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
Comments
-
If you read something other than the sun which is a total rag, you'd have read that his campaign for the senate was in order to further his role within the disbility sector and to represent people with disabilities and particulary those his charity worked with.
It was not a personal campaign,but very publically campaigned as head of Jack & Jill and it was to progress his work with Jack & Jill, hence in my eyes there would be no issue using jack and jill facilities or services as a successful end result would have had major benifits for Jack & Jill.
Remember this is a guy who could very easily earn 300k+ in the private sector, but takes 88k before tax to operate this fairly large not for profit organisation.
Sure why didn't he earn his €300k then and give €200k of it to the charity? Come on, that's a shaggy dog story. And by the way, the term 'not for profit' has no definition in Irish company law, it is meaningless.ohnonotgmail wrote: »who made the decision that he could use charity funds to run for the Seanad?
He did, or possibly the Board members, but either way, it is a bad move to be made AFTER recieving donations. If you're going to collect money to further a political campaign, you need to be tell people when you're collecting the money. And you need to register with SIPO.Why do they "need to be paid accordingly" why can't the fact that the have chosen to work for a charity be reflected in their salary? If you want to make big bucks stay in the private sector, if you want to do something charitable work for a charity at reduced rates (not nothing but less). If you've no interest in the latter grand don't work for a charity. It's not right that so many volunteer for charities for the money they raise to go towards management salaries.
Why do you expect a nurse who works with addicts in the Simon Community hostels to be paid less that a nurse who works in a hospital? Why do you expect a website editor who works for Concern to earn less than a website editor who works for a travel agency?
Are you determined to get the worst employees working in charities.0 -
Why do you expect a nurse who works with addicts in the Simon Community hostels to be paid less that a nurse who works in a hospital? Why do you expect a website editor who works for Concern to earn less than a website editor who works for a travel
Are you determined to get the worst employees working in charities.[/quote]
I was referring to CEO or equivalent per the comment I responded to. I just don't buy that you'd get the worst CEO maybe you'd get decent ones with an altruistic motive. I'm sure there are lots of people out there up to the role.
As regards non-CEOs they should be paid the average wage for the role provided they are clearly needed e.g. nurses. My main issue with staffing is the sheer numbers, there are quite simply too many charities doing the same thing consolidate them and make the unnecessary admin staff redundant. V good article in the Irish Times today about it, in one charity mentioned the entire HSE grant was eaten up by wages. If they were all nurses helping drug addicts, sick children etc. Id have no issue with it but how much is going on admin staff & how much of what they do is actually necessary? Leaving aside hiring relatives, expenses etc, who policies overheads & whether the maximum amount is being applied towards the purposes of the charity.0 -
I was referring to CEO or equivalent per the comment I responded to. I just don't buy that you'd get the worst CEO maybe you'd get decent ones with an altruistic motive. I'm sure there are lots of people out there up to the role.
As regards non-CEOs they should be paid the average wage for the role provided they are clearly needed e.g. nurses. My main issue with staffing is the sheer numbers, there are quite simply too many charities doing the same thing consolidate them and make the unnecessary admin staff redundant. V good article in the Irish Times today about it, in one charity mentioned the entire HSE grant was eaten up by wages. If they were all nurses helping drug addicts, sick children etc. Id have no issue with it but how much is going on admin staff & how much of what they do is actually necessary? Leaving aside hiring relatives, expenses etc, who policies overheads & whether the maximum amount is being applied towards the purposes of the charity.
Right, so the CEO should be paid less than the senior nurse that works on the ground for the organisation? And should be paid less than the accountant who runs the charity's accounts? And should be paid less than the plumber who fixes the taps in the charity's houses?
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
And yes, some of that money goes on admin staff. Someone has to pay the front line staff. Someone has to pay the invoice for the taps that the plumber uses to repair the house. Someone has to order the latex gloves for the nurse to use. Someone has to put the content on the organisation's website so we can all read their annual report.
Admin staff are not evil parasites - they're just admin staff, who have different jobs.
That was a dreadful article in the Irish Times today from Patsy McGarry, full of vague, populist innuendo and absent in any facts or real analysis.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-charity-sector-is-being-drained-by-duplication-1.2717375
He concludes that because there are 3 or 4 overseas development charities, therefore there is duplication. Well, we have 3 or 4 daily newspapers in Ireland - does that mean Patsy is duplicated by his peers in the Indo and the Examiner? He adds up the bill for the three or four homeless charities and concludes that it is too high, without looking at all at the size of our homeless problem. Just a tad of a one-sided analysis, no?
"in one charity mentioned the entire HSE grant was eaten up by wages."
Of course the grant was 'eaten up' by wages. That's what the grant was for - to employ people to provide a service. What the hell else would the grant be 'eaten up' by?0 -
Another shower :
Irish Society for Autism Charity removed from autism units over care failures
http://bit.ly/29AoMBH
The inspectors found “deficiencies” in the administration of anti-psychotic, sedative and pain-relief medication, including that they had no guidance on when or how often they should be given, or their possible side-effects
http://bit.ly/29u9754
“following notification of significant incidents of concern leading to injuries to residents”.0 -
If you read something other than the sun which is a total rag, you'd have read that his campaign for the senate was in order to further his role within the disbility sector and to represent people with disabilities and particulary those his charity worked with.
It was not a personal campaign,but very publically campaigned as head of Jack & Jill and it was to progress his work with Jack & Jill, hence in my eyes there would be no issue using jack and jill facilities or services as a successful end result would have had major benifits for Jack & Jill.
Remember this is a guy who could very easily earn 300k+ in the private sector, but takes 88k before tax to operate this fairly large not for profit organisation.
Console guy took hundred's of thousands in untaxed money and expenditure for his own greed.
No sorry. The Seanad Seat was not a Jack and Jill seat. It was a Jonathan Irwin seat. If the purpose was to further the disability sectors aims then why didn't he row in and help out John Dolan and Lorraine Dempsey who were nominated by 10 nominating bodies; Center for Independent Living (CIL), Central Remedial Clinic (CRC), Co-operative Housing Ireland, Deafhear, Disability Federation of Ireland (DFI), Enable Ireland, Inclusion Ireland, Irish Foster Care Association (IFCA), Irish Wheelchair Association (IWA) and MS Ireland.
I'm really not buying the spin that his Seanad campaign was a purely selfless act at all. If it really was he would have comited to support the nominating bodies candidates instead of standing himself.
It simply was indefensible to spend charitys funds on a personal Seanad campaign.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
Another shower :
This makes me so bloody angry.
I think this only the tip of the iceberg regarding these charities.
There is a certain autism charity (which had a celebrity patronage) who makes an awful lot of noise about doing very little. I will not donate to them for this reason. Merchandise and a logo does nothing for the families.0 -
This whole story makes me so f*ckin angry. I was reading an article from the Independant today (link: http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/paul-kellys-plush-home-among-list-of-assets-disclosed-in-court/ar-BBue7lV?li=BBr5MK2&ocid=mailsignoutmd) and this bit in particular really annoyed meIt comes as the future of Console is set to be decided later this week when the charity's board meets. The board is expected to have no option but to agree that an application for its liquidation be made on the grounds it is insolvent.
It will mean the transfer of bereavement counselling services and its helpline to other charities - including Pieta House, the Samaritans and Aware.
The HSE is understood to have agreed contingency plans to offer around 300 people undergoing counselling with Console the option to transfer to other services if the liquidation goes through.
Those poor 300 people who are currently availing of Consoles services are already going through enough without having this crap added to the mix. Hopefully they will be able to successfully transfer to other services. If the worst comes to the worst and any of them end up taking their lives, then the blame should be laid solely at the feet on Kelly and his family and they should be charged with (at the very least) manslaughter.0 -
Console offers/offered a counselling service to families who experienced a bereavement through suicide. Its helpline is for people who may be having suicidal thoughts or feelings. That's not to say that family members availing of their counselling service might also experience suicidal thoughts in the wake of a family tragedy.This whole story makes me so f*ckin angry. I was reading an article from the Independant today (link: http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/paul-kellys-plush-home-among-list-of-assets-disclosed-in-court/ar-BBue7lV?li=BBr5MK2&ocid=mailsignoutmd) and this bit in particular really annoyed me
Those poor 300 people who are currently availing of Consoles services are already going through enough without having this crap added to the mix. Hopefully they will be able to successfully transfer to other services. If the worst comes to the worst and any of them end up taking their lives, then the blame should be laid solely at the feet on Kelly and his family and they should be charged with (at the very least) manslaughter.0 -
Another shower :Keane2baMused wrote: »This makes me so bloody angry.
In fairness, that's a very different issue to Console. It is not an issue of corruption or fraud. It is an issue of poor quality service. That is in itself a very serious issue, but it is not corruption. It looks to me like a small representative charity tried to become a service provider, and failed. It's great to have HIQA out there, or these failures would never come to light or be addressed. But it is nothing like the Console scenario.0 -
Anyone else find their donations to charity are drying up? I have not donated a penny to any charity since this latest scandal broke.
I need to do some homework and find one that I think is all above board and has minimal admin costs. But that is no mean feat.0 -
Advertisement
-
Winterlong wrote: »Anyone else find their donations to charity are drying up? I have not donated a penny to any charity since this latest scandal broke.
I need to do some homework and find one that I think is all above board and has minimal admin costs. But that is no mean feat.
I never give to charity anyway. Wages too small and cost of living too high.0 -
colin produces wrote: »I never give to charity anyway. Wages too small and cost of living too high.
Your right not to give them money.
Only in the charity sector do you have rich people asking poor people to give them money.0 -
I'm tired of people saying that charities can only attract the best staff with high salaries.
I work in the arts myself and most people in the sector with transferable skills (eg accounting, marketing, hr ) would earn much more in other areas like financial services.
But you know what? We love what we do and we believe that we're contributing to a better world by doing it. We know that our wages are low because the most money possible is going to make the arts better.
How is it not the same for people working for charities? It's an even more useful thing they're doing for the world.
If I worked for a charity instead of in the arts I would earn more for the same job I'm doing now. That's not right.0 -
I always donate whatever I can afford to the charity I make use of. They've helped me so much. I could never afford what I get from them if they weren't a charity, so whenever I'm there they get whatever's in my pockets.Winterlong wrote: »Anyone else find their donations to charity are drying up? I have not donated a penny to any charity since this latest scandal broke.0 -
The more I think about it, seems the Government has decided to outsource vital services and at the same time open up opportunities for their mates to make a mint.
For that reason alone, Charities providing vital services will always be outsourced.
Scam of the fekkin century. And all it took was for good people to say nothing... HSE that is. But they were probably terrified to say anything, until now. Why did it take so long?
So many questions, so many scandals, so little governance, so much outsourcing.
Someone is making money out of this, and I hope audits are happening everywhere as we speak, and I hope anyone in charge of a Charity is quaking in their boots, that they might be next for a Paul Kelly like Exposee.
Rotten country in some ways. OK in others, when you are wealthy and financially secure.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »The more I think about it, seems the Government has decided to outsource vital services and at the same time open up opportunities for their mates to make a mint.
For that reason alone, Charities providing vital services will always be outsourced.
Scam of the fekkin century. And all it took was for good people to say nothing... HSE that is. But they were probably terrified to say anything, until now. Why did it take so long?
So many questions, so many scandals, so little governance, so much outsourcing.
Someone is making money out of this, and I hope audits are happening everywhere as we speak, and I hope anyone in charge of a Charity is quaking in their boots, that they might be next for a Paul Kelly like Exposee.
Rotten country in some ways. OK in others, when you are wealthy and financially secure.
Little bit harsh there, could I suggest.
The people to blame in these situations are the perps of the wrongdoing.
While the HSE are not squeaky clean on this,ultimately the fault is with the greedy person or persons who do the deed.
You really blame 'the country' for the actions of what proportionately is a few corrupt people.0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Little bit harsh there, could I suggest.
The people to blame in these situations are the perps of the wrongdoing.
While the HSE are not squeaky clean on this,ultimately the fault is with the greedy person or persons who do the deed.
You really blame 'the country' for the actions of what proportionately is a few corrupt people.
We need to grow cojones here really. I accept that not everyone is corrupt, but those that are affect everyone. All it takes is for good people to say nothing.
Unfortunately the governance WRT charities is abysmal. But I am most concerned with those charities that have Government Funding. That really is a total fekkin scandal. Think about it. Most of it is funded by our taxes, and then more by voluntary contributions, and then?
Just look at John Of Gods, Rehab and so many more and the off balance sheet top ups. They thought it would never be noticed. Scandal city.
Other charities that depend on voluntary support without Government funding are what they say on the tin....Voluntary. And many of them could be dodgy too, but that is the donor's problem.
Not happy to support any Charity that has Government funding now. Because it would be my own fault for supporting the leakage to CEOs and so on.
Very sad, but it's all over for me now.
And if more of us stopped donations, the Government would have to supply it without all the trappings of Boards, CEOs and ancillary expenses that take away from the ethos of the Charity concerned.0 -
I have to agree with this to a certain extent even though there are irregularities and mismanagement in other organisations but the revelations that have come out about Paul Kelly put him on another level.Brendan Bendar wrote: »Little bit harsh there, could I suggest.
The people to blame in these situations are the perps of the wrongdoing.
While the HSE are not squeaky clean on this,ultimately the fault is with the greedy person or persons who do the deed.
You really blame 'the country' for the actions of what proportionately is a few corrupt people.
It has been reported in the last few days that a parliamentary assistant raised the issue with James Reilly in 2011 of Paul Kelly's masquerade as a doctor. Reilly said he didn't follow up on the issue as it wasn't put in writing but it seems at some stage Kelly was called to a meeting with the HSE to explain his background. He claimed it was a student prank.
The man/woman on the Clapham omnibus knows that goes beyond the reasonsble level of what's considered a prank. So why did the HSE buy it?
It would be interesting to view the minutes of that meeting if there were any but con artists who engage in deceptive behaviour are masters in the extreme of spin and manipulation and can fool even the most shrewd of people.
They often derive great pleasure in deceiving people not just financially but from the pain and suffering of others due to their actions who more often than not are vulnerable or in a vulnerable situation.
An organisation like Console is a perfect cover to hide their motives and practise their deceptive behaviour.The more they get away with their actions the more daring they become but eventually become complacent and ultimately trip themselves up.
The incident with the daughter's horse reported last weekend and two individuals posing as Guards in its removal suggest the family still hasn't faced up to the gravity of their actions.0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Little bit harsh there, could I suggest.
The people to blame in these situations are the perps of the wrongdoing.
While the HSE are not squeaky clean on this,ultimately the fault is with the greedy person or persons who do the deed.
You really blame 'the country' for the actions of what proportionately is a few corrupt people.
In fairness Charities seem to be able to operate freely (with Government support) without any governance it seems.
I am quite within my rights to blame "The Country", because that is actually my and your taxes supporting dodgy charities. Feck that. I am sure people are happy to pay taxes to support those in need, but not to pay inordinate sums, plus off balance sheet top ups to the managers!
All very fine to blame the perpetrators. But what happens to them really?
They check in to a Psychiatric Hospital so their dodgy activities MAY be seen to be the result of some illness. No questions allowed there!
As I said, it is a money pit for the connected. Few questions asked at all really.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »In fairness Charities seem to be able to operate freely (with Government support) without any governance it seems.
I am quite within my rights to blame "The Country", because that is actually my and your taxes supporting dodgy charities. Feck that. I am sure people are happy to pay taxes to support those in need, but not to pay inordinate sums, plus off balance sheet top ups to the managers!
All very fine to blame the perpetrators. But what happens to them really?
They check in to a Psychiatric Hospital so their dodgy activities MAY be seen to be the result of some illness. No questions allowed there!
As I said, it is a money pit for the connected. Few questions asked at all really.
By and large I agree with most of what you are writing, however the emboldened sentence is giving me trouble
"Money pit for the connected."
Connected to whom, can I ask.
Like, who was Paul Kelly for instance, "connected" to?
In your opinion, obviously you can't give chapter and verse on everyone?0 -
Advertisement
-
Brendan Bendar wrote: »By and large I agree with most of what you are writing, however the emboldened sentence is giving me trouble
"Money pit for the connected."
Connected to whom, can I ask.
Like, who was Paul Kelly for instance, "connected" to?
In your opinion, obviously you can't give chapter and verse on everyone?
Why are the vital services outsourced with little governance up to now?
I am sure if you look up Charity CEOs you will find many former politicians in charge.
Paul Kelly was a very clever man up to now. Or was he? Who looked for the signs? No one for years it seems.
Charities have lost their gloss. CEO not getting a salary at all? Well just look at Adi Roche and Brother Kevin Capuchin.
I have no confidence in the rest of them TBH. Too little oversight and too much opportunity for fraud.
Unfortunately, because of the few, the majority are affected.
It is now up to those who are OK to push for proper governance, do you agree?0 -
2RockMountain wrote: »In fairness, that's a very different issue to Console. It is not an issue of corruption or fraud. It is an issue of poor quality service. That is in itself a very serious issue, but it is not corruption. It looks to me like a small representative charity tried to become a service provider, and failed. It's great to have HIQA out there, or these failures would never come to light or be addressed. But it is nothing like the Console scenario.
bit like comparing Ian Huntley to Jimmy Saville there, wow they're different
(those who screwed over ) Console = scumbag filth
(those who endangered clients in the circus' run by ) Irish Society for Autism = scumbag filth0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »Why are the vital services outsourced with little governance up to now?
I am sure if you look up Charity CEOs you will find many former politicians in charge. Red Cross is one example.
Paul Kelly was a very clever man up to now. Or was he? Who looked for the signs? No one for years it seems.
Charities have lost their gloss. CEO not getting a salary at all? Well just look at Adi Roche and Brother Kevin Capuchin.
I have no confidence in the rest of them TBH. Too little oversight and too much opportunity for fraud.
Unfortunately, because of the few, the majority are affected.
It is now up to those who are OK to push for proper governance, do you agree?
With respect, you don't answer the question who was he connected to?
"Paul Kelly was a very clever man up to now"
Sorry for laughing but posing as an Airline Pilot and a Medical Doctor without any qualifications in those fields duddnt seem clever to me.
I see where you are coming from, but corruption in the Charity sector comes from the perpretators,the chancers, the wide boys.
Yes of course it should have been better watched, but in fairness, that 'industry' seems to have thrown up more than its share of bad eggs.
There have been threads on Charities on here way back and those criticising were ridiculed .0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Little bit harsh there, could I suggest.
The people to blame in these situations are the perps of the wrongdoing.
While the HSE are not squeaky clean on this,ultimately the fault is with the greedy person or persons who do the deed.
You really blame 'the country' for the actions of what proportionately is a few corrupt people.
Yes
The state should be running a lot if not most of the services that are run by charity in this country.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »With respect, you don't answer the question who was he connected to?
"Paul Kelly was a very clever man up to now"
Sorry for laughing but posing as an Airline Pilot and a Medical Doctor without any qualifications in those fields duddnt seem clever to me.
I see where you are coming from, but corruption in the Charity sector comes from the perpretators,the chancers, the wide boys.
Yes of course it should have been better watched, but in fairness, that 'industry' seems to have thrown up more than its share of bad eggs.
There have been threads on Charities on here way back and those criticising were ridiculed .
He was a clever man....obviously, he rifled a million or so from our money over many years before anyone noticed or cared.
If that is not clever, well what is?
So next... the governance. Terrible and useless, not fit for purpose which allows shysters like Kelly proliferate.
Government and Ministers turned a blind eye for donkey's years obviously. So it is a political issue when they are giving OUR money to entities that can operate as they wish.
Now why would the Government not have proper Governance/Audits/Checks in place? Why has it taken until the Kelly debacle for the MOJ to commence the Statutory Instrument regarding investigation?
Until now. They were pushed.0 -
Spanish Eyes, many staff within some of the organisations you mentioned would be aware of certain practices and would be disillusioned. Rehab would be an example regarding the use of subsidies and grants within the organisation.Spanish Eyes wrote: »He was a clever man....obviously, he rifled a million or so from our money over many years before anyone noticed or cared.
If that is not clever, well what is?
So next... the governance. Terrible and useless, not fit for purpose which allows shysters like Kelly proliferate.
Government and Ministers turned a blind eye for donkey's years obviously. So it is a political issue when they are giving OUR money to entities that can operate as they wish.
Now why would the Government not have proper Governance/Audits/Checks in place? Why has it taken until the Kelly debacle for the MOJ to commence the Statutory Instrument regarding investigation?
Until now. They were pushed.
I mentioned way back in the thread the case of Noel Wardick if people have forgotten about it or not familiar with it, and the personal and professional toll it took on him as an example of someone trying to expose irregularites in a charitable organisation.
I understand he now works in a consultancy capacity. Regardless of any whistleblower protections people can effectively make themselves unemployable where they are acting in the interests of the common good while genuinely trying to work towards assisting vulnerable people.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »He was a clever man....obviously, he rifled a million or so from our money over many years before anyone noticed or cared.
If that is not clever, well what is?
So next... the governance. Terrible and useless, not fit for purpose which allows shysters like Kelly proliferate.
Government and Ministers turned a blind eye for donkey's years obviously. So it is a political issue when they are giving OUR money to entities that can operate as they wish.
Now why would the Government not have proper Governance/Audits/Checks in place? Why has it taken until the Kelly debacle for the MOJ to commence the Statutory Instrument regarding investigation?
Until now. They were pushed.
Forgive me but I have to disagree about the cleverness, but let's not beat that to death.
I totally agree with you that more governance audits and checks are needed and would back up increased vigilance and audit of funds given to these charities.
In my honest opinion, some of these people who alledgedly misused funds should do time,if convicted.
That would do a lot to straighten that 'industry' out.0 -
Spanish Eyes, many staff within some of the organisations you mentioned would be aware of certain practices and would be disillusioned. Rehab would be an example regarding the use of subsidies and grants within the organisation.
I mentioned way back in the thread the case of Noel Wardick if people have forgotten about it or not familiar with it, and the personal and professional toll it took on him as an example of someone trying to expose irregularites in a charitable organisation.
I understand he now works in a consultancy capacity. Regardless of any whistleblower protections people can effectively make themselves unemployable where they are acting in the interests of the common good while genuinely trying to work towards assisting vulnerable people.
I know about Mr. Wardick. Whistleblowers are not protected just look at Garda Mc Cabe.
So to me the whole charity sector stinks to high heaven.
Someone in high places is protecting all this.
Imagine that it took until Paul Kelly walked away with a million euro of our money for Frances Fitzgerald to agree to commence the statutory instrument for the Charity Regulator.... that would give him powers to investigate.
No wonder we are so sceptical. It is an unaccountable money pit.
Sickened.
My little niece is disabled and uses CRC. Great staff, great work they do, but she was denied a special wheelchair for a long while due to "funding" issues. Meanwhile the head honchos were living high on the hog.
Better not get too angry. But honestly0 -
Brendan Bendar wrote: »In my honest opinion, some of these people who alledgedly misused funds should do time,if convicted.
If you ever go for election to public office I will vote for ya.
I would love to see the law and the taxman hit these fookers for all they are worth. I will not hold my breath though.
Kelly's wife and son will blame him for everything. He will blame his mental health.
The whole things will get lost in paperwork and a dozen or so reports will pour over the detail without actually recommending any action for fear of offending anyone.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brendan Bendar wrote: »Forgive me but I have to disagree about the cleverness, but let's not beat that to death.
I totally agree with you that more governance audits and checks are needed and would back up increased vigilance and audit of funds given to these charities.
In my honest opinion, some of these people who alledgedly misused funds should do time,if convicted.
That would do a lot to straighten that 'industry' out.
Without wishing to beat the issue to death either, Kelly was cute, in that he SAW there was no governance and used that freedom from scrutiny, as we have seen.
As for putting the perpetrators behind bars.... I have yet to see Sean Fitzpatrick's trial scheduled yet. The judge said it was not to happen any time soon because of the Adverse Publicity of the other Anglo accused's trial. That was months ago, but nothing yet about SFitz. When will it be?
I could go on, but you get the drift here I am sure.
Seems it is only a crime in this country if you do not wear a white collar.0
Advertisement