Ivor Callely (take III)

ninty9er · 02-08-2010 05:32PM

SkidMark wrote: »

This is blatant fraud. The Gardaí need to move on this.

And if Brian Cowen has any authority he needs to expel Callely from Fianna Fail immediately.

Cowen can't expel him. It's not within the authority of the leader. However Ivor is a Taoiseach's nominee to the Seanad, so I'd like to see him remove him from there. There is however the problem that that then entitles Ivor to a pension. Whether we like it or not that is the legal position and cannot be ignored.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 05:44PM

ninty9er wrote: »

Cowen can't expel him. It's not within the authority of the leader.

What ?????

So a party member can commit any crime whatsoever, and not get expelled ?

Do you mean to tell me that Ray Burke is still a member of FF ?

And how come Lowry was expelled from FG ?

ninty9er wrote: »

There is however the problem that that then entitles Ivor to a pension. Whether we like it or not that is the legal position and cannot be ignored.

And who makes these rules ?

There is no basis for that legal position; if someone breaks the law and brings the Dáil and Seanad into disrepute, then their "entitlements" should be immediately taken from them.

Of course, based on their track record, FF would probably just vote confidence in them anyway.

sceptre · 02-08-2010 05:44PM

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Unfortunately he wont see it that way, seeing as all TD's can claim €750 every 18 months he will bitch and claw to the standard that he is only claiming what he is allowed. He even said close to as such in the MoS article, the last paragraph:

"but he just said that any entitlement to mobile phones from the department or the Oireachtas, he had been advised to put in claims as submitted, which were approved by the relevant authorities and payment paid."

That or once he submits the paperwork its up to the Government to find any faults, if they missed it then it is their problem.

Sure, but there's a distinct difference between putting in a claim that gets passed in error and handing in a faked invoice for a vouched expense. The former is potentially explainable and possibly defensible, the latter is documented fraud.

bonzos · 02-08-2010 06:15PM

Once again today we have mammy O Rourke on rte making brushing off the whole ivor screwing the taxpayer...what a total disgrace she is!this time last year she was defending John O Donoghue and his wife for screwing us"sure what harm if he enjoys the horse racing":rolleyes:.What these gansters are doing is not a whole lot different to what the John Gilligans of this country did,the only difference is we are paying them to screw us. Maybe Ryan Tub should bring mammy and ivor onto the Late Late show for a bit of FF damage limitation in sep.

JonathanAnon · 02-08-2010 06:21PM

bonzos wrote: »

Once again today we have mammy O Rourke on rte making brushing off the whole ivor screwing the taxpayer

It really is ridiculous ... Mammy doesnt seem to realise that this man was chosen by their former party leader... FF gave him this highly paid job when the people of his constituency chose not to elect him, and even if they have no means of firing him, it's certainly within their gift to publicly request his resignation.

ninty9er · 02-08-2010 06:55PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?????

So a party member can commit any crime whatsoever, and not get expelled ?

The party leader will have an equal vote at an Ardchomairle meeting of it came to it. I imagine it will either come to that or an Ard Fheis.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 07:22PM

bonzos wrote: »

Once again today we have mammy O Rourke on rte making brushing off the whole ivor screwing the taxpayer...what a total disgrace she is!

What's even worse is that radio stations still give her airtime to spout this rubbish!

paddyland · 02-08-2010 07:29PM

ninty9er wrote: »

Cowen can't expel him. It's not within the authority of the leader. However Ivor is a Taoiseach's nominee to the Seanad, so I'd like to see him remove him from there. There is however the problem that that then entitles Ivor to a pension. Whether we like it or not that is the legal position and cannot be ignored.

That's grand so, they may as well carry on the daily business of corruption, as there's little we can do about it. In fact, why bother with a general election at all. Let's leave FF in permanently, and the money we save on pesky general elections, they can squander and defraud that too.

sceptre · 02-08-2010 07:39PM

ninty9er wrote: »

The party leader will have an equal vote at an Ardchomairle meeting of it came to it. I imagine it will either come to that or an Ard Fheis.

Expulsion procedures have changed since 1985 then? (I appreciate that it's a quarter of a century ago). Removing the whip from an Oireachtas member these days seems as simple as it was then. Beyond whip removal to expulsion, O'Malley was formally expelled after a single parliamentary party meeting for "conduct unbecoming" after all. There are few that would argue that Callelly's conduct has been in any way becoming of being a member of anything, though he's free to make that case himself in the appropriate setting and with the media that would surround that setting.

If expulsion procedures have changed since 1985 and an Ard Fheis or Ard Comhairle decision is required for the expulsion, that's rather a shame - is there even going to be an Ard Fheis this year? Though I assume Ard Comhairle meetings still take place once a month so the watchful clock of corruption examination is presumably ticking for Callelly. Or at least should be - are FF actually willing to do something about their son with the corruption and fraud evidence mounting against him? This looks like a slamdunk of obviousness compared to even the other cases of dodginess so it's a reasonable case of expectation on what their view of corruption actually is. Letting him slink off into the sunset untouched should be reasonably regarded as prima facie evidence that nothing has changed and that all the worst fears of a future of convenient whitewashes are well-founded.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 07:44PM

ninty9er wrote: »

The party leader will have an equal vote at an Ardchomairle meeting of it came to it. I imagine it will either come to that or an Ard Fheis.

In that case, I have 6 questions, since you say that you are interested in fixing Fianna Fail :

1) When is the next Ardchomhairle meeting ?
2) When is the next Ard Fheis ?
3) Are you happy to have this individual as a member in the meantime ?
4) Will you be actively campaigning to have him evicted as soon as possible ?
5) How much convincing of other members do you think you will have to do ?
6) Would you campaign to have the rules that you are quoting changed so that this farce cannot recur ?

ninty9er · 02-08-2010 08:40PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In that case, I have 6 questions, since you say that you are interested in fixing Fianna Fail :

1) When is the next Ardchomhairle meeting ?
2) When is the next Ard Fheis ?
3) Are you happy to have this individual as a member in the meantime ?
4) Will you be actively campaigning to have him evicted as soon as possible ?
5) How much convincing of other members do you think you will have to do ?
6) Would you campaign to have the rules that you are quoting changed so that this farce cannot recur ?

1. Should be at some point towards the end of the month.
2. Next Ard-Fheis I expect in either the winter or spring.
3. Happy wouldn't be a good description.
4. I already have.
5. Not a whole lot.
6. Which exact rules? I'm not really for giving the party leader ultimate power.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 08:44PM

ninty9er wrote: »

3. Happy wouldn't be a good description.

Unusual phrasing. I'd have expected you to be straight and say that you were fuming that this con-man was a member.

ninty9er wrote: »

6. Which exact rules? I'm not really for giving the party leader ultimate power.

The one that allows con-men to stay in the party and collect their pensions.

At the very least, this should be an issue for the equivalent of an EGM, and it should be possible to strip him of every cent of pension and entitlements, due to his own actions.

Change those rules (and if the Ardchomhairle meeting does go ahead and act responsibly) and maybe, just maybe, your party will regain an ounce of credibility.

sceptre · 02-08-2010 09:01PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

At the very least, this should be an issue for the equivalent of an EGM, and it should be possible to strip him of every cent of pension and entitlements, due to his own actions..

Fianna Fail meetings of any sort don't have the power to strip anyone of entitlements provided by the State. Nor should they, obviously.

MrDarcy · 02-08-2010 09:03PM

murphaph wrote: »

Great investigative journalism to the MoS. Congratulations to them for this, more needed.

What will happen now? In my opinion, nothing short of a full Garda investigation will suffice, and if these documents are what they appear to be, a trial for Ivor.

It is theft to claim expenses you didn't have or to claim them twice. Simple, ugly theft, like a common criminal.

+1, also shows up the buffoons on the investigating committee, excellent piece of investigative work on the part of the MOS. The guy should be frogmatched up to the end of Dun Laoghaire pier and dropped off the edge with a box of his expenses sellotaped to each ankle.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 09:04PM

sceptre wrote: »

Fianna Fail meetings of any sort don't have the power to strip anyone of entitlements provided by the State. Nor should they, obviously.

Agreed. However the Dáil makes the laws of the country, and it is unacceptable that no matter what crime someone commits they cannot be kicked out without benefits.

If the Government made a law like the above, it would be the first useful thing that they've done against corruption and crime in a long, long time.

However, I won't hold my breath, especially as the law re tax clearance certs that are currently required aren't even imposed.

sceptre · 02-08-2010 09:12PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Agreed. However the Dáil makes the laws of the country, and it is unacceptable that no matter what crime someone commits they cannot be kicked out without benefits.

If the Government made a law like the above, it would be the first useful thing that they've done against corruption and crime in a long, long time.

However, I won't hold my breath, especially as the law re tax clearance certs that are currently required aren't even imposed.

Government decision on the pensions and entitlements then -that's not a decision to be made by any of the organs of the FF party acting as the FF party. Or preferably a committee recommendation adopted by the government. Legal restrictions on retroactive legislation is likely to limit its scope with regard to Callelly though, if even then it's a decision to be taken (that's rather a bigger issue with bigger implications). Single example laws do not good legislation make, though that's likely also a discussion for a different thread.

A day out for the DPP would be a good start. A day out for FF in kicking him from the party, hard and publicly as well as a government investigation in how they can kick him from the Seanad (scope is pretty limited as long as he wants to stay) would be a good earlier start.

Liam Byrne · 02-08-2010 09:16PM

sceptre wrote: »

Single example laws do not good legislation make, though that's likely also a discussion for a different thread.

Hardly a single example, given Ahern, Burke, Flynn, etc......

Someone needs to take a stand against people who believe they are above the rules of society and the law.

If that involves making one example to put similarly-minded ****s off, then that's fine by me.

MrDarcy · 02-08-2010 09:20PM

sceptre wrote: »

Government decision on the pensions and entitlements then -that's not a decision to be made by any of the organs of the FF party acting as the FF party. Or preferably a committee recommendation adopted by the government. Legal restrictions on retroactive legislation is likely to limit its scope with regard to Callelly though, if even then it's a decision to be taken (that's rather a bigger issue with bigger implications). Single example laws do not good legislation make, though that's likely also a discussion for a different thread.

A day out for the DPP would be a good start. A day out for FF in kicking him from the party, hard and publicly as well as a government investigation in how they can kick him from the Seanad (scope is pretty limited as long as he wants to stay) would be a good earlier start.

The mistake was in appointing him to the Seanad in the first place, he get's booted out of office as a junior minister, it was obvious on that occasion that the man had a brass neck. The electorate sent him a message to go away and find a new career and then he gets a Seanad nomination, you couldn't make it up.

SoupyNorman · 02-08-2010 10:58PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

The mistake was in appointing him to the Seanad in the first place, he get's booted out of office as a junior minister, it was obvious on that occasion that the man had a brass neck. The electorate sent him a message to go away and find a new career and then he gets a Seanad nomination, you couldn't make it up.

Looks to be out of road now, is there a possibility he'll have to join the dole queue?

bamboozle · 03-08-2010 08:52AM

Once again Cowan has been eerily quiet on this one...

i'd love to see Bertie collared to explain what reasons he had for giving Ivor the job in the Seanad as he seems to have no redeeming qualities.

Hootanany · 03-08-2010 08:56AM

Sure his nose is firmly in the Trough

ciagr297 · 03-08-2010 09:11AM

well i can't say it was a surprise to hear this, but due course had to be done. i wonder if we will get a list of fraudulent expenses? surely he has someone in a garage somewhere writing receipts for petrol...

even if he is thrown out of the seanad (a vague possibility?), he'll still get his minister's pension right?

brings up the question - under what circumstances are elected representatives NOT entitled to claim pensions?

maybe it would be motivational to have an actual incentive to behave morally, ethically and legally if they were to be cut from the pension scheme for stuff like fraud?

dan_d · 03-08-2010 09:31AM

Did I actually read a piece correctly today about Ivor Callelly claiming expenses for mobile phone bills from a company that had ceased trading 10 years ago???????

Why is he still anywhere near Leinster House?

And my next question - who are the twats that approved the expenses? Isn't there anybody in there that actually does the work they're employed to do instead of swanning around doing sweet FA all day long??

(Italics AND bold to indicate my serious pi&%ed-offedness at all this:mad:)

Coillte_Bhoy · 03-08-2010 09:32AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hardly a single example, given Ahern, Burke, Flynn, etc......

Someone needs to take a stand against people who believe they are above the rules of society and the law.

They may all be crooks but you cant go after all of them under 'one' same law. It's not as simple as you like too think.

ciagr297 · 03-08-2010 09:40AM

dan_d wrote: »

Did I actually read a piece correctly today about Ivor Callelly claiming expenses for mobile phone bills from a company that had ceased trading 10 years ago???????

Why is he still anywhere near Leinster House?

And my next question - who are the twats that approved the expenses? Isn't there anybody in there that actually does the work they're employed to do instead of swanning around doing sweet FA all day long??

(Italics AND bold to indicate my serious pi&%ed-offedness at all this:mad:)

yes, you read correctly - http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/pressure-grows-on-callely-after-new-expenses-allegations-467806.html

i'd be more interested in HOW he got receipts from a company who ceased trading 10 years ago, as opposed to who approved it.

i know in work, they don't ring up every business on a receipt you have submitted.

so its the HOW thats more interesting to me anyways

and i don't think there is anyone who is not :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: at this fiasco

Liam Byrne · 03-08-2010 09:42AM

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

They may all be crooks but you cant go after all of them under 'one' same law. It's not as simple as you like too think.

I'm not suggesting going after them all under one same law.

I'm suggesting that if they bring the house into disrepute then they get fired with no cushy benefits and pensions.

Whatever law (or otherwise) that they break or bend to bring it into disrepute is then irrelevant.

ciagr297 · 03-08-2010 09:44AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm suggesting that if they bring the house into disrepute then they get fired with no cushy benefits and pensions

i completely, absolutely agree with this

dan_d · 03-08-2010 12:55PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not suggesting going after them all under one same law.

I'm suggesting that if they bring the house into disrepute then they get fired with no cushy benefits and pensions.

Whatever law (or otherwise) that they break or bend to bring it into disrepute is then irrelevant.

Interesting idea. Workable too, I would imagine.

oceanclub · 03-08-2010 12:58PM

Just noticed this photo in this article:

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/callely-giving-politicians-a-bad-name-467833.html

I'm not exceptionally nationalistic, but this gombeen standing beside our national flag turns my stomach.

P.

MrDarcy · 03-08-2010 01:23PM

bamboozle wrote: »

Once again Cowan has been eerily quiet on this one...

i'd love to see Bertie collared to explain what reasons he had for giving Ivor the job in the Seanad as he seems to have no redeeming qualities.

Sure what else would we expect from an incompetent like Cowen... But tellingly, the guy who thinks he was born to be Taoiseach, Enda Kenny has precious little to say on it as well.

I think the first question should be, when will we be getting our money back???? Not just the 4 digit figure for the doctored phone bills, but the tens of thousands he claimed previously for which he was investigated two weeks ago.

Ivor Callely (take III)

Comments