Cricketer hit for six over Thatcher tweet, but matter should rest there

IT’S easy enough to understand why Cricket Ireland is so upset with international player John Mooney’s comments about the death of Margaret Thatcher, despite his subsequent apology.

For those who missed it, Mooney took to twitter on Monday and wrote in relation to the passing of the former British prime minister that “I hope it was slow and painful”. Distasteful stuff indeed, if actually harmless.

I imagine though that Cricket Ireland, a 32 county body, has to be mindful of the political sensitivities of a southern player, who, because of his comments, might be presumed by Unionists to be nationalist, making comments like this about a dead British prime minister. As such, it must have felt that it had to be seen to act.

Mooney, it should be emphasised, had the good sense and good grace to apologise, once he had been spoken to by his Cricket Ireland bosses. He received a dressing down from Cricket Ireland chief executive Warren Deutrom, who issued a statement on Monday evening disassociating his organisation from the player’s comments.

Deutrom is considering further disciplinary action. Cricket Ireland has a specific clause in its player contracts regulating conduct, including public comment. It extends to social media.

“Irrespective of whether they are operating as an individual, on the field of play or wearing a Cricket Ireland top or a Cricket Ireland blazer or they are acting in their own individual capacities, they at all times have to act as ambassadors for Irish cricket, for their team-mates, for themselves and for their country,” Deutrom was quoted as saying.

That is fair enough but I hope Cricket Ireland lets the matter rest there, for a number of reasons. It was merely tasteless stupidity and did not incite anyone to violence.

Many more people made far more offensive comments about Thatcher since her death in many places, especially on social media and they won’t suffer any adverse consequences for it (Mooney has, because Cricket Ireland’s response in forcing him to apologise probably has given the original offence far more attention that it would have had otherwise and he is now a well-known name for other than what he did in a famous cricket World Cup victory over England two years ago).

But Mooney didn’t organise a party. Some people went as far as to hold street and house parties to celebrate her death, many in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland and large parts of England too.

They won’t suffer any consequences for their ill-taste and nor should they. It may be insulting but it says more about their prejudices and buffonish behaviour than it does about the woman whose death they were “celebrating”.

Mooney may have been persuaded to recant, but at least he has apologised. He is only a cricketer. And he is only 31. He has no direct experience of the consequences of Thatcher’s rule. He wasn’t even born at the time of the hunger strikes; much of the mythology that now surrounds those days bears little resemblance to the truth of the circumstances of the time.

He, along with many other people, might have done better to read the many excellent articles in this and many other newspapers, both Irish and British, in recent days, that pointed out the many complexities in one of the most important and fascinating political characters of the late 20th century.

There are many things that Thatcher did for which she can never be forgiven but some of the claims made against her have been exaggerated or misrepresented.

It is notable that her downfall was brought about by the financially privileged establishment, not the plain people of England (if not Britain) who voted for her in preference to Labour.

At least Sinn Féin’s increasingly statesmanlike Martin McGuinness, a prominent member of the IRA at the time when it tried to kill Thatcher and now a responsible deputy first minister in Northern Ireland (and a keen cricket fan to boot), had the good sense to condemn those street parties in a tweet.

His party leader Gerry Adams was not as clever in his comments. Adams seems to be trying to disprove the theory that the victor gets to write history. His success is going to be very limited.

One of the times when Adams did say the right thing was in the Dáil on the now infamous “Prom Night” when he highlighted the smell of alcohol that permeated the chamber while an almost unprecedented late night/early morning debate was under way.

You will remember the night of high drama on Feb 5, spilling into the early hours of Feb 6. The Government had decided to introduce emergency legislation to allow for the immediate liquidation of IBRC, the combination of the old Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide.

No documents were available immediately but all TDs were told to wait for their arrival and to then vote on the proposed legislation as a matter of urgency.

Given the still raw memories of the dramatic decision about the introduction of the unlimited bank guarantee in Sept 2008 one might have hoped our diligent TDs and Senators would swot up on what was likely to be involved and then examine the legislation carefully.

After all, the sums of money at stake were enormous.

Instead some of them went to the pub. Well, what else would you do while waiting for the production of emergency legislation on which you would have to vote, on something that people feared could have calamitous consequences if rushed and subsequently went wrong?

Not long before midnight, as his finance spokesman Pearse Doherty was being heckled for doing his job, Adams complained about the apparent inebriated state of some of those present in Dáil.

“Could I honourably suggest that if you want some order from the Government TDs, then perhaps you should close the Dáil bar?” he said to the Ceann Comhairle.

He was right to do so and from what I’ve been told by several other people present, none from Sinn Féin. It was an issue in the Seanad too.

LAST weekend an enterprising reporter from a Sunday newspaper managed to somehow gain access to records of what was consumed in the exclusive member’s bar that night. It was five times as much as the previous night.

Nearly 200 drinks, including pints of Guinness and lager and quarter bottles of wine, were bought at the Members’ Bar during the session, at a cost of just under €1,700. (Remember that the bar is subsidised: TDs get cheap drink at your expense).

There were 81 pints of stout, 73 pints of lager, nine pints of Smithwicks and 36 quarter bottles of wine.

A small amount of the tab paid for peanuts, soft drinks, scones and, almost amusingly but almost certainly with good reason, 27 packets of mints.

More than double that was spent in the Visitor’s Bar, where TDs and senators mix with guests, officials and the media.

There were many TDs and senators that night who did not have a drop of alcohol, as they were too busy working.

Which suggests more than a handful didn’t bother to read this important piece of legislation or did so with drink on board.

Is there any TD or Senator who has reason to fear adverse consequences, or even comment, as a result of his or her drinking on what has come to be known as “Prom Night”?

Of course not. That’s not the way we do things in Ireland.

* The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 4.30pm to 7pm.