Do we REALLY have a "Right" to see her face??

Like the World and it's brother, I'm following the Eamonn Lillis case. As I write, the court is hearing closing speeches on behalf first, of the Prosecution, and then, of the Defence. The verdict when it comes, and whatever it is, will be front page news, and lead item on Radio and TV. That's only to be expected. It's a high profile case, attracting lots of interest.

However, the controversy that erupted over Jean Treacy - the young woman with whom Eamonn Lillis had an affair, is an unexpected spin-off from the case .. and a very unpleasant one at that. To me, it poses a question - not about whether or not she was assisted by the Gardai in avoiding the cameras in the Courts complex - but about why on Earth the papers were so hell-bent on getting her photograph in the first place!

Ger Colleran, the editor of "The Star" .. a guy, incidentally, for whom I usually have tremendous respect, was highly indignant about the shielding of Miss Treacy from his photographers lens - and has been very vocal about "the publics right to know"..

Their right to know WHAT, Ger.. ??

Neither Ger, nor any other editor has been able to explain to me, why it's so necessary to plaster Miss Treacys face across the papers or the TV screen. She is, of course, a witness in a very high profile case.. but that's ALL she is. She is accused of NOTHING , faces NO charges, and merely gave evidence because the Prosecution wanted to hear about her affair with the accused - an affair to which they both freely admit - and which is not against any law that I know of..

There is NO automatic public entitlement to see her face, as far as I can see.

If she's OK with being photographed, then that's her call. If not - same thing - her call. Not Ger Collerans call - not the call of any editor to make, regardless of how many papers it will sell the next morning - which, let's face it, folks, is the agenda here, at the end of the day.

Over the weekend, her picture was eventually obtained and published, in most of the papers,yet nobody has yet been able to explain the necessity for doing so.

Again, I stress, this young woman has done nothing wrong - yet her picture is presented across the papers, as if it adds something to the facts of the case - which, of course, a blind man could see that it does not.

We who work in the media really need to examine our consciences on this one.

Was it ABSOLUTELY necessary?? Did it make a DIFFERENCE to the story?? .. REALLY??

If it did - well I must be missing it ....

A wildcat Strike - or a bad call by IAA ??

First, let's get one thing clear - I do not think that Air Traffic Controllers at Cork, Dublin and Shannon Airports need, or deserve a 6% pay rise. They are already extremely well paid, with a lot of time off and a 34 hour working week. Asking for, and expecting more at a time like this, is crackers.

However, that having been said, I can see why the controllers walked out today. I think that under the circumstances, I would have, too.

Let's look behind the arguments, and see what's actually happened here.

There are a number of issues, including, but not exclusively pay related issues, current being disputed between the ATC staff and their employers, the Irish Aviation Authority.

These issues are scheduled to go before the Labour Court as early, I believe, as next week.

The Labour Court is the accepted forum, is it not, for these matters to be thrashed out?

Why therefore, did the IAA start suspending people, with just days to go to that hearing ???

What was the point of antagonising, or worse still, risking that you inflame an already delicate situation, when the issue is scheduled for a discussion at the proper forum?

Certainly, the decision by the controllers to take such a damaging and sudden strike action, has to be questioned - it had all the hallmarks, as they say, of wildcat militancy - but is it not a fair argument, that maybe, just maybe, the employers brought it on themselves?

As I write, two more workers have been suspended, and there may be another strike in the next few days. It will cause more chaos, and discommode thousands more passengers.

As with todays action, I won't agree with it - but I can see the reasons for it.

Wildcat Strike or a Bad Call by an employer ??

A bit of both, methinks..

(..pic thanks to Irish Times)

Sunday World , had you nothing better to do ??

I remember the case of Wayne O'Donoghue only too well. Not only did I report on the search for Robert Holohan, but his body was found on my 40th Birthday. In fact, just as I was on the phone to a friend, planning to meet for a drink to mark the day, the other line buzzed, and, well, you know the rest.

I covered Wayne O'Donoghues trial from start to finish at the Central Criminal Court, which sat in Cork for the case, and at which he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. I was in Ennis for his sentence hearing, and heard Majella Holohans controversial, impassioned Victim Impact Statement.

When Wayne O'Donghue was released from the Midlands Prison early one bitterly cold January morning in 2008, I was there - part of the expected and inevitable media scrum. As he was driven away, the questions on so many minds were "Where is he going..? What will he do..?.."

I said it then, and I've said it many times since - I don't care. It's none of my business. It's not a story any more. He did the crime, and did his time. He's free to go wherever he wants to go. If some scurvy little pup from the red-tops wants to chase him down and get a picture of him buying the paper or walking the dog, that's up to them, but it's not for me.

What he did was wrong. He made it worse by his awful behaviour in the days that followed. He did a terrible wrong to the Holohan family. He was given a remarkably short sentence - albeit one that stood up under the scrutiny of an appeals process - and while he was able to walk free that morning two years ago, the Holohan family are left forever without their beautiful little boy. I have a son. I could not even comprehend losing him. I cannot imagine how much it's got to hurt.

Yet, under the law, Wayne O'Donoghue is entitled to live out the rest of his life. He's a free man whether anyone likes it or not. If I'm giving an honest opinion, he got off very, very lightly indeed. That, however, is how the cookie crumbles .. it is what it is, as they say.

Move on.

Next story, please.

On Sunday, I picked up my "Sunday World", and there it was.

"Wayne's Girl.. Child Killer O'Donoghue finds love with sexy British student.."

I'm appalled.

I'm a journalist, yet I'm disgusted to see this article.

Wayne O'Donoghue is now studying for a degree at an English University. He calls himself "Paddy" ... his middle name. He has met and is now living with a gorgeous girl, who the paper tells us "is devoted to him despite knowing about his conviction.. "..etc etc..

Both his picture, and hers, are plastered across the paper for effect.

Why is it necessary to do this? Why?

Yes, he did something truly awful.

Yes, there are questions still unanswered about what happened at that awful time in 2005, and about many other aspects of the death of Robert Holohan.

Yes, he deprived a family of their son, and outraged a Nation by cynically pretending to look for him - even appearing on the RTE News as a member of a search party.

But - answer me this?

Will the Sunday World article of January 17th, 2010 bring back Robert Holohan?

Will it answer even ONE of the outstanding questions?

Will it acheive anything other than to possibly sell a few more copies of a paper that already sells by the truckload?

Is it fair to a young woman who, like many more like her, has committed no crime, but formed a relationship with a man who has a bad past?

Was there any need, or public interest served, by this article?

The answer to all those questions, as far as I'm concerned anyway, is an emphatic NO.

It was, as far as I'm concerned, nothing less than a disgrace.