nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

Do you know why there's nothing? Because they're unvouched.

And it's been pointed out to you by numerous people, it's not going to change when another president comes in, nor is it the presidents problem. You're trying to throw anything at Higgins and hoping it sticks.

batgoat

blanch152 wrote: »

You have given us a fine example of fake news there. Casey's comments on the intruder were quite bizarre but he didn't say the intruder was made up. What he said was

"Ah, you know, I think you go seven years without an intruder and then suddenly the week before the election kicks off you get an intruder, you know?

"The coincidence of the timing is difficult to explain, I find the timing rather amusing, only weeks away from the election," Mr Casey said.

"It wouldn't surprise me if it was a PR stunt, I believe the woman was not arrested and was allowed to leave without being questioned.""

Nowhere in that does he say the intruder was made up. He does suggest it was a strange coincidence and that it wouldn't surprise him if it was a PR stunt. I think he was wrong and his comments are strange, but it is a clear example of fake news to suggest that he was "inferring the Aras intruder was made up".

Erm the implication is pretty clear...

James Brown

AGC wrote: »

The office of the president have said how it was used, this figure has been in place since 98 and the allowance for 80 odd years

You would think Higgins was the first ever to hold the office and chancers from the Dragon's Den were going to be top selfless diplomats

If Gallagher or Casey won there'd be a lot of Presidential appearances at numerous board meetings with nods for career moves after the post IMO.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody knows what the 317k is for because it is unaudited.

For example, here is the travel expenses for the Taoiseach and the Minister for State in his Department, all vouched, all explained:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/Foreign_Travel_Report_August_2018.html

Here you have the invoices paid in excess of 20k:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/2nd_Qtr_2018_invoices_paid_in_excess_of_20k.pdf

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

The office of the president have said how it was used, this figure has been in place since 98 and the allowance for 80 odd years

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody knows what the 317k is for because it is unaudited.

For example, here is the travel expenses for the Taoiseach and the Minister for State in his Department, all vouched, all explained:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/Foreign_Travel_Report_August_2018.html

Here you have the invoices paid in excess of 20k:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/2nd_Qtr_2018_invoices_paid_in_excess_of_20k.pdf

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

In all that digging, have you come across who paid for the catering of the 20,000 guests entertained by the President during the year - these guests would have included the survivors of the Magdalene Laundries?

blanch152

AGC wrote: »

Do you just like not believing the truth and ignoring facts?

The 317 is not a salary top up, a salary the President has already given back a percentage of.

Nobody knows what the 317k is for because it is unaudited.

For example, here is the travel expenses for the Taoiseach and the Minister for State in his Department, all vouched, all explained:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/Foreign_Travel_Report_August_2018.html

Here you have the invoices paid in excess of 20k:

https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2018/2nd_Qtr_2018_invoices_paid_in_excess_of_20k.pdf

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

All that does is make it even more curious as to why he took the 317k unvouched allowance.

Do you just like not believing the truth and ignoring facts?

The 317 is not a salary top up, a salary the President has already given back a percentage of.

James Brown

Honestly, with the lack of power the office holds it's a wonder all the Tory boys and cheesy individuals are out to smear Higgins. Every genuine gripe is with the office. And some of these folk probably vote Fianna Gael, plenty of material there.
We don't need the likes of PR merchant Gallagher or stirring bonkers view on facts Casey.

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

All that does is make it even more curious as to why he took the 317k unvouched allowance.

Jesus.

Loafing Oaf

If I was president, a proper one with real powers, the first thing I would do would be ban the term 'fake news' from any Internet discussion. Along with 'snowflake'.

blanch152

Hurrache wrote: »

You never got around to answering my post yesterday after you implied it was good that Kenny refused a pay rise and didn't acknowledge the fact Higgins requested just short of a 25% pay cut?

All that does is make it even more curious as to why he took the 317k unvouched allowance.

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

You have given us a fine example of fake news there. Casey's comments on the intruder were quite bizarre but he didn't say the intruder was made up. What he said was

"Ah, you know, I think you go seven years without an intruder and then suddenly the week before the election kicks off you get an intruder, you know?

"The coincidence of the timing is difficult to explain, I find the timing rather amusing, only weeks away from the election," Mr Casey said.

"It wouldn't surprise me if it was a PR stunt, I believe the woman was not arrested and was allowed to leave without being questioned.""

Nowhere in that does he say the intruder was made up. He does suggest it was a strange coincidence and that it wouldn't surprise him if it was a PR stunt. I think he was wrong and his comments are strange, but it is a clear example of fake news to suggest that he was "inferring the Aras intruder was made up".

C'mon, he said the incident was made up, it wasn't a real intruder.

You never got around to answering my post yesterday after you implied it was good that Kenny refused a pay rise and didn't acknowledge the fact Higgins requested just short of a 25% pay cut?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Anything but. You're confusing dignity with being pompous. Get Gallagher in or fake news merchant Casey, (inferring the Aras intruder was made up) and you'll see an air of 'greasy snake oil salesman'.

The only valid issues anyone has against Higgins are really against the office. How anyone would genuinely prefer Gallagher and friends is worrying.

You have given us a fine example of fake news there. Casey's comments on the intruder were quite bizarre but he didn't say the intruder was made up. What he said was

"Ah, you know, I think you go seven years without an intruder and then suddenly the week before the election kicks off you get an intruder, you know?

"The coincidence of the timing is difficult to explain, I find the timing rather amusing, only weeks away from the election," Mr Casey said.

"It wouldn't surprise me if it was a PR stunt, I believe the woman was not arrested and was allowed to leave without being questioned.""

Nowhere in that does he say the intruder was made up. He does suggest it was a strange coincidence and that it wouldn't surprise him if it was a PR stunt. I think he was wrong and his comments are strange, but it is a clear example of fake news to suggest that he was "inferring the Aras intruder was made up".

James Brown

Henryhill2 wrote: »

Micheal d does give off an air of to the ' manor born'

Anything but. You're confusing dignity with being pompous. Get Gallagher in or fake news merchant Casey, (inferring the Aras intruder was made up) and you'll see an air of 'greasy snake oil salesman'.

The only valid issues anyone has against Higgins are really against the office. How anyone would genuinely prefer Gallagher and friends is worrying.

Rhineshark

realdanbreen wrote: »

You think the president has to make these decisions all on his owneo! He would have the advice of probably 20 people -then he could go back to bed and write a book on socialism!

I dunno if you are aware but all political decision-makers have advisers. This is not a state of affairs unique to Michael D Higgins.

What's your problem anyway? You only seem to have comment regarding the iniquities of Higgins, which is a bit unfortunate as you've not produced anything actually iniquitous yet.

Hotblack Desiato

realdanbreen wrote: »

You think the president has to make these decisions all on his owneo! He would have the advice of probably 20 people

He has the advice of the Council of State, but it's his decision alone.

then he could go back to bed and write a book on socialism!

Childish comment.

mrbrianj

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a complete cop-out.

Didn't Enda Kenny refuse pay increases that the Oireachtas had voted for him?

Michael D. is the ultimate snout in the trough with that nice allowance.

Is it yourself, Sean?

realdanbreen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Except when there is, and when it happens it's more important than any decision a Taoiseach is allowed to make.

You think the president has to make these decisions all on his owneo! He would have the advice of probably 20 people -then he could go back to bed and write a book on socialism!

realdanbreen

blanch152 wrote: »

When you have a house like his, private security, your meals looked after, and a chauffeur, it is difficult enough to spend you 371k unvouched expenses. Only so many expensive shirts you can buy.

As the great Pairic Flynn said on the Late Late ' you should try it some time, it ain't easy'

Rhineshark

Apparently Gallagher refuses to take part in the debate if Higgins isn't there. Duffy was, unsurprisingly, the voice of support.

Hotblack Desiato

Get Real wrote: »

There's no major decision making.

Except when there is, and when it happens it's more important than any decision a Taoiseach is allowed to make.

Capt'n Midnight

jm08 wrote: »

Just heard on The Tonight Show that the 317K was spent entertaining 20,000 visitors (members of the public) to the Aras - which works out at €6 per person.

Ferrero Rocher aren't cheap you know.

[Deleted User]

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Still won't stop some going on as if MDH had embezzled the lot :rolleyes:

Why not just publish the accounts and its scandal over.

It sounds like the usual rubbish accounting rather than a "big personalised scandal".

For Forks Sake

jm08 wrote: »

Just heard on The Tonight Show that the 317K was spent entertaining 20,000 visitors (members of the public) to the Aras - which works out at €6 per person.

Still won't stop some going on as if MDH had embezzled the lot :rolleyes:

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I can tell you this much - if it came out that Leo or Eoghan had a 317k unvouched expenses account that wasn't subject to audit, we would never hear the end of it on here.

Just heard on The Tonight Show that the 317K was spent entertaining 20,000 visitors (members of the public) to the Aras - which works out at €6 per person.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So that makes it right, does it?

Certainly doesn't but rather than only blame yet another of your boogeymen how about we look at who is to blame for this ramping up from 5000 in 1938 to what it is now?
What parties in government have ignored this until the year they apparently have no dog in the race?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail claiming no knowledge of how big the allowance had got since it was introduced in 1938 on the Late Debate.

Yes, that is 1938. And we only hear about it now when apparently FF and FG have no dog in the fight.

So that makes it right, does it?

FrancieBrady

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail claiming no knowledge of how big the allowance had got since it was introduced in 1938 on the Late Debate.

Yes, that is 1938. And we only hear about it now when apparently FF and FG have no dog in the fight.

Hurrache

Higgins asked for an almost 25% reduction in salary upon taking office.

Your comments are off the wall as to the reality of the situation.

You won't really be happy unless he went on the dole.

blanch152

Hurrache wrote: »

Well technically it does. Your issue is with the Oireachtas.

That is a complete cop-out.

Didn't Enda Kenny refuse pay increases that the Oireachtas had voted for him?

Michael D. is the ultimate snout in the trough with that nice allowance.