They are some fckn crowd of chancers
Paying rent to fake societies, who would have thought it?
Quote from: mickey80 on November 18, 2014, 11:15:13 PM
Arlene sticky fingers.
Big Robbie Coltrane on the fiddle?
DUP and SF respond to last night's Spotlight -
DUP say that no rules were broken ( whilst keeping a straight face ).
Whilst Sinn Féin's Francie Molloy described Tuesday night's BBC Spotlight NI as "a rubbish of a programme".
All sorted.
Spotlight whilst unearthing some interesting gems from time to time is a programme that takes information already in the public domain and with a little pinch of sensationalism creates stories out of very little. Bottom line is none of these guys did anything outside the rules. SF paid the max in rent to keep some historical societies going, Arlene's story is nothing new it's been out there and except for innuendo I see no proof of wrong doing. Those who complain would be the first to screw every last penny from their DLA, work expenses, car allowance, mileage claims etc... but that's ok cause they are not politicians. If you don't want them to claim the max then reduce it or change the rules. This is a bit like the Maria Cahill story and the Nelson windowgate affair. Nothing new just repackaged.
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
The issue here is that the rules are not very tightly designed to stop people acting the maggot, while these politicos are devising welfare rules etc very strictly.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Spotlight whilst unearthing some interesting gems from time to time is a programme that takes information already in the public domain and with a little pinch of sensationalism creates stories out of very little. Bottom line is none of these guys did anything outside the rules.
Is it a case of letter of the law vs spirit of the law?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Those who complain would be the first to screw every last penny from their DLA, work expenses, car allowance, mileage claims etc... but that's ok cause they are not politicians.
You're judging people by a very low standard. Your own, presumably?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
If you don't want them to claim the max then reduce it or change the rules.
Ok, i'll sort that first thing tomorrow. How does that work again?
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Those who complain would be the first to screw every last penny from their DLA, work expenses, car allowance, mileage claims etc... but that's ok cause they are not politicians.
Surely politicians (as the law makers) have to be held to the very highest standards, you can't just say "sure everyone's doing it so it's ok". That's the very same attitude many people had towards bertie in the noughties
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Spotlight whilst unearthing some interesting gems from time to time is a programme that takes information already in the public domain and with a little pinch of sensationalism creates stories out of very little. Bottom line is none of these guys did anything outside the rules.
Is it a case of letter of the law vs spirit of the law?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Those who complain would be the first to screw every last penny from their DLA, work expenses, car allowance, mileage claims etc... but that's ok cause they are not politicians.
You're judging people by a very low standard. Your own, presumably?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
If you don't want them to claim the max then reduce it or change the rules.
Ok, i'll sort that first thing tomorrow. How does that work again?
Can't do that fancy quote thing, everybody with few exceptions works to the letter not the spirit, and we Irish are very good at pushing the letter to it's widest interpretation.
Anyone who says he hasn't worked the system in work or otherwise to the limit is either a liar or forgetful.
The oversight commission should sort the rules, big McQullian is on it.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Awesome bit of faux outrage - 'a great smear on the association'! ;D ;D. Settle yourself man! I'm not defending SF (which is why, I suspect, that you have jumped on this the way you have). I was careful to add that my statement applied to all parties.
I've been a part of various committees and groups (professionally and through the GAA) who have been seeking gov't funding for various things. As AiA said - when it comes to this type of thing it's the letter not the spirit of the law that we worked to. If anyone else says they have done this type of thing and they haven't tried to work the system (legally) then I'd say they had no place being involved in the first place. If the system can be circumvented then it's it that needs changed.
Now of course, I didnt even enter into the arena of discssing the hypocrisy of politicians doing this while preaching honesty and virtue to the rest of us. But two wrongs don't make a right so it'd be a bit rich for us all join this hypocritical little band.
There is a difference though in some of the examples here. If you are representing the GAA in an attempt to get a grant then your clearly stated objective is advance the cause of the GAA. If you are a politician representing the public should you not also have some interest in the proper use of public finance as well as your own interest?
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Awesome bit of faux outrage - 'a great smear on the association'! ;D ;D. Settle yourself man! I'm not defending SF (which is why, I suspect, that you have jumped on this the way you have). I was careful to add that my statement applied to all parties.
I've been a part of various committees and groups (professionally and through the GAA) who have been seeking gov't funding for various things. As AiA said - when it comes to this type of thing it's the letter not the spirit of the law that we worked to. If anyone else says they have done this type of thing and they haven't tried to work the system (legally) then I'd say they had no place being involved in the first place. If the system can be circumvented then it's it that needs changed.
Now of course, I didnt even enter into the arena of discssing the hypocrisy of politicians doing this while preaching honesty and virtue to the rest of us. But two wrongs don't make a right so it'd be a bit rich for us all join this hypocritical little band.
It's not outrage, faux or otherwise. And I didn't jump on any political party - I didn't see the programme, but from what i've heard, it's more a case of questions to be answered rather than any hard evidence of wrong-doing, at this point. My response was to the general attitude (that seems fairly widespread in this country) that there's nothing wrong with a bit of 'misappropriation', that everyone is at it, and if they're not, more fool them.
Reference to the GAA and grants doesn't belong anywhere on this thread. Many voluntary organisations apply for public funding with a stated purpose. If money is then used for that stated purpose, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's no misappropriation. It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 20, 2014, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Spotlight whilst unearthing some interesting gems from time to time is a programme that takes information already in the public domain and with a little pinch of sensationalism creates stories out of very little. Bottom line is none of these guys did anything outside the rules.
Is it a case of letter of the law vs spirit of the law?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Those who complain would be the first to screw every last penny from their DLA, work expenses, car allowance, mileage claims etc... but that's ok cause they are not politicians.
You're judging people by a very low standard. Your own, presumably?
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 19, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
If you don't want them to claim the max then reduce it or change the rules.
Ok, i'll sort that first thing tomorrow. How does that work again?
Can't do that fancy quote thing, everybody with few exceptions works to the letter not the spirit, and we Irish are very good at pushing the letter to it's widest interpretation.
Anyone who says he hasn't worked the system in work or otherwise to the limit is either a liar or forgetful.
The oversight commission should sort the rules, big McQullian is on it.
Yeah, but you said "If you don't want them to claim the max then reduce it or change the rules." - clearly I can't.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 20, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
There is a difference though in some of the examples here. If you are representing the GAA in an attempt to get a grant then your clearly stated objective is advance the cause of the GAA. If you are a politician representing the public should you not also have some interest in the proper use of public finance as well as your own interest?
If you're a DUP/Sinn Fein politician your clearly stated cause is to advance the cause of the DUP/Sinn Fein.
As a taxpayer should you not also have some interest in the proper use of public finance as well as your own interest?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Awesome bit of faux outrage - 'a great smear on the association'! ;D ;D. Settle yourself man! I'm not defending SF (which is why, I suspect, that you have jumped on this the way you have). I was careful to add that my statement applied to all parties.
I've been a part of various committees and groups (professionally and through the GAA) who have been seeking gov't funding for various things. As AiA said - when it comes to this type of thing it's the letter not the spirit of the law that we worked to. If anyone else says they have done this type of thing and they haven't tried to work the system (legally) then I'd say they had no place being involved in the first place. If the system can be circumvented then it's it that needs changed.
Now of course, I didnt even enter into the arena of discssing the hypocrisy of politicians doing this while preaching honesty and virtue to the rest of us. But two wrongs don't make a right so it'd be a bit rich for us all join this hypocritical little band.
It's not outrage, faux or otherwise. And I didn't jump on any political party - I didn't see the programme, but from what i've heard, it's more a case of questions to be answered rather than any hard evidence of wrong-doing, at this point. My response was to the general attitude (that seems fairly widespread in this country) that there's nothing wrong with a bit of 'misappropriation', that everyone is at it, and if they're not, more fool them.
Reference to the GAA and grants doesn't belong anywhere on this thread. Many voluntary organisations apply for public funding with a stated purpose. If money is then used for that stated purpose, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's no misappropriation. It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Don't get hung up on the word 'misappropriated'. I put it in inverted commas and added 'for want of a better word' after it. Also, stop bleating on about the GAA - I only used it as an example. I can guarantee that every grant application submitted by every GAA/Rugby/Chess/Orange Order outfit in the country has had any costs listed in it as being at the very top end of the scale in order to claim the maximum allowable amount that they can get away with. And the harsh reality is that everyone
IS at it. That's the attitude in the country and that's the way it is. I'd like to change it but (to use your own words) 'clearly I can't'.
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2014, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 20, 2014, 06:41:47 PM
There is a difference though in some of the examples here. If you are representing the GAA in an attempt to get a grant then your clearly stated objective is advance the cause of the GAA. If you are a politician representing the public should you not also have some interest in the proper use of public finance as well as your own interest?
If you're a DUP/Sinn Fein politician your clearly stated cause is to advance the cause of the DUP/Sinn Fein.
As a taxpayer should you not also have some interest in the proper use of public finance as well as your own interest?
And that, in a nutshell, is why we are in an endless political quagmire with little hope of getting out of it. That also applies to the other southern parties who are just a slightly less obvious version of the same self-serving shite.
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2014, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Awesome bit of faux outrage - 'a great smear on the association'! ;D ;D. Settle yourself man! I'm not defending SF (which is why, I suspect, that you have jumped on this the way you have). I was careful to add that my statement applied to all parties.
I've been a part of various committees and groups (professionally and through the GAA) who have been seeking gov't funding for various things. As AiA said - when it comes to this type of thing it's the letter not the spirit of the law that we worked to. If anyone else says they have done this type of thing and they haven't tried to work the system (legally) then I'd say they had no place being involved in the first place. If the system can be circumvented then it's it that needs changed.
Now of course, I didnt even enter into the arena of discssing the hypocrisy of politicians doing this while preaching honesty and virtue to the rest of us. But two wrongs don't make a right so it'd be a bit rich for us all join this hypocritical little band.
It's not outrage, faux or otherwise. And I didn't jump on any political party - I didn't see the programme, but from what i've heard, it's more a case of questions to be answered rather than any hard evidence of wrong-doing, at this point. My response was to the general attitude (that seems fairly widespread in this country) that there's nothing wrong with a bit of 'misappropriation', that everyone is at it, and if they're not, more fool them.
Reference to the GAA and grants doesn't belong anywhere on this thread. Many voluntary organisations apply for public funding with a stated purpose. If money is then used for that stated purpose, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's no misappropriation. It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Don't get hung up on the word 'misappropriated'. I put it in inverted commas and added 'for want of a better word' after it. Also, stop bleating on about the GAA - I only used it as an example. I can guarantee that every grant application submitted by every GAA/Rugby/Chess/Orange Order outfit in the country has had any costs listed in it as being at the very top end of the scale in order to claim the maximum allowable amount that they can get away with. And the harsh reality is that everyone IS at it. That's the attitude in the country and that's the way it is. I'd like to change it but (to use your own words) 'clearly I can't'.
There's absolutely no issue with that. As long as the money was used for its intended purpose. There's no 'misappropriation', or any better word for it.
Issues only arise if public money is used for purposes for which it wasn't intended.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 21, 2014, 09:23:55 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 21, 2014, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 20, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 19, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Agree to an extent AiA. If it were a GAA club applying for a publicly funded grant for something or other we'd all be applauding if they managed to work the system to get more out of the government. We can't really pretend to be outraged because political parties (whatever side of the fence they are on) are up to the same.
If we asked for a show of hands of people who have never been involved in or seen public funds being 'misappropriated' (for want of a better word) I'd say there'd be precious few...
Unbelievable. No wonder Bertie hung on for so long when this is the attitude.
But to try and drag a GAA club getting grant funding (a perfectly legitimate use of funding, with nothing to suggest the money is used for anything other than its intended purpose) into the likes of this argument - with references to misappropriation of public funds - is a great smear on the association.
Awesome bit of faux outrage - 'a great smear on the association'! ;D ;D. Settle yourself man! I'm not defending SF (which is why, I suspect, that you have jumped on this the way you have). I was careful to add that my statement applied to all parties.
I've been a part of various committees and groups (professionally and through the GAA) who have been seeking gov't funding for various things. As AiA said - when it comes to this type of thing it's the letter not the spirit of the law that we worked to. If anyone else says they have done this type of thing and they haven't tried to work the system (legally) then I'd say they had no place being involved in the first place. If the system can be circumvented then it's it that needs changed.
Now of course, I didnt even enter into the arena of discssing the hypocrisy of politicians doing this while preaching honesty and virtue to the rest of us. But two wrongs don't make a right so it'd be a bit rich for us all join this hypocritical little band.
It's not outrage, faux or otherwise. And I didn't jump on any political party - I didn't see the programme, but from what i've heard, it's more a case of questions to be answered rather than any hard evidence of wrong-doing, at this point. My response was to the general attitude (that seems fairly widespread in this country) that there's nothing wrong with a bit of 'misappropriation', that everyone is at it, and if they're not, more fool them.
Reference to the GAA and grants doesn't belong anywhere on this thread. Many voluntary organisations apply for public funding with a stated purpose. If money is then used for that stated purpose, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There's no misappropriation. It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Don't get hung up on the word 'misappropriated'. I put it in inverted commas and added 'for want of a better word' after it. Also, stop bleating on about the GAA - I only used it as an example. I can guarantee that every grant application submitted by every GAA/Rugby/Chess/Orange Order outfit in the country has had any costs listed in it as being at the very top end of the scale in order to claim the maximum allowable amount that they can get away with. And the harsh reality is that everyone IS at it. That's the attitude in the country and that's the way it is. I'd like to change it but (to use your own words) 'clearly I can't'.
There's absolutely no issue with that. As long as the money was used for its intended purpose. There's no 'misappropriation', or any better word for it.
Issues only arise if public money is used for purposes for which it wasn't intended.
If that's your take then no issues arose here either. This is what I'm trying to tell you. It's the system that needs tightened up. Money was earmarked for the rent of constituency offices and that's what it was used for.
No issues if you consider that the standards political parties should be aiming for is "no worse than your average Joe". Yes, the system should be tightened up but parties should have enough ethics not to be taking the system (i.e. the taxpayer) for every penny the system allows for
Big Story here
Political parties pay rent on buildings without fully investigating who the land lords are.
No punishment beatings, no knee cappings or exclusion orders.
God forbid that the BBC should ask who ordered the killing of Pat Finucane.
is it only anti governmental groups who are now investigated by the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation?
They are having some laugh at us, thats for sure
All the same everyone of them
Quote from: T Fearon on November 25, 2014, 11:14:43 PM
All the same everyone of them
Yeah just some of them are better at it than others
What was the scam tonight?
Everything, you name it.Seems you just have to sign an "expenses" form to get thousands
Just confirming what people already knew what is/was going on with expenses.
The thing is alot of people would do the same if they were in stormont.
Quote from: Hereiam on November 25, 2014, 11:29:42 PM
Just confirming what people already knew what is/was going on with expenses.
The thing is alot of people would do the same if they were in stormont.
Really ? They are supposed to be protecting public money and using it wisely but instead they are putting it in their pocket.
Everyone else has to tighten their belt except those wankers
QuoteWhat was the scam tonight?
Willie Hay likes a warm office, but it was all his brother in law's fault!
Sinn Féin claims mileage for MLAs who don't drive, without telling them!
McIlveen of the DUP runs a paperless office, needing new iPhones at every opportunity, but he also bought thousands of stamps!
Even in the 26 counties they sent Callely to jail for less.
U talk about protecting public money. The small amount of money taken from here goes into fighting foreign wars. Its british money that is been wasted. Will the bbc air this over in england. Dam sure they wont.
To use Gerry Adams words loosely,none of those bastards will be broke
Police to investigate £700k getting paid to Sinn Fein MLAs for research from a company owned by the parties finance team
Quote from: Minder on November 26, 2014, 01:05:49 PM
Police to investigate £700k getting paid to Sinn Fein MLAs for research from a company owned by the parties finance team
I missed the start of the show adn had thought they were talking about claims for Repetitive Strain Injury :-[
Merely supplementing the average industrial wage.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 26, 2014, 01:47:44 PM
Merely supplementing the average industrial wage.
without even realising they were doing it!
What were they researching for that sort of dough, the cure for cancer ?
Quote from: Minder on November 26, 2014, 04:12:51 PM
What were they researching for that sort of dough, the cure for cancer ?
They, like Arlene & Wee Ian, Robin Newton & David McIlveen were researching how far rules could be bent without breaking them. RSI & Willie Hayes Fuels appear to have found out that breaking point is somewhere around forging signatures.
In fairness to these folk on the Hill, they do ensure that their families are not unemployed.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 26, 2014, 11:59:50 PM
In fairness to these folk on the Hill, they do ensure that their families are not unemployed.
Good point. Left-wing and right-wing side by side at the trough. Cosy.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 27, 2014, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 26, 2014, 11:59:50 PM
In fairness to these folk on the Hill, they do ensure that their families are not unemployed.
Good point. Left-wing and right-wing side by side at the trough. Cosy.
Why not? The left wing believe in reducing unemployment and the right wing in grabbing dosh for yourself.
Why are SF selling £10 tickets ?. Cash expenses for those on lower incomes ?. You'd wonder why they go to the bother when they're getting all this money plus all the $ in USA as well.
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 27, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
Which brings us back to the MLAs again: http://www.csp.org.uk/news/2014/10/30/northern-ireland-nhs-pay-decision-comes-csp-criticism (http://www.csp.org.uk/news/2014/10/30/northern-ireland-nhs-pay-decision-comes-csp-criticism)
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 27, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
Sensationalist ? It is what it is, £700k over 10 years for "research" to a company owned by SF
Do you not see anything wrong with that?
Conall McDevitt resigned for a lot less
Quote from: Minder on November 27, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 27, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
Sensationalist ? It is what it is, £700k over 10 years for "research" to a company owned by SF
Do you not see anything wrong with that?
Conall McDevitt resigned for a lot less
McDevitt shouldn't have resigned
Typical
QuoteThe Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage.
Oh look over there! Somebody else is to blame.
Anything to avoid dealing with the issue.
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 27, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
I'm pretty sure you're only ENTITLED to legit expenses
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 27, 2014, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on November 27, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Lets get a bit of perspective here, as with the last programme Spotlight has cobbled together a few bits and pieces to create a story. Relying on Davy Hyland who fell out with the Shinners after being stood down as an MLA is par for the course with this programme which uses dubious sources with their own private agendas to create stories. At least the Shinners were using the cash to the advantage of their constituents by providing additional workers, albeit to the electoral benefit of the party. There is no evidence of the UUP or the Stoops who were also paying money into party funds doing likewise. The bottom line is there are expenses due for mileage if an MLA chooses to take 50% and give 50% to the party that is his prerogative. The £700K claimed by the Shinners for research is a sensational number but to my knowledge it spanned several years. Again they are entitled to claim these expenses. The Debate though should be whether the expense paid which are in line with the Civil Service are too high. Undoubtedly yes. There needs to be a route and branch revision of wages and expenses to civil servants which are heading towards 30% higher than the average private sector wage. Meanwhile nurses who are paid a pittance compared with the work they have to do and who are put under severe pressure by a fat-cat management saving money by cutting frontline staff are insulted with 1% but only if they are at the top of their band. Now there is a story Spotlight should investigate.
I'm pretty sure you're only ENTITLED to legit expenses
Precisely. They were entitled to claim the costs incurred in carrying out certain activities. Their entitlement to claim as they did has now been questioned.
Enter side stage on a pyebald pony conal the barbarian mcdevitt "i did nothing wrong" just in time for june big al quits after losing his seat. You couldnt make it up
Quote from: lawnseed on November 28, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
Enter side stage on a pyebald pony conal the barbarian mcdevitt "i did nothing wrong" just in time for june big al quits after losing his seat. You couldnt make it up
He's to busy trying to kick himself up the arse after watching spotlight!
In the 26 counties, not noted for high standards, they do at least take some action.
-------------------------------------------
Former Fianna Fáil TD Ned O'Keeffe has pleaded guilty to five counts of falsely claiming mobile phone expenses while a member of Dáil Éireann.
He has received a suspended seven-month prison sentence and been fined €3,500.
While acknowledging compensation totalling €3,737.50 had been paid, Judge Leo Malone said the sentence had to reflect the seriousness of the matter and O'Keeffe's role as a public representative.
The charges follow a two-year investigation by members of the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.
O'Keeffe represented the constituency of Cork East for almost three decades until his retirement in 2011.
He was first arrested in connection with this investigation at his home in Mitchelstown in April 2012.
The 72-year-old met gardaí by appointment at Togher Garda Station earlier today, before being brought before Cork District Court.
They're nearly all at it.
€3k on mobile phone expenses ? Childs play compared to the boys in Stormont.
Most relevant thread I could find to post this in...
Given the protagonists in this (Arlene Foster, Turkingtons, Prentice Brothers) and the fact the at least one of the buildings had been in administration when it was bought, does anyone else get a whiff of impropriety about this little deal?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32749237
The Northern Ireland Executive has bought five office buildings in Belfast as a way of reducing the money it spends on rent.
Among the buildings are Laganside House, which is the headquarters of the Courts Service and Clare House which is the Department of Finance headquarters.
It has also bought Seatem House on Alfred Street and 2 - 4 Bruce Street.
The purchase of Causeway Exchange on Bedford Street had already been reported.
Finance Minister Arlene Foster said her department has been carrying out an asset management project.
The objective of the project is to "achieve on-going reductions in operating costs such as rental charges within government's leased office accommodation portfolio".
She added that owning the offices rather than leasing them would "deliver £2.3m of annual rental savings from 1 April 2015".
She said this figure would increase to £3.5m per a year when the vacant space purchased becomes fully utilised over the next three years.
Causeway Exchange, Laganside House and 2 - 4 Bruce Street were all owned by Portadown-based developers Prentice Estates.
In 2014, Prentice's bank loans were sold to the US investment fund Lone Star.
Clare House was owned by Turkington Holdings which has sold off most of its investment properties over the last two years.
Seatem House was sold out of receivership.
No doubt about it Franko It stinks. Foster will be out to keep the DUP's friends well financed thata for sure
Sucking up Stormont's deadlocked politics for £90k
Mick Fealty on 14 May 2015 , 1:18 pm 52 Comments | 1,702 views
One of the great things about not being able to scrutinise the Stormont administration and having everyone in government is that there is little brake on stuff like this...
The information released on Monday shows that last year Mr Robinson's two main Spads – barrister Richard Bullick and former accountant Timothy Johnston – were being paid the absolute maximum for a Spad, £91,809 A third DUP Spad, former lawyer Emma Pengelly, is also being paid the top rate of £91,809.
The fourth DUP Spad – who at that point was Gavin Robinson – was being paid £75,000. The three Sinn Fein Spads at the time were also being well paid, although none of them were on the maximum salary. Dara O'Hagan was being paid £87,812, Vincent Parker (who has now left) was also getting £87,812, while Aine McCabe was getting £84,054.
Sinn Fein says that its Spads only keep 'the average industrial wage' and pay the rest of their salary to the party.
Under the Belfast Agreement OFMdFM was originally given 3 SpAds, but since ST Andrews a fourth has been added. Missing in these accounts is an eighth, Sinn Fein's Leo Green who took a private settlement from the party months before the date of the informational release.
Stormont has 19 Spads – more than any other devolved region in the UK, even though Northern Ireland has by far the smallest population. Interestingly one of the DUP's gripes against David Trimble was the sheer size of OFMdFM, and department which still has very few direct executive functions.
For comparison with central government, Number 10 had 18 roughly about the same time. No one could suggest that OFMdFM is an equivalent to the PM's office, and nor could anyone seriously suggest that many of those named above could find jobs in the private sector at equivalent rates.
Indeed, you have to ask really what any of the folk there actually get to do since OFMdFM's most senior function seems to be blocking rival ministers getting anything to the Executive table.
UPDATE: Here's the paper trail of just how long it took to get OFMdFM to answer the question (several years after Cameron pledged to make this information default public information in 201o)
Link here if you want to follow the links embedded in the article - http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/14/sucking-up-stormonts-deadlocked-politics-for-90k/
Now, how many of these SpADs are likely to be worth 90k? How many of them would earn half of that in the real world?
Didn't SF call for a e100k cap of public sector salaries in the south (even for those individuals in charge of running significant organisations), yet it's happy to breach that cap for SpAds, appointed by the parties, with no accountability to the public and no independent recruitment process?
And when there's talk of 'Tory cuts' and having to slash public spending... well here's where some of the scarce funding goes.
A niece of Paul & Alex Maskey is a SPAD of some description, I would say that was a rigorous selection process.
Quote from: Saffrongael on May 16, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
A nephew of Paul & Alex Maskey is a SPAD of some description, I would say that was a rigorous selection process.
I think he was asked if he could read and write.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 16, 2015, 04:57:33 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on May 16, 2015, 01:58:43 PM
A nephew of Paul & Alex Maskey is a SPAD of some description, I would say that was a rigorous selection process.
I think he was asked if he could read and write.
My mistake, should have said niece.