Michael McMonagle worked for Sinn Féin up in Stormont. He was charged with child sex abuse; Sinn Féin immediately discharged him as an employee and a party member. Harsh, you may think, since he hadn’t been found guilty at that point, but that’s what happened. Later, McMonagle contacted two of his Sinn Féin colleagues and asked them to write a reference for him, which they did. When the Sinn Féin party discovered what had happened, they launched an inquiry into the whole matter; but before it could be completed, the two referees resigned from their post and the party. The media north and south are salivating over the situation, convinced they can somehow damage Sinn Féin. Nice.
Is Netenyahu guilty of war crimes? To the best of my knowledge he is. But when he spoke at the United Nations, no one stepped forward to arrest him. What use is a condemnation – in this case for war crimes – if the perpetrator can ignore the charge?
Finally, are there too many people from a Catholic background in the legal profession? Apparently, a senior ex-PSNI man feels or felt there are or were. Them Catholics – one minute breaking the law, the next standing up in court. Can you Adam-and-Eve it?
I was disappointed that no video appeared on your blog today but I will make a comment anyway as your readers are following this with inquisitive interest, I understand the the BHF have stated that Michael McMonagle was not employed in a ‘child facing role’ yet he is clearly visible in the vicinity of a child at the Stormont event which is attracting a lot of attention from the Unionist media. Yesterday morning I sent the following e-mail to BBC TalkBack explaining how the rules of disclosure actually work, If Mr McMonagle did not have an ‘ Enhanced Disclosure Certificate’ he should not have been allowed to attend the Stormont event, If an ‘Enhanced Disclosure Certificate’ had been sought by BHF in his application for employment then he should never have been employed by them in the first place. Needless to say TalkBack never mentioned these facts on their program yesterday which his ‘par for the course’ with an election on the horizon. Here is the text of the e-mail I sent to TalkBack. I hope you find it of some value …
Regarding the McMonagle case, a few days ago Mr Nolan made reference to the significance of the AccessNi Certificate in these matters,
he correctly stated that the Access NI Certificate only dealt with whether the applicant had any unspent convictions , warnings etc. he was
of course referring to the basic and standard versions of the certificate. What he failed to mention was that for people intending to work with children or other vulnerable groups the ‘enhanced’ version is required. The rules for disclosure in this case are different , not only does it deal with unspent convictions etc. but also with, and I quote : “any other relevant information”. I presume this means current investigations, current or pending charges, mental state or anything else of relevance. Mr Nolan didn’t mention this on his program but instead brushed the whole access NI thing aside as being of no importance. As you can see from a perusal of the rules (on NIdirect) that it is in fact of the utmost importance as Mr McMonagle would have needed the enhanced version in order to get the job, in which case ‘other relevant information’ should have been disclosed as required by the AccessNI enhanced rules. If this had happened he wouldn’t have got the job and we wouldn’t now be talking about it. On the other hand if only the standard version had been applied for he could still possibly have been employed but with no access to children. Either way someone has some explaining to do and it certainly isn’t Sinn Fein as they have no connection with any of this, it all falls within the bailiwick of AccessNI, the PSNI and BHF . Someone may have been negligent in allowing references to be given without authority but if the correct vetting procedures had been followed in the first place no references would ever have been required.
I presume that the acquisition of ‘any other relevant information’ is the reason the Enhanced Disclosure Certificate costs twice as much as the basic and standard ones, £32, maybe someone was trying to save some money, we won’t know till someone takes the trouble to investigate the matter properly. I shouldn’t be surprised if any attempt at investigation will incur the response from the parties involved that this is all under the protection of their ‘Privacy Policies’ and no comment can be made.
Paul N. Belfast