Suzy D's Report on Wolfey the Golfer

mathepac

Registered User
Messages
8,077
What a day for the great unwashed, the underclasses of Ireland.

By dint of Suzy D’s 39-page report into her brother Wolfey’s behaviour at the Clifden golf shindig, Wolfey’s character is now as pure and white as the driven snow. Suzy’s report, its conclusions and recommendations have been adopted unqualified by their remaining siblings, The Magnificent Seven.

“How is this a great day for the rest of us”, you ask? “Simplez” as Sergey the all-knowing meerkat says. Anyone who claims to have no knowledge of a law, a rule, a guideline or a morè of behaviour now cannot be brought to book and prosecuted for such a lack of knowledge. The old accepted norm of common-law courts is now turned on its head; from today onwards, ignorance of the law now means you get to pass GO, collect £200 and NOT go to jail.

Suzy decided that because Wolfey was on his hollers, not listening to the wireless, not reading newspapers, or being fed Intertube stuff, he was in a state of blameless oblivion regarding COVID-19 guidelines, rules and regulations. This was apparently also true of his line-manager Clarkey in their shouted consultation across a car-park.

Now if you stand up in court and say “Sorry Guv, I was ignorant of that expectation the country had of me at the time of my regrettable alleged transgression and I apologise.” His Guv’ness has to give you a freebie and you must leave the Court without a blemish on your character, your licence , or your record.

There’ll be mad celebration in the streets to-night, especially in Galway City, where the off-licences can now legally stack pallet-loads of booze on the pavements of the City for sale to the rioting mobs, in places where drinking in public is illegal. Why? Well the licensees are so busy selling booze they haven’t got time to read the T&Cs attaching to their liquor off-sales licences and the students and young people are so far off their tits on booze and other substances, they can’t read the signs posted around the West End. So they all get a pass. As for the Mill Street Guards (just around the corner) who knows, they certainly don't!!

Great day for this great little country of ours.
 
He had his homework done though. He was able to know that there was only 45 people in the room that they were eating in. How is he any different from any one else who was there and lost their positions ?
She gave him a very good reference alright.
Guilty or not guilty......that is the question.
 
Which brings us to the fundamental question: Was his trip to Clifden necessary, was it urgent or was it business? None of the preceeding so from me that's an emphatic No which leaves him gone, and outside the bounds of any concocted one-sided enquiry by one of his own, a sister judge.
 
Don't forget that a lot of business is done on a golf course .
But a golf outing during a pandemic is just stupid . Not the golf but the dining afterwards. Look how many people could have been put in danger or did they not stop to think of that of course.
 
Suzy took issue with a new member of the Supremes rubbing shoulders with the political classes in Clifden, implying that a Supreme had no legitimate business to conduct with them.
 
Should he have lost his job and never been able to work as a lawyer again (a judge can't go back to being a Barrister)?
Is that a proportional punishment?

If that's where we are at then all those students in Galway should be kicked out of college and barred from ever attending a 3rd level educational institution again. That would also seem rather extreme.
 
So what happens to Phil Hogan and others who lost jobs because of it , should they be reinstated ?
 
So what happens to Phil Hogan and others who lost jobs because of it , should they be reinstated ?
I think Phil could have stayed where he was if he hadn't handled it so badly.
Daragh lost his job as a minister but he still a TD and isn't barred from ever working as a politician again.
 
But if Wolffe gets away with this they will have to be reinstated surely.
 
Should he have lost his job and never been able to work as a lawyer again (a judge can't go back to being a Barrister)?
In my view the greater the powers the greater the responsibilities in relation to conduct and the greater the punishments where breaches of conduct occur. Suzy saw lots of stuff in Wolfey's conduct that gave her to pause for thought but made all the excuses for him; new to the job, never sat as a Supreme and so on.
Is that a proportional punishment?
He should have lost his job as a Supreme. The consequences that follow from losing his very important, responsible, high profile job would have been of his own making.

In this little banana republic of theirs, the powerful are the ones most likely to get a pass from their cohort for poor conduct. Reciprocation will of course be be expected.
If that's where we are at then all those students in Galway should be kicked out of college and barred from ever attending a 3rd level educational institution again. That would also seem rather extreme.
They should have been hit with the full force of the law for each and every breach they committed. Max €1,500 fine for drinking in public at that place and time, prosecutions for public decency if as reported they urinated in public or in private property, etc. The decision as to whether they are suitable students for UCG, MIT, The Jez or whatever other educational institution they attend is for those institutions to take.
 
Last edited:
In my view the greater the powers the greater the responsibilities in relation to conduct and the greater the punishments where breaches of conduct occur. Suzy saw lots of stuff in Wolfey's conduct that gave her to pause for thought but made all the excuses for him; new to the job, never sat as a Supreme and so on.
Yes, the excuses were threadbare and it reads like the club looking after one of their own. Not good enough. There should have been some sanction short of sacking him.

He should have lost his job as a Supreme. The consequences that follow from losing his very important, responsible, high profile job would have been of his own making.
Seems a bit harsh to remove his ability to make a living within his field of expertise. Short of getting a job in Tesco he'd be unemployable.
In this little banana republic of theirs, the powerful are the ones most likely to get a pass from their cohort for poor conduct. Reciprocation will of course be be expected.
I know that's the narrative but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. I think it's fairer to say that most people get away with breaking the rules and many get away with breaking the law, not just those in power.
They should have been hit with the full force of the law for each and every breach they committed. Max €1,500 fine for drinking in public at that place and time, prosecutions for public decency if as reported they urinated in public or in private property, etc. The decision as to whether they are suitable students for UCG, MIT, The Jez or whatever other educational institution they attend if for the institutions to take.
Okay, so they should not have been barred from making a living within their field of expertise then.
Should every middle aged, middle class family who has people over from two households also be fined?
 
Yes to your last question if that's the regulation. It seems to come up often and the majority of posters seem to agree - we're great at passing legislation but enforcement is badly lacking.
 
Should he have lost his job and never been able to work as a lawyer again (a judge can't go back to being a Barrister)?
Is that a proportional punishment?
Judges didn't like that rule so they had it changed as a 78k pension after years on a 6 figure salary, while the wife also pulled in an income and there was also a lotto win via an inheritance, wasn't enough to live on!

 
Last edited:
The ST in its editorial today and in another article looks through the published detail of Suzy's lengthy and extraordinary interview with Wolfey. I agree with the conclusion that Wolfey, during the interview and in subsequent utterances, has proved conclusively that he is not and never was Supreme material.

Lashing out at named politicians, the media with his "fake" news accusations and whinging like a WhatsApp wannabe are not the behaviours we want from a Supreme. The ST reckons he's overdue a visit to SpecSavers, I can't argue with that but would add that if his powers of observation are so poor, should he be allowed out alone?

He has to go, either voluntarily by resigning or with a heave-ho. And no Supreme pension as he hadn't even read the user manual.
 
Decent analysis by Orla O'Donnell. https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1005/1169431-legal-year/

A quote in the article from an anonymous lawyer about Wolfey "The real problem is, as one senior lawyer said, "he doesn’t get it"."

Or maybe he does get it but he let the cat out of the bag on the rest of the gang.

He was meant to be carpeted before the Chief Beak today but cried off.
 
What's going on with this guy? He has Indicated to his line-manager that he will be unavailable for the (twice?) rescheduled carpeting on Thursday next. Clarkey says he'll deal with the caning in an alternative if Wolfey fails to show.
 
Back
Top