Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Console. Charity, Irish-style

Options
1…1617192122

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Isn't it great that you have all the answers on all these questions now, now that the audit had been completed - as opposed to having a pile of unsubstantiated and unresolved allegations. I wonder how that happened...

    No

    an audit that was constantly frustrated by Paul Kelly et al. Tell me something, was this the first audit of Console?


  • Options
    #543
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Console were reported by HSE to the Gardai long before the Prime Time show.

    And yet they saw no problem with continuing to fund them?


  • Options
    #544
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    We don't have any answers to the questions 2Rockmountain.The HSE know as much now as they did the day the questions were put to Paul Kelly and that was back in June 2015.

    Once Paul Kelly couldn't give reasonable explanations about the items on the credit card bills he should have been asked to step aside and another official from the HSE should have been sent in temporarily to take over his role.Paul Kelly should have had no access to consoles money from that date,not the credit cards,not the bank accounts and not the envelopes which would have been posted with cash in them.

    We should be told why the first official from the HSE was asked to work in Console,it could be that this is normal in the Charity sector but it seems odd when a HSE official wouldn't have much experience of this sector.Is it possible that the HSE had doubts about Console going back to the mid nineties.

    I think what probably happened was the HSE couldnt get the answers and the audit would have sat uncompleted if it wasnt for the primetime programme.Dont forget Paul Kelly had already been involved with a previous charity and the same questions were asked there.It was his own staff mutinying over what happened in the first charity which caused him to have to resign and go to Australia.


  • Options
    #545
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    VinLieger wrote: »
    And yet they saw no problem with continuing to fund them?

    Why would you assume that 'they saw no problem'? The decision to continue funding a vital service does not translate to 'saw no problem'.
    Mary63 wrote: »
    We don't have any answers to the questions 2Rockmountain.The HSE know as much now as they did the day the questions were put to Paul Kelly and that was back in June 2015.

    Once Paul Kelly couldn't give reasonable explanations about the items on the credit card bills he should have been asked to step aside and another official from the HSE should have been sent in temporarily to take over his role.Paul Kelly should have had no access to consoles money from that date,not the credit cards,not the bank accounts and not the envelopes which would have been posted with cash in them.

    We should be told why the first official from the HSE was asked to work in Console,it could be that this is normal in the Charity sector but it seems odd when a HSE official wouldn't have much experience of this sector.Is it possible that the HSE had doubts about Console going back to the mid nineties.

    I think what probably happened was the HSE couldnt get the answers and the audit would have sat uncompleted if it wasnt for the primetime programme.Dont forget Paul Kelly had already been involved with a previous charity and the same questions were asked there.It was his own staff mutinying over what happened in the first charity which caused him to have to resign and go to Australia.

    How did you manage to work out that the 'official from the HSE was asked to work in Console'? Who asked him? Did he perhaps apply for the job? How did you manage to work out that he didn't 'have much experience of this sector'?

    How did you manage to work that the 'audit would have sat uncompleted if it wasn't for the Prime Time programme? [Hint: The audit was completed in April, long before Prime Time. http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0716/802804-console-charity/]

    And for the umpteenth time, the HSE have no control over Console, other than funding. They can't tell the Console bank what to do with their credit cards. They can't tell anyone to resign. All they can do in law is fund/not fund, and report to Gardai when they have evidence.


  • Options
    #546
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Why would you assume that 'they saw no problem'? The decision to continue funding a vital service does not translate to 'saw no problem'.



    How did you manage to work out that the 'official from the HSE was asked to work in Console'? Who asked him? Did he perhaps apply for the job? How did you manage to work out that he didn't 'have much experience of this sector'?

    How did you manage to work that the 'audit would have sat uncompleted if it wasn't for the Prime Time programme? [Hint: The audit was completed in April, long before Prime Time. http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0716/802804-console-charity/]

    And for the umpteenth time, the HSE have no control over Console, other than funding. They can't tell the Console bank what to do with their credit cards. They can't tell anyone to resign. All they can do in law is fund/not fund, and report to Gardai when they have evidence.

    Agreed. So why did they continue to fund them after kelly continually frustrated the audit?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    Ben Gadot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭Ben Gadot


    It takes a special type of bloke, who is supposedly meant to be sensitive to the plight of the most vulnerable in our society, to use negative stereotypes in order to hide behind his fraudulent acts.

    Too bad this supposed intoxicated homeless man didn't do more than send him to the dentist. What a ****ing scumbag.


  • Options
    #548
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    the way I see it, bottom line, the man impersonated a Doctor FFS. Not exactly an exemplary pillar of the professional community. If any so called regulator cannot succeed in such a simple task as smelling the bull**** from there, then why are they even in place.

    also the HSE Tony O'Brien lad has to go, fecking eejit. debacle after fiasco and he sits there with a big thick hands in the air look on his face!!


  • Options
    #549
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Agreed. So why did they continue to fund them after kelly continually frustrated the audit?
    Because it was essential to continue to provide the services to vulnerable people, I guess.
    rusty cole wrote: »
    the way I see it, bottom line, the man impersonated a Doctor FFS. Not exactly an exemplary pillar of the professional community. If any so called regulator cannot succeed in such a simple task as smelling the bull**** from there, then why are they even in place.

    also the HSE Tony O'Brien lad has to go, fecking eejit. debacle after fiasco and he sits there with a big thick hands in the air look on his face!!

    Is there any chance that you might educate yourself on what actually happened before you comment? The HSE is not a regulator, so-called or otherwise.


  • Options
    #550
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Because it was essential to continue to provide the services to vulnerable people, I guess.



    Is there any chance that you might educate yourself on what actually happened before you comment? The HSE is not a regulator, so-called or otherwise.

    The money wasnt being used to provide services.


  • Options
    #551
    Simon2015
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    rusty cole wrote: »
    the way I see it, bottom line, the man impersonated a Doctor FFS. Not exactly an exemplary pillar of the professional community. If any so called regulator cannot succeed in such a simple task as smelling the bull**** from there, then why are they even in place.

    also the HSE Tony O'Brien lad has to go, fecking eejit. debacle after fiasco and he sits there with a big thick hands in the air look on his face!!

    He looks like a heart attack waiting to happen and at least 10 years older than he actually is.

    I don't think he knows the first thing about health.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    selastich2
    Registered Users Posts: 419 ✭✭selastich2


    how much does it cost for 2 phone lines?


  • Options
    #553
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,910 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Revenue should be in charge of any Charity that gets public funding.

    Take the HSE out of it altogether. There wouldn't be any shenanigans then.


  • Options
    #554
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    rusty cole wrote: »
    also the HSE Tony O'Brien lad has to go, fecking eejit. debacle after fiasco and he sits there with a big thick hands in the air look on his face!!
    Simon2015 wrote: »
    He looks like a heart attack waiting to happen and at least 10 years older than he actually is.

    I don't think he knows the first thing about health.
    Interesting to see that we're now down to personal attacks on an HSE official. Classy....
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The money wasnt being used to provide services.
    None of it?
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Revenue should be in charge of any Charity that gets public funding.

    Take the HSE out of it altogether. There wouldn't be any shenanigans then.

    Great, so we need about another 500 Revenue staff to provide this service, and manage the tens of thousands of charities out there that get public funding of one way or other, despite the fact that most of them do the right thing most of the time?


  • Options
    #555
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,910 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    I

    Great, so we need about another 500 Revenue staff to provide this service, and manage the tens of thousands of charities out there that get public funding of one way or other, despite the fact that most of them do the right thing most of the time?

    Not at all. Revenue already have a Charity Section, so they are out of the starting blocks on that one straight away.

    Heard their Auditors are fierce good too. Need people like them to put FEAR back into those charities using public money.

    Those that do the right thing have nothing to fear have they?

    Recruiting people into Revenue for this purpose would be money very well spent, because it sure ain't being spent well at the moment.


  • Options
    #556
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    None of it?



    Did i say that? Your defence of the HSE in this is irrational


  • Options
    #557
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Did i say that? Your defence of the HSE in this is irrational

    So when you said "The money wasnt being used to provide services" you actually meant to say "All the money wasnt being used to provide services" - a slightly different spin on things, isn't it? If they cut the funding, the service would have been cut immediately, so they kept it going to support vulnerable clients of Console.
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Not at all. Revenue already have a Charity Section, so they are out of the starting blocks on that one straight away.

    Heard their Auditors are fierce good too. Need people like them to put FEAR back into those charities using public money.

    Those that do the right thing have nothing to fear have they?

    Recruiting people into Revenue for this purpose would be money very well spent, because it sure ain't being spent well at the moment.
    Yes, the Revenue auditors are fierce good, and they're fierce busy too, auditing for tax fraud. Not governance, not value for money, not quality of service, not ethical principles - just tax. So now you want to take significant resources away from auditing tax fraud and have them auditing other things that they have no experience at.

    And you know we've just set up a Charity Regulator, right? So you want to bypass the existing regulator because Revenue are good at auditing for tax fraud? This really hasn't been thought through, has it?


  • Options
    #558
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    If it helps at all, 2Rock, there are people reading who can also see that the HSE couldn't just say "Yep, we know something's fishy here" and gone to the Gardai. They did the audit, completed the audit (in circumstances that were being made intentionally difficult for them), made the decision to not hang a bunch of people who desperately needed what service there was out to dry, and once it was clear, they reported them and blew the thing open.

    If some of the folks in here were detectives, they'd never get any convictions if they followed the lines they're suggesting.


  • Options
    #559
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    The audit should be available this week and hopefully we can see details of the Kellys spending from the date the audit started.
    If the spending to benefit the kelly family continued through 2015 and 2016 the HSE is responsible for this.
    The HSE should have stopped funding console in June 2015 when the auditors went in.They could have said the expenditure was shocking and it wasnt possible to do an audit.The services console were providing could have been transferred to Pieta House or one of the other two hundred charities involved in suicide prevention.
    Paul Kelly wouldnt have taken legal action,he knew the HSE were aware of his past and many people recognised him from the publicity of the person of the year award so he couldnt hide anymore.
    The HSE didnt even refer Console to the charities regulator,that shows what they thought of this official,did they even know this office existed.


  • Options
    #560
    seanin4711
    Registered Users Posts: 3,103 ✭✭✭seanin4711


    how are they not in custody at the moment?
    seriously!
    WTF?


  • Options
    #561
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    seanin4711 wrote: »
    how are they not in custody at the moment?
    seriously!
    WTF?

    :pac::pac::pac::pac:
    it's only apparently fraud of a charity no need to take passports or get to them before they did a runner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    Kelly ran to Australia after his last charity was rumbled.Its incredible to think he could come back and set up another charity and no one copped who he was,in fact if he had declined the person of the year award he might have stayed under the radar longer.
    I wonder what occupation he had in Australia,the Australians have no time for counselling at all,they believe in getting on with things.


  • Options
    #563
    Simon2015
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Simon2015


    Mary63 wrote: »
    Kelly ran to Australia after his last charity was rumbled.Its incredible to think he could come back and set up another charity and no one copped who he was,in fact if he had declined the person of the year award he might have stayed under the radar longer.
    I wonder what occupation he had in Australia,the Australians have no time for counselling at all,they believe in getting on with things.


    He probably was running other scams/charities when he was over in Australia.


  • Options
    #564
    timmy880
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭timmy880


    Disgraced Console boss Paul Kelly is due to ask the High Court today for at least €5,100 a month to be freed up in living expenses. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disgraced-console-boss-kelly-wants-5100-a-month-to-pay-mortgages-34894837.html

    Christ this just takes the piss....


  • Options
    #565
    crazygeryy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭crazygeryy


    How can he do that?anyone else not able to pay their mortgage gets evicted.


  • Options
    #566
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Mary63 wrote: »
    The HSE should have stopped funding console in June 2015 when the auditors went in.They could have said the expenditure was shocking and it wasnt possible to do an audit.
    Except that it would have been a lie. It WAS possible to do an audit.

    And once again, you're using the information available in 2016 in a decision that you say should have been made in 2015. Unless they have a Tardis, this is not possible.


  • Options
    #567
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Except that it would have been a lie. It WAS possible to do an audit.

    And once again, you're using the information available in 2016 in a decision that you say should have been made in 2015. Unless they have a Tardis, this is not possible.

    remind everybody how long that audit actually took as opposed to how long it should have taken? You dont think they should have realised very early on that something was rotten?


  • Options
    #568
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    The HSE went into do the audit because they knew something was wrong.They had to have known staff werent being paid on time,rent wasnt being paid the phonelines had been cut to two and even thesee werent being paid.
    Some of the people attending counselling felt they were being rushed through appointments and they sere contributing to the cost,some were paying fifty euros per session.
    paul Kelly was recognised after publicity with his award,the HSE and James Reilly were told of his past,James o Reilly told the person who came to him to contact the HSE/Department of Health,its not clear what JOR himself did,probably didly squat.He certainly didnt contact the charity regulator I think the Charity regulator didnt get involved until this year.
    What did the HSE do after the concerned member of the public wrote to them,ring the charity regulator,NO of course not.They wrote another big cheque.


  • Options
    #569
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You dont think they should have realised very early on that something was rotten?

    At a guess, they very probably did realise very early on that something was very probably rotten. Having the evidence to do something about it is a very different matter.


  • Options
    #570
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    seanin4711 wrote: »
    how are they not in custody at the moment?
    seriously!
    WTF?

    Probably because if you arrest somebody without having completed your investigation, you reduce your chances of getting a successful conviction. But drop into your local Garda Station and have a chat if you want to understand how cases like this usually progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Mary63 wrote: »
    The HSE went into do the audit because they knew something was wrong.
    The HSE went in to do the audit because they suspected something was wrong, and they needed firm evidence before they could act.
    Mary63 wrote: »
    the HSE and James Reilly were told of his past,James o Reilly told the person who came to him to contact the HSE/Department of Health,its not clear what JOR himself did,probably didly squat.He certainly didnt contact the charity regulator I think the Charity regulator didnt get involved until this year.
    What did the HSE do after the concerned member of the public wrote to them,ring the charity regulator,NO of course not.They wrote another big cheque.
    The 'concerned member of the public' reported that Kelly got the Probation Act over a minor issue many years previously. He had no conviction and no criminal record. The HSE had no legal basis for any intervention based on that report.

    What they did do however, was to institute the audit process that has exposed Kelly's actions and led to Console being shut down, while maintaining vital services for vulnerable clients.


Advertisement