Dear Sir... Readers' Views (22/08/16)
Hickey’s behaviour like that of a monarch
While Pat Hickey, [resident of the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI) was interviewed by RTÉ on Morning Ireland last week he offered no insight into the role of his Council in the identification, recommendation, credentials required or the procedure for selecting candidates considered as qualified ticket resellers for the Olympics.
But he did assert, with unmistakable clarity and unwavering conviction, the name of his successor as president of the Olympic Council of Ireland, a man representing the sport of archery, who is one of the trio of insiders investigating the current controversy.
Mr Hickey has been president of OCI since 1989 and that he discloses the identity of his successor in the course of a media interview about another matter would suggest that the OCI operates with the culture of a monarchy, that is answerable to nobody.
The decision by George Washington, the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797 to decline a third four-year term was made as a safeguard and a bulwark against monarchy in that fledgling democracy and that principle has stood the test of time for many diverse entities that embrace democratic values.
Critical influence and power within the OCI appears to rest principally with the those with a background in judo, archery and soccer — minority sports in the context of Ireland’s Olympic Games ambitions and aspirations.
Why is the leadership of the OCI not drawn from those sports’ where we have some record and credibility: boxing, sailing and rowing, for example? Why does the OCI not introduce a term limit on the office of President of the Olympic Council of Ireland?
Unfair pension punishment
Since the start of the recession, the imposition of austerity has been the hallmark of present and past government policy affecting people’s lives in many different ways, through new and increased taxes and charges, along with cuts to badly needed services. Even though we are being told that we are in recovery and that we have seen the last of austerity measures, the opposite is the case.
One of the most recent instalments of austerity has been the raising of the retirement age for the state pension, which will initially cost a loss of income to present retirees €2,500 and a qualifying couple €3,700 for the year they are placed on jobseeker’s allowance after retiring while waiting to receive the state pension.
This loss will be doubled and trebled as the retirement age is raised in future years, but he government are trying to present it in a positive way and not as the austerity measure which it is.
Many of our present day retirees could have been working for almost fifty years, with the expectation of being able to retire with dignity at age 65 instead of being forced on to the dole queue after a lifetime of work and paying taxes. This latest imposition of austerity ought to be considered disgraceful and another attack on a vulnerable group of people in our society who will see their incomes greatly reduced at the end of their working lives. Of course some people may look forward to staying on in the workforce for longer if allowed to do so by their employer, but that prospect may not suit everybody due to the type of work involved or health reasons. It ought to be optional for people to retire at age 65 without incurring a penalty to their pension entitlements if they so wish. No doubt, the individuals tasked with introducing this measure are beneficiaries of well-funded pensions themselves and are not dependent on jobseeker’s allowance to survive.
It ought to be recalled that during the past five years, this government, along with the previous Fianna Fail government raided and squandered the €25 billion National Pension Reserve Fund to bail out banks and those who gambled on our economy and lost. This fund that was specifically established in 2001 by Charlie Mc Creevey and contributed to by the citizens of this country to address the impending pension funding black hole should have been left in place for the people of this country as intended and not for the gamblers and speculators it was handed out to. Another example of how government have betrayed their own people to benefit the wealthy.
Categorically annoyed
I appreciate that those agencies who supply newspapers with lists of best-selling books also supply the headings for each category. That said, whereas it would be quite wrong for you to alter content I feel you have the editorial right to alter headings such as “Mass Market Fiction” and “Original Fiction”
I find the former quite insulting in that it implies that the readers of these books belong to some kind of a herd and I find the latter inappropriate in that many of these books are startlingly unoriginal.
What’s wrong with “Paperback Fiction” and “Hardback Fiction”?
Devastated about Trump’s rise
After reading about Trump’s lightly veiled attempt to encourage the 2nd amendment crowd in the USA to eliminate Hillary Clinton from the process of the American democratic elections coming up in 90 days, I personally have had enough of the Donald. Can you imagine if Trump got his finger on the atomic nuclear red button... oh my God! The whole world and everyone in it would be devastated or dead.
Self-imposed enslavement
In three minutes, last night’s RTÉ assailed me with advertisements for The Rose of Tralee and the child-obsessed Aldi Mammy. I then stumbled on Meryl Streep’s film about the suffragettes. These great women could not have foreseen the self-imposed enslavement of their sisters in 2016.
Robust route to winning games
After a recent weekend of supreme excitement and exhilaration on the hurling pitch, it could seem somewhat dour and downbeat to carp about certain unsportsmanlike downsides pertaining. The truth can sometimes seem an unwelcome guest, but it will always be the truth.
The hyped-euphemisms frequently invoked for over-exuberant play, ranging anything from ‘great exponents of the “Dark Arts”, or “playing on-the-edge” all provide a very handy camouflage for blatant and persistent foul-play.
The game of hurling is, for sure, one of the most exciting and skillful field sports in the world. But why do we keep exonerating the aspects of it which can only be described as thuggish and unsportsmanlike?
People like to offer an amnesty for such underhand behaviour, under the banner of ‘manliness’, claiming that robust physical contact is what it’s all about — none of your ‘nancy’ gentlemanly stuff, please. Robust is one thing, criminal physical assault another.
One TV pundit at the weekend described his erstwhile training experience with the most successful team of all time, as ‘dog-eat-dog’, so one clearly gets the message as to how you win at the top level. (We all know the team in question, of course). Surely if sportsmanship, rather than gamesmanship, is to be considered prime, how is the winning of a medal to be cherished and promoted as something worthy to be achieved at all costs. Is that the exemplar we would wish to imbue in the young generation.
One can only think that it paves the way for poor ethical standard across the societal spectrum of both work and play. Given the pandemic of bullying that prevails all the way from nursery to retirement scenarios, the corrosive corruptive tendencies patent throughout the corporate, banking, charitable and political spectrum etc... one would have that ‘winning dirty’ is not really winning at all, in any true sense.
The targeting of gifted star players is particularly reprehensible. Thus, subjecting them to crucifying ‘hits’ to neutralise their effectiveness is de rigeur, with the so-called ‘shoulder-charge’ to heft someone over the sideline more akin to a vicious street brawl at three o’clock in the morning. The fact that a manager would then get incensed at a ‘free’ being awarded, adds to the incredulity of it all.
Of course that aforementioned ‘most-successful-team-of-all-time’ enjoy total immunity from criticism by their overwhelming haul of trophies won and medals collected. To besmirch their ‘tactics’ is so easily derided by the clarion cry of ‘You’re just jealous’. One could of course be envious of such an array of awards, but if one is rewarding the “Dark Arts” philosophies, what kind of awards are those.
No doubt there’ll be plenty of abuse being hurled back in relation to this commentary, but at least we all know the score.
“Forget about the ball...get on with the match!”
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
