IT HAS been a week of contradictions. Of strange twists of political fate some cases, not even the participants have been able to explain.
Proinsias De Rossa enters the High Court as the plaintiff in a libel action and, when the jury fails to agree, emerges as if he'd set out to curb free speech and failed.
Mary Harney, who values free speech as highly as any politician, suddenly decides to improve on, then to dispense with, the Finlay Report.
And Albert Reynolds, suggested as a candidate for the Presidency or continues to hover on the fringes of Anglo-Irish affairs, a troublesome ghost where a troubleshooter might have helped.
The De Rossa case is seen in some quarters as a sign of change in public attitudes to libel, reflecting a greater understanding of the role of the media and support for a more robust approach to politicians.
This is highly debatable. Anyone who heard Joe Duffy's account on Tonight With Vincent Browne of his conversations with jurors after the event would have had trouble sustaining it.
In this account, it was the older, not the younger, members of the jury who opposed a finding against the Sunday Independent. But, as relayed by Mr Duffy, the debate was indeed more informed than conventional wisdom would have us believe.
As someone who favours a change in the libel laws - as proposed by the Newspaper Commission, the National Union of Journalists and the Law Reform Commission - I also recognise the responsibilities of journalism and the need to protect citizens, without exception, from unfair attack.
And the description "robust" applied to some of the pomposity and menace that passes for commentary in the Sunday Independent reminds me of the pussyfooting of old in the coverage of GAA matches.
WHEN Mary Harney is in full flight she seems as disturbed by the way of the world as our old friend Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, with whom she shares a passion for responsibility and accountability in public life.
There's nothing wrong with that. It's an issue she's well placed to address.
But Ms Harney let her guard slip on Wednesday when, in a Morning Ireland interview, she allowed her zeal for vengeance to get the better of her. And, indeed, of Richard Crowley: who vainly suggested that change was under way in the Blood Transfusion Service Board.
"You talk about an angry Minister for Health," she snapped. "It's not good enough that the Minister is angry and that he worries about his political image.
I think he has to take decisive action ... start from scratch."
But the Minister had said he would implement the findings of the Finlay report, in full.
The report, she said, was impressive as far as it went, disappointing when it came to political responsibility.
To reassure people it was, necessary to start from scratch, abandon the board, put in place something that can have credibility with the public.
Where would the axe fall? "Well, it starts with the Minister's own appointees. Liam Dunbar and others like him...the Minister's own creatures..."
Fire them all? "Yes." She would have no more inquiries, no more tribunals; someone must pay the price. And, then, start from scratch, a clean slate...
Sounding more and more like a teacher of old when fear ruled the roost, the PD leader flailed on to a chilling conclusion:
"If I were in hospital tomorrow and I was in need of blood donation, I would be very worried about having one, very, very worried indeed. And I think that goes for most people."
This is dangerous stuff, far from the standards that Ms Harney herself demands. It would be hard to disagree with Shaun McCann, the haematologist who reminded her that the transfusion service could not be closed down "like a sweetie shop". He called her comments outrageous.
In the Senate Mary Henry, who vigorously supports "efforts to ensure that blood supplies are of the highest standard, added a sensible note of concern for those who need those supplies as they listen to advice given by "people who are not expert in the field".
These are important points - well made at a time when the scramble for power forces many debates out of shape.
Mr Justice Finlay pointed out, all governments and ministers for health since the 1970s have been guilty of providing too few resources to meet the needs of citizens.
Judge Finlay's findings and recommendations are what matter now - not trying to pin responsibility for the failures of successive governments on the most convenient target.
SINCE he was forced to resign as Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds - the head that Ruairi Quinn came for, in November 1994 - has been seen as a likely contender for a variety of posts and honours.
Fianna Fail's front bench thought he'd make a great candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
On the chat-show circuit callers who regretted his departure (and the shortsightedness of the Norwegians) proposed that he become a roving representative of the State.
Well, if not a candidate for the Nobel Prize, or an ambassador's post, why not a candidate for the Presidency or for a Northern constituency in the British general election? Both have been suggested of late, provoking lukewarm reactions.
The trouble is that, in a series of comments from the sidelines, Mr Reynolds has been implicitly critical of Mr Ahern, explicitly critical of Mr Bruton and unmistakably hostile to the British government.
As he explained in an RTE radio interview, the governments have wasted time and allowed themselves to become bogged down in decommissioning.
Decommissioning, he said, had been "tried on" by London and "too easily accepted" by Dublin. He had voiced his opposition to the idea when he met Mr Major at Chequers in 1993 and was surprised when it later became such an issue.
But this version of events was news to others who took part in, or closely watched, Anglo-Irish affairs. And, to some, his surprise that decommissioning had become such an issue was most surprising of all.
In their meticulous chronology The Northern Ireland Peace Process 1993-1996 (published by Serif at the end of last year) Paul Bew and Gordon Gillespie include no less than 150 references to decommissioning.
In October 1994, Mr Reynolds himself is quoted:
"The question of the safe and permanent disposal of weapons and explosives is essential to the . . . consolidation of peace."
Mr Reynolds seems to have forgotten something else: a decision (not cited by Bew and Gillespie) to set up an official group headed by Tim Dalton of the Department of Justice and Sir John Chilcott of the NIO to examine, among other things, the question of decommissioning.
The group was already in existence, though as yet informal, by the time Mr Major and Mr Reynolds met at Chequers in the autumn of 1994. The British side did not come up with the policy after Mr Reynolds's departure - as he claimed later.
John A. Murphy spoke derisively on the Farrell Programme last weekend of the former Taoiseach's latest interventions in the continuing debate. The professor's derision was well directed.