On Morning Ireland today there was a short piece previewing tonight’s Prime Time Investigates programme on lending practices in Ireland. It seems that one of the reasons why financial institutions are so eager to shower us with cash is that the punishment for bad debtors can end up like something out of a Dickens’s novel. One of the cases reported involved a single mother who was locked up in Mountjoy prison for 16 days because she fell behind in her payments on a 1600 euro loan. And she was still expected to pay off that loan following her release.

Given the week that’s in it, it’s difficult not to compare the unforgiving treatment of those belonging to what financiers euphemistically describe as the “sub-prime market” with the deference AIB displayed to our mini-Mobutu, Charles J. Haughey. Of course, the Moriarty Tribunal’s findings merely confirm the widely held view that when the amount outstanding reaches a certain level, it’s actually the debtor who has the upper hand. This is assuming the debtor has a brass neck, but then there was never any doubting C.J.’s nuchal fortitude.

But such is the scope of Haughey’s corruption and venality, his defenders are driven to ever-more absurd strategies. On the phone-in show, Liveline, yesterday, a caller asked for some perspective on the former Taoiseach, asserting that whatever else he was, Haughey wasn’t Pinochet. Well, if you have to highlight a leader’s qualities by pointing out that he didn’t have his enemies shot in football stadia, then the debate is drowned out by the sound of barrels being scraped.

Meanwhile, the government’s current leader–who should really be dubbed Bertie-san because of his fondness for Japanese-style apology rituals (formalized and hollow)–remains in power despite his role as Haughey’s “enabler.” For let’s face it, if we accept that Haughey was not merely a charming rogue but a criminal, who should have served jail time, then Ahern’s role can be seen as analogous to that of a “fence,” someone who handles or launders stolen property. In essence, that is what Ahern did when he signed blank cheques for his leader. Now Bertie can claim that he had no knowledge that Haughey was misusing these literal cartes blanches, but ignorance, especially wilful ignorance, is traditionally no defence against the law.

There is a lot of debate whether the culture epitomised by Haughey still exists. The fact that Bertie Ahern remains Taoiseach as Christmas 2006 approaches confirms that it not only survives, but it is in rank good health.