Sinn Fein misuse expenses

Chucky the tree

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

The party who have a member who spent €50k on printer cartridges?

jonniebgood1

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The party who have a member who spent €50k on printer cartridges?

I don't think that broke any Oireachtas rules either :mad: :mad: :mad:

Diarmaid Ferriter said on Vincent Browne the other night that the inevitable is happening to Sinn Fein. As they get closer to power they mould into the same as what they will replace. It is a repeating cycle.

gerryo777

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/

Have a look at some of the other returns of unused expenses.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fg%20td's%20return%20unused%20expenses&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fone-third-of-tds-return-e210k-in-unused-expenses-for-2011-477434-Jun2012%2F&ei=clftT-3nKMTS0QWC_53PDQ&usg=AFQjCNF2NmAcUYLzFkWLqlTpDznHNy9cKA


Some really dodgy looking numbers here.

Phil Hogan €11.90
John Perry €12.17
Jimmy Deenihen €12.85
Danny McGinley €13.39
Simon Coveney €37.74

Do these not sound a bit suspect to anyone?

A bit of creative bookwork going on here methinks.

Don't let it stop the anti-SF rants though.

Happyman42

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I don't think that broke any Oireachtas rules either :mad: :mad: :mad:

Diarmaid Ferriter said on Vincent Browne the other night that the inevitable is happening to Sinn Fein. As they get closer to power they mould into the same as what they will replace. It is a repeating cycle.

Which only underlines my point, the system has to change and be tightened because those using it patently won't.

gerryo777

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which only underlines my point, the system has to change and be tightened because those using it patently won't.

Isn't that why Doherty has asked for the rules to be changed to all expenses being vouched for.

Brian Hayes's little rant might come back to haunt him and his buddies in power.

Happyman42

gerryo777 wrote: »

Isn't that why Doherty has asked for the rules to be changed to all expenses being vouched for.

It's those who resist this that condemnation should be reserved for....at the polls, where condemnation is useful.:rolleyes:

dlofnep

Laminations wrote: »

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?

The part where the Oireachtas report stated that he paid the 8000 euro with his own salary, and was entitled to do so - ergo, not in breach of any policies. Oh wait, I don't dispute that - because that's what happened.

Chucky the tree

gerryo777 wrote: »

Isn't that why Doherty has asked for the rules to be changed to all expenses being vouched for.

No, he's done that for populist vote grabbing. If SF were serious about vouched expenses they'd already have it implemented within their party. Instead they feel it's better having the second highest expense claim in the Dail.

gerryo777

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No, he's done that for populist vote grabbing. If SF were serious about vouched expenses they'd already have it implemented within their party. Instead they feel it's better having the second highest expense claim in the Dail.

That's right chucky, everything SF do is for populist vote grabbing.:rolleyes:

Do you not find it a bit suspect that Big phil and the likes only return €10 or €15 as unused expenses?

It's another gravy train that we pay for.

Do you get paid to travel to work?

I know I don't.

gerryo777

Laminations wrote: »

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

Good chap, never let the truth get in the way of a good SF rant!

Happyman42

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No, he's done that for populist vote grabbing. If SF were serious about vouched expenses they'd already have it implemented within their party. Instead they feel it's better having the second highest expense claim in the Dail.

Just before you twist the knife, can you show us where Doherty tried to hide this? Or that the intention was to personally gain? As far as I can see his accounts where available for anyone to see. No scam or attempt to obscure there.

Chucky the tree

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's right chucky, everything SF do is for populist vote grabbing.:rolleyes:

Do you not find it a bit suspect that Big phil and the likes only return €10 or €15 as unused expenses?

It's another gravy train that we pay for.

Do you get paid to travel to work?

I know I don't.

What I find suspect is the party claiming they will bring in vouched expenses are the same party who have the second largest expense claims in the Dail and also have strongly defended a member for claiming €50k worth of ink cartridges.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just before you twist the knife, can you show us where Doherty tried to hide this? Or that the intention was to personally gain? As far as I can see his accounts where available for anyone to see. No scam or attempt to obscure there.

Where did I say he tried to hide this?

gerryo777

Chucky the tree wrote: »

What I find suspect is the party claiming they will bring in vouched expenses are the same party who have the second largest expense claims in the Dail and also have strongly defended a member for claiming €50k worth of ink cartridges.




Where did I say he tried to hide this?

That's not answering my question.

What do you think about big phil and his ministerial buddies, as I've listed in a previous post, returning sums of €10 or €15 as unused expenses?

Chucky the tree

gerryo777 wrote: »

That's not answering my question.

What do you think about big phil and his ministerial buddies, as I've listed in a previous post, returning sums of €10 or €15 as unused expenses?

This thread is about Sinn Feinn. Open up a Phil Hogan and Fine Gael one if you want to talk about that.

Laminations

dlofnep wrote: »

The part where the Oireachtas report stated that he paid the 8000 euro with his own salary, and was entitled to do so - ergo, not in breach of any policies. Oh wait, I don't dispute that - because that's what happened.

So when he admitted spending the 8000e out of the TAA expenses, Doherty was mistaken, even though he hadn't returned these expenses or at the time claimed for the full 33,000e. Are you saying that his recollection was incorrect as well as the accounts showing he only claimed 24,000e??

He admitted to spending the surplus on staff.

Doherty had been accused of breaching the Oireachtas’s rules regarding the use of his personal allowances last year – after the Donegal South-West TD said he used about €8,000 of his allowances to hire staff at his office.
But authorities have Leinster House have told him that he is not in breach of any rules,

Whether he breached ridiculously lax rules is neither here nor there.

gerryo777

Chucky the tree wrote: »

This thread is about Sinn Feinn. Open up a Phil Hogan and Fine Gael one if you want to talk about that.

Hey chuck, who made you a moderator?

You don't want to answer my point do you?

Have another rant, good chap.

Chucky the tree

gerryo777 wrote: »

Hey chuck, who made you a moderator?

You don't want to answer my point do you?

Have another rant, good chap.

No one did. I won't be answering your off-topic questions though.

gerryo777

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No one did. I won't be answering your off-topic questions though.

Ha, didn't think you would.
Truth hurts.

Chucky the tree

gerryo777 wrote: »

Ha, didn't think you would.
Truth hurts.

Don't blame me because you are to lazy to start a thread on it.

Laminations

gerryo777 wrote: »

Ha, didn't think you would.
Truth hurts.

So you are casting aspersions about other politicians saying they may have been misusing funds as their expenses returned were small amounts (I don't see the evidence there but hey) in defence of a politician who has admitted misusing his TAA expenses to hire staff.

Baffling line of defence.

gerryo777

Laminations wrote: »

So you are casting aspersions about other politicians saying they may have been misusing funds as their expenses returned were small amounts (I don't see the evidence there but hey) in defence of a politician who has admitted misusing his TAA expenses to hire staff.

Baffling line of defence.

You don't think it's a but suspect then?

Whats the max allowance €33k? And these guys can budget their expenses to within €10 of that amount per year.

Do you seriously think that's plausible from a government who's every prediction about growth, every prediction about the course this country is taking has been wrong?

Give me a break, their all milking the gravy train but some people just like to focus on SF.
Suppose it's because they see them as the biggest threat to their positions into the future.

Work away so, enjoy yourself!

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OK, everyone, the sniping needs to stop NOW.

Chucky, if you think a thread is going off-topic, report it, rather than engaging on thread.

gerryo777, rolley eyes do not count for discussion in this forum. And cut the 'old chap' crap - it is hard to see that as anything but trolling.

dlofnep

Laminations wrote: »

Whether he breached ridiculously lax rules is neither here nor there.

No, it's not here nor there. He didn't breach any rules, and as such has not done anything wrong. No matter way you spin it, these are the facts.

Laminations

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it's not here nor there. He didn't breach any rules, and as such has not done anything wrong. No matter way you spin it, these are the facts.

Oireactas rules are not an adequate definition of right and wrong. Using that logic, Callely did nothing wrong, O'Snodaigh did nothing wrong, taking advantage of a very lax system to divert tax payers money to personally benefit is wrong, morally wrong.

dlofnep

Laminations wrote: »

Oireactas rules are not an adequate definition of right and wrong. Using that logic, Callely did nothing wrong, O'Snodaigh did nothing wrong, taking advantage of a very lax system to divert tax payers money to personally benefit is wrong, morally wrong.

He did nothing wrong, deal with it.

The Waltzing Consumer

dlofnep wrote: »

He did nothing wrong, deal with it.

He did.

Anyone here defending SF and him from this would be throwing hissy fits if this was FG or LAB. It's all bull to be honest, how many times do we see the same defending, the same excuses

Tippearary defends Lowry
Wexford defends Wallace
Kerry defends Healy Rae
Drumcondra defends Bertie
SF defend, em, SF

The only truth in all of this is that there is one set of standards if it is a party or politician you don't support and there is whole other set of standards to those you do support.

SF have now failed miserably at really standing up and setting a new standard and use the same Bertie/Callely/Cooper Flynn tactics and defense.

LostinKildare

Oh come on, it's not that hard to understand, except, apparently, for people blinded by their hatred of SF

He underclaimed for his travel expenses -- apparently he thought he was entitled to diesel and tolls only, when actually there was a higher mileage allowance that takes in motor tax, car depreciation, etc.

He claimed only 11,000, when he was entitled to claim 22,000 for the distance he had traveled.

When paying tolls and filling your car with diesel, you pay with the money in your wallet (i.e., your own money) and then you recoup that money via an expense claim.

So, apparently, when he received that 11,000 reimbursement (having mistakenly shortchanged himself by a significant amount), INSTEAD OF USING IT TO PAY HIMSELF BACK FOR HIS OUTLAY, he used (most of) the lump sum to create a few jobs for people.

Far from ripping off the "taxpayer," he's benefitted the "taxpayer" by several thousand --- first by underclaiming (by 11,000), second by presumably taking a few people off the dole. At his own expense.

But he's SF so he must be baaaaaaaaad.

The Waltzing Consumer

LostinKildare wrote: »

Oh come on, it's not that hard to understand, except, apparently, for people blinded by their hatred of SF

He underclaimed for his travel expenses -- apparently he thought he was entitled to diesel and tolls only, when actually there was a higher mileage allowance that takes in motor tax, car depreciation, etc.

He claimed only 11,000, when he was entitled to claim 22,000 for the distance he had traveled.

When paying tolls and filling your car with diesel, you pay with the money in your wallet (i.e., your own money) and then you recoup that money via an expense claim.

So, apparently, when he received that 11,000 reimbursement (having mistakenly shortchanged himself by a significant amount), INSTEAD OF USING IT TO PAY HIMSELF BACK FOR HIS OUTLAY, he used (most of) the lump sum to create a few jobs for people.

Far from ripping off the "taxpayer," he's benefitted the "taxpayer" by several thousand --- first by underclaiming (by 11,000), second by presumably taking a few people off the dole. At his own expense.

But he's SF so he must be baaaaaaaaad.

Yep cause if this was a FF TD, you would be just as understanding and not slinging out "jobs for the boys" line

He has no right to do what he did, just like if he was a member of FG, Lab, FF, SWP, ULA.

End of /

poeticseraphim

LostinKildare wrote: »

Oh come on, it's not that hard to understand, except, apparently, for people blinded by their hatred of SF

He underclaimed for his travel expenses -- apparently he thought he was entitled to diesel and tolls only, when actually there was a higher mileage allowance that takes in motor tax, car depreciation, etc.

He claimed only 11,000, when he was entitled to claim 22,000 for the distance he had traveled.

When paying tolls and filling your car with diesel, you pay with the money in your wallet (i.e., your own money) and then you recoup that money via an expense claim.

So, apparently, when he received that 11,000 reimbursement (having mistakenly shortchanged himself by a significant amount), INSTEAD OF USING IT TO PAY HIMSELF BACK FOR HIS OUTLAY, he used (most of) the lump sum to create a few jobs for people.

Far from ripping off the "taxpayer," he's benefitted the "taxpayer" by several thousand --- first by underclaiming (by 11,000), second by presumably taking a few people off the dole. At his own expense.

But he's SF so he must be baaaaaaaaad.

This pretty much represents a huge problem with Sinn Féin.

THE ACTION IS WRONG...whether or not being a member of Sinn Féin is wrong is another matter.

But using the pretense exquisite victimhood in a fallacy of infallability is always what SF do.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HOLD YOU TO ACCOUNT WE ARE THE ELECTORATE.

That goes for any party.

Also on another point it has been put here that to question the integral morality of Sinn Féin and any guilt by association is unacceptable. It is not. Perhaps those who associate with SF SHOULD be viewed with suspicion considering some of it's members criminal history. SF does not want to accept the perfectly reasonable position that some are horrified by some of the actions of their members and brushing it aside and joking about it is just delusional. Yes i believe there is a moral lacing in SF that is MUCH darker than misusing funds.


But as for this instance. That was taxpayers money. Some voted for FG some voted for FF and some for SF. But the majority of voters voted for FG . The electorate is diverse THAT is why you cannot use taxpayers money to fund your activists to grow your party. Using taxpayers money to promote Sinn Féin or any party is wrong..it is undemocratic and immoral.Most of those people do not support SF or want their money to go to drumming up more support for SF. It is like using taxpayers money to support your own campaign ..it is immoral.


It also shows SF would be useless in this current cliate when when need accounting regualarity and adherance to rules..

By the way it is NOT socialism to put taxpayers money into your cronies pockets...it is helping out a friend FF territory. SF activists ARE NOT public servants ..they are not ad should not be on the pay role . Nor should any party activists that money is not to promote your party or your campaigns.


SF are on a different planet.

gerryo777

poeticseraphim wrote: »

This pretty much represents a huge problem with Sinn Féin.

THE ACTION IS WRONG...whether or not being a member of Sinn Féin is wrong is another matter.

But using the pretense exquisite victimhood in a fallacy of infallability is always what SF do.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HOLD YOU TO ACCOUNT WE ARE THE ELECTORATE.

That goes for any party.

Also on another point it has been put here that to question the integral morality of Sinn Féin and any guilt by association is unacceptable. It is not. Perhaps those who associate with SF SHOULD be viewed with suspicion considering some of it's members criminal history. SF does not want to accept the perfectly reasonable position that some are horrified by some of the actions of their members and brushing it aside and joking about it is just delusional. Yes i believe there is a moral lacing in SF that is MUCH darker than misusing funds.


But as for this instance. That was taxpayers money. Some voted for FG some voted for FF and some for SF. But the majority of voters voted for FG . The electorate is diverse THAT is why you cannot use taxpayers money to fund your activists to grow your party. Using taxpayers money to promote Sinn Féin or any party is wrong..it is undemocratic and immoral.Most of those people do not support SF or want their money to go to drumming up more support for SF. It is like using taxpayers money to support your own campaign ..it is immoral.


It also shows SF would be useless in this current cliate when when need accounting regualarity and adherance to rules..

By the way it is NOT socialism to put taxpayers money into your cronies pockets...it is helping out a friend FF territory. SF activists ARE NOT public servants ..they are not ad should not be on the pay role . Nor should any party activists that money is not to promote your party or your campaigns.


SF are on a different planet.

Should I mention the 9 years in the 1990's when FG were paying party activists in cash 'under the table' payments?
Or does that not matter.