Month: November 2010

By way of a brief update on my two recent posts about third level policy, a story in yesterday’s papers caught my eye. First, a report in the Irish Times:

Less than 15% in some Dublin areas going to college

Less than 15 per cent of Leaving Cert students in some poorer areas of Dublin are progressing to third level, according to the 2010 Irish Times feeder school list published today. … In stark contrast, most schools in south Dublin have a progression rate of 100 per cent; every one of their students who sat the Leaving Cert this year has progressed to third level.

The new figures come amid renewed controversy about the impact of the abolition of third-level fees in 1995 and as students face increased registration charges in next month’s budget. The list appears to show that “free fees” have have had only a marginal impact in boosting participation levels in poorer areas. …

The Irish Times also publishes a separate list focusing on progression rates to high-points courses, mostly in the university sector. This list is dominated by feepaying schools. …

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate either list on the Irish Times website. The Irish Independent has a similar story:

Parents buying school success, figures reveal

More than 90pc of students who sat the Leaving Cert in fee-paying or grind schools went on to higher education, figures compiled by the Irish Independent reveal. … In total, students who had studied for the Leaving Cert in either fee-paying or grind schools made up one in every eight of those who enrolled in college in September.

By contrast, the average transfer rate for schools in the free education scheme was lower. It varied from below 10pc for schools in disadvantaged areas to an impressive 100pc for some schools, particularly Gaelscoileanna, such as Colaiste Eoin and Colaiste Iosagain in Stillorgan, Co Dublin. …

Dr Selina McCoy from the Economic and Social Research Institute said: “Given the nature of the intake to fee-paying schools, you would expect a large proportion to progress to higher education. … What we really need to focus on in future research is the extent to which schools add value or make a difference in enabling students to successfully compete for higher education entry.”

Again, I haven’t been able to locate if the Irish Independent has made available online the figures that they have compiled in this regard.

These developments come as a survey of education and skills by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) shows that

75% of employers are satisfied with the calibre of graduates from Irish higher education institutions. However, employers also felt graduates fell down on their people skills and their ability to work independently. … The ability to work autonomously, ‘attitudinal’ and ‘people-related’ skills were ranked as the top three gaps in graduates’ competence.

The full survey is available here.

Picking up where I left off with yesterday’s post about the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Higher Education Policy Conference, Professor David Raffe, Director of the Centre for Educational Sociology in the University of Edinburgh spoke on “Higher education policies across the UK since devolution”, and his paper put the higher education policy issues into context. In particular, he demonstrates not only the challenges being faced by higher education at present but also the diversity of available policy responses even in the UK. I’m going to summarize those aspects of his paper which are relevant to Irish circumstances and leave to one side his application of those elements to devolution in the UK [my occasional comments about the Irish position are in parentheses], and I will use his paper to put the contribution of Dr Selina McCoy in context. (more…)

Obscene. Once I had caught my breath, and collected my composure, this was my immediate reaction to learning that a high court jury had awarded 10 million euro in libel damages, made up of €9m in compensatory damages and €1m in aggravated damages. According to RTÉ:

A Co Louth businessman who took a libel action against his former employers after an incident in which he sleep walked naked has been awarded €10m in damages.

The jury agreed that a press release sent out by mining company Kenmare Resources in July 2007 insinuated that Donal Kinsella had made inappropriate sexual advances to company secretary Deirdre Corcoran on a business trip in Mozambique in May that year.

The award is the highest award of damages for defamation in the history of the State. … Lawyers for Kenmare Resources were granted a stay on the award pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. … Kenmare Resources issued a statement saying it was ‘shocked’ at the verdict and it will ‘immediately and vigorously appeal the decision’.

The Irish Times added: “Outside court, Mr Kinsella (67) said he was ‘exhilarated and vindicated’ by the jury’s verdict”. I do not in any way begrudge him the vindication of his reputation, but does this really require 10 million euro? Indeed, the Journal.ie reported that the judge (Mr Justice Éamon de Valera) “appeared surprised at the scale of the damages being awarded”.

Appeals to the Supreme Court are pending in three other high profile cases of involving very high levels of damages. (more…)

I attended the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Higher Education Policy Conference yesterday on the topic “Higher Education Policy: Evidence from Ireland and Europe”. In the first session, Dr Selina McCoy of the ESRI spoke on “Higher education research in Ireland: where are we now?” and Muiris O’Connor of the Higher Education (HEA) spoke on “Higher education policy in Ireland: achievements and challenges”. In the second session, Professor David Raffe, Director of the Centre for Educational Sociology in the University of Edinburgh spoke on “Higher education policies across the UK since devolution” and Research Professor Liv Anne Støren of the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo spoke on “New trends in higher education in Norway – Are traditional male students ousted by female working class students and immigrant students?”. It was a fascinating series of presentations. Muiris O’Connor’s paper was an excellent survey of the evolution and present state of the Irish higher education sector. David Raffe’s paper put the higher education policy issues into context. Selina McCoy examined the very important specific issue of access to higher education in Ireland, whilst Live Anne Støren provided a comparative perspective on that issue. In this post, I’ll summarize what Muiris O’Connor had to say, and I’ll return to the other presentations tomorrow.

For Muiris O’Connor, the main achievement in Irish higher education policy is the participation rate. Over the last 50 years or so, after a late start – the free second level education scheme was introduced in 1967, about 25 years after the rest of Europe – there has been a rapid expansion of the third level sector and a rapid catch-up to international levels. Ireland is above the OECD average for 25-34 year-olds’ educational attainment in second and third level education. Although Ireland is not quite at OECD levels for PhDs, policy in recent years has been to boost that figure. On the other hand, Ireland is a long way from the OECD average for life-long learning rates. Moreover inequalities at the point of entry to higher education are still severe; in particular, there is a serious drop in participation by those just above the grant eligibility threshold. (more…)

Yes, you can. If you book to travel with an airline, and pay their fee plus government taxes and airport charges, but if you then don’t travel, so that the taxes are not due and the charges are not incurred, you are entitled to recover those taxes and charges from the airline. If the contract between you and the airline contains a clause either making them irrecoverable or imposing disproportionately high administration fees to recover them, that clause is unenforceable (on foot of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995 (SI No 27 of 1995). I have already discussed this matter here, here, and here. Those posts discuss the ongoing campaign by the National Consumer Agency against airlines which refuse to refund such taxes and charges, or which impose disproportionately high administration fees when non-travelling passengers seek to recover them. In the Irish Times recently, Ciarán Hancock reported on the next stage of that campaign:

Airlines retain €28m in taxes and charges on unfilled flight seats

The National Consumer Agency (NCA) is seeking to clip the wings of Irish airlines who pocket taxes and airport charges paid by passengers who do not travel on flights they have booked. About €28 million a year in these taxes and charges is retained by the airlines in Ireland. The agency says it believes this practice to be “unfair” and is considering seeking a “determination” from the High Court. At present, Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Aer Arann and other carriers apply administration fees for the refund of Government taxes and airport charges. …

In September, Air Tax Back Ltd was formed in Dublin to administer claims with airlines for consumers in Ireland and abroad. It is currently handling 50 claims regarding Ryanair and Aer Lingus, according to co-founder Brian Whelan. …

I love the paintings of WIlliam Turner (1775–1851). Every January, the Vaughan bequest of Turner watercolours goes on display in the National Gallery of Ireland, and every January I spend a happy Saturday afternoon in their company. One of Turner’s most arresting paintings is The Slave Ship (Slavers throwing overboard the Dead and Dying — Typhoon coming on) (1840) which is now on display in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (thumbnail, left; click through for better image). It is inspired in part by the story of the slaveship The Zong (replica image | image | story | wikipedia). In 1781, the shipowners claimed under an insurance contract for the value of lost cargo, which consisted of 133 slaves thrown overboard because the ship was running out of water. The captain claimed he acted out of necessity; and in the infamous case of Gregson v Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug 232, 99 ER 629, [1783] EngR 85 (22 May 1783) (pdf | National Archives), the claim succeeded at first instance, but failed on appeal.

Although this action was for breach of contract, it is the inspiration for the main action in last night’s episode of Garrow’s Law (BBC | imdb | wikipedia), a BBC television series inspired by the life and times of 18th century barrister William Garrow. The credits provide

In the late 18th Century William Garrow led a legal revolution

Championing the rights of prisoners in court

These stories are inspired by his life and the Old Bailey archives of the time.

On a BBC blog, Mark Pallis argues that without Garrow “there would be no such thing as a courtroom drama” because he “made a drama out of the trial out of necessity”. And in an article in the Guardian he explains:

… Garrow’s Law is inspired by his life and the cases from the period. … The transcripts of … real Old Bailey cases have been used as inspiration in the series … [but it] is not a biographical documentary. It’s a drama that aims to give viewers a real sense of what life was like in legal London towards the end of the 18th century; to give people a chance to experience the big legal landmarks and the cases that caused a stir at the time. One such case was that of the slave ship Zong, from which [133] … Africans were thrown into the sea, leading to an insurance dispute. The idea that throwing slaves overboard was regarded by the law in the same way as throwing wood, horses or any other “cargo” overboard was shocking enough to serve as a recruitment aid for the anti-slavery movement.

While this case did not involve Garrow, he would doubtless have been aware of it – and we felt we simply wouldn’t be doing justice to the period if we left it out, and so in our drama it is Garrow who tackles it. I like to think that, given Garrow’s personal policy of refusing to defend slavers, and the fact that, later in his life, he oversaw the first prosecution under the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, he would have been happy with the episode.

Although the actual action in Gregson v Gilbert was to enforce the insurance contract, in last night’s episode of Garrow’s Law, the insurance company has honoured the loss to the tune of £4000, but repented of it, and seeks to enlist Garrow as counsel to prosecute the captain of the ship for fraud. Hence, the historical civil action becomes a fictional criminal one, and Garrow is on the side of the angels (or at least not on the side of the devilish slave trade). The television show

‘moved’ the case to the Old Bailey, and made it criminal rather than civil so that it would be part of Garrow’s world. Despite this change, the key issues involved in the two cases are identical.

In the episode, the abilities of the captain were called into question at trial (as they were in the civil case), and Gustavas Vassa gave harrowing evidence of the middle passage (a fictional addition). However, it was not until James Kelsall, former first mate of the Zong, gave evidence that it had rained during the voyage before the slaves were thrown overboard that the trial plainly swung in Garrow’s favour. The jury accepted the evidence; and the captain was duly convicted. This evidence is fictional. However, in the appeal in the civil action, Lord Mansfield held that the ship-owners could not claim insurance on the slaves because the lack of sufficient water demonstrated that the cargo had been badly managed. The point is the same, but the television dramatisation makes it in a far more sensational manner. In any event, the case graphically demonstrated the ill-treatment of slaves being transported from Africa to the Americas, and greatly contributed to the abolition movement. Indeed, at the end of the episode, Garrow expresses to Vassa the “hope the country will make its own verdict” on slavery. It soon would, and not before time.

The trial scenes are powerful television, bringing home the appalling human misery behind the dry commercial realities of an insurance contract. As for Turner’s painting:

the critic John Ruskin, the first owner of Slave Ship, wrote, “If I were reduced to rest Turner’s immortality upon any single work, I should choose this.”

Earlier this week, I appeared on the Todayfm radio programme The Last Word, with guest presenter Anton Savage and fellow contributor Patrick Kinsella of the School of Communications at DCU (you can listen back to the show here until next Thursday). Newspapers earlier in the week had reported that male employees at the Dublin office of an international accountancy firm had circulated an email rating newly arrived female trainees for a Top 10 list. The following day, several newspapers went further and published the photos and names of the women involved. On the radio programme, we discussed whether this later coverage crossed a line and invaded the women’s privacy.

Both Patrick and I argued that the later coverage did indeed cross that line. In my view, there was an invasion of the women’s privacy, and not once but twice. There was a wrongful intrusion into the women’s private activities, by the disclosure of information in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, first by other individuals within the company, and then by the media.

Within the company, the women had their photographs taken for human resources or personnel purposes, but these images were misused for prurience and titillation, first by people within the firm and then by the newspapers which published them. To provide an image or information for one purpose is not to provide it for all purposes. The employees who put the email together from human resources information misused that personnel information, and are therefore likely to be in very serious trouble within the firm. That misuse may even infringe data protection principles. Moreover, the email itself is likely to contribute to a hostile environment within the firm, which is capable of amounting to sexual harassment of the women named and pictured in the email. And the publication of that information in the email amounted to an invasion of the women’s privacy.

Beyond the firm, publication in the media made matters much worse. Patrick said that going from publication about the email to publication of its contents including the names and photographs of the women was “mistake of judgment” and “ugly”. I completely agree that this intrusion by the media into their private lives, by disclosing information in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, constituted a reprehensible error of judgment; worse, it was an invasion of the women’s privacy. In passing, it is also likely an infringement of the firm’s rights in it is internal data.

It is clear that even celebrities are entitled to a degree of privacy; and, if celebrities are, it goes more so for the rest of us. Indeed, since the action taken by Princess Caroline of Monaco, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights starts from the proposition that everyone has a strong zone of personal privacy. Moreover, since the action taken by Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, English courts agree. The most interesting of the celebrity cases is the action taken by Naomi Campbell. Baroness Hale observed that “even the judges know who Naomi Campbell is” (even if they don’t know who the Beatles were). Here, the House of Lords held that it was not an invasion of Campbell’s privacy to publish an article that she was attending Narcotics Anonymous, but it was an invasion of her privacy to publish a photograph of her leaving a meeting. The information about her substance abuse was in the public interest, and justified any invasion of her privacy; but publication of the photographs added nothing of substance and crossed the line from what was in the public interest into the realm of what merely interested the public. Buttressed by the Constitution, Irish courts take a similar approach.

So, the question is whether there is a public interest in the publication of the women’s names and photographs. In my view, there is not. As Patrick said, it is important to disclose the fact of the email, given the importance of the firm; but he said that it was unnecessary – even hypocritical – to identify the women concerned. I entirely agree. Furthermore, he said that press are playing a dangerous game with these kinds of disclosures, which will lead inevitably either to losing a privacy action or to the introduction of restrictive legislation, or perhaps both. I agree: the media are playing a dangerous game with publications like this.

It is a harder question whether the media identification of the male employees who assembled and circulated the email amounts to an infringement of their privacy. On balance, I think it is probably not, though it is a close run thing. Whether it is the identities of the women or the men, the public is interested, and this sells newspapers. But at least so far as the women are concerned, there is little or no public interest here. Nevertheless, there are so many possible causes of action in this story that I suspect that we haven’t heard the last of this issue yet, not by a long shot.

I have recently discovered that one of the classic and elegant nineteenth century chess set designs is called the Dublin Pattern:

Bill Wall says the Dublin pattern was introduced about 1820. The pieces were made of ebony and boxwood with fine carved knights, and it was marketed by Jacques. Although Jacques is still going strong, they don’t seem to have the Dublin pattern in their current chess set listing – unfortunately. The House of Staunton says that original Dublin Pattern sets are extremely rare, with only a handful of complete sets in existence and securely in the hands of private collectors, but it has thoughtfully introduced an exact replica set, for a mere $695. I think I’ll still with my current set.