Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Enda Craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enda Craig. Show all posts
Enda Craig ✊ It is now self evident and crystal clear that the strategy adopted by MAG etc over this past ten years has been a dismal failure in all respects.

Well intentioned efforts are mostly to be applauded but the lack of any meaningful or visible progress whatsoever dictates that a different approach has to be considered.

Continuing to travel the same old stale road, repeating the mistakes of the past and hoping, somehow, for a successful outcome is a forlorn and meaningless strategy.

Operating on a continuous reactive basis playing catchup with the opposition means you are always behind the curve and at the mercy of the other side.

It is time to become proactive with some critical thinking that will challenge the existing Govt narrative and put them on the back foot.

It is time to put an end to the continuous fiddling with side issues that will not fundamentally challenge or change the govt strategy.

It is time to grasp the One thing that will potentially put the affected homeowners in the driving seat and give them a guaranteed 100% Redress And No Less with a definite fighting chance of success.

It is time to instigate a Judicial Review challenging the legality of I.S. 465 ( 2018 ) and have it replaced by existing EU regulations which will insist every homeowner's affected concrete blocks and foundations will be scientifically tested for Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals i.e. Pyrrhotite, the real cause of your blocks crumbling.

If your blocks/foundations are found to contain 0.1% or more of Pyrrhotite ( which is the maximum allowed under EU regulations ) then from an engineering perspective you are entitled to full demolition and foundations replaced on the basis that deterioration of your building from Sulphate Attack is Progressive and unstoppable.

This Judicial Review strategy was used successfully by an Inishowen Environmental Group CFCE ( Community For A Clean Estuary ) when they took JR proceedings against the Govt and Donegal Co Cl for the use of defective legislation in relation to a major project on Lough Foyle and won their case. There is every reason to consider this route as a possible strategy.

Why MAG and co have refused to even discuss this possibility is simply beyond understanding.

Over this past ten years there has been no attempt to take real ownership of this campaign from the affected homeowners point of view.

A case in point is the unbelievable situation where a discredited IS 465 (Mica only in Donegal) is still being used to inform remediation decisions even though the dogs in the street know that MICA has nothing to do with the problem.

And then, even more unbelievably, is the fact that we agree to allow the NSAI, who designed and created this fraudulent protocol, to take charge of its ' review ' of IS 465 when instead there should be a public inquiry into its creation in the first place.

Do not forget that a doctor of civil engineering who is also I.S. 465 qualified has, on more than one occasion, stated that this fraudulent protocol 'Is Not For For Purpose'.

Affected homeowners should grasp the nettle and take charge of their own destiny or spend another ten years following false prophets down meaningless rabbit holes going nowhere.

The political road has become a massive failure as was predicted and is now dead in the water.

There is not one example in the history of the Irish state where the Govt of the day has ever taken responsibility for a scandal it created and then done the right thing by the people.

It is self-evident that the Defective Concrete Blocks scandal will simply become another statistic in that category.

The disastrous 90/10 scheme led to the so called 'enhanced' scheme which has now become the "Plausible Impossible" scheme that the vast majority of applicants wont be able to use.

As an example if you are granted Option 1 (Demolition) it has become clear that you will need to make up a substantial financial shortfall which only the well - heeled will be able to afford.

If you are offered any of the remaining options 2 to 5 you will need a chartered engineer to sign off on the completed works and we now know that will not happen.

See the following comment from Dr Ambrose Mc Closkey in relation to that issue:

A remediated house will not be ‘signed off’ by any reputable engineer whilst defective blocks remain within its structure.

From this it is plain to see that the Govt has tightened the requirements of the 'enhanced' scheme to make it completely unworkable.

Game, set and match to the Govt and DCC.

Which part of all of this does MAG and the Redress Focus Groups not see?

Do they think it is right and proper to expect the Engineers to forego their professional and ethical responsibilities and sign off on sub-standard remediation works just to save the Govt/NSAI/DCC for inventing a fraudulent protocol. This will only help a small handful of well heeled affected homeowners make their properties saleable, mortgageable and insurable after demolition and rebuild while leaving the vast majority at the starting line unable to afford the shortfall to enable them to so the same.

Does MAG and Redress Focus Groups think for one moment that the NSAI and DCC will step up to the plate and admit they got I.S. 465 wrong and then explain how they all connived to design and invent a fraudulent protocol I.S. 465? Also what is their present position on the fifteen hundred plus illegal remediation decisions already taken on the strength of it?

Its past time to review the campaign strategy and do whats necessary to have a proper fighting chance.

Look not to grandstanding politicians or false prophets to solve this state sponsored scandal.

They have been found wanting and its time they acknowledged this fact.

The support and experience of those who have previously and successfully challenged the State and won is available.

Time to take ownership of this scandal.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

10 Years On And No Progress For Donegal Houses - Time For A Judicial Review Of I.S. 465

Enda Craig ✊ Items that frame our case that the designation of Lough Foyle as Coastal Waters are unjustifiable and harmful to the biodiversity of this outstanding asset are:

The designation was made for the purposes of The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive which came into force on 21st May 1991.

The identification of the outer limits of Estuaries in Ireland for the UWWTD appeared in a report by the EPA (ROI) dated February 1995. This was done in collaboration with the UKDoE and primarily under UK Regulations. The primary work was done by the DoE with basically the rubber stamp of the EPA.

The UWWTD requires that Member States establish the outer (seaward) limits of estuaries for the purposes of the directive.

Article 2 of the UWWTD directive defines 'estuary' as: the transitional area at the mouth of a river between fresh water ans coastal water.

The (present) line designating the outer limit of the estuary (near the river mouth at Culmore) was determined from 'an assessment of the available salinity data' primarily.

The Humber and Severn Estuaries were subjected to this process and declared Coastal Waters. The two cities of Bristol and Kingston upon Hull successfully brought a judicial review against the UK DoE in January 1996. There must surely be a precedent in this as the court dismissed the case on the grounds that the UK proposals under the UK Regulations were not in the spirit of the EC Directive. This renders the use of these regulations for the Foyle classification as questionable at the very least.

The provisions of the UWWTD will be subsumed into the Water Framework Directive in May of this year so a proper designation is now urgently required to avoid this faulty classification becoming becoming fully ratified.

Discharges into Coastal Waters have less stringent control than into estuarine waters.

The following abstracts from a paper by M. Elliot and D.S. McLusky entitled 'The Need for Definitions in Understanding Estuaries' should help clarify. Please note that Professor Mike Elliot of the Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull, is the leading UK authority on this subject. I have the full paper and if you would like to have it please let me know.

In regard to the UWWTD and definition of estuaries:

As with all such directives, the European States had discretion in implementing the Directive and thus the U.K. and others chose a further definition, that of the presence or absence of High Natural Dispersing Areas (i.e. the sea) which reflected the response to organic inputs. As such, the (then) UK Department of the Environment (DoE) redefined the Severn and Humber estuaries as sea even though in the case of the latter that ‘ sea ’ area stopped at the Humber Bridge situated halfway along the estuary, and the Severn stopped at the Severn Bridge, situated almost at the top of the estuary (Dyer 1996)! 

Given the local pressure to reduce sewage inputs, the two major cities involved, Bristol and Kingston-upon-Hull, successfully brought a judicial review against the UK DoE in January 1996 (Pearce, 1996). 

In acting for the municipal authorities, the Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies at the University of Hull were asked to clarify definitions of estuaries and thus considered biological, chemical, physical and geographic factors.

The scientists and environmental law scholars tended towards an ‘ expert-view ’ definition that ‘if it looks like an estuary, smells like an estuary and behaves like an estuary, then there is a good chance that it is an estuary ’!

In implementing the EU Directive, the U.K. through its Urban Waste-water regulations 1994, adopted two alternative definitions of estuaries: an area receiving freshwater inputs where the waters on a depth-averaged basis have a salinity of less than 95% of the adjacent local offshore seawater for 95% of the time; or: an inlet of the sea bounded by a line between such topographical features as define the seaward boundary of the estuary.

The judicial review supported the first of these definitions and took the view that above this threshold it becomes the sea. However, this definition was never tested rigorously as, in the final decision, the court eventually dismissed the case on the grounds that the proposals were not within the spirit of the Directive.

Even within the UK Regulations it is difficult to see how Lough Foyle was classified as Coastal Waters. It is perfectly clear that the relevant topographical features in this case are between Greencastle and Magilligan point, constituting a relatively narrow coastal break and a line between these points defines the seaward boundary of the estuary. As the entire fresh water production of the rivers Foyle, Roe, Faughan and their tributaries have to exit to the sea across this line twice every day, it would be astonishing if the given salinity limits would permit the estuary side of this line to be declared sea. Nevertheless, the Humber/Severn case dismissal at the judicial review is salutary and seems to offer a legal precedent to instruct the relevant departments to put this thing right. The only real surprise is that it is taking such an effort to cause this to happen.

The technical staff in the DoE(NI) and EPA (ROI) who were dealing with this matter are:

DoE(NI): Michael McAliskey

Marine Assessment and Licensing Team

Water Management Unit

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

17 Antrim Rd. Lisburn

BT28 3AL

Tel 02892623162

Mob 07881540041

EPA(ROI): Shane O'Boyle

Regional Inspectorate

McCumiskey House

Richview

Clonskeagh Rd.

Dublin 14

Tel 00353 1 268 0100

⏩Enda Craig is Spokesperson for Community for a Clean Estuary

Lough Foyle Waters Reclassified In 1995 From Esturine To Coastal And Not A Word From Anyone

Enda Craig ✊ shares some thoughts on Calls for urgent clarity over selling and remortgaging of remediated defective block properties.

Enough Of The Meaningless Emotional Bleating. Instigate a judicial review on the legality of the fraudulent protocol i.s. 465 and have it replaced by existing European regulations/legislation.

Why doesn't Sinn Fein or Deputy Pringle take a Judicial Review, in the public interest, challenging the legality of the fraudulent protocol I.S. 465. Have it replaced by the existing European Regulations which will take into account Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals e.g.  Pyrrhotite. Thereby giving all affected home owners their proper remediation option i.e. Demolition. 

Allowing the fraudulent Protocol I.S. 465 "Mica Only" to be used as the yardstick for determining your remediation option is beyond belief and makes fools of the affected home owners. Whoever controls the Protocol controls the scheme. Every Application assessed to date has been done on the basis of a fraudulent protocol that measures Mica only when it has been scientifically proven that Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals and other Deleterious Materials are the real cause of the defective blocks problem. 

Donegal Co Cl and the Housing Agency will continue to assess all existing and incoming applications based on Mica only during the so called Protocol review period ignoring completely the real scientific cause which should be based on the percentage amount of RISM in your blocks and foundations. By the end of the year this will have amounted to several thousands. DCC and the Housing Agency are being allowed to make complete fools of all affected homeowners. It has also transpired that DCC are ignoring engineers' demolition recommendations and applying a cheap downgrade option in their place in complete contravention of the engineers' lawful recommendation.

It is beyond belief whats happening. People are being treated as complete fools while politicians play the grandstanding card. A suspect protocol that is under review should never be allowed to continue to be used to determine your remediation option. What happens if it is found to be unethical and not fit for purpose? Will all those applications where it was wrongly used be re-visited and amended? Not a chance in hell. Its time to leave the meaningless bleating to one side and actually do something that's actually meaningful.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Enough Of The Meaningless Emotional Bleating

Enda Craig 🏘 It is well accepted that across various institutions/organisations that light touch regulation was a ' Recipe for Disaster '.

Donegal Co Cl Headquarters,
Lifford, Co Donegal
Light touch regulation refers to the approach of the government and regulatory bodies to regulate certain industries with minimal intervention. This approach is intended to promote economic growth while allowing businesses to operate with greater flexibility.

In practical terms what did that mean for the concrete manufacturing sector in Donegal as an example?

Local Authorities transfers legal responsibility for the proper manufacture of concrete aggregate and concrete products to the quarry owners and concrete product manufacturers.

Quarry owners and concrete product manufacturers now required to confirm in writing to the local authority on a yearly basis that they are applying the relevant and legal EU regulations etc to their activities.

DCC market surveillance and product control now operate on a reactive basis to the concrete industry.

They respond only to written complaints from the public re illegal practices in the quarries and concrete manufacturing plants.

DCC states that they received no written complaints re either.

So, who is to blame?

Will the DCC hide behind Light Touch Regulation as decided by national government?

Unbelievably, they now stopped Market Surveillance and Building Control officers from carrying out spot checks on quarries to determine the quality of the aggregate and also on concrete manufacturing plants.

It was now the sole responsibility of the quarries and concrete manufacturing plants to police themselves and to make sure all concrete products being sold to the public were up to EU standard and fit for purpose.

This self/light touch regulation was indeed mostly to blame for the inferior products that were sold to the homeowners in Donegal.

Self regulation was a disastrous, delusional concept as greed was certain to become the dominant factor as the quarry and concrete manufacturers were free of all checks and tests.

Each local authority was responsible for implementing its own Market Surveillance and Building Control policy and on that basis Donegal Co Cl has many questions to answer.

Will they adopt the "we knew nothing" response even though they were aware for years anecdotally that houses were cracking wholesale throughout the county.

Not to forget they had 1300 0f their own housing stock doing the same.

Where does that leave the quarries and concrete manufacturing companies?

Some have already stated their products were manufactured at all times according to the relevant standards.

It is also known that some of these companies no longer exist.

Where does it leave the Govt and DCC who primarily caused the problem by introducing self-regulation and allowing the concrete sector an open road without ANY checks or tests?

The Govt introduced the 90/10 grant scheme to cloak the fact that they were primarily to blame for this scandal by introducing the disastrous self regulation that allowed the quarry and concrete owners to supply unfit for purpose products.

Greed became the overriding dominant factor for Govt and the quarry/concrete manufacturers.

Expecting either or both of these groups to own up voluntarily and make just reparation goes against everything they believe in.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Light Touch Regulation To Blame For The Defective Concrete Scandal In Donegal

Enda Craig 🏘 What Was Really Going On Behind Closed Doors?

The Govt has known since 1954 that Ireland had a major Pyrrhotite problem.

They do not need educating on what is really wrong with the blocks and foundations . . . 

No one knows better.

Blaming Mica was a deliberate attempt to deceive the homeowners of Donegal.

Where were all the scientists, some of whom were personally affected, when they read the Expert Panel report (published June 2017) stating MICA was the problem.

No scientist worth his professional salt would have swallowed that nonsense.

What was really going on .......?

Do not try to tell me that none of the civil engineers and geologist on the expert panel did not know.

Do not tell me that none of the engineers and scientists on the NSAI 063 committee did not know.

Do not tell me that none of the civil engineers on Donegal Co Cl did not know.

And then of course there is the unbelievable case of the Mica Action Group representatives not saying a word when they returned from Connecticut after seeing the devastating effects of Pyrrhotite on concrete at first hand in Oct 2019.

There is a shameful back story to this Mica scandal that has yet to see the true light of day.

Its time those involved in this mega deceit and cover-up did the decent thing and admitted what was going on.

Was MAG convinced by their political handlers not to mention what they found out about Pyrrhotite in America and then shamefully kept their mouths shut and in so doing sold out the homeowners?

Did they in fact throw them under the bus?

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Were The Defective Concrete Homeowners Of Donegal Sold Out?

Enda Craig ✍ The Scientists have now stated unequivocally that Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals i.e. Pyrrhotite was indeed the real cause of the concrete blocks crumbling in Donegal homes and not Mica as the Govt would have us believe.

This makes a complete farce of the Govt's protocol I.S. 465 which was designed to consider Mica as the Only cause of the blocks crumbling in Donegal and ignore completely the reactive minerals.

That being the case the following question must surely be asked: 

Did the Government and all the associated institutions and individuals that supported them make a genuine mistake when they designed and passed into law I.S. 465 or did they deliberately devise a plan to deceive, short-change and cheat the affected homeowners of Donegal by assembling a cheap, ineffective and unworkable grant scheme?

After all, they portrayed the 90/10 and the upcoming 'Enhanced' grant schemes as a genuine attempt to put right a huge injustice which most people agree was of the Govt's own making.

In fact, they unashamedly claimed the 'Enhanced Scheme' to be 100% Redress.

So, let's follow the chain of events from the beginning in an attempt to get the full picture and see if we can find where the truth lies.

Back in 2012/13 when the Donegal TDs raised the crumbling blocks as an issue in the Dail the then Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey decided to come to Donegal on a fact-finding mission and to see at first hand the extent of the scandal of the affected homeowners and their houses.

He met with a wide spectrum of politicians, civil servants, groups and individuals culminating in a number of visits to affected homes where he witnessed on site the crumbling blocks.

By all reports he was deeply shocked and on his return to Dublin announced his intention of setting up an expert panel to investigate the cause of the deteriorating blocks in the walls of people's houses that were growing in number by the day.

The following year his successor, Minister Damien English, officially announced the setting up of the expert panel to investigate the ever-growing scandal of crumbling blocks in people's homes in Donegal.

Its membership consisted of three highly regarded civil engineers and a geologist.

But here we find the first indication that the Govt might well be up to no good and indeed have a predetermined plan of their own in relation to how they believe this problem should be solved.

Unbelievably they published Terms of Reference for the Expert Panel which restricted their investigations to an academic 'Desk Top Study' only which did not allow the team of Engineers and Geologist to send off for scientific analysis the crumbled remains of the concrete blocks which would have identified immediately the Real and Absolute scientific reasons why the blocks crumbled.

In truth it could be said that in so doing the Govt completely prevented the Expert Panel from carrying out the necessary forensic investigation of the evidence (material from the crumbled blocks) and instead tied their hands behind their backs by restricting them to a desk top study which would search for Mica only and nothing else.

This decision by the Government not to allow the material evidence of the crumbled blocks to be sent for analysis is critically important as it flies in the face of all investigative logic and reason and calls into question their true motives in attempting to get to the truth of what happened to the building blocks from the affected houses.

It also gives a very clear insight into the road map that the Govt had already planned to travel and which gave the message to all those who would now be involved in the investigation and solution on the road to IS 465, their intended destination, which would put the blame completely on Mica.

The Expert Panel, notwithstanding the restrictions imposed on them, blamed Mica on a guess and without an ounce of scientific research. They forwarded their report to the Govt who in turn forwarded it onto the NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland) with orders to design a standard to deal with the "Mica" problem in Donegal and Pyrite in Mayo.

The NSAI set up a Technical Committee (063) and tasked it with the Govt's request to design a Standard based on Mica only in Donegal to deal with remediation of the affected houses on a legal basis. This they obligingly did.

I.S. 465 was created and the Govt was given what the Govt wanted from the word go - a protocol which would base all remediation options on the amount of Mica in your affected wall blocks and unbelievably no mention of Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals or indeed the testing of potentially infected foundations.

Game set and match to the Govt and backed to the hilt with some of the most important heavyweights in the business, NSAI Technical Committee 063, who saw nothing wrong and gave it their seal of technical and academic approval.​

The political establishment, across the board, also agreed and in Feb.2020 I.S.465 was incorporated into national legislation namely S.I. 25 of 2020 which became known in Donegal as the “90/10 Scheme”.

Let there be no doubt about it - this is the way Govts do their business.

It is the reason each Govt department has a top layer of highly qualified senior civil servants who will firstly and secretly travel the road and decide what the outcome is going to be. They control the process, the journey and the destination from beginning to end.

To this end they also have available the requisite technical and academic heavyweights.

This is exactly what happened in relation to the establishment of I.S. 465.

The Dept of Housing knew well that the real problem was Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals i.e. Pyrrhotite before they announced the Expert Panel and it's ridiculous Terms of Reference.

Ireland was well known and mentioned as having this problem as far back as 1954.

The Govt and its top civil servants knew if the real truth was found out i.e. Pyrrhotite it would mean demolitions of All affected buildings across the board.

They were given a glimpse of a financial nightmare which had to be avoided at all costs and they began working on putting together a cheap and deceitful alternative.

They found it in a material called Mica and they built a believable fairy tale around it of  'freeze/thaw', blaming it for the crumbling blocks in the homes of Donegal in an effort to minimise the cost to the state without the least regard to the innocent affected homeowners.

The following statement is a synopsis and a perfect example to demonstrate the shameful deceit perpetrated on the homeowners of Donegal. It is taken, word for word, from an interview given by Mr Aidan O'Connell on RTE on the 24th April 2022.

Mr O'Connell is a chartered civil engineer, a structural expert with particular expertise on Mica related issues and a member of the NSAI Technical Committee 063 which designed I.S. 465 on behalf of the Government:

Mica doesn't chemically react. It is like tissue paper within a concrete block where it absorbs water and then when that water freezes it makes the block burst internally. You can prevent the moisture from getting into the concrete block then largely you will be doing away with the problem . . . So in my opinion the building is not structurally compromised and will not become structurally compromised as long as you maintain the exterior.

This statement was completely debunked by the International Scientists at the conference in Letterkenny especially the notion that Mica absorbs water like a tissue. This statement exposes the true agenda of the Government whose sole intention was to put in place a cheap farce of a scheme, save the Govt exchequer and throw the homeowners under the bus.

When all things are considered, people must ask themselves some important fundamental questions.

Where was the point in ever lobbying those who caused the problem in the first place by putting in place self-regulation on the quarries and concrete manufactured products and thereby allowing the scandal to take place?

The political establishment, right across the board, have shown their true colours by putting in place two grant schemes which are a complete insult to all the innocent victims of this home destroying scandal.

The complete campaign to date has been a disaster and shows no sign of critical analysis or change of direction.

The following statement sums up all that is wrong with the road travelled to date:​

"Those who cause a problem should never be part of creating the solution."

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Subject: I.S. 465 ✑ Was It A Genuine Mistake Or A Deliberate Deceit By The Government

Enda Craig ✒ with the third in a series on the Mica building scandal.

In response to political lobbying the Government established an Expert panel in 2016 to investigate the reason why building blocks in houses in both Donegal and Mayo were crumbling into Weetabix type material.

The report was concluded and presented to the Minister for Housing in June 2017.

From reading this report a number of salient points emerge that gives rise to justifiable concerns . . . 

  • Why did the terms of reference, as set out by the Government, not allow the Expert Panel to send off for analysis the crumbled material from the blocks, which was readily available, to determine scientifically what exactly caused the building blocks in the houses to degrade into virtual dust?
  • Why did the Expert Panel members take a guess, devoid of all scientific proof and against all engineering principles, and pin the cause of the crumbling effect on a material called Mica while all the time deliberately ignoring the more serious suspects i.e. reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals and other deleterious materials, the effects of which as highly qualified civil engineers and geologists they would have been very much aware of and listed as a problem in concrete manufacturing in Ireland as far back as 1954?

In this excerpt from the Expert Panel report (page 39) it becomes clear that the members have decided, devoid of any scientific analysis, that the cause of the problem in Donegal is indeed Mica while completely ignoring the possibility of the more deadly Sulphide minerals:

The Panel concludes that the nature of the problem is manifested primarily by the disintegration of the concrete blocks used in the construction of the affected dwellings in Counties Donegal and Mayo which in turn results in a pattern of cracking in the external render of these dwellings. The affected dwellings are single storey, dormer and two storeys in estates and one-off rural types and were constructed by contract and by self-build. Based on information received, the Panel is of the opinion that the reason for the widespread pattern cracking in private dwellings in Counties Donegal and Mayo is primarily due to the excessive amount of deleterious materials in the aggregate used to manufacture the concrete blocks.

The deleterious material in County Donegal was primarily muscovite mica. While in County Mayo it was primarily reactive pyrite.

The problem was exacerbated by the severe exposure of many of these dwellings and the ingress of moisture into the concrete blocks which was possibly accelerated by the extreme weather conditions in winter 2009 / 2010 and late winter 2010.

In County Donegal the ingress of moisture into the concrete blocks, aided by the presence of more than normal amounts of muscovite mica, and the subsequent freeze thaw action which the concrete blocks were unable to withstand is likely to have led to the disintegration of the concrete blocks and the pattern of the associated render cracking.

The question must surely be asked why did they do this?

Were they simply following the route that had been laid out in front of them in the Govt terms of reference which did not allow for scientific analysis thus preventing the real cause of the problem from being identified?

Steering clear of the Iron Sulphides (no analysis of the crumbled building blocks) which if found to be the real cause of the problem would have meant complete and very expensive demolition and rebuild of all infected houses across the board as against a cheap, partial outer wall replacement if they could instead blame it on Mica?

This line of reasoning points to a well organised plan by the Government in the first instance by insisting on a desk top study only which they knew would knowingly identify the wrong material Mica as being the cause of the problem and thereby and all importantly limit the financial exposure to the state's exchequer.

This was truly a shameful plan where we see the state and numerous of its institutions and committee's come together in a premeditated and well organised synchronised way to knowingly propose a worthless solution to innocent homeowners' problems in order to protect the state's coffers.

The following excerpt explains the dangers of the ignored reactive sulphide minerals and other deleterious materials that were known to be a problem in the manufacture of concrete products in Ireland since 1954 ...

2.2.5 Deleterious materials
Deleterious materials, chemicals and characteristics related to aggregate type and sources have an effect on concrete strength and durability. Reference should be made to the harmonised European product standards (commonly referred to as hENs) for the assessment of aggregates and the associated Standard Recommendations and relevant Codes of Practice which provide national guidance for their use in construction products and works in Ireland. The following not exhaustive list describes the most common deleterious materials and their effect on concrete, which include: 

2.2.5.1 Sulfates Interaction between sulfate and cement paste causes the generation of the mineral ettringite through the interaction of tricalcium aluminate and gypsum. This causes extensive cracking, expansion, loss of bond integrity between the cement paste / aggregate particles and the alteration of the cement paste composition. In wet / saturated, low temperature conditions (<15oC) a carbonate / sulfate interaction known as thaumasite attack occurs. Thaumasite replaces the cement paste causing the concrete surface to soften and eventually disintegrate;

2.2.5.2 Sulfides Sulfide minerals, in particular iron sulfides such as pyrite and the much more reactive marcasite or pyrrhotite, can have a considerable effect upon concrete strength. In-situ oxidation, disintegration and dissolution of iron sulfides weakens the aggregate strength. The chemical reaction between oxidising pyrite and calcite causes the formation of secondary gypsum with an associated volume increase (greater than twice the volume of the original iron sulfide mineral). In addition, the oxidation of iron sulfide's can produce sulfuric acid, which attacks the cement paste (i.e. Mundic Decay),

With this knowledge in their possession the expert panel members came to Donegal where they had numerous meetings with political representatives, members of the Mica Action Group and visit the sites of several badly affected crumbling block homes.

Horrendous stories of everyday living are related to them by families on the effects of watching and in fact listening to their houses progressively crumbling around them on a daily basis.

They viewed at first hand the scandal of the 'crumbling homes' that is evolving across Donegal. They even get to crumble the blocks in their own hands.

The most important point that was missed by the families and the campaigning groups was an understanding of the real agenda that lies hidden in the minds of the Govt representatives that would only become clear when the relevant legislation was assembled.

They are employees of the state whose primary function is to protect it at all costs and minimise any claim that is made against it.

They come among the people giving the friendly impression that they too only want a fair and just outcome for what has befallen the affected homeowners.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth as we will see.

This Expert Panel report is now passed on to the next level of the Govt investigation which is the NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland) who decided to set up a Technical Committee that would be asked to design an Irish Standard that could be applied to 'fix' the crumbling Donegal homes and based on Mica only.

Important to remember that the Expert Panel makes it clear in their report that it was not part of their remit to send off the crumbled material for scientific analysis and even though they point the finger at Mica as being the cause of the problem they nevertheless state that further scientific analysis is required.

It is completely revealing that the proposal by the Expert Panel for further research will now be restricted by the NSAI Technical committee to researching the effect of Mica only in a freeze/thaw situation.

To this end Donegal Co Cl supplied seventy samples from four affected social housing stock for analysis by Fastnet Analytical.

Everyone involved now concentrates on building a plausible picture in an effort to blame Mica as the sole culprit for the defective blocks scandal in Donegal.

Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals become the Elephant in the room and are completely ignored.

Questions must be asked as to why this was happening.

  • Why did the Govt issue restrictive Terms of Reference which did not allow the crumbled block material to be scientifically analysed? 
  • Why did the Expert Panel go against all engineering principles and without proper scientific evidence put the blame on Mica on the basis of a guess? 
  • Why did the NSAI accept this incomplete report from the Expert Panel and not comment on the exclusion of the reactive sulphides as a possible cause? 
  • Why did the Technical Committee run with Mica and not insist on proper scientific analysis of the affected blocks?

There is a very visible thread running through this whole process which is to put the blame squarely on Mica and to ignore completely the very strong possibility that Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals might well indeed be the cause of the problem.

A pattern has emerged of all involved singing off the same hymn sheet and falsely promoting Mica as the culprit material causing the blocks in Donegal houses to crumble.

The possible reason for this will be analysed in Part V.

Protocol I.S. 465 was now completed by the technical committee and presented to the Government by the NSAI in 2018 without challenge or comment by anyone and became the cornerstone of the upcoming 90/10 scheme which was passed into law as S.I. 25 of 2020.

The 90/10 scheme ( first scheme ) opens for applications from affected homeowners suffering from crumbling building blocks syndrome in June of 2020 and very quickly runs into trouble.

Almost immediately serious revelations appear when test results of the block cores from the affected houses start coming in from the testing laboratory Petrolab in Cornwall in the Autumn of 2020. These results are analysed and will prove beyond all argument or doubt that the real reason for the blocks deterioration resides with the Reactive Iron Sulphides and not Mica.

This and the reasons for the false promotion of Mica will be explained in Part V.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The Origins Of The Cause Of The Defective Building Blocks Scandal In Donegal Houses ✑ Part Ⅳ

Enda Craig ✒ with the third in a series on the Mica building scandal.

Deleterious Materials -  Page 19 of the Expert Panel Report On Defective Blocks, which highlights the fact that the cause of the crumbling blocks is not Mica.

 The following list describes the most common deleterious materials and their effect on concrete, which include: - 2.2.5.1 Sulfates Interaction between sulfate and cement paste causes the generation of the mineral ettringite. This causes extensive cracking, expansion, loss of bond integrity between the cement paste / aggregate particles and the alteration of the cement paste composition. 

In wet / saturated, low temperature conditions Thaumasite replaces the cement paste causing the concrete surface to soften and eventually disintegrate; 2.2.5.2 Sulfides Sulfide minerals, in particular iron sulfides such as pyrite and the much more reactive marcasite or pyrrhotite, can have a considerable effect upon concrete strength. In-situ oxidation, disintegration and dissolution of iron sulfides weakens the aggregate strength. The chemical reaction between oxidising pyrite and calcite causes the formation of secondary gypsum with an associated volume increase (greater than twice the volume of the original iron sulfide mineral). In addition, the oxidation of iron sulfide can produce sulfuric acid, which attacks the cement paste (i.e. Mundic Decay).

What is truly amazing is to find out that the members of the Expert Panel, highly qualified engineers and geologist, were very much aware that the above list of deadly materials could possibly be the cause of the crumbling effect on the building blocks and decided to ignore them completely. 

As we now know from the Petrolab analysis of the concrete coring samples, excessive amounts of the above mentioned Reactive Iron Sulphides have been identified in hundreds of cases and are indeed considered the real scientific reason the blocks disintegrated and crumbled and in truth little to do with Mica.

The fact that the Expert Panel, in an attempt to cover their backs, found it necessary to print a disclaimer at the beginning of the report Disclaimer . . .  The Expert Panel did not commission or carry out any tests on buildings or building materials itself and was dependent on technical information supplied directly to it by homeowners and concerned parties.

And again on page eleven - It should be noted that it was not in the Panel’s remit to commission testing to verify the cause of the defects claimed in these reports -  tells you all you need to know as to what was really going on here. 

The decision by the Govt to restrict the Expert Panel to a desk top study and not allow the crumbled block material to go for analysis is the beginning of the planned cover-up. As we see from the report the expert panel fell into line and followed the Govt's restrictive Terms of Reference as did all the rest of those involved in the design of the fraudulent I.S. 465 -  all the way to the 90/10 legislation of SI 25 of 2020 and to the present enhanced Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022.

In Part 4 we will look at the membership of the Technical Committee set up by the NSAI to design I.S. 465 in response to the Expert Panel report.

 ⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The Origins Of The Cause Of The Defective Building Blocks Scandal In Donegal Houses ✑ Part Ⅲ

Enda Craig ✒ with the second in a series on the Mica building scandal.

In part 1, I described how the Govt accepted that the problem actually exists.
 
In Part 2, I now describe what they propose as a solution as outlined in the Report of the Expert Panel 2017.

The Govt, having accepted there is a problem now selects the expert panel that will investigate the problem..

The full composition of the Expert Panel is:

  • Mr. Denis McCarthy, a civil engineer and former Director of Services and Acting County Manager with Waterford County Council. Chairperson of the Expert Panel.
  • Mr. Noel Kane, BE, Dip Comp Eng, EurIng, CEng, FIEI, FIStructE, MIEAust, MACI, RconEI, member of the National Standards Authority of Ireland’s Concrete and Eurocodes Consultative Committees and the chair of their Masonry Panel and Eurocodes Masonry Subcommittee.
  • Mr. Frank Lee, BE, CEng, FIEI, FConsEI nominated by the Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland.
  • Mr. Dave Blaney, P.Geo, EurGeol, B.Sc., M.Sc. and Board member of the Institute of Geologists of Ireland.

This panel, to begin with, could well be considered far too close to the Govt to be seen as independent.

Next the Govt publishes the Terms of Reference for the expert panel .... (definition -- "The terms of reference (ToR) document defines all aspects of how a team will conduct an evaluation.")

The Terms of Reference announced by the Minister of State were: 

(i) to identify, insofar as it is possible, the numbers of private dwellings which appear to be affected by defects in the blockwork in the Counties of Donegal and Mayo;
(ii) to carry out a desktop study, which would include a consultation process with affected homeowners, public representatives, local authorities, product manufacturers, building professionals, testing laboratories, industry stakeholders and other relevant parties, to establish the nature of the problem in the affected dwellings;
(iii) to outline a range of technical options for remediation and the means by which those technical options could be applied by the affected homeowners in a manner that delivers cost effective and satisfactory outcomes for those homeowners; and (iv) To submit a report to the Minister of State by 31 May 20161.

In (ii) it can immediately be seen that the Govt intends to restrict the investigation by allowing only a desk top study to be carried out by the expert panel.

The expert panel references this restriction by stating on page 11 of the Expert Panel Report:

The Panel conducted an evaluation of all associated technical reports and other supporting information received. It should be noted that it was not in the Panel’s remit to commission testing to verify the cause of the defects claimed in these reports.

The one thing that would have confirmed the nature/cause of the problem (detailed laboratory analysis of the crumbling blocks) was not allowed under the Govts Terms of Reference.

And so begins the Govt ' cover-up' of the real reason the blocks are crumbling in Donegal.

Unbelievably the material from the crumbled blocks will not be analysed.

Why Not? 

Also, why did none of the Donegal Politicians, both local and national, not question this glaring deceit by the Govt. in the Terms of Reference?

Why did no one on the MAG committee not see this fundamental cover-up?

This restriction of the expert panel to a desk top study tells you, beyond argument, that the Govt already knew the real cause was Reactive Iron Sulphide Minerals but they had no intention of allowing it to be reported as they knew that would mean across the board demolitions if it was found out.

Without laboratory analysis there was no chance of identifying the real reason why the building blocks were crumbling.

The Govt had decided to restrict the findings to Mica as this could be dealt with in a cheap, nasty although ineffective solution.

Again, protection of the exchequer is seen to override everything else.

The expert panel would now give a guess (shot in the dark) that they believed the problem was caused by a rogue material in the aggregate called Mica.

Completely wrong as it turned out.

This will be looked at in Part 3.

 ⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The Origins Of The Cause Of The Defective Building Blocks Scandal In Donegal Houses ✑ Part Ⅱ

Enda Craig ✒ with the first in a series on the Mica building scandal.

It is reported that problems have manifested in dwellings built as far back as 1984 and in buildings constructed up to 2011 although the period between 1999 and 2008 appears to be when most of the affected properties were completed - Page 5 - Expert panel report - June 2017

If most houses that were affected were built between 1999 and 2008 then a specific aggregate problem must have taken place during that time.

If the Donegal County Council, on behalf of the Govt. had been practising ongoing product testing and surveillance, as they were legally supposed to, they would have picked up the change in the aggregate and nipped the problem in the bud.

Instead the ' Light touch regulation/No regulation ' introduced by the Govt in the early 2000's can indeed be seen as a major cause of allowing this scandal to develop.

Next installment will look at the methodology used by the Expert Panel to identify the specific cause of the crumbling block phenomenon.

 ⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The Origins Of The Cause Of The Defective Building Blocks Scandal In Donegal Houses ✑ Part Ⅰ

Enda Craig ✒ When the Government passed the Defective Blocks 90/10 scheme into law on the 4th Feb 2020 they had achieved exactly what they set out to do.

The "enhanced" defective building blocks scheme is yet another example of betrayal by government

They had successfully put in place a cheap grant scheme which would offer ineffective building remediation of affected homes depending on the amount of Mica only found in your house blocks and all based on I.S.465.

No mention was made in the Govt designed IS 465 of the much more dangerous Sulphide Minerals and other Deleterious Materials which they also knew were contained in the defective blocks.

No mention either of testing foundations and what they might also contain.

But when the test results from the block core samples started coming in from Petrolab in Cornwall a very concerning picture began to emerge which was explained in stark detail by Dr Ambrose Mc Closkey.

He identified the fact that the Govt IS 465 (which the 90/10 scheme was based on) did not include any mention of the dangerous reactive Sulphide Minerals found in the tested blocks and the absolute lunacy of not testing the foundations.

It became clear from Dr Mc Closkey's comments that it made no engineering sense to replace the outer leaf only (or part of ) once your core test results showed high levels of Mica and the additional presence of Iron Sulphides above the maximum allowed of 0.1%.

The only acceptable engineering option should be complete demolition.

He notified both the Donegal Co Cl and the Chairman of the Cl Mica Action Committee of his concerns and unbelievably was ignored by both.

If the crumbling blocks contained reactive Iron Sulphides and other Deleterious Materials then it was logical to assume the foundations were also infected considering that both the blocks and foundations were made from the same aggregate and came from the same manufacturer.

He actually stated that IS 465, as it stood, was unethical and not fit for purpose.

This Standard (IS 465) required independent engineers to sign off on ineffective engineering solutions making it completely unethical and leaving them open to possible future litigation by the homeowners in the event of additional building degradation.

IS 465 engineers soon recognised the dangers of signing off on such reports which could have future legal ramifications for them personally if outer leaf replacements were seen not to solve the problem.

To counteract this danger the engineers began signing off for demolition only.

The Officials got scared

Because of this decision by the engineers, Donegal Co Cl now found hundreds of homeowners’ applications on their desk containing engineers reports insisting that 'Demolition' as the only proper engineering option they were prepared to sign off on, based on the Petrolab test results and the Co Cl now stopped processing all applications.

They contacted central Govt., highlighted the problem and waited for direction.

This new demolition-only decision by the engineers turned into a potentially massive financial problem for the Government which needed to be solved urgently.

They decided it was not financially sustainable to accept mass demolition and yet the engineers had the legal and ethical right to give the affected homeowners the correct engineering solution and sign off as they saw fit.

This scheme had now turned into a nightmare for the Govt who immediately recognised that this new course of action by the engineers, although correct technically and the proper engineering solution to the crumbling homes could not be allowed to continue because of the financial ramifications for the exchequer.

The fact that the engineers were acting correctly and ethically according to their profession, providing the proper engineering solution seemed to cut little ice with the Govt because of the perceived huge amount of money it would cost the State. 

In short, for the Govt it became all about the money.

To counteract this new situation the Govt decided the 90/10 would have to be replaced in order to make sure the independent engineers would no longer have any say into the future in deciding which Option affected homeowners were given for remediation and thus protecting the Govt exchequer from thousands of expensive demolitions and rebuilds which the Govt knew were coming down the tracks.

Also, the existing demolition decisions in hundreds of applications with Donegal Co Cl would need to be dealt with and somehow made null and void.

The Cl stopped processing all applications until the new legislation was passed.

The engineers were signing off on a proper engineering solution (demolition) according to the laboratory results . . .  the Govt wanted a solution (outer leaf block replacement) which was inexpensive but not correct from the engineers point of view based on the Petrolab results of the block cores.

So, at this point, in the Spring of 2021, we can say the Govt has two major problems with the 90/10 that needed urgent attention . . . 

  1. The homeowners' engineers' decision to insist on demolition as the only option they were prepared to sign off on which, if not stopped and changed, would cost the Govt an unsustainable amount of money, as they saw it regardless if it was the just and right solution for the innocent home owners. They would also be aware of the number of buildings already identified and the thousands more coming down the tracks.
  2. The hundreds of home owner remediation applications that are already sitting on the Donegal County Cl table containing engineers reports stating demolition as the engineering solution which will be hugely expensive i and would set a precedent.

A drastic need for change


These two 90/10 problems are massive and need serious and urgent attention by the Govt.

The following details explains how the Govt. manoeuvred its way out of their nightmare at the homeowners expense.

The first indication that the Govt had finalised a plan to do away with the 90/10 and solve the financial nightmare facing them came by way of their invitation to MAG and 100% Redress to take part in a Govt sponsored Working Group which they announced on the day of the Dublin march 15th June 2021.

The decision to announce the invitation on this particular day was crucial to their plan and not simply a chance date.

The day was highly charged with substantial numbers of protestors and they wanted a result.

The impression the Govt wanted to create was that because of the protest in Dublin they had been forced to reconsider the content of the 90/10 which had fallen short of the affected homeowners expectations and because of this they were now agreeable to finally ' do the right thing ' and put an 'enhanced' scheme in its place.

It was a complete Hoodwink and worked to perfection. 

It was announced on RTE news during the Dublin protest, immediately agreed to by all and hailed as a great victory for the campaign.

The Govt anticipated that MAG and the 100% Redress group would see this as a great victory and would not question it and that they would ' go for it ' immediately - which they did.

The start of the Govt betrayal of the affected homeowners had now been launched publicly and few saw through it for the cynical underhand move that it was.

The Govt simply used the euphoria of the protest march as a cynical and shameful cover to hide the real reason, which was their major financial problems being caused by the engineers.

The Enhances scheme becomes the “Plausible Impossible Scheme”

The new enhanced scheme would remove the independent engineers from having any say on which Option the affected homeowners would get for fixing their houses. This would now be taken ' in-house' and decided by civil servants in the Govt's Housing Agency and at minimum cost to the state.

Also, the hundreds of homeowner applications which had been forwarded to DCC and which contained demolition as the recommended option would now also be reset and they too would be subjected to the new application process of building assessment and damage threshold with every likelihood of a new remediation Option being given.

A 420,000 Euro Carrot would also be included to sweeten the taste for those who now believe they would get demolition in the changeover from the old to the new scheme.

The new "enhanced" scheme should be called the "Plausible Impossible Scheme".

Looks "Plausible " from a distance especially when you mention 420,000 euros until you read the " Impossible " detail contained in the legislation.

The SCSI square foot rate does not apply to options 2, 3, 4 and 5. From listening to spin in the media from commentators such as Engineer Aidan O'Connell no-one in Donegal is justified in getting Option 1 (Demolition) anyway. This is due to the notion constantly being put forward that Donegal properties only contain MICA. As we are seeing from 100s of test results this is just not the case.

Govt Ministers and TD's stood on the platform, shouted out and gave false hope to the homeowners, knowing precisely the truth of what was really coming.

MAG and the 100% Redress group agreed to take part in the Govt working group not recognising the true and underhand reason for the invitation.

They assumed they were in negotiations for an ' enhanced ' scheme but in truth, as the terms of reference prove, they were simply invited to take part in a discussion with senior Govt officials.

The truth of it all became clear when the Govt published THEIR plan for the new scheme at the end of Nov 2021.

It showed that the 90/10 would be replaced with a so called ' enhanced ' scheme many times worse than the first one.

It would take the new scheme in-house and they, the Housing Agency and not the independent engineers, would be responsible for deciding which remediation Option you would get after you first supplied a ' Building Assessment ' which would then be used to determine if you qualified to pass the ' Damage Threshold ' requirements.

Looking at the legislation for the "enhanced" scheme you would be forgiven for thinking it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than access the required solution to fix a building infected with iron sulphides.

The reality bites hard

It became clear MAG and the 100% Redress group had attended the Working Group simply as part of a discussion only and definitely not as part of negotiations . . .  a serious mistake as the difference is huge.

With negotiations there has to be agreement between both sides when the process is concluded . . .  with discussions it is simply a two way conversation the contents of which the sponsor (Govt) can completely ignore - which they did.

Unbelievably, it is clear to be seen that the new scheme would be a lot worse than the old and additionally they would tighten and close all the identified loopholes.

They were prepared to contribute a grant to the cheap and ineffective replacement of the outer leaf but not the cost of proper remediation.

Justified demolitions and rebuilds, which the engineers were now insisting upon, on the basis of the Petrolab results, because of the existence of Iron Sulphides in the blocks and justifying demolition, were seen as a step too far and anyway not catered for in their unethical IS 465 Standard.

Read the legislation and you will find how watertight it is designed in favour of the Government.

They knew it, the opposition TD's knew it, the Senator's knew it.

The Govt. concept and performance of replacing the old with the new was perfection in its design, its implementation and its underhandedness.

The caring, sympathetic impression being given that they were giving in to homeowner pressure and how they now wanted to be seen to be doing the 'right thing' by the affected families and their crumbling homes was a shameful lie put forward by politicians and civil servants that had no morals, scruples or conscience.

The people are now bound by the legal provisions in the enacted legislation of the so called 'enhanced Def Blocks Scheme' which is a cynical betrayal of the affected homeowners and their families by the political establishment at the highest level.

It has achieved exactly what the Govt set out to do . . .  protect the exchequer at all costs.

Another shameful betrayal by the Irish Government.

This premeditated betrayal of the innocent victims of the crumbling homes of Donegal by the political establishment of Ireland - and I include all opposition TD's and Senators who most definitely would have known - will go down in history and rank equally with, if not more, than the many shameful and horrendous scandals that have already littered the historical Irish political landscape and stand testament to all that's sordid in the way the affected homeowners have been treated.

Senior politicians at the highest level came to Donegal, spoke with the families and saw at first hand the extent of the disaster.

They listened to the parents as they outlined the dreadful effects it was having on their everyday family life at every level.

The politicians made statements that they understood their plight, expressed statements of great sympathy and promised their children that they would restore their homes.

Little did people know what was really being planned without their knowledge and with the support of these same individuals.

It would be delusional to think that behaving ethically would rank high in the priorities of such people.

 ⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

The 90/10 Scheme

Catherine McGinty ✒ 'Systemic failure across complaint handling processes' - Emergency Department Patient.

15-June-2022

“A damning overall assessment” was the affected patient's description of the Ombudsman ordered review into Letterkenny University Hospital's official complaint handling processes.

The review was carried out by the National Director of the HSE's Quality Assurance and Verification Division. Its aim was to ensure recommendations made in the Ombudsman's 'Learning to Get Better' report were being actively implemented in the Donegal hospital.

The review came in the wake of a complaint made by Mr Enda Craig to the Ombudsman regarding the “abusive behaviour” he received from a staff member in Letterkenny University Hospital's emergency department and a hospital consultant's “cover up” response to his initial complaint, previously reported in detail in this paper.

The full 'Review Report Complaints Management Process - Your Service Your Say - Learning to Get Better Recommendations, Letterkenny University Hospital' can be read here.

Speaking to the Inish Live, Mr Craig, who is from Moville, said: “A senior hospital consultant to set out to deliberately vilify and destroy my good name and character by inventing vilifying CCTV images, falsifying a Clinical Incident Report; making uncorroborated statements and unfounded allegations; and threatening to apply a 'Hazard Flag ' against my medical file on false security grounds.”

Continue reading @ Inish Live.


'Damning Assessment Of LUH'

Catherine McGinty ✒ Review follows Inishowen man's complaint about conduct of Emergency Department staff.

Inish Times
9-February-2022

An Ombudsman-ordered external review of Letterkenny University Hospital's complaint handling process is currently taking place, Inish Live can exclusively reveal.

In a statement to Inish Times, the HSE confirmed the Office of the Chief Operations Officer and Integrated Operations was undertaking a review of Letterkenny University Hospital's complaint handling processes, with the cooperation of the Saolta University Health Care Group.

According to the HSE, the Office of the Chief Operations Officer will issue a report on the review to the Ombudsman on or before the deadline of April 1, 2022 and publication of the review will be at the discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The review of Letterkenny University Hospital's complaint handling processes was one of the actions ordered by the Ombudsman in response to a complaint made to his office by Moville man Enda Craig.

Mr Craig's complaint to the Ombudsman against Letterkenny University Hospital (LUH) centred on the manner in which he was treated by a staff member in the early morning of May 11, 2019, while he was a patient in a cubicle in the emergency department.

Continue reading @ Inish Live.

External Review Of LUH Complaint Handling Underway

Catherine McGinty ✒ Ombudsman orders review of LUH's complaint handling process.

Enda Craig vindicated by Ombudsman


Inishowen man, Enda Craig, was accused of abusive and threatening behaviour by Letterkenny University Hospital (LUH).

Enda Craig vindicated by Ombudsman

The Ombudsman has now found the Moville man innocent of all allegations.

...

Speaking to Inish Live, Mr Craig explained he had made a one-page complaint concerning abusive behaviour, against a senior staff member of the emergency department (ED) in LUH, on the night of May 11, 2019.

I was, in turn, accused of abusive and threatening behaviour of the ED staff on the night in question, in a 25-page response from the hospital's manager and director of nursing. LUH's response contained a 'detailed' examination of the hospital's CCTV video footage in which it was claimed that I had, among numerous other reprehensible actions, threatened the Clinical Nurse Manager (CNM) and deliberately trespassed into the plaster room, where ongoing medical procedures to patients were in progress. However, when I accessed and examined a copy of the hospital's CCTV footage, no images whatsoever were found to corroborate any of these vile allegations. In fact, they did not exist.
Continue reading @ Inish Live.

Vindicated ✑ Accused Of Abusive And Threatening Behaviour By LUH

Enda Craig ✒ The day of reckoning for the Mica victims will arrive when the government presents its copy of the 'Enhanced Mica Redress Scheme' report to the Oireachtas for ratification in a number of weeks time, when the buzz from the march and the media has quietened down.

Will the Government put its hands up, admit its culpability for non-regulation in the Mica scandal and give the victims their overdue and just demands?

Or will it go another road?

Will it simply present the 30th of Sept Working Group report (with a small minimal twist or two) and state that this is its final position ... take it or leave it?

Giving essentially what Dr Ambrose Mc Cluskey refers to in his recent devastating critique where he said: 

In general the document is extremely poor and lacking in any clarity, but what it does confirm as agreed, in my opinion, is that the homeowners now have an even worse scheme than they did before.
All of the concerns of the engineers, which were genuine concerns about the [Defective Concrete Blocks Grant] Scheme have just been circumvented by taking it out of their hands and going straight to the Housing Agency.
The fixes now in there will just be the very minimum, take it or leave it and that's it. They will not care about the longevity of what they propose as they have no professional indemnity worries. The flaws in IS 465 will not be addressed and the required research will not be done.

Should this be the Government's final position and it goes to a vote of the house the voting decision by all TD's ( both Govt and opposition ) will come under the microscope.

This is where it will get interesting.

To begin with the Government has to be certain that it does not lose the vote as such a scenario could cause it to fall and trigger a general election.

To that end we must look at the numbers of elected TD's of both Government and Opposition in the Oireachtas at the moment.

As it stands there are 84 Government TD's as against 75 opposition (the Ceann Comhairle has a casting vote in the event of a tie).

From these figures it can be seen that the Government can allow four TD's to cross the floor to join with the opposition (giving the impression that they fully support the victims) and still win the vote for the report and survive. But this is far too close for comfort.

To be 100% certain of survival and winning the vote they will arrange deals, as they did in the recent no confidence vote against Minister Simon Coveney, with a number of Independent TD's from unaffected Mica constituencies.

In truth, making these arrangements is the main reason for the delay in taking the report to the Dail.

When the political 'stroke' is complete the 'rogue ' TD's will lose the party whip for a short period of time before being reinstated.

They will be seen as having ' done their best and stood with the people ' and therein lies the cynical hoodwink.

'Cute Hoor' Irish politics at its cynical best.

The Donegal/Mayo victims get shafted again.

Just another day at the political office.

Are these the 'Votes For Hire'? 

Peter Fitzpatrick

Michael Lowry

Noel Grealish

Denis Naughton

Danny Healy-Rae

Michael Healy-Rae

Richard O'Donoghue

Cathal Berry

Michael Fitzmaurice

Michael McNamara

Marian Harkin

They are Independent TD's Who Voted With The Govt In The Recent Minister Simon Coveney No Confidence Motion.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident. 

Will The Government Do The Right Thing By The Mica Families?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)