to apply for compensation.”
Indeed, again.