----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Patricia Gilheany" <patriciagilheany@eircom.net>
To: scarswell@irishtimes.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2012 2:36:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: Simon Carswell, partial or impartial?




Subject: Simon Carswell, partial or impartial?

Simon,

With regard to below article in the Irish Times, I doubt very much if any reader would believe that you are impartial on the Quinn/Anglo legal dispute. The fact that you have used the words BET or GAMBLE no less than 16 times in a short article about Sean Quinn and his family, answers that question for most people.

You have consistently reported this story from Anglo's perspective, including in your book "Anglo Republic" which detailed confidential matters that should not have been published in the midst of a high stakes legal action.

Since the citizens of Ireland are the biggest stakeholders in this dispute, thanks to Anglo and the Irish Government, I suggest that it is you who is gambling with all our futures, as prejudiced articles have the potential to cost us dearly.

You state that it was too late for Sean Quinn by the time he revealed his stake holding in the bank. THIS IS INACCURATE AND FALSE. Sean Quinn was prepared to take his losses at that stage but was told to "put on the green jersey" to save the country. It is also worth noting that the Quinn family would have received around 200 million if he had been allowed to take the hit at that stage. It is very ironic that Joan Burton also stated in the last week when talking about the disastrous decision to nationalize the banks and to pay unsecured bondholders that the Government had been told that they would have to "put on the green jersey to save the country".

Sean Quinn and everyone related and associated with him, is being hung, drawn, and quartered for falling for this scam but our Government is excused for the very same naivety. They have no difficulty asking the taxpayers to pay for their mistake while on the other hand, the Quinn family did everything humanly possible to protect the taxpayers from any burden. 

I also refer to your consistent argument that the Quinn Proposal was a non runner, most recently on Sunday's Newstalk because you claim that it would have required 600 million State Investment.  Your argument makes no sense whatsoever:

1 It did not require this amount as the solvency shortfall in Quinn Insurance was in the region of 100 to 150 million, even if Elderfield was right in his assessment of alleged cross guarantees. It is crucial also that the only legal evidence with regard to this issue states that the Quinns were right and Elderfield was wrong, yet you have never once addressed this matter.

2 Secondly, even if it did require 600 million, that would be an extremely small price to pay, given that the current strategy has ensured that the 2.8 billion on offer from Quinn will now never be recouped, plus the taxpayers will also be burdened by hundreds of millions for Anglo legal, PR expenses etc. not to mention the thousands of jobs losses. Michael Noonan also bought Irish Life for over 1 billion euros since then and amazingly, before Quinn Health was sold to Management, (or given away, as the Government has refused to tell us how much was recouped from the sale as we were promised that the taxpayers would benefit from the proceeds), he made available 500 million for it to merge with VHI.

You know very well that the reason that the Quinn Proposal was a non runner was down to one reason and one reason only and this can and will be proven by a delegation of people who were informed by Alan Dukes in Leinster House that the reason why the Quinn Proposal was not appropriately considered was because MATTHEW ELDERFIELD WOULD NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT INVOLVED SEAN QUINN. I strongly suggest that you drop the erroneous argument that it was passed over for financial reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth and to publish such false information is deliberately misleading readers. 

The Elephant in the Room is the number of people including some journalists who are guilty of professional misconduct and not doing  the job that they are being paid to do, but are instead using this story to further their own agenda.

I now attach a document consisting of 21 crucial questions. If you are not prepared to be impartial and refuse to highlight these legitimate questions, the Concerned Irish Citizens Group will have no option but to report you for failing acceptable standards in journalism.

I await your response by return.

Is Mise,

Patricia GIlheany

Secretary,