Flood Tribunal - Party silence on testimony is deafening

One of the more surprising features of the reaction to Frank Dunlop’s continuing revelations at the Flood Tribunal has been the reluctance of any of the parties to speak out on the allegations.

Is this an example of the Christmas spirit, or should we look for a different explanation? Of course, the Dunlop testimony amounts to a series of allegations, and all of the accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Nobody should jump to conclusions about any of the individuals involved, but one would expect that the parties should speak out unambiguously in proclaiming their determination to root out any suggestion that members might have taken bribes in the form of supposed political contributions.

Some solace might be derived from the idea the body politic was so shocked by the recent allegations that the parties did not had time to consider the implications. But Frank Dunlop first made his allegations more than two years ago in 2000.

The politicians have never before been slow to speak out, so their silence in this instance could give rise to the idea that they are banding together, because those being accused come from across the political spectrum.