"Calculated leaks from whatever source that distort these procedures [the work of tribunals] are, in my view, sinister, " he said. "They constitute a further threat to the rights of the citizen and the integrity of our systems of accountability."

He is particularly perturbed that the leak came from a tribunal, an organ of the Oireachtas. Even opposition politicians agree with him. Through laughing faces, they nod that the leak was abhorrent.

Unfortunately, the protestations have been drowned out by the clatter of chickens coming home to roost.

Politicians, particularly cabinet ministers, thrive on leaks. If a minister wants to fly a kite, or garner brownie points, drip, drip it goes to the nearest friendly journalist.

Material being examined by tribunals has been falling out as through a sieve for eight years. Just last month, there was another significant leak. A newspaper revealed that the forthcoming Moriarty report into Charlie Haughey's finances will criticise the Taoiseach for signing black cheques for his predecessor. Ahern didn't react indignantly to that leak.

One reason for his silence is that the leaker, whomever it was, has done him a favour. By throwing that morsel out into the public domain now, it takes heat out of any criticism when the report is published later this year. What point will there be in kicking up a stink over what, by then, will be old hat?

The source of the leak in that case has done a fine job in managing the release of potentially damaging information into the public domain.

The leak about Bertie's blank cheques is indicative of the contemptuous attitude politicians and other witnesses have had towards tribunal confidentiality over the last eight years. In that time, reams of damaging revelations have emerged. Conveniently, the details have been spread thinly over the years. Apart from interim reports and public evidence, much of the detail has found its way out through leaks. As a result, the damage has been spread thinly, ensuring there has been no electoral fall-out from the revelations.

Can you imagine the backlash there would have been against Fianna Fail if a bulk of detail on corruption was delivered at one time, particularly close to an election?

Ahern, as leader of the party most associated with the corruption, has benefited from this culture. Before now, he has never cried into his cornflakes over it.

There is a cogent argument that last week's leak was in the public interest. If Mahon had decided not to publicly hear evidence on the monies Ahern received, it is possible that the great unwashed would never know about the Taoiseach and his generous friends. Is it not in the public interest that we do?

Michael Lowry had to resign from cabinet because a leak . . . in the public interest . . . revealed that he was a kept man. Another leak about Haughey's finances provided the impetus for a probe into his lifestyle. At this stage, any money Ahern took looks to be in a comparatively minor league, but the problem is we don't know.

So when the Taoiseach lashed out at sinister leaking on Friday, he did so with little credibility. If it was an attempt to deflect the heat from the nub of the story, it bordered on pathetic.

Now that the leak has been plugged, we are into the realm of spin. The money he received was, he agrees, to pay for legal fees following his marital separation. Sources are putting it out that the money was given as a loan, which has not been repaid, despite the Taoiseach's best efforts, whatever that's supposed to mean. Are we to take it that a politician with Ahern's antenna would let an alleged repayment matter like that linger through the years as details of unorthodox or corrupt practices did so much damage to others?

More spin has it that there was a whiparound among up to 10 individuals to pay for the legal costs.

That sounds suspiciously like the whiparound for Haughey in 1980 to deal with his bank-loan difficulties.

The scale differs, but the principal is the same. A senior politician putting himself in hock to businessmen is not on, according to the McCracken report, according to the Taoiseach who endorsed that view in the Dail, one Bertie Ahern.

That the money was forwarded to pay legal fees in a sensitive family break-up is irrelevant. By 1993, Ahern had been drawing a minister's salary for six years. Notwithstanding the exorbitant cost of legal fees . . .

particularly in family law . . .

thousands on a fraction of his earnings have had to manage the painful hand that was dealt them.

The questions won't go away. How much? From whom? How was it dealt with? And why? Waffle about sinister leaks simply doesn't wash.