Sir, - May I compliment Mr Myers on his perspicacity, insight and, no doubt, time-consuming journalistic research (An Irishman's Diary, January 22nd). He is, of course, correct in his contention that all lawyers are "legal mercenaries" - a truth universally acknowledged at this stage. No doubt his arduous researches have also led him to the unerring conclusions that all Cavan people are stingy, all Kerry people are stupid and all politicians are corrupt.
I jest, of course. Stereotypes do not constitute truths, except in Mr Myers's column, apparently. The reality is that Mr Myers's opinion is based less on fact and more on hearsay, pub talk and government press releases. It is clear that he has little or no idea of the reality behind "Army deafness" claims: that there are large numbers of our fellow-citizens who are in a similar position to Lieut-Col Gerald Swan, with whom Mr Myers appears to sympathise. In other words, there are a large number of people who have been advised by audiologists and doctors that they have sustained a permanent noiserelated hearing loss not amenable to surgical correction.
The only relief available to those severely affected is the wearing of one or two hearing aids, depending on the recommendation, costing on average £600 to £750 each and requiring replacement every five years.
Many of those recommended to do so have alleviated their difficulty, contrary to what Mr Myers believes, by purchasing hearing aids and have obtained great benefit from so doing. Many others who are unable to afford to do so at present will have to wait until their cases are settled before being in a financial position to benefit.
Mr Myers appears wholly unconcerned by the fact that the vast majority of claimants are genuinely injured and have strong, winnable legal cases, as has been recognised by the courts. It also appears to be of little consequence to him that each case for compensation is based on the reports of other experts - audiologists, ENT surgeons, acoustic engineers, etc. These experts are paid for their work, as they should be. Are they, too, "mercenaries" who should ready themselves for an outpouring of Mr Myers's self-righteous and ill-informed contempt?
I suspect not, because a critical reading of Mr Myers's column will reveal that he appears to be guilty of that most unpardonable of journalistic sins: inconsistency of approach, based on a lack of hard facts (in this, he has much in common with pub bores all around Ireland who feel free to adopt an opinion and stick fast to it even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
I, as a solicitor, do not expect unquestioning admiration or respect from anybody, least of all Mr Myers. The legal profession must be subject to examination and criticism in common with all other professions. I believe, however, that it is not too much to expect of Mr Myers that he should have the wit to look behind press releases, gossip and newspaper articles and to seek real facts rather than popular wisdom.
Mr Myers asked rhetorically: "What is going on that [Lieut-Col Swan] suffering from such disabilities is given such a position of huge responsibility in the most complex and violent area of operations the Army is involved in?" Did he not bother to make a few phone calls to find out why in fact injured people are in positions of responsibility? Obviously not.
All is not as it may appear, Mr Myers. Perhaps if you opined less and researched more, you might discover that there are two sides to every story. -Yours, etc.,
Solicitor, Finbarr A. Murphy & Co, Washington Street, Cork.