Supreme Court Ruling on Nursing home Theft

Villain

I didn't see any thread on this so said I'd start one.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that bill was unconstitutional in relation to the retrospective provisions. The Tánaiste stated yesterday that there was legal advice in 1978 given by Former Chief Justice Keane and Senior Council McCann that this practice was NOT LEGAL. The ruling stated that the Department and Health Board were aware of the situation and "The charges must be regarded as having being imposed as a result of Considered decisions of repsonible public officials in full concionus of the provisions".

The Tánaiste said that her statement to the Dail last year that "the charges were levied in good faith" is now not correct. John Travers is reporting on the issue and it will be very interesting to see what he comes back with.

Liz O'Donnell said it raised serious questions for the goverment and likened it to the hep C scandal.

Legal advice was ignored since 1978 by 11 governments 40 health boards!!!

A disgrace that is now going to cost the State between 500 Million and 2 Billion, thats our money.

I debated this issue with Earthman in the " an end to Criminality" thread and I think now Earthman you might accept that the Government knew for years and allowed this theft to continue, and let there be no mistake it was theft they knew it was illegal and knowingly continued to take this money.

therecklessone

I haven't thought this through in any detail, so please don't jump down my throat. I do accept (and expect) counter argument.

irish1 wrote:

The Tánaiste stated yesterday that there was legal advice in 1978 given by Former Chief Justice Keane and Senior Council McCann that this practice was NOT LEGAL. The ruling stated that the Department and Health Board were aware of the situation and "The charges must be regarded as having being imposed as a result of Considered decisions of repsonible public officials in full concionus of the provisions".


Legal advice was ignored since 1978 by 11 governments 40 health boards!!!

Surely this means some person(s) should face prosecution, no? If not outright theft then this is surely criminal negligence.

Any thoughts?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I debated this issue with Earthman in the " an end to Criminality" thread and I think now Earthman you might accept that the Government knew for years and allowed this theft to continue, and let there be no mistake it was theft they knew it was illegal and knowingly continued to take this money.

Well couple of points here.
First,this issue spans several governments and many politicians long since gone/dead or disgraced.
Second, Much of it was sanctioned by health officials and covered up.

How many of them that were historically aware of this is unknown.
Some shít was smelt from this and still the web to cover it over in the hope that it would go away prevailed.It's not a directed convictable criminality if thats what you are trying to say.

A disgrace that is now going to cost the State between 500 Million and 2 Billion, thats our money.

I agree that its a disgrace, but you forget that if it did not happen that money would have had to be spent looking after these people anyway and it would have been our money too.
So its a correction not a loss.
It's over 500 million that we shouldnt have had in the first place.

Therefore its not similar to say IRA theft as they dont give the money back...

Villain

therecklessone wrote:

I haven't thought this through in any detail, so please don't jump down my throat. I do accept (and expect) counter argument.



Surely this means some person(s) should face prosecution, no? If not outright theft then this is surely criminal negligence.

Any thoughts?

I agree, but who do you prosecute??

I believe the reason the Government has stated that this was known since 1978 is to take the blaim away from the current Government, the ombudsman report in 2001, which is discussed by the current ombudsman's statement in december (link), showed he thought the practice was illegal, and it is widely accepted that Michael Martin was made aware of this during his term in office. I believe the Travers report will show this.

So by declaring they knew about it since 1978 means all governments share the same blaim.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Well couple of points here.
First,this issue spans several governments and many politicians long since gone/dead or disgraced.
Second, Much of it was sanctioned by health officials and covered up.

How many of them that were historically aware of this is unknown.
Some shít was smelt from this and still the web to cover it over in the hope that it would go away prevailed.It's not a directed convictable criminality if thats what you are trying to say.

I believe the Travers report will show Michael Martin was told about this in 2001, I mean the ombudsman knew. Is theft not a criminal act earthman???

Beacause it was theft.

Earthman wrote:

I agree that its a disgrace, but you forget that if it did not happen that money would have had to be spent looking after these people anyway and it would have been our money too.
So its a correction not a loss.
It's over 500 million that we shouldnt have had in the first place.

Yes but paying it out over the last 30 years or so and knowing the cost to the state is very different to paying it out in one lump sum and not knowing the final cost or not have any finances set aside .

Earthman wrote:

Therefore its not similar to say IRA theft as they dont give the money back...

I will not discuss the IRA, or SF for that matter in this thread, there is enough threads to discuss them in.

You argued in the previous thread that the Government didn't know, now the Tainiste says they did know, and the Supreme court said they did know, but hey what do they know?

Poker_Peter

I personally consider it an absolute scandal that the elderly are having to sell their homes to avoid the extortionate cost of being cared for in an old peoples' home.

Governments since 1978 should be ashamed of themselves, include John and Garrett, not just Charlie, Albert and Bertie.

So for Pat and Enda to be milking this for political-gain is just a case of poacher-turned-gamekeeper.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I will not discuss the IRA, or SF for that matter in this thread, there is enough threads to discuss them in.

fine well dont reference to other threads about them then... which is why I brought that up.

I believe the Travers report will show Michael Martin was told about this in 2001, I mean the ombudsman knew. Is theft not a criminal act earthman???

Beacause it was theft.

You have a strange definition of theft.I would call it mis-management and negligence.It would only be theft if it went into the pockets of the politicians you are talking about.

Yes but paying it out over the last 30 years or so and knowing the cost to the state is very different to paying it out in one lump sum and not knowing the final cost or not have any finances set aside .

Of course its different,I'm not argue-ing that it isn't disgracefull and negligent etc, but I will dispute the implications that these peoples stays in homes wouldnt have had to have been paid for by the state anyway when incidently funds were in short supply.
There would have been even higher taxes to pay for it or cut backs in other areas back then.
In that sense , perhaps this is a blessing in disguise as at least now we are in a position to reimburse those involved for their direct subsidy to their care.

You argued in the previous thread that the Government didn't know, now the Tainiste says they did know, and the Supreme court said they did know, but hey what do they know?

Actually iirc I asked who knew-you answered that question reasonably satisfactorally but you are pushing the boat out by describing it as criminality.

ishmael whale

irish1 wrote:

I debated this issue with Earthman in the " an end to Criminality" thread and I think now Earthman you might accept that the Government knew for years and allowed this theft to continue, and let there be no mistake it was theft they knew it was illegal and knowingly continued to take this money.

I think anyone with information about the government's theft from pensioners should immediately tell what they know to the families of the pensioners involved.

ishmael whale

ishmael whale wrote:

I think anyone with information about the government's theft from pensioners should immediately tell what they know to the families of the pensioners involved.

ishmael you're subtle-very subtle

Villain

ishmael whale wrote:

I think anyone with information about the government's theft from pensioners should immediately tell what they know to the families of the pensioners involved.

You see that type of comment just go's to show people here can't discuss politics without bringing SF into it. Sad very sad.

Now I started this thread to deal with the topic at hand, if you want to discuss it I'm happy to do so, if you want to discuss SF's position on the McCartney murder I also happy to do so but not in this thread.

P.S. Earthman that thread was not about the IRA.

gurramok

One reason not to trust FF/FG/Lab as they were the ones who oversaw the theft of money from the elderly since 1978 and yet the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for this.
I certainly object as a taxpayer to paying for this horrendous act by these politicians.

D'Peoples Voice

irish1 wrote:

I didn't see any thread on this so said I'd start one.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that bill was unconstitutional in relation to the retrospective provisions. The Tánaiste stated yesterday that there was legal advice in 1978 given by Former Chief Justice Keane and Senior Council McCann that this practice was NOT LEGAL.

Legal advice was ignored since 1978 by 11 governments 40 health boards!!!

Here are Oceans 11 or should we say in this case Corish's 11.

the plan to deduct payment for nursing homes from peoples' pension was
introduced by Brendan Corish(Tanaiste and Leader of the Irish Labour Party)while Minister for Health from 1973 - 1977 .


Charlie Haughey(FF) was Minister for Health from 1977-1979 :mad:
Michael J. Woods (FF)was Minister for Health from 1979-1981 :mad:
Eileen Desmond(Labour)was Minister for Health from 1981 - 1982
Michael J. Woods(FF)was Minister for Health March 1982 - December 1982 :mad:
Barry Desmond (Labour) was Health Minister from 1982-87
Dr Rory O' Hanlon(FF) was Health Minister from 1987-91 :mad:
John O'Connell(FF)was Minister for Health from 1992 - 1993 :mad:
Brendan Howlin(Labour) was Minister for Health from 1993 - 1994
Michael Noonan(FG) was Health Minister from December 1994 - June 1997
Brian Cowen(FF) was Health Minister from June 1997 - January 2001 :mad:
Michael Martin(FF) was Health Minister from January 1997 - September 2004 :mad:

irish1

irish1 wrote:

P.S. Earthman that thread was not about the IRA.

In the opinion of many posters including myself it was a none too subtle use of the word criminality when that word was being bandied about in a damaging way towards republicanism.
In fact it was see-through.
I'm not here to discuss the Rah either.
Infact if I had time yesterday,I wanted to start a thread on the judgement myself.

gurramok wrote:

One reason not to trust FF/FG/Lab as they were the ones who oversaw the theft of money from the elderly since 1978 and yet the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for this.
I certainly object as a taxpayer to paying for this horrendous act by these politicians.

You'll have to include Tony Gregory too as he was a paid elected public representative at the time and negotiated monies for his constituency as a payment for his vote to prop up Charlie Haugheys government. Some of his constituents were effected by this-yet he didnt high light it.
I suggest this is because like me and others he didnt know.
But then if we are going to tar all who didnt know, yet should, we may as well tar all

ishmael whale

irish1 wrote:

You see that type of comment just go's to show people here can't discuss politics without bringing SF into it. Sad very sad.

Hold on. You brought up a thread with a subtext that events such as the Supreme Court deliberating on the constitutionality of the nursing homes bill (and, as we now know, finding against the Government) could be equated with IRA members engaging in criminal acts. Then you say I’m the one introducing SF into the topic. That’s an epic distortion of reality.

sceptre

/waves bright flag

No talking about SF in here unless someone can actually make it relevant. Given that no-one can, no turning this into another one of those threads or there will be bannings galore. Irish1, I know you're familiar with the report this post button so use it without feeling the need to respond within seconds on-thread as well.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

You have a strange definition of theft.I would call it mis-management and negligence.It would only be theft if it went into the pockets of the politicians you are talking about.

I'd have to disagree with you there, 11 governments knew it was illegal but continued to take this money, just because members of those governments didn't receive any of the money personally doesn't mean it's not theft, I could rob you and give the money to the health system, that doesn't mean you weren't robbed. It was theft.

Earthman wrote:

Of course its different,I'm not argue-ing that it isn't disgracefull and negligent etc, but I will dispute the implications that these peoples stays in homes wouldnt have had to have been paid for by the state anyway when incidently funds were in short supply.
There would have been even higher taxes to pay for it or cut backs in other areas back then.
In that sense , perhaps this is a blessing in disguise as at least now we are in a position to reimburse those involved for their direct subsidy to their care.

Yes but the cost would have been managed and remember the Supreme Court didn't rule that is was illegal to charge people in the futher. So the Government could have bought in a bill years ago to ensure the patients contributed something to their care, this is what will happen in the future.

Earthman wrote:

Actually iirc I asked who knew-you answered that question reasonably satisfactorally but you are pushing the boat out by describing it as criminality.

I don't believe I am, it was theft and theft is a criminal act.

Earthman wrote:

I'm not here to discuss the Rah either.
Infact if I had time yesterday,I wanted to start a thread on the judgement myself.

Good so lets keep this on topic then.

Earthman wrote:

You'll have to include Tony Gregory too as he was a paid elected public representative at the time and negotiated monies for his constituency as a payment for his vote to prop up Charlie Haugheys government. Some of his constituents were effected by this-yet he didnt high light it.
I suggest this is because like me and others he didnt know.
But then if we are going to tar all who didnt know, yet should, we may as well tar all

Well I think there is enough people who did know or should have known to blaim without attacking those who didn't know or had no responsiblity in relation to this theft.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I'd have to disagree with you there, 11 governments knew it was illegal but continued to take this money,

You've told me that they knew in 2001, could you give me the info on where the other administrations were informed of the problem?
I know you are saying that the current government is saying it was known about by all administrations but have they been specefic on what advice was given to each admin and what action was decided and why and by whom?
All that information would be needed to evaluate rather than just opionate

just because members of those governments didn't receive any of the money personally doesn't mean it's not theft,

mis-direction of funds within departments -mal admistration of funds within departments-underpayment of pensions.
All of which arent a crime just mis-management

Yes but the cost would have been managed and remember the Supreme Court didn't rule that is was illegal to charge people in the futher. So the Government could have bought in a bill years ago to ensure the patients contributed something to their care, this is what will happen in the future.

That undermines what you are positing so far because (a) you are suggesting they could have made it law that pensioners must contribute and (b) that they will now.
With regard to (a) it suggest that they were negligent and bad managers and with (a) and (b) together it suggests that if they were doing their job properly the monies wouldnt have been legally going to the pensioners anyway.

I don't believe I am, it was theft and theft is a criminal act.

You haven't explained either satisfactorally and certainly havent proved it.
I'm of the belief you're stating opinion as fact now...

Well I think there is enough people who did know or should have known to blaim without attacking those who didn't know or had no responsiblity in relation to this theft.

Yes all elected representatives should have known about this.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

You've told me that they knew in 2001, could you give me the info on where the other administrations were informed of the problem?
I know you are saying that the current government is saying it was known about by all administrations but have they been specefic on what advice was given to each admin and what action was decided and why and by whom?
All that information would be needed to evaluate rather than just opionate

Well we can only go what the Tainiste has said so far, i.e. that it was known since 1978, her words not mine.

Earthman wrote:

mis-direction of funds within departments -mal admistration of funds within departments-underpayment of pensions.
All of which arent a crime just mis-management

No No it was not underpayment of pensions, these people received their full pension but the nursing homes took 80% of it back, I don't see how you can deny it was theft, they took the money from the patients and as the Supreme Court said "The charges must be regarded as having being imposed as a result of Considered decisions of repsonible public officials in full concionus of the provisions". So they knew itw as wrong and they took teh money, thats theft imo and I believe it to be fact also.

Earthman wrote:

That undermines what you are positing so far because (a) you are suggesting they could have made it law that pensioners must contribute and (b) that they will now.
With regard to (a) it suggest that they were negligent and bad managers and with (a) and (b) together it suggests that if they were doing their job properly the monies wouldnt have been legally going to the pensioners anyway.

Nope, just because they could have made it legal and will make it legal doesn't change the fact that was illegal in the past and that is the point I am making it was illegal so it was criminal.

Earthman wrote:

You haven't explained either satisfactorally and certainly havent proved it.
I'm of the belief you're stating opinion as fact now...

I'm presenting the facts as they are available and drawing conclusions, I believe it was theft and I believe there is evidence to back that up.

Earthman wrote:

Yes all elected representatives should have known about this.

They certainly should have, and I think they did going on the evidence at hand i.e. the Supreme court ruling and the Taniste's comments

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well we can only go what the Tainiste has said so far, i.e. that it was known since 1978, her words not mine.

Yes and she didnt refer to who knew, what advice was given to whom, what action was advised or taken, what was said at cabinet, who voted for whatever decisions, how often it was on a cabinet agenda or anything like that did she?
She could have been referring to anyone.
Like I said we need all that information before we can turn opinions into a proper evaluation of what happened.

No No it was not underpayment of pensions, these people received their full pension but the nursing homes took 80% of it back, I don't see how you can deny it was theft, they took the money from the patients and as the Supreme Court said "The charges must be regarded as having being imposed as a result of Considered decisions of repsonible public officials in full concionus of the provisions". So they knew itw as wrong and they took teh money, thats theft imo and I believe it to be fact also.

Hang on did the Supreme court say it was theft?
Or did they just direct that the law did not countenance what was done?

As you know they are the final interpretators of the law, AG's can only give opinions.It certainly would be theft if they continued to withdraw the money after the judgement.

Nope, just because they could have made it legal and will make it legal doesn't change the fact that was illegal in the past and that is the point I am making it was illegal so it was criminal.

Again, you are stating an opinion.The practice has stopped,the supreme court ruled that the law should have been applied in a certain way.They do that often.Thats how our law system works.
The law needed clarification on how to apply it, the government didnt do that which was irresponsible probably and certainly neglectfull. You have given no basis for your theft argument other than your opinion.

I'm presenting the facts as they are available and drawing conclusions, I believe it was theft and I believe there is evidence to back that up.

Well show it then, otherwise you are presenting an opinion not fact.Where has the supreme court ruled that the government is guilty of theft?
When you show that I'll accept that they have thieved

They certainly should have, and I think they did going on the evidence at hand i.e. the Supreme court ruling and the Taniste's comments

What all of them, every single one?? Wheres your basis for that.
You are right on the "should have" part but not on the "did"
I would suggest you are presenting more opinion as fact.
One should stick to the facts and tag opinions as exactly that no?

Villain

This discussion is getting far too long winded and time consuming, to summise my opinion:

The Supreme Court said the Department and Health Board were aware of the situation and "the charges must be regarded as having being imposed as a result of Considered decisions of repsonible public officials in full concionus of the provisions"

To me that shows that the governments were aware of the situation and made the decision to take this money, knowing it was unlawful. To me that is theft.

A solictor has began proceedings in Cork on behalf of clients so it will be interesting to see what happens.

You can turn it anyway you like, but the department of Health knowingly took money from patients, and that is illegal.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

You can turn it anyway you like, but the department of Health knowingly took money from patients, and that is illegal.

But but before you were saying it was definitely theft/crime.
But now you're saying the department did it... who were acting on our behalf ergo we're all responsible.

No theft has been proven, all thats been shown is a picture of mal administration and a government that acquiesced rather than have the law tested.
Now that was wrong but not a crime...
( I better be carefull as I'm starting to sound like someone else here )

Our man in Havana

Should we expect ads in the papers from solictors wanting to take on cases from pensioners who wish to claim?

mycroft

Should we expect ads in the papers from solictors wanting to take on cases from pensioners who wish to claim?

Way to not read anything about this. This isn't opening a litany of court cases its the government forced to admit wrong doing and will have to reimburse people for the time they've spent in state care which was deducted while they were in care. Which means the amounts have already been set (their state pension x numbers of weeks in care)

D'Peoples Voice

mycroft wrote:

This isn't opening a litany of court cases

I'm not sure about this! I can see some people claiming for unnnecessary hardship that they had to endure, etc, etc. The solicitors will make more from this than any tribunal.
Of course people won't admit that had they adequately provided for their retirement years through building up a pension fund, they wouldn't have had to go through this hardship.

I'm just glad it came to a head when it did and not in twenty years time, when the number of people in retirement as a percentage of the total population would be a lot higher than it is now. Otherwise, there would have been more money to pay back, and there would be relatively less people working to pay for it. So fair play Mary for stirring the **** now. grant it, you'll be blamed for it by the media, but that's Ireland!

However, what I have not heard is how government are going to refund the money they took off people, less an amount to cover people's nursing home costs for things like electricity, heat ,food, washing, full time carers assistance etc. Clearly it would be inequitable for the government to give back all the money, because they would be discriminating against those outside of nursing homes who would have had to bear the brunt of these charges!

If nothing else, lets hope the Dept of Health and Children don't have many other skeletons under the floorboards! Else we can wave goodbye to any future road or rail infrastructure!

Sleepy

Poker_Peter wrote:

I personally consider it an absolute scandal that the elderly are having to sell their homes to avoid the extortionate cost of being cared for in an old peoples' home.

Why is it scandalous that people were expected to contribute towards their living expenses instead of leaving a nestegg for the kids?

To my mind, if you have the capital (liquid or not) to pay your keep, it is your duty to pay your way. By allowing people free residentail care in their twilight years, all your doing is robbing the tax-payer to enrich the individual's offspring.

The other question I'd like to ask is that of who is going to receive the compensation for these cases? The 'victims' of these actions will, for the most part, be dead. Is this going to turn into yet another ludicrous "Army deafness"-type free for all?

Villain

Sleepy wrote:

Why is it scandalous that people were expected to contribute towards their living expenses instead of leaving a nestegg for the kids?

To my mind, if you have the capital (liquid or not) to pay your keep, it is your duty to pay your way. By allowing people free residentail care in their twilight years, all your doing is robbing the tax-payer to enrich the individual's offspring.

The other question I'd like to ask is that of who is going to receive the compensation for these cases? The 'victims' of these actions will, for the most part, be dead. Is this going to turn into yet another ludicrous "Army deafness"-type free for all?

The issue here sleepy is that the governments of past and present allowed this illegal activity to continue.

Rant/

IMO people should contribute to their care if they are able but if they are unable to the state should provide care and a pension, perhaps not the full pension but they shouldn't be left with no income. Many of the people who live in nursing homes worked all their life and payed taxes to this state, they have contributed to the Celtic Tiger and help this nation a great lot.

/Rant

monument

Sleepy wrote:

Why is it scandalous that people were expected to contribute towards their living expenses instead of leaving a nestegg for the kids?

Because it was done illegally? If a bank illegally obtained money from people, I like to see the them explaining to a judge that "in my mind" it was ok because of such and so.

It’s really gone beyond a point where anyone can say it was legally taken.

monument

monument wrote:

It’s really gone beyond a point where anyone can say it was legally taken.

I dont think anyone could argue with the legality of it especially after the supreme court clarified the matter.
An AG or a layman would not have been able to give a definitive ruling on that, just good or bad advice.

D'Peoples Voice

irish1 wrote:

The issue here sleepy is that the governments of past and present allowed this illegal activity to continue.

Rant/

IMO people should contribute to their care if they are able but if they are unable to the state should provide care and a pension, perhaps not the full pension but they shouldn't be left with no income.
/Rant

To spend on what!
People keep forgetting this, many of them are confined to nursing homes practically 24-7. All their bills are paid for, food, heat,ESB, TV licence, name any bill, it's paid for.(assuming of course they are not using their credit card to buy things off the internet).
All that happens as sleepy says is that the money remains unspent and it passes to the next of kin. Why can't people see that such deduction was the fairest way of all. This argument that people who can't afford it, should not pay is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to a state pension, be it one based on PRSI contributions or not, each nursing home is probably being subsidised by the state already if they are only charging pensioners 80% of the state pension.
Put it this way, ask someone on the scratcher if they had all their bills paid for, could they survive on 20% of their dole money? I think you find, they could no problem!

joseph brand

Earthman believes that keeping this money from the limp, unfortunate, defenceless elderly is not THEFT???


Ted:" . . that money was just resting in my account".


Not theft at all eh???

Villain

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

To spend on what!
People keep forgetting this, many of them are confined to nursing homes practically 24-7. All their bills are paid for, food, heat,ESB, TV licence, name any bill, it's paid for.(assuming of course they are not using their credit card to buy things off the internet).
All that happens as sleepy says is that the money remains unspent and it passes to the next of kin. Why can't people see that such deduction was the fairest way of all. This argument that people who can't afford it, should not pay is nonsense. Everyone is entitled to a state pension, be it one based on PRSI contributions or not, each nursing home is probably being subsidised by the state already if they are only charging pensioners 80% of the state pension.
Put it this way, ask someone on the scratcher if they had all their bills paid for, could they survive on 20% of their dole money? I think you find, they could no problem!

I didn't say they should got the full pesnion, but IMO they shouldn't be left without any money, 20% might be enough but I think it should be considered, I mean are they not entitled to a few treats every so often or to buy relations presents at xmas etc.

I just think that we shouldn't cast aside members of a generation that done a lot for this country, they should be cared for an also receive an income that gives them a good quality of life.

Joesph Brand, I agree it was theft but I don't really want to get into that debate again.

The definition of theft is

the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

IMO people should contribute to their care if they are able but if they are unable to the state should provide care and a pension

As a short (but somewhat related aside)...

Over here, if you choose to go into state-funded (as opposed to private) care, you forfeit your assets to pay for it.

Put simply....if you own a house, and you go into state-funded care....the state takes ownership of your house. You can dodge this by transferring ownership to a spouse ro sibling....but that must be done a minimum of 5 years in advance or it doesn't count (i.e. if I handed ownership of my house over today, and in 4 years time landed in state care....they'd still take it)

I'm not sure what the situation is regarding your pension(s), but I think they are treated likewise to a lesser or greater degree.

The distinction I would see, however, is that there is no question about legality here. Its not based on someone's opinion of how it should work, its based on how the law says it works.

That, to me, appears to be the major issue in the Irish situation. Its not a case of whether or not what was done was reasonable, justified, or even "the right thing". The question is whether or not it was in concordance with the law, and if not, then who knew about it and what they did.

jc

Sleepy

Sounds like a good system Bonkey. I don't disagree that the practice was illegal. I just think that it should have been legal. Too often in this country, we are hamstrung by badly worded legislation, a large amount of which I think is badly worded deliberately and THAT as far as I'm concerned is the scandal.

Look at our tax legislation. Now, look up the people that wrote it and what they're doing for a living now...

Villain

The latest reports show that between 275,000 and 300,000 people were victims of this theft.

This is going to cost the state a lot of money, someone commented on the Last Word that they would take the money and then give it back to the nursing home, if even 50% gave the money back to the Health system we might actually stop A&E's from having over 200 people on trolleys.

tunes81

I've been following thisd the last few days and i've decided to keep a record of it on my site if anybody wants to check it out! its basic enough yet but time will deffo fill it up, if you've got any articals pass them one and i'll put them up check it out here www.finbarspellman.com/nursing-home-refunds.php

its very early stages of the site so its a bit rough yet!!!
thanks for any info

Fin

Villain

Well Miss Harney will receive the Travers report today and it will be published tuesday so keep an eye out for leaks over the weekend.

Villain

Well the Travers report was due to be published today but Bertie has had it delayed now because of apparent legal advice from the Attorney General.

More like he won't be in the Dail again for weeks so he'll have plenty of time to get his bertie speak on the situation right.

It is a disgrace that the publishing of this report has been delayed, but it's typical government spin.

A theft of up to 2 Billion has occured here.

gerrydublin

irish1 wrote:

Well the Travers report was due to be published today but Bertie has had it delayed now because of apparent legal advice from the Attorney General.

More like he won't be in the Dail again for weeks so he'll have plenty of time to get his bertie speak on the situation right.

It is a disgrace that the publishing of this report has been delayed, but it's typical government spin.

A theft of up to 2 Billion has occured here.

the government are delayin it for only 1 day, and can you blame them. It's already goin to cost us millions if not billions,
Publishing it, could open the government up to litigation from people mentioned in the report.

This way of goin thru the Dail committee means they can't be sued,
because of dail privledge
this is the best way to get the facts out there.
the alternative would have been for the government to release a shortened version that blamed no-one!

It would appear from the news reports that I heard at one, that the report puts a lot of the blame at the door of Department officials.
There appears to be no paper trail indicating that Micháel Martin knew of this.
It was discussed at a meeting which he turned up late for but his advisors attended the entire meeting-he has claimed that he missed the part where it was discussed.

I find it difficult to believe that a ministers advisors could attend an entire meeting and not discuss something as important as this with their boss...
Would the meeting not have been minuted and would the Minister not receive a copy of them even? Strange.

sceptre

Earthman wrote:

It was discussed at a meeting which he turned up late for but his advisors attended the entire meeting-he has claimed that he missed the part where it was discussed.

Nice. Only slightly more likely than "I was in the toilet, boy". The meetings are obviously minuted (the civil service like writing things) and at least the conclusions to any discussions and the recommendations from same are included. Not much good if the dog eats them though.

I may sound like I'm being a little overly sarcastic about this (though I'm doing it lightly to be honest) but it does sound rather too convenient.

Sherlock

"Put simply....if you own a house, and you go into state-funded care....the state takes ownership of your house. You can dodge this by transferring ownership to a spouse ro sibling....but that must be done a minimum of 5 years in advance or it doesn't count (i.e. if I handed ownership of my house over today, and in 4 years time landed in state care....they'd still take it)"

Not true, no government can take over anyones house. All that can happen is that they will take into account your house when assessing your means in respect of applying for a nursing home subvention. Personally I hope the goverment invoke the 6 year statute of limitations and only repay the living residents of nursing homes. How on earth could they start refunding surving relations?..whos to say how the resident would have distributed money taken ?.
Could have just spent it, cut out immediate family and given it to a favourite grandchild whatever.
This could bankrupt the country on top of all the other compensation claims such as the re-dress board (another windfall for lawyers). Are those who are anxious to see the money paid out willing to pay more tax to fund it or see a reduction in services, lets face it its got to be one or the other.

gerrydublin

how can we say anyone has been blamed,

the guy who the media say has been blamed,
has been moved to ANOTHER senior position in another state guaranteed company.

so , If I mess up in my private sector job, then my employer arranges for one elsewhere, where I get an even greater salary than before! is that right?

Scapegoat, my b*ll*cks! that's a reward for taking the flak off the Michael Martin in my opinion. Me thinks the government have been watching too much Yes Prime Minister!

Our man in Havana

Has anyone started legal proceedings against the state to recover the money?

Not that I know of.
I think anyone leaning in that direction is waiting untill the government announce their plans for the refund-how much and how far back its going to be back dated etc.
It wouldnt make much sense initiating proceedings without knowing that.

D'Peoples Voice

Earthman wrote:

Not that I know of.
I think anyone leaning in that direction is waiting untill the government announce their plans for the refund-how much and how far back its going to be back dated etc.
It wouldnt make much sense initiating proceedings without knowing that.

On a somewhat vaguely related note, does anyone know where I could get details of the policies of the Dept of Justice with respect to the payment of fines.
I remember something along the lines of a Fine Gael TD requesting that the government get the Dept of Social Welfare or a person's employer to deduct money from people's incomes to pay for any outstanding fines.
Allegedly the Dept of Justice was spending nearly so much on collecting fines that it was almost a loss making exercise.
I didn't hear the debate correctly, but it went something like the deputy said that the Dept of Social Welfare do it themselves for maintenance payments so why couldn't the Dept of Justice do it for fines. Then there was some comment by the Justice minister like it was unconstitutional to do so, but he never said why the Dept of Social Welfare could do it.
Does anyone else hear this debate late last year?
If so, could they elaborate on the details?