PBPA Make Complaint Against Senator Rónán Mullen

national | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Tuesday August 10, 2010 19:25

by George Hill - no organisation

Genuine Complaint or Publicity Stunt?

The People Before Profit Alliance have made an official complaint against Independent Senator Rónán Mullen in relation to reports he made in Seanad. This raises questions about PBPA's judgement and their approach towards elected office.

The media have been full of stories about Senator Ivor Callely and his alleged abuse of the expenses system while he was a TD and since 2007 as a Senator. Yesterday the Seanad Committee charged with the task of investigating possible abuses named four Senators that they will be writing to for further explanation. Fianna Fáil Senators Ivor Callely, Ann Ormonde and Larry Butler are being questioned; but so is Independent Rónán Mullen on foot of an official complaint from the People Before Profit Alliance.

Mullen, who represents the National University of Ireland, was a leading critic of the expenses regime in the past weeks in the media. In a Seanad debate Mullen claimed that an elected representative approached him after his election and said he should claim travel from his native Galway and not his current home in Dublin. Mullen stated he was unsure what the motives of this person was, and therefore did not name him/her. It may have been in jest or it may have been a serious proposal. Mullen refused to name this person as the comment would be taken out of possible context and could wrongfully incriminate someone for what could have been a joke. The main point was that such a type of abuse was well known in the corridors of Leinster House.

This official complaint could seriously back-fire on the People Before Profit Alliance. It seems that Mullen is being singled out not for actual abuse of the expenses system, but rather because of his past run-ins with the SWP. Mullen is a right-wing social conservative. He has a record of being strongly opposed to abortion, gay marriage and many other socially progressive reforms. Mullen is openly pro-Catholic and portrays himself as a 'family values' type conservative. Left activists have had many disagreements with him in that past and no doubt will continue to in the future.

This type of vexatious complaint can actually damage the left as it's simply not serious and seems not to be properly motivated. Complaints should be made about politicians abusing expenses and electoral office. This complaint appears to be a publicity stunt. There are wider questions that arise about PBPA's approach. Are elected representatives not entitled to speak generally about things they hear and are told without having to name names? Will PBPA Councillors report hearsay and 'name names' if they receive information 'off the record'? The perception of most people is that Mullen was not abusing the system. Many ordinary people paying attention to these events will not necessarily thank PBPA for causing a ridiculous distraction from Senators Callely, Ormonde and Butler answering questions. The image and the standing of PBPA could be undermined by this vexatious complaint.

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

inclined to agree

by mjm

Wed Aug 11, 2010 20:13

I did wonder about this alright. It seems a very strange thing to complain someone over something so trivial. Politically I find Ronan Mullan as distasteful as I'm sure PBPA/SWP do, but I can see no sense here.

Mullen is not helping himself

by Cárthach

Fri Aug 13, 2010 22:11

While one might consider the complaint to be vexatious, Mullen has not helped himself by failing to name the individual who allegedly made the remark. Abuse of public funds/office is not a laughing matter and should not be treated as such.

Cárthach not getting the point

by George Hill

Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:20

The point is that this is a complete own goal by PBPA/SWP. Mullen should not have to name names. In fact, it's good that he did report on the type of chit-chat that goes around in the Leinster House bar. But it's exactly that, chit-chat. Barstool statements should not be taken too seriously. Yes, there the person in question may have had complete disrespect for the public funds. Yes, he may have been serious in his suggestion to Mullen. But equally it could have been stupid pub-talk. Mullen was there and will be best judge.

The PBPA seem to have a very immature attitude. It's all "ra ra ra" on issues like this - no sustance, just slogans. Their elected representatives have obviously never been told something in confidence yet. Their new councillors and candidates are very wet behind the ears, but if they manage to stay on in elected office for any longer they will realise that you can't always 'name names' and 'expose' people.

In the minds of many people Mullen was correct to report the chi-chat in Leinster House and has been fairly up-front about expences. For PBPA to complain about him is seen as immature, petty and motivated by other political reasons. PBPA/SWP don't come out well from this completely misguided vexatious complaint.

George not getting the point

Sun Aug 15, 2010 00:39

Abuse of public funds is not a joking matter. For all you know the other individual may be serious. Who is to say that Mullen is making a proper decision based on good judgement. The Government has repeatedly misinformed us over the whole bank guarantee. Are we going to say that it is ok because they were there there the night it was decided on so they are in the best position to judge i.e. the same defence you offer for Mullen?

Time has repeatedly shown us that most of our politicians are dishonest so all suspicious comments and behaviour should be reported. If Mullen thought enough of the comment to mention it, then he obviously had some suspicion. He should forward the name so that the person in question can be investigated. If they have nothing to hide then there is nothing for them to worry about.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

PBPA Make Complaint Against Senator Rónán Mullen

Comments (4 of 4)