Civil servant "vendetta"

Silvics

http://www.independent.ie/business/stubborn-civil-servants-wasting-limited-resources-3117592.html
Yesterday's Indo, depressing reading.

dahamsta

Depressing alright, there isn't a substantive point made in the article. It was like reading a conversation with a taxi driver.

Bits_n_Bobs

"the VAT bill would have been paid by the taxpayer even if the department had won the case made the action particularly futile."

Isn't that a substantial point? Or is that just par for the course and to be expected?

creedp

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

"the VAT bill would have been paid by the taxpayer even if the department had won the case made the action particularly futile."

Isn't that a substantial point? Or is that just par for the course and to be expected?

Well unless you think that the taxpayer doesn't usualy pay tax

Bits_n_Bobs

Your right of course.

What was clearly important was that 'rules' be followed and to hell with whether or not there was any real financial gain to be made doing do, 'financial gain' one of those concepts best left to the grubby money grabbing private sector. The department has to implement the rules, regardless of the cost. Principles, ethics and all that good stuff!!

Umm - except that the financial rules weren't followed, or actually understood by the department of finance, who makes up the finance rules, by according to the pesky judges. And then the pesky PAC once again butts into things, followed by the even more pesky media. Clearly a vendetta against public servants. I bet the bankers are behind it!!!

OP, this isn't a newsdump. Post up a summary and/or opinion we can discuss

Bits_n_Bobs

It's about the lads in the dept of finance error 3.6bn in state funds and PAC reporting it…oops…wrong PAC story.

It's about the lads in dept of finance wrongly advising the dept of sports to pursue a claim for VAT of 10m in the building of Campus Stadium Ireland and it concluded "the dispute "should not have happened" because "the State would have derived no benefit from the outcome of the case". Furthermore "the Attorney General and Comptroller and Auditor General & told the Department of Sport in 2004 to "use common sense" and "forget about" the action. "It smacks of the State pursuing an individual or a company just because it could," Mr McGuinness said.

Seth Brundle

How much did the supreme court action cost the taxpayer?
How much did the investigation and report by the Public Accounts Committee cost?
How many people will be punished over this?

Bits_n_Bobs

You and your unhealthy obsession with money kbannon!

This was clearly about a 'principle'. And then it was about a 'vendetta'. And now you want to make it about an 'accountability'??

Seth Brundle

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

You and your unhealthy obsession with money kbannon!

This was clearly about a 'principle'. And then it was about a 'vendetta'. And now you want to make it about an 'accountability'??

Sorry. I'm coming at it from a prejudiced private sector perspective.
It's hard to shake off this blinkered view.

BornToKill

John McGuinness is described in the article as a 'tea-totaller'. I presume that means someone who doesn't drink tea. How can you trust someone who won't have a cup of tea?

n97 mini

Civil servants can be casual about going to court as none of the costs are coming out of their pockets even if they are wrong (and they won't get fired either).

woodoo

A lot of this boils down the the 'nobody loses their job no matter what' set up in the Public Service. People just don't fear losing their job.

A few people getting the chop when deserved would do wonders for the public service in general.

Hootanany

woodoo wrote: »

A lot of this boils down the the 'nobody loses their job no matter what' set up in the Public Service. People just don't fear losing their job.

A few people getting the chop when deserved would do wonders for the public service in general.

This+1

Silvics

bluewolf wrote: »

OP, this isn't a newsdump. Post up a summary and/or opinion we can discuss

Read my post- the opinion is clear, "depressing reading".
How much more does one have to say? Less is more suits me...just another major cock-up by the public servants, accountable to nobody and the taxpayer carries the can.

BornToKill

I actually thought you meant the article was 'depressing reading' because it is so vague and devoid of facts. If it hadn't been for Bits_n_Bobs filling in the blanks it wouldn't make any sense at all.

Red Actor

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Your right of course.

What was clearly important was that 'rules' be followed and to hell with whether or not there was any real financial gain to be made doing do, 'financial gain' one of those concepts best left to the grubby money grabbing private sector. The department has to implement the rules, regardless of the cost. Principles, ethics and all that good stuff!!

Umm - except that the financial rules weren't followed, or actually understood by the department of finance, who makes up the finance rules, by according to the pesky judges. And then the pesky PAC once again butts into things, followed by the even more pesky media. Clearly a vendetta against public servants. I bet the bankers are behind it!!!

I dont know the specifics of the case. Which is more likely - the civil servants who deal with tax law on a daily basis have a full understanding of tax law and that the judges got it wrong or the civil servants are wrong and the judge is the expert? Could it be possible that politicians are taking cheap shots without fully undewrstanding the situation because the soundbite will get media attention?

K-9

Silvics wrote: »

Read my post- the opinion is clear, "depressing reading".
How much more does one have to say? Less is more suits me...just another major cock-up by the public servants, accountable to nobody and the taxpayer carries the can.

It may suit you but it doesn't suit the forum charter here Irish Economy charter, if you have a problem with moderation take it up via pm.

Gee Bag

There's a lot more detail about the case in this report

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0518/1224316282531.html

dahamsta

See, now that's substantive. The Independent hacks wouldn't know a fact if it came up and bit them on the hole.

Sand

He said the department of sport “should have taken a much stronger overview of this case and called a halt”, adding that “its job was to protect the taxpayer and it failed in that”.

I don't think the the Irish civil service would describe its job as being to protect the taxpayer - or the citizen for that matter. The robots in the Irish civil service would say they exist only to serve "de minister".

barneystinson

Sand wrote: »

I don't think the the Irish civil service would describe its job as being to protect the taxpayer - or the citizen for that matter. The robots in the Irish civil service would say they exist only to serve "de minister".

And you say that based on what, exactly? Have you done a survey, or got any empirical evidence to support that assertion? Oh but wait, you said "I think", so I think it's probably based on nothing. In which case I therefore think you're talking nonsense.

Sand

Based on the standard civil service defense of wrong doing, incompetence and corruption - we were only following de ministers orders.

barneystinson

Sand wrote: »

Based on the standard civil service defense of wrong doing, incompetence and corruption - we were only following de ministers orders.

You're failing to distinguish between a person's role or function, and who their boss is (or simply choosing to ignore it).

That's like saying anyone who works for Virgin exists to do what Richard Branson tells them.

Dr Galen

Thread not going anywhere, been two Mod notes already. Here's the third...

Cheers

DrG