Not a good look. I wonder did he go because this was going to come to light?
Threadbans:
CGI_Livia_Soprano
Sorolla
Stevie2001
Rothco
realdanbreen
Paterson Jerins
Aldo006
HBC08
Clay Shaw
Pintman Paddy Losty
northknife
StevenToast
ButtersSuki
Bobson Dugnutt
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
You.posted the clip.of tubridy himself saying exactly what I stated yet you disagree with me.
If I'm a contractor. A company hires me to take phone calls on a a desk in a call center
We agree a fee of 100e per day
I turn up for 5 days. The phone never rings.
How much does the company expect to pay the contractor?
I don't think I quoted you did I ?
I stated what he said was. If the work wasn't required he would return the money
People are stating he said he would only return it if he was asked.
The agreement was designed in a way to be paid out regardless if the appearances were done or not.
Which means there's no requirement for him to pay back the money
He said "If that work is not called upon to be done, of course that money goes back." The work won't be called upon to be done.
Nothing.
Tubridy didnt turn up.
And there was no call center for him to turn up to.
So he didn't say he'd only pay the money back if he was asked.
Ody........
Come off it now.
A contract was agreed. A party of that contract committed to paying out the contract regardless.
Contract was collected.
Same as any other contract.
RTE at fault here.
Its all a big jobs for the boys and Ponzi scheme: can you see it?
I never said he did, but if he is true to his word - the money goes back. There is no way Renault are going to want to have anything to do with this.
What I can't see is RT stating he would only return the money if he was asked.
Can you see that somewhere? if so. Where is it.
That's not comparable. Let's take a plumber (contractor) to do a job on your bathroom for €3000 and he expects all the materials to be present. You forgot something important and he can't start. You are not getting charged €3000 but you will pay a fee for wasting his time as it was all agreed. If you decide to not go ahead with the job, all you pay is the call out charge.
Tubs job didn't go ahead at all. So he should expect a fee to be paid for lost time when he could have got someone else to pay out, not the whole charge as he didn't do the job.
You did quote me
None of us can see.
Its a two their society.
If you watched all 12 hours of committee shite nothing was disclosed.
This is a heist of public money by "elite paddies".
They were caught. Walked away. No consequences. The cost of doing BUSINESS.
You can keep the money but give some to me indirectly.
What do you not understand about a TRANSFER OF WEALTH?
$4 TRILLION in the pandemic in prep for 2030.
You're missing an important variable.
RTE had underwritten the contract. Which means they'd be in this case. Paying the plumber nor matter what.
If in your case. the plumber had stated in his contract that he would be 3k if i was missing anything. What's the problem?
No one stated the contract was reasonable or fair. But that doesn't make it any less of one.
Then why is Tubridy offering to return the money? Implying therefore it would be wrong of him to take the money regardless of events occurring?
Why did Tubridy say he was wrong not to correct the record of his RTE remuneration?
You are making a statement of fact Tubridy did nothing wrong. You never define what 'wrong' means.
Something can be wrong on different levels and not just an amoral standard of if its legal.
The money was guaranteed by RTE therefore Tubridy colluded in misrepresenting his earnings to all parties - government, colleagues and the public in public statements.
Even on a purely amoral level from a career perspective it has been shown to be a wrong move.
Therefore as an unqualified statement of fact it is without merit or foundation. It might be your opinion and you are entitled to that opinion. And it is very much a minority opinion at that.
It appears to be contradicted by Tubridy himself and the vast majority of posters on the thread and responses in polls.
Sorry, I thought you were responding to
New scandal breaking well known RTE celebrity and his crew getting free tickets to Dublin Zoo for years while all the plebs had to pay in.
Puppets.
Yes, and you seem to be ignoring what he actually said. He will not be call upon to do anymore work, therefore according to him the money goes back.
No clue.
As I have stated many times. He shouldn't be offering to return the money.
As I stated many times. It's RTE's job to make sure the renumeration is stated correctly. not RT. I don't know why he stated that.
I have noticed though anytime I ask very specific questions . You're revert to the above questions instead of addressing the post you're quoting
You quoted a reply discussing the merits of a contract and then rolled into the above all questions you have previously put to me and I have answered.
No in fact I'm listening to what he said.
Others are ignoring what he said and making assumptions.
And what assumptions would they be then?
That he stated he would only pay it back if he was asked......
No, that was just someone not recalling exactly what he said and you making a big deal about it.
And yet he is. And you have no clue as to why. That should give you pause to consider that:
(a) you are misreading the situation and are out of synch with public opinion. That they have a broader definition of 'wrong' than just an amoral standard of what is legal. Especially when it relates to taxpayers money and conduct wrt same from public figures. Someone in a public facing role whose reputation is their brand needs to be mindful of such things. So yes the public expect it is RTs job to correct the record and if he makes public statements about his pay to be honest in them. Otherwise he has no business in an RTE job commentating on public affairs. He is either incompetent or dishonest.
(b) that there is no basis to the unqualified statement 'Tubridy did nothing wrong'. At the very least qualify with he did nothing legally wrong or there is no legal obligation on him to do X. Or qualify it as your personal opinion that you dont think he did anything wrong.
I think you need to back and reread your posts take note of the questions you have failed to answer or 'answered' with a totally different question. Therefore I dont recognise your description as reflecting reality.
Listen to the PAC
he said it…
There’s no way RT is going to pay “it” back, at best he might virtue signal and say “I’ve given it to charity”, without any way for Joe Public to fact check. If somebody asks for details he’ll respond “ Modesty forbids me to broadcast any specific figure I might give to charity, I’m not that kind of person who tries to impress by telling of such details, I’m a person of honour and money has not changed my soul. It is well known the causes I support so I’ll say no more on that”.
Dee Firbes considering sueing RTE for the way she was portrayed at both meetings. I still think she needs to come forward and give her side of the story when she is back to good health. If not for her own mental but for the Irish public to hear the truth.
He'd have to pay it back rather than charity. His only claim to having the money in the first place was that it was an agreed fee he was to be paid for doing appearances for Renault. If those events don't go ahead even though he's been paid in advance for them, his only recourse is to pay it back to RTE (either directly or through the Astus account as they were the ones he was paid through). Otherwise it's obvious the money was mostly just intended to be a top-up of his salary by RTE.
He's been paid for a service he hasn't provided. His only way out of that is to repay the money directly.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7eb61b90d43b6a9f2815c2a58d0f497f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/969fb1b269f9df53c6c1b7670ae4616b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)
