Dear Paul Birch (and anyone else who has ideas),

I have been reading this page (boingboinged to my attention today).

The page is part of Andrew Dubber’s blog, hosted and paid for privately; Dubber, though, also lectures at the University of Central England.

You, a manager of a record label called Revolver Records and IFPI and BPI board member, say: “Looking at your site I do think allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution”; “You might argue that your professional blog is your opinion alone, however you are interwoven into the views and policy of the University of Central England” and “It expresses opinion, it’s not factual. If you persist then I shall make a formal complaint to the University.”

My blog, which you’re reading right now, contains Strong Opinions. Lots of them. I am employed by Trinity College Dublin as a research assistant (working on a separate topic to my thesis). I write this blog in my spare time and I pay for the hosting myself.

However, you seem to believe that employment by a university makes me ‘interwoven’, whatever that means. Therefore, for you, and for everyone else who has such a daft view of a university responsibility for its employees (even aside from academic freedom, and not to mention freedom of expression), you can send your complaints about the contents of this blog to the Staff Office, House 4, Trinity College, Dublin 2. Telephone: +353 1 896 1678 / Email: staff.office@tcd.ie . I’ll even supply my personnel number on request.

Off you go now. Mind the buses.

I do intend to do something more detailed (and thoughtful, perhaps?) on elements of the new programme for government here in Ireland, but this deserves a separate mention:

Require all mobile phones to be registered with name, address and proof of identity in order to stop drug-pushers using untraceable, unregistered phones.

1. Registration won’t stop drug-pushers communicating in an untraceable fashion.
2. Unregistered phones are far from untraceable. Duh.
3. What is the rational connection between “registration of phones” and “drug pushing”? I have a feeling that the number of unregistered users is much higher than the number of drug pushers?
4. Proof of identity? Why? I don’t need to give proof of identity when I put a letter in the postbox. I can understand the necessity when dealing with postpaid bills etc (if I’m going to sign up to a rental deal, it’s reasonable for the company to check that I am who I am) - but this would be a big leap.

Those who know me know that I take delight in slagging off the most extreme of privacy-protectors as Chicken Littles, but the simple factual presentation of this (registration and identity checks will stop the pushers), as well as its location in a section on “DRUGS” in a chapter on “Justice” is unfortunate, to say the least. Sure, make a case for mandatory registration, but for God’s sake make it under a heading like “communications” or (even) “security”. Cause, I mean, we’re all on board in the war against drugs, right?

(Speakeasy is one of the brand names used for a pre-paid, registration-optional service by a mobile phone company here)

Directions issued under s 14A of the National Monuments Act can be withdrawn or replaced. (Further discussion on possible constraints here)

This is how I finish this post; you’ll have to read the lot to see how I get there!

Discussion of the decision by outgoing Minister Dick Roche to (effectively) approve the M3 project through the national monument at Tara raises interesting questions of Ministerial power and the force of law. While leaving it to others to discuss the merits and demerits of the Tara and M3 issues, it’s a good time to walk through the legal issues concerned. This post is written with the proviso that I haven’t seen the order signed by Roche; it didn’t appear in today’s Iris Oifigiúil, nor is it on the Department of Environment’s website, and:

“The order was signed on Tuesday but it was decided not to issue a press release at that point because there was so much else going on,” a spokesman for the department said last night.

I don’t believe that for a second. Anyway. Former Minister Dick Roche is not saying that his successor, John Gormley, is prevented from changing his order; on the other hand, Gormley said (on de rea-djo) that “I can’t really do anything about my predecessor’s decisions”. The order/decision relates to the preservation of a national monument discovered during construction.

This has nothing to do with non-national roads being transferred from Environment to Transport (a separate issue that came out of the Cabinet reshuffle), nor does it relate to the advice given by the National Museum (there’s a statutory obligation to consult, but it’s not relevant to the question of overturning Roche’s order).

It has everything to do with the following.

Interpretation Act 2005

22.—(1) A power conferred by an enactment may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.
(2) A power conferred by an enactment on the holder of an office as that holder shall be deemed to be conferred on, and may accordingly be exercised by, the holder for the time being of that office.
(3) A power conferred by an enactment to make a statutory instrument shall be read as including a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like consent and conditions (if any), to repeal or amend a statutory instrument made under that power and (where required) to make another statutory instrument in place of the one so repealed.

And here’s the provision dealing with the decision itself. National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, s 5 inserted the following:

14A (4)(d) the Minister may, at his discretion, issue directions to the road authority concerned for the doing to such monument of one or more of the following matters:
(i) preserve it;
(ii) renovate or restore it;
(iii) excavate, dig, plough or otherwise disturb the ground within, around, or in proximity to it;
(iv) make a record of it;
(v) demolish or remove it wholly or in part or to disfigure, deface, alter, or in any manner injure or interfere with it,
and the road authority shall, except where section 14B(8)(a)(iii) of this Act applies, comply with such directions.

So the question remaining is whether the ‘directions’ stated in 14A are ’statutory instruments’ as mentioned in the Act? The answer is provided in s 2 of the Interpretation Act:

“statutory instrument” means an order, regulation, rule, bye-law, warrant, licence, certificate, direction, notice, guideline or other like document made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under an Act and references, in relation to a statutory instrument, to “made” or to “made under” include references to made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under such instrument.

Break that down and the answer is very clear. The directions issued under s 14A of the National Monuments Act can be withdrawn or replaced.

More: RTÉ