admin

  From: kevin higgins <kphiggins@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:56:21 AM To: Martin Doyle <martindoyle@irishtimes.com> Subject: For Martin   Hi Martin, hope all is well and good your side. As you may know, I have a new poetry collection – my sixth – out next week. Polina Cosgrave is launching the book in Galway. Would you be at all interested in the possibility of publishing her launch speech on you online pages? Warmest, and thanks, Kevin   From: Martin Doyle <Martin.Doyle@irishtimes.com> Sent: Wednesday 8 June 2022 09:21 To: kevin higgins <kphiggins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: For Martin   Hi Kevin I’d be happy to consider that. But it would have to be rewritten as an article for print, be a substantial piece ie 1,000 words or so and be better than other stuff I’m being pitched. I have a backlog of three weeks’ articles so I have to be selective. An alternative is that you write a piece yourself about your work Best of luck with the collection Martin   From: kevin higgins <kphiggins@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 12:39:45 AM To: Martin Doyle <martindoyle@irishtimes.com> Subject: For Martin Doyle re Polina Cosgrave article about my poetry collection   Hi Martin, just to let know, we will have Polina’s article about my new poetry collection ‘Ecstatic’ to you in the next couple of days. She says it’ll like run to just under 1,000 words. Very best, Kevin   From: Martin Doyle <Martin.Doyle@irishtimes.com> Sent: Wednesday 15 June 2022 05:40 To: kevin higgins <kphiggins@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: For Martin Doyle re Polina Cosgrave article about my poetry collection   Thanks Kevin but there is no need now. I read your piece in Broadsheet about my colleague Naomi O’Reilly and the paper she and I both work for and I really don’t see why you would want anything to do with us. https://www.broadsheet.ie/2022/05/03/kevin-higgins-this-means-war/ Martin   And here’s the launch review/launch speech:   … ‘Ecstasy’, by Kevin Higgins, reviewed by Polina Cosgrave     Kevin Higgins’ sixth poetry collection under the sardonic title “Ecstatic” starts with a dedication to the recently married Julian and Stella Assange, and this initial gesture is a perfect set-up for the poetic world we are about to enter. Prepare to be disillusioned, experience embarrassment for your government, mourn the death of journalism (and common sense at large), only to get to the core of the human condition and be inspired to choose love over gold, fear and power. “Ecstatic” is your reality check and a test to face the truth, however ugly, without a flinch. Just like a wedding ceremony in a London high-security prison, in Higgins’ poems our life becomes a celebration of humor, devotion and the beautiful mundane in confinement of global politics and oppressive social circumstances. The collection opens with the figurative lines: “The dread of being together / forcing us back to sleep”. And from there we are continuously forced to wake up and examine the world, look attentively at things that disconnect us, even if it is painful. This book is asking the reader to question not just their biased views, but the nature of thinking itself. Kevin Higgins is the Daniel Kahneman of poetry, human behavior and judgement are scrutinized through the lens of his uncompromising language. Sharp as a razorblade, not a line missing, his poems are full of what could be idiomatic phrases but are actually invented by the author: “no one hates Holocaust denial more / than the old woman who runs a bed and breakfast / five miles from Auschwitz.” These harsh truths could be overheard in an honest conversation between two old friends in a local pub, but instead they are now made available to a large audience of readers. We are dealing with the author brave and authentic enough to balance on the edge and take the risks to preserve the integrity of true art, so rare in our conformist times. Occasionally, it leaves you wondering if the expressions so easily coined all throughout the collection have always been part of colloquial speech, which might be the highest achievement for a poet. Being so close to the vernacular, that at times their voice is hardly distinguishable from that of the people. That being said, while perfectly attuned to the national discourse, Kevin’s poetry remains culturally multilayered and intellectually challenging, often metaphysical. With the focus on Higgins’ signature ruthless satire, this collection will make you laugh, bitterly and loudly, and you will hate yourself for it. Immune to inertia, his wit will keep you on your toes. From absurdist poems verging on the surrealist aesthetic (“Not time yet / to commit suicide again…”) to the beautifully shameless and staggeringly funny erotica (“Her spine is a repossessed grand piano / you still play to yourself in your sleep”), this eclectic collection covers a surprisingly broad range of subjects. Its structure develops from the specific to the general, as an extensive metaphor for inductive reasoning. We are allowed to take a peek at images of personal history, masterfully conveyed childhood memories in Coventry, 1973, share private yet universal grief for lost friendships, embrace the inevitable aging and sickness, and tenderly reflect on how our lovemaking changes as we grow older. Via the domesticity made precious and exhilarating, this collection teaches us to be vulnerable and aware how fragile we are and how little time we have left. What gives it a special depth are incredibly lyrical poems with the mental imagery of lungs and breath, trees and leaves. Together they create an almost therapeutic effect, like a blues song that helps relieve emotional tension. This sublime landscape of a rich individual inner experience comes in stark contrast to the social and environmental issues explored further on, and the entire poetic impulse of the book erupts into an anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-colonial sequence concluding with a merciless poem called “Past” that can be read to relate to both a particular life and the chronicle of humanity. As a poet, on a personal and societal level Higgins is fighting the battle that can’t be won, and he knows it. Nonetheless,

After an unedifying week marked by an unrelenting stream of propaganda following the unexpected deferral of the Cabinet decision, yesterday’s poll in the Sunday Independent shows that the plurality of respondents (excluding ‘uncertains’), 45 per cent, believe there will be religious interference in the new hospital. Predictably, the role of offshore intermediaries, Stembridge Ltd and Porema Ltd, in St Vincent’s Holdings received scant attention, despite the association of these companies with over 200,000 offshore entities named in the Panama Papers. Documents released by the HSE earlier this week bear out the global ambitions of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group. Under the constitution of the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park, Dublin 4, the company is empowered to carry on its business in “any part of the world”. The government has finally published what purports to be “a full set of legal documents” in connection with the State’s proposed investment in the new facility. Missing maps and unattached schedules leave the bundle incomplete. Even more concerning is the omission of documents that define St Vincent’s control over the new facility and enshrine its Catholic ethos.   The public-private mix The dysfunctional public-private mix in our publicly funded ‘voluntary’ hospitals will deepen if the government signs off on these plans. As many as 40 per cent of  Holles St Hospital consultants work in St Vincent’s hospitals. The new maternity hospital incorporates five private-practice suites (in defiance of Sláintecare principles). Consultant obstetricians average €500,000 per annum per head in private obstetric fees alone (not counting private income from gynaecology). St Vincent’s Healthcare Group has a history of being liberal, if not lax, in adhering to public pay guidelines. The Group is unlikely therefore to enforce the existing cap on private practice. Proposed ownership structure A large majority of people, 60 per cent, are opposed to the proposed ownership structure for the new facility, as the Sunday Independent poll shows. The National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park is to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group. Wholly-owned subsidiaries are wholly-controlled by their parent companies. The new hospital company has two parents: St Vincent’s Healthcare Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of St Vincent’s Holdings. Both companies are successor bodies to the Religious Sisters of Charity. Their constitutions have been omitted from the ‘legal framework’, for some unfathomable reason. The lease published last week shows that the nuns’ company, St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, will continue to own the lands and the hospitals vested in it by the congregation. These assets will also be owned by St Vincent’s Holdings. Why St Vincent’s Group needed a second ownership vehicle is unclear.   The lease also shows that St Vincent’s Healthcare Group will own the buildings to be built on the land that it owns. The rent, set at €850,000 per annum — abated to €10 for observing six conditions — is being used as a mechanism of control. Power and control Not content with being the owner of the land and the landlord to a tenant State, St Vincent’s Group has also defined itself as a member of the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park, of which it is the 99-per-cent owner. It is also the co-holder of the operating licence. This licence, which is shared opaquely with the new hospital company, further enables the company to control the hospital activities and effectively vitiates the ownership that would otherwise attach to a 299-year lease. Under the amended constitution of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, the new maternity hospital company will be just another Vincent’s hospital, to be managed in exactly the same way as Vincent’s existing hospitals. The Group’s powers extend to healthcare policy-making, supervision, determining financial funding, laying down plans, procedures, rules and regulations, discipline, education, patient care, patient records and employing medical staff, including consultants (paras 4.1-4.8).   The golden share The much-touted golden share of the Minister for Health in the new hospital company grants certain veto rights over decisions in relation to changes in company ownership. However, no golden share can override the 100-per-cent subsidiary-status of the company. The State’s is unable to compel voluntary hospitals to do anything they are disinclined to do. Holles Street Hospital, for example, won its High Court challenge to Harris (then Minister for Health) preventing him from carrying out an inquiry into the death of Malak Thawley. Although the Department of Health has claimed that the Minister has the power to  ensure that all legally permissible services will be provided in the new facility, Minister Simon Harris, for example,  must be painfully aware of the State’s inability to compel voluntary hospitals to do anything they are disinclined to do. Holles Street Hospital, for example, won its High Court challenge to Harris (then Minister for Health) preventing him from carrying out an inquiry into the death of Malak Thawley. She died in 2016 due to what was described as ‘a cascade of negligence’ during routine surgery there for an ectopic pregnancy. Ethos Rome set conditions to the transfer of the nuns’ assets  into their new vehicle. Communications between the congregation and the Vatican remain undisclosed, with the exception of a letter to the order from Rome setting out these legal terms. One key condition is the avoidance of “harm to Church teaching”. Despite the oft-repeated claims of ‘independence’, there is “an ongoing chain of connection” between the new holding company and the Religious Sisters of Charity. The directors of St Vincent’s Healthcare Group are clerical appointees. The board nominated three former directors of the Group (also clerical appointees), as directors of St Vincent’s Holdings. The Main Object of both constitutions ties the patient care to ethical compliance. St Vincent’s hospitals have never provided procedures prohibited by the Church, such as tubal ligation and vasectomy. The constitution of the holding company commits it to continuing the “mission” of Mary Aikenhead, who is named as the founder of the order. Leasing arrangements (para 5.11) and employment terms (para 5.8) may be employed to further the Main Object. A crucial new phrase, “clinically appropriate”, recurs in the just released documents. Within a Catholic ethos, abortion is considered

  Number 17 Gilford Park , Sandymount, in Dublin 4  is one semi-detached half of a structure adjoining number 15 which is in registered in the ownership of a Mr Anthony Duffy. The sale of No 17 went through in the second half of 2021 for €960,000 . It was sold to Caroline Barron and her husband Stefan Hyde who is the brother of Paul Hyde. Paul Hyde is the deputy chairman of An Bord Pleanála, the planning appeals board. Caroline Barron and Stefan Hyde In 2021 planning permission was sought for “an extension” of No 17 around the back and also that a side garage and a concrete coal bunker were to be demolished only: “Demolition and removal of sheds, garage and outhouses, and construction of roof extensions, elevation alterations and attic conversion”. This was misleading as wide-scale demolition of the house at No 17 was envisaged. There was a successful appeal, by Caroline Barron not her husband Mr Hyde,  of the original City Council decision to limit the size of the extension and this appeal was granted. In disagreeing with its own inspector’s recommendation on the master bedroom, the board “considered that the proposed development would not be overbearing to an extent that would injure the amenities of the neighbouring property”, according to the An Bord Pleanála order. Scandalously, as reported today by the Ditch website  https://www.ontheditch.com/abp-deputy-chair-granted-permission-brothers-controversial-development/, one of the two names on the decision on the ultimate permission was Paul Hyde’s. The whole house at No 17, save for the facade , was demolished in contravention of the planning permission sought and granted. Not only was the building demolished but the foundations were removed and new ones up to 2 metres in depth were dug to create extra space leaving Mr Duffy’s house on what appears like a sort of ledge. Some of the walls that were demolished provided support for Duffy’s house and this has, according to expert reports, led to damage to his house which would clearly cost a six-figure Euro sum to redress. Records show that Mr Duffy complained to Dublin City Council.  They were slow to come out due to “Covid” etc and when they did they indicated that the terms of the planning permission had been breached but that having spoken (only) to representatives of Stefan Hyde and Caroline Barron they were satisfied that no further action was necessary or would be taken . Village understands they never spoke to Mr Duffy less still expressed any interest or concern about damage to his house. The High Court record shows that Duffy has initiated proceedings himself against  Caroline Barron and Stefan Hyde. So the ruse appears to have worked to date as building is ongoing and despite the legal proceedings there has been no basis on which anyone can contest the substance of the Bord Pleanála decision itself nor the inevitable  disturbances that have ensued – despite the original inaccurate description of the proposed development as “an extension” . Meanwhile, Ms Barron and Mr Hyde are ploughing ahead . Whether the house will, in fact, be occupied as a family home or sold when completed is unknown . The size of the house would make it one of the largest semi ds on the road (2400 sq feet). Effectively by digging down almost 2 metres and also using an attic extension the house will be converted into a de facto three-storey dwelling. The case shows up the shortcomings of the whole planning process which are well known to those in the building and planning businesses –  you can get away with seeking to do something like an “extension” to which no reasonable neighbour would object, then, without warning, knock down the gutds of the structure, safe in the knowledge that even if anyone bothers to report it to the relevant authority, in this case, Dublin City Council ,  they probably will do absolutely NOTHING about it. Stefan Hyde is a founding partner of Maurice Johnson and Partners, Fire Engineers and Access Consultants. His company biography boasts that that he has been “involved” with the National Maritime College of Ireland in Ringaskiddy, Co Cork – where Paul Hyde was a board member and audit committee member, 2012-14. Stefan, like Paul, is an accomplished yachtsman. Stefan is a previous Round Ireland Yacht race winner, All Ireland Sailing Champion, and Student Yachting World Champion. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney and Paul Hyde of course were at school in PBC Cork together,  co-owned a yacht and competed in several events as a team.  Stefan was at least as accomplished and competed at events including Sovereign’s Cup week at Kinsale.  He came third at the IRC National Championship in 2005.  The Hydes’ father, Stephen, has donated at least twice to Coveney’s election campaigns, giving €2,500 in advance of the 2007 general election. Stephen and his wife have been members of Fine Gael in Cork.  Of course no wrongdoing can be, or is,  imputed to either of the boys’ parents. So much can not be said of their sons.      

NAMA In 2009 I was one of four Sinn Féin TDs in the Dáil when NAMA was set up. Ireland’s ‘bad bank’ was characterised then and since, by some, as the scam of the century because it would bailout billionaire developers while at the same time many ordinary people would get evicted from their homes. What was worse is that, despite public monies being involved, the public had only limited access to information about its goings on: how much a billionaire received from NAMA, what discounts it gave away on the sale of land and properties etc. Project Jewel This leads us to Moore Street and to the NAMA portfolio aptly named Project Jewel, the largest property portfolio NAMA would offload, which included a property-holding consisting of a quarter of Dublin’s main thoroughfare, O’Connell Street; a large portion of Henry Street; the vast bulk of Moore Street, Moore Lane, and Henry Place; a section of Parnell Street; and 50% of the Ilac Shopping Centre. Project Jewel – including also 50% of the Pavilions Shopping Centre in Swords, County Dublin; Dundrum Town Centre; and the old Dundrum Shopping Centre – was put up for tender in 2015[1]. Sale to Hammerson The Project Jewel sale to British shopping centres’ management and development company, Hammerson, was agreed in 2016 [2]. It was finalised in the summer of 2017 [3], under the watchful eye of Nama’s then Head of Assets Recovery, Connor Owens [4]. In 2015, before he became Head of Assets Recovery, Owens had also been, as Senior Divisional Manager for Project Jewel’s tender, the NAMA person overseeing the process [5]. That Project Jewel was a steal at the price paid for it was demonstrated within months when Hammerson sought to refinance one part of the full portfolio, Dundrum Town Centre for €1.5 billion – just shy of what it had paid for the whole package [6]. If such a gain had been made across the whole portfolio, Hammerson would have been sold €6 billion worth of property by a state company for €1.85 billion – with the state losing out on what would have been a gain to Hammerson and its partners of €4.15 billion. Nama obviously believed it was getting the best deal possible, and there is no suggestion that anything illegal or untoward occurred in relation to this portfolio sale. I nevertheless believe that, given the scale of Project Jewel, a greater price would have been achievable for Nama had the property bundle been broken up into single sites. Such a strategy would probably have attracted more interest from smaller bidders otherwise scared off by the scale of the offering. A short four years after selling NAMA’s biggest asset to Hammerson for that €1.85 billion, Connor Owens would be back in charge of the Project Jewel portfolio, this time as Hammerson Ireland’s CEO [7]. High Court judgment stymies planning application for moment A 2016 High Court case resulted in the Moore Street area becoming a National Monument. A consequence of that judgment was the blocking of a live planning application which would have destroyed much of this heritage site. Establishment of Advisory Groups to implement imperatives of High Court decision The judgment was appealed and overturned in 2018 by the Court of Appeal[8]. However, against the backdrop of the High Court decision, an advisory group had been set up[9] to “seek a positive way forward” for the area, with the then-Minister Heather Humphreys selecting certain campaigners, 1916 relatives and Moore Street market traders to be members alongside Councillors, TDs and senators. That group carried out its work and submitted ‘The Moore Street Report – Securing History’ to Minister Humphreys on 29 March 2017. A second group, ‘the Moore Street Advisory Group’, was set up on 25 May 2017, and on 31 July 2019 concluded its deliberations with the publication of its report by the Minister. I chaired one of this group’s sub-committees, the Surveys Subgroup, after Peadar Tóibín left Sinn Féin in 2018 to set up his own party. After the 2020 general election the new Junior Minister for Heritage Malcolm Noonan set up ‘the Moore Street Minister’s Advisory Group’, the third such advisory group. Third advisory group reports This group began considerations in December 2020. It was set an ambitious target to report in just over three months, at Easter 2021, but in fact ‘reported’ to the Minister a month late on 5 May 2021. Version submitted to Minister was not that which had been agreed The version submitted to the Minister and published by him was not that which was agreed by the membership of the group. I and others challenged passages contained in it which were clearly favourable towards Dublin Central, the development being proposed by Hammerson[10]. Given the original stated positions of the members of the group on Dublin Central, voting on the report or aspects of the report was likely to be tight, so any change could shift the thrust of the final report. In the final deliberations on the group’s report to Minister Noonan, the traders absented themselves, which they may have felt was better than voting for the report but given what emerged since was unfair on the rest of the advisory group membership as we were in the dark about the wheeling and dealing that had gone on in the background of our meetings. Such knowledge might have persuaded some who were inclined one way to vote the other way. Unfortunately, that report may well be material to the Bord Pleanála decisions that are awaited, that will determine the future of the site, referred to by the High Court as the Moore Street Battlefield Area. So why did the report not represent what I thought had been agreed? Inferring what happened I will set out, without naming names, what I have been told or pieced together as well as what is already in the public domain concerning Moore St and voting on its advisory group [11]. Garda Investigation Certainly a Garda investigation could better establish the reality of what is not yet