Sinn Fein misuse expenses

Happyman42 · 27-06-2012 5:20pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I will await the judgement of the relevant committee. I see nobody hiding anything here. He could have falsified his expenses to cover this, he didn't so maybe it is a misunderstanding of the rules, I don't know. I will await the full inquiry and report, if that is alright with you?
Mis-use of public money is wrong, if that helps.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but Callely hid his trangressions, I don't think Doherty was hiding his or denied it when questioned by reporters. And he has said he will take whatever judgement is arrived at. It was info, freely available on his website or in his published account, was it not?
To be fair, I think there is a significant difference in Bertie and Ivors Trangressions (great name for a cartoon series! )
Doesn't make it right though.

If he broke the rules, deliberately or accidently, I expect him to be sanctioned or penalised for it.

^^^^^^

Laminations · 27-06-2012 5:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

^^^^^^

All dancing around an actual statement of condemnation.

I have quoted the reporting of the Oireactas Commission confirming it is against rules. I have corrected you in your assertion that this is being debated and clarified it is the consequences that are under discussion. You still can't bring yourself to type

Doherty was wrong to misuse taxpayers money in this way.

'if he broke the rules, you expect' is not condemnation.its muddying the waters around whether he broke the rules - which he did- and then stating expected consequences while avoiding giving you opinion of his actions.

southsiderosie · 27-06-2012 5:36pm

MOD NOTE:

Folks, can you please dial down the badgering and sniping? Thanks.

Happyman42 · 27-06-2012 5:45pm

Laminations wrote: »

All dancing around an actual statement of condemnation.

I have quoted the reporting of the Oireactas Commission confirming it is against rules. I have corrected you in your assertion that this is being debated and clarified it is the consequences that are under discussion. You still can't bring yourself to type

Doherty was wrong to misuse taxpayers money in this way.

'if he broke the rules, you expect' is not condemnation.its muddying the waters around whether he broke the rules - which he did- and then stating expected consequences while avoiding giving you opinion of his actions.

:D

I have no intention of condemming anybody until I see the results of the relevant inquiry.
I have a problem here though, why would he do this and not attempt to hide it. It is highly possible this was a mistake or an oversight. If it isn't then it is dammed stupid.
He was wrong to do it, and should face whatever sanctions are decided upon. But as I said, the severity of the sentence should be based on the intention. Like in any humane court.

Laminations · 27-06-2012 5:53pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D
it is dammed stupid.
He was wrong to do it, and should face whatever sanctions are decided upon.

Well we agree on this.

_Kaiser_ · 27-06-2012 6:15pm

Laminations wrote: »

Mr Doherty only spent €24,000 of the €33,000 that he received for travel and accommodation expenses last year.
He paid back €845.05 to the Oireachtas Commission, but that still left a surplus of around €8,000, which he put towards the wages of two extra Sinn Fein workers -- both part-time -- in his constituency

Or... to put a different slant on it (and I have no loyalty to any party):

He put the money towards directly employing 2 people, rather than hiring in unpaid slaves interns like others have done (I recall a thread about a TD doing this and expecting the "lucky winner" to provide their own laptop too!), or pocketing it for himself as so many of his colleagues and predecessors would have done, or returning it to the slush fund that will undoubtedly be squandered elsewhere.

Not so bad when you consider it that way really...

Happyman42 · 27-06-2012 7:12pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Or... to put a different slant on it (and I have no loyalty to any party):

He put the money towards directly employing 2 people, rather than hiring in unpaid slaves interns like others have done (I recall a thread about a TD doing this and expecting the "lucky winner" to provide their own laptop too!), or pocketing it for himself as so many of his colleagues and predecessors would have done, or returning it to the slush fund that will undoubtedly be squandered elsewhere.

Not so bad when you consider it that way really...

Which is probably why this story has had very little traction, either here or in the meeja. A guttersnipe hack infested midden of a newspaper allowed FG to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the party because of it.:rolleyes: But that extracts no criticism from the 'democrats' who just use it as grist for their own mills.

:D

murphaph · 27-06-2012 8:56pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

He was wrong to do it, and should face whatever sanctions are decided upon. But as I said, the severity of the sentence should be based on the intention. Like in any humane court.

The intention was to steal taxpayers money to fund the SF party machine. That much is quite clear. SF stealing this money is no better than Ivor & Co. in the "big parties" fiddling their expenses. It's ALL taxpayers' money being stolen when it could be used to treat some cancer patient on a waiting list*

*Cliched, but the point stands!

Happyman42 · 27-06-2012 9:23pm

'Steal' is too strong a word at this stage, in fairness.
I really can't see, in the current climate, why they would have done this. If the intention was, as you say, to steal, why wouldn't they have covered their tracks?
That's why I consel waiting until there is an inquiry into exactly what happened and a judgement on this specific case.

murphaph · 27-06-2012 10:36pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Steal' is too strong a word at this stage, in fairness.
I really can't see, in the current climate, why they would have done this. If the intention was, as you say, to steal, why wouldn't they have covered their tracks?
That's why I consel waiting until there is an inquiry into exactly what happened and a judgement on this specific case.

They judge each other in the Dail, so you might be waiting a long time for real condemnation.

They are blatant because they have learned the ropes quickly: the public are largely apathetic and let politicians away with this sort of theft from our back pockets.

How many constituents of the affected TDs are going to bother even putting pen to paper to question why their elected representatives see fit to take money from the public purse and spend it on their own parties (be it SF or any other)?

Hardly any, so the politicians know it's "worth a punt" and SF are just as bad as the rest of them as they have shown on a couple of occasions now.

Happyman42 · 27-06-2012 10:42pm

murphaph wrote: »

They judge each other in the Dail, so you might be waiting a long time for real condemnation.

They are blatant because they have learned the ropes quickly: the public are largely apathetic and let politicians away with this sort of theft from our back pockets.

How many constituents of the affected TDs are going to bother even putting pen to paper to question why their elected representatives see fit to take money from the public purse and spend it on their own parties (be it SF or any other)?

Hardly any, so the politicians know it's "worth a punt" and SF are just as bad as the rest of them as they have shown on a couple of occasions now.

Wouldn't disagree with a word of that. I just think there may be an explanation that lessens the 'crime' here.
I'll be the first to hang a TD on the fiddle tbh.

poeticseraphim · 28-06-2012 12:43am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Far as I can see, this is what he said.

We await the judgement of the Oireachtas committee who to date, have only said the following.

If he broke the rules, deliberately or accidently, I expect him to be sanctioned or penalised for it.

In any other country he would be expected to stand down and tossed out...as should Mick Wallace ...as should have Bertie and i am sick od the lax attitude in this country towards law.

It spreads from political life to all aspects of Irish life...in banking in busines etc....and it is at least a significant part of the reason we are where we are

If they cannot operate their accounts within the rules as a party how could they run an economy???

Do we want to be Greece switching money around??

Seriously this needs public condemnation.

We need more honesty and transparency in politics and accountability.

Respect for the rules and the law is the basis of a GOVT....it is necessary for politicans to respect due process and regulation..or change them in an open participatory way..

It is an unacceptable standard of behavouir and it needs to be stamped out...in SF and all Irish political parties

But we are taling of SF here

The danger is that all parties are reluctant to challange the entire political scene in this matter because they wish to take advantage of it themselves..or they have something to hide

They collude in not making too big a deal of it..

Sf have though..and have been shown to be hypocrites ....where is their socialist rhetoric now???

They want our taxes to fund their activists....and they promoe some sentiments that make some voters uncomfortable....
we know why

Respect for the law and due process is necessary in politics if we are to be a developed modern society and not some basket case.

dlofnep · 28-06-2012 7:17pm

Pearse was completely cleared of any wrong-doing.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pearse-doherty-expenses-no-breach-leinster-house-travel-503075-Jun2012/

In fact, it turned out that not only did Pearse not abuse his expense allowance, he only drew down half of the expenses he was entitled to.

Now - Who wants to be the first person to apologise? Let's see how quick people are to post.

Happyman42 · 28-06-2012 7:33pm

I'm glad I didn't rush to condemm, I knew there was something odd about the whole story.

thecommietommy · 28-06-2012 7:35pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Pearse was completely cleared of any wrong-doing.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pearse-doherty-expenses-no-breach-leinster-house-travel-503075-Jun2012/

In fact, it turned out that not only did Pearse not abuse his expense allowance, he only drew down half of the expenses he was entitled to.

Now - Who wants to be the first person to apologise? Let's see how quick people are to post.

" LEINSTER HOUSE OFFICIALS have confirmed that Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty is not in breach of any rules regarding the use of his parliamentary allowances "

Interesting. Not a fan of SF but where was Dr Sir O'Reilly's comics when 'donations' in brown paper bags and cheques in envelopes were the order of the day for his best friends in FF not so long ago. I think it's becoming water off a duck's back all the phoney accusations against SF and the ULA. We all know what happened one day to the boy who cried wolf .......

Happyman42 · 28-06-2012 7:41pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

" LEINSTER HOUSE OFFICIALS have confirmed that Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty is not in breach of any rules regarding the use of his parliamentary allowances "

Interesting. Not a fan of SF but where was Dr Sir O'Reilly's comics when 'donations' in brown paper bags and cheques in envelopes were the order of the day for his best friends in FF not so long ago. I think it's becoming water off a duck's back all the phoney accusations against SF and the ULA. We all know what happened one day to the boy who cried wolf .......

That article is an extraordinary example of Press and Establishment attempted assasination.

thecommietommy · 28-06-2012 7:42pm

Maybe this is a question for a legal forum but anyway, could Doherty sue Dr Sir O'Reilly's comic the Indo for claiming his misuse of expenses ?

thecommietommy · 28-06-2012 7:46pm

Laminations wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sinn-feins-cheap-little-power-game-with-queen-3147562.html

Brain Hayes lays into SF for their PR stunt which is a reactive step to gain votes

This lauded SF act of basic civility comes at a time when they have been found to be taking excess expenses and travel monies and misusing it for party aims.

So let's no let their abuse slip under the radar

http://www.thejournal.ie/i-use-it-to-take-someone-off-the-dole-doherty-on-hiring-extra-staff-using-unused-expenses-493651-Jun2012/

http://www.thejournal.ie/oireachtas-seeks-clarification-over-pearse-dohertys-use-of-e8k-expenses-500244-Jun2012/

Tell me Laminations, do you ever wonder why the Indo doesn't scruntise FG's expenses as it does SF and the ULA ?

As you say yourself " So let's no let their abuse slip under the radar "

poeticseraphim · 28-06-2012 7:55pm

All politicians should be scrutinized..but these are the ones we are talking about now...by all means encorage equal scrutiny. We are all for it!

Now back to the current issue. Believe it or not SF are not getting special treatment.

I would love more scrutiny in Irish politics!

But this thread should get back on track!

jonniebgood1 · 28-06-2012 8:29pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

[/URL]
Tell me Laminations, do you ever wonder why the Indo doesn't scruntise FG's expenses as it does SF and the ULA ?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mileage-controversy-councillor-set-to-be-mayor-after-fg-pact-3134112.html <<<Media conspiracy suspicions solved I think Oireachtas rules should be next?

As a point of rederence Did the lad who used all the ink toners break any Oireachtas rules?

Laminations · 28-06-2012 8:50pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Pearse was completely cleared of any wrong-doing.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pearse-doherty-expenses-no-breach-leinster-house-travel-503075-Jun2012/

In fact, it turned out that not only did Pearse not abuse his expense allowance, he only drew down half of the expenses he was entitled to.

Now - Who wants to be the first person to apologise? Let's see how quick people are to post.

I don't care if he drove his car up every botharin in Ireland. He misused funds. He claimed so much in travel expenses and used the rest to employ staff. Just because he is now producing evidence of mileage that would have eaten up all his expenses doesn't mean he was right in what he did. He should have used his travel and accommodation expenses to claim for that mileage.

It's like a person claiming 1000e for the bike to work scheme, using that money for some other purpose and then when caught out saying 'oh well I bought a bike with my own money and it was more than the allowance'

It's misuse of expenses and just because it's not against any rules doesn't mean it is right.

No.Apologies.Here

Happyman42 · 28-06-2012 8:54pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mileage-controversy-councillor-set-to-be-mayor-after-fg-pact-3134112.html <<<Media conspiracy suspicions solved I think Oireachtas rules should be next?

As a point of rederence Did the lad who used all the ink toners break any Oireachtas rules?

I think that article is quite, quite different to the one posted by the OP. Read it again....is it mere reportage, like the one you posted or is it a platform for a sustained attack on a TD, when judgement had not been made? I still haven't seen a credible reason for the nonsense tacked on to the end of it, except that it was for the edification of the more hysterical and afraid members of the public.

dlofnep · 28-06-2012 8:57pm

Laminations wrote: »

I don't care if he drove his car up every botharin in Ireland. He misused funds.

No, he didn't misuse funds. Did you actually read the report?

Laminations wrote: »

He claimed so much in travel expenses and used the rest to employ staff.

No, he didn't. He only claimed half in what he was entitled to.

Laminations wrote: »

Just because he is now producing evidence of mileage that would have eaten up all his expenses doesn't mean he was right in what he did.

The Oireachtas report found no wrong-doing whatsoever. So how about you offer an apology instead?

Laminations wrote: »

It's misuse of expenses and just because it's not against any rules doesn't mean it is right.

No, it's not misuse of expenses and the report supports that.

Laminations wrote: »

No.Apologies.Here

So basically, you're happy to smear someone's character and not apologise even when proven wrong afterwards?

dlofnep · 28-06-2012 9:03pm

The confirmation that his travel and accommodation costs outstripped the actual amounts Doherty received means that the money he uses to hire extra staff is considered to be part of his Oireachtas salary – which Doherty is entitled to use however he sees fit.

And as such - he did nothing wrong. Discussion over - outstanding apologies still awaiting.

jonniebgood1 · 28-06-2012 9:10pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think that article is quite, quite different to the one posted by the OP. Read it again....is it mere reportage, like the one you posted or is it a platform for a sustained attack on a TD, when judgement had not been made? I still haven't seen a credible reason for the nonsense tacked on to the end of it, except that it was for the edification of the more hysterical and afraid members of the public.

I point out that I did not say the article was same as that in OP.

I have no argument against the media being nonsense in most cases. I have highlighted undue mesia bias in the past and it is always wrong.

jonniebgood1 · 28-06-2012 9:14pm

dlofnep wrote: »

No, he didn't misuse funds. Did you actually read the report?

......

The Oireachtas report found no wrong-doing whatsoever. So how about you offer an apology instead?

No, it's not misuse of expenses and the report supports that.

So basically, you're happy to smear someone's character and not apologise even when proven wrong afterwards?

You have alot of respect for the Oireachtas and its givings. That is unusual amongst people in the current political climate.

Laminations · 28-06-2012 9:14pm

dlofnep wrote: »

So basically, you're happy to smear someone's character and not apologise even when proven wrong afterwards?

Nothing in the oireactas statement changes this

The party’s finance spokesman spent €24,000 of the €33,000 he received for travel and accommodation expenses last year. He repaid €845.05 to the Oireachtas commission, leaving a surplus of €8,000.

Last week, Mr Doherty admitted he had used this to hire part-time constituency workers. He said he did not know this was in breach of the rules and if it was, he would pay it back.

If he had travelled so many miles (which I don't dispute he did) he should have claimed for them from the 33,000e. He 'admitted' using 8,000e of these expenses on hiring activists. He is now retrospectively it seems claiming for the other mileage

'I have provided all of this information to the Oireachtas officials and they have confirmed to me in writing today that I haven’t breached any regulations and have stated to me that ‘the regulations have been complied with'

I don't care if the oireactas gives him the all clear, it also gave that FG Kennedy fella the all clear but what he did was still clearly wrong.

A comment on the Journal.ie article sums it up

Honestly nearly lost for words here. So he didn’t use his expenses for travelling he used them to staff his office. They are travel expenses not staffing expenses. ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Nice to know your moral compass is set by what the politicians and the oireactas deem acceptable.

Laminations · 28-06-2012 9:22pm

dlofnep wrote: »

[Quote:
The confirmation that his travel and accommodation costs outstripped the actual amounts Doherty received claimed for means that the money he uses to hire extra staff is considered to be part of his Oireachtas salary – which Doherty is entitled to use however he sees fit.]

And as such - he did nothing wrong. Discussion over - outstanding apologies still awaiting.

It's a subtle difference but I'm sure you'll ignore it for as long as possible. He also signed a declaration that all the expenses were used on travel and accommodation.

He 'admitted' that he used 8000e to pay staff. What part of that do you dispute?

Laminations · 28-06-2012 9:42pm

dlofnep wrote: »

And as such - he did nothing wrong. Discussion over - outstanding apologies still awaiting.

Excellent post on p.ie

It does appear that the T & S regulations S.I. No. 84/2010 are so ambiguous that they can be interpreted very broadly. Rather unsurprisingly, they were signed into effect by that renowned straight talker, the late Bozo.

And Brennie Howlin's amendment S.I. No. 37/2012 appears to have added yet more obfuscation and ambiguity to the mess. Given such a balls-up, when you've some cunning stuntmen like the SF TDs with their unrivalled mastery of doublethink and doubletalk, the regulations become an Aladdin's cave of goodies, all funded by the wretched taxpayer.

Happyman42 · 28-06-2012 10:05pm

As is so pathetically the case in this country, the politics of condemmnation will and has, never achieved anything. It's why I don't often indulge in it.
I'm a realist, and things like this happen, what is important is that the system is tightened (because you can never guard against mistakes, greed or abuse) and very clear and that it is effective in doing something about it. We can all run around shouting hysterically that they are all the same, but what actual good will that do?.
What seems to have happened here is that the system was neither tight enough and clear enough. It's good to see Doherty use the judgement to call for vouched expenses.
If I had to chose a party who were actually standing up and being counted and shouting for something to be done about misuse of taxpayers money though, I know which one it would be.

Sinn Fein misuse expenses

Comments