Mary Lou McDonald: the most annoying person in Irish politics

2-D Man

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

Im still waiting to hear what she actually does.


Anyone look at videos of her on youtube.
Then look at the photos.

They airbrush those ugly wrinkles that she has across her forehead

Actually SF are the only party that do not airbrush their candidates in photographs.

2-D Man

Souljacker wrote: »

Just to change the direction of the thread a little what has McDonald ever done in her political career?

Her record of attendance (by her own admission) for committee meeting, votes in Brussels is pathetic but I think the thing that most annoys me about Mary Lou, that fact that she doesn't seem to do anything annoys me the most. But I'm sure a few of here devotes here might be able to enlighten me as to what she's actually achieved in her role as an MEP.

Oh and another thing that bugs me about her is she completely missed the point of the of the Sinn Fein Westminster MP scandal where they creamed 500,000 pound sterling off hard working tax payers in expenses.

I don't give a **** how much of a wage SF MPs draw and ML seems to think the fact that tax payers money went in to the SF coffers instead of into their own hands it's still a huge huge waste of tax payers money.

£500,000 for five MPs who don't take their seats?? Feck off, Brian Cowen spends more time in London and he doesn’t seem to need to rent a house year round in London, buy entertainment systems etc.

Bull****. Don't talk through your rear end.

That is a non-story, look at the figures, it relates to a townhouse and an apartment over the last five years.

Sinn Féin draw £21,600 per annum for the to properties in London over 5 years.

SF also does not receive the £1,443,840 it was entitled to over the course of the last five years.

Sinn Féin is also the only party not to have claimed for food expenses, overnight allowance or the £50,000 per annum communications expenses.

From 2008 - 2009 they drew the following in Constituency Travel Allowance (the lowest out of party in the UK)

2008-2009 Gerry Adams Zero.

Pat Doherty £3,000 (estimate).

Michelle Gildernew Zero.

Martin Mc Guinness Zero.

Conor Murphy Zero.

Each SF MP is also entitled to £100,205 per annum in Staff and Administration costs. (They do not draw the full amount)

Add up the figures and you will see there is no story here. This was just media causing a spin because they are abstentionist MP's

Souljacker

2-D Man wrote: »

Bull****. Don't talk through your rear end.

That is a non-story, look at the figures, it relates to a townhouse and an apartment over the last five years.

Sinn Féin draw £21,600 per annum for the to properties in London over 5 years.

SF also does not receive the £1,443,840 it was entitled to over the course of the last five years.

Sinn Féin is also the only party not to have claimed for food expenses, overnight allowance or the £50,000 per annum communications expenses.

From 2008 - 2009 they drew the following in Constituency Travel Allowance (the lowest out of party in the UK)

2008-2009 Gerry Adams Zero.

Pat Doherty £3,000 (estimate).

Michelle Gildernew Zero.

Martin Mc Guinness Zero.

Conor Murphy Zero.

Each SF MP is also entitled to £100,205 per annum in Staff and Administration costs. (They do not draw the full amount)

Add up the figures and you will see there is no story here. This was just media causing a spin because they are abstentionist MP's

Spin, spin and spin. SF are just as slimy as the Labour, Tory and DUP MPs who squeezed the tax payer. funny I don't see any sources for what you say where did you get your info the SF website?

'SF are entitled ...' you know what that's the exact same excuse the other british mps embroiled in this scandal used by all the other story broken by the daily telegraph. I know MLM and SF are egotists, but the SF expenses were just part of the story broken by the Telegraph, so the usual 'the media is picking on us' doesn't really wash.

1. You are either trying to say that the system was corrupt and the poor SF MPs simply had to go along with it or..
2. You really do believe that SF MPS deserved to to use tax payers money to buy sofas, entertainmant systems (yes plural) and venetian blinds?? Really??

Wake up call:

1. SF paid out 3 times over the odds to an Irish family to rent 2 properties. SF submitted receipts adding up to £310,000 renting off 1 family for 5 years.
2, SF submitted receipts for 2 entertainment, 3 sofas and Venetian blinds. care of tax payer.
3, The five SF MPs EACH claimed £21,000 off ACA (to cover the costs off running a 2nd home) in the last financial year, just short of the maximum permitted
4, In total, including travel expenses Sinn Fein's MPs claimed a total of £662,660 of taxpayer-funded allowances in 2007/8, including travel costs, offices and staff salaries for a 2nd job (after their MLA posts) where they don't go to work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5301510/MPs-expenses-Sinn-Fein-claimed-500000-for-second-homes.html

My argument is that this is a huge waste of my money, equitable to waste we’ve seen from some Labour and Tory MPs who have equally screwed the tax payer.

Please back up your figures before you post or you may end up looking as silly as Mary Lou when trying to defend your pathetic MEP attendance record. After all there are other working mothers out there who manage to go to work after children, if MLM isn’t able to do her work she most certainly shouldn’t be putting herself in front of the electorate again.

A Dub in Glasgo

Again I fail to get worked up over the claims from SF considering they have been refused salaries.

The biggest waste of money is nothing to do with MPs (including Robinson couple who appear to eat an amazing amount of food) but the taxfunded bail out of the banking system and the taxfunded salaries and bonuses for the guys who caused the banking system to collapse.

A Dub in Glasgo

Souljacker wrote: »

4, In total, including travel expenses Sinn Fein's MPs claimed a total of £662,660 of taxpayer-funded allowances in 2007/8, including travel costs, offices and staff salaries for a 2nd job (after their MLA posts) where they don't go to work.

You talk about spin

Restricting it to the NI MPs, the following has been claimed by the parties and MPs from the taxpayer

The DUP claimed £1,337816 with an average of £148,646.20 per MP
SF claimed £681,235 with an average of £136,247 per MP
The SDLP claimed £463,096 with an average of £154,365.30 per MP
The UUP claimed £134,004 with 1 MP

Souljacker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Again I fail to get worked up over the claims from SF considering they have been refused salaries.

The biggest waste of money is nothing to do with MPs (including Robinson couple who appear to eat an amazing amount of food) but the taxfunded bail out of the banking system and the taxfunded salaries and bonuses for the guys who caused the banking system to collapse.

Still waiting for a source and link to back up this amazing claim that SF are demanding £2million off the tax payer.

But just to be clear you feel it's ok for SF MPs to buy things like Sofas, home entertainment systems and Venetian blinds off the tax payer because you seem to think we (as tax payers) owe the SF party £2 million in salary expenses for 2nd jobs they don't do??

Just to be clear mind because I always thought SF were (publically at least because they don’t practice it) against politicians holding duel political positions?

I agree with you, the Robinsons did seem to eat an awful lot of food but then SF seemed to pay way over the odds to rent accommodation, claiming £310,000 over five years. They both to me seem to have screwed the tax payer.

Souljacker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You talk about spin

Restricting it to the NI MPs, the following has been claimed by the parties and MPs from the taxpayer

The DUP claimed £1,337816 with an average of £148,646.20 per MP
SF claimed £681,235 with an average of £136,247 per MP
The SDLP claimed £463,096 with an average of £154,365.30 per MP
The UUP claimed £134,004 with 1 MP

Proof please, proof. I would say even if it is true the other parties at least have the excuse of actually sitting in the house of commons, SF don't so surely their expenses account should be much much lower no?

Still awaiting sources links to back u[p what you say.

A Dub in Glasgo

Try reading more than the Telegraph

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm?table=party&order=asc#expensestable

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/sinn-fein-denied-2m-in-salaries-and-grants-410939.html

FTA69

According to the most recent opinion poll she's three odd points ahead of Eoin Ryan while Patricia McKenna is substantially ahead of De Burca, if McKenna and Higgins transfer in any sizeable way to McDonald she will probably hold her seat. The biggest surprise for me was the fact Toiréasa Ferris is almost neck and neck with Alan Kelly of Labour in Munster, although the Blueshirt transfers should ensure he wins out ahead of both Ferris and that mad Synott woman.

Souljacker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Try reading more than the Telegraph

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm?table=party&order=asc#expensestable

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/sinn-fein-denied-2m-in-salaries-and-grants-410939.html

Wonderful! I fail to see how it justifies the waste unless SF now uses the DUP as their moral measuring stick.

Now maybe you can explain to me what exactly any SF member has ever done in their role as an absentee MP to justify such expenses.

Just so long as we're clear, your very happy for SF to spend your and my money buying themselves a lovely set of Venetian blinds and a couple of home entertainment systems, as well as the small matter of £310,000 on renting property off an Irish family in London paying 3 times over the odds.
Unless you’re still trying to push the argument that poor SF are justified in taking tax payer money to buy Venetian blinds because we owe them £2million for not doing their jobs?
Still waiting in anticipation for that link my friend.

Edit:

Apologies, I didn't see your second link. I'm quite shocked that Gerry thinks he's entitled to tax payers money in this way. Most parties are trying to apologise and make their MPs give back money they used in an immoral way yet here's Gerry telling us SF are entitled to spend tax payers money on things like Venetian blinds! Well there ya go, I hope they publicise that on their election leafleats 'SF wants’ more of your money.'

Forgive me but I've never seen a SF MP do anything in the capacity as an MP. They don't take their seats (which is entirely their prerogative) but I fail to see why they still feel they're entitled to our money.

A Dub in Glasgo

I did not say it justifies it - It is you who is going on some sort of crusade that only SF are guilty of claiming their allowances and expenses. I have put their claims in comparison with all other MPs. If you now view them all as parasites, then good for you. If not, why not?

I still fail to see why I should be indignant at SF MPs when the British Government refuses to pay them for being an MP. As I stated earlier, if you are truly interested in how wasteful the British Government is with taxpayers money - there are much bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

Souljacker

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I did not say it justifies it - It is you who is going on some sort of crusade that only SF are guilty of claiming their allowances and expenses. I have put their claims in comparison with all other MPs. If you now view them all as parasites, then good for you. If not, why not?

I still fail to see why I should be indignant at SF MPs when the British Government refuses to pay them for being an MP. As I stated earlier, if you are truly interested in how wasteful the British Government is with taxpayers money - there are much bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

Agreed however the starting point for this argument was what annoys you about MLM. I said it annoyed me that MLM felt that because SF took taxpayers money in expenses and pumped it into the SF machine it in some way justifies the waste. My point was it's still a waste regardless of what the money's used for.

I won't deny that I'm particularly annoyed at SF because they set themselves up on a pedestal calling everyone around them corrupt when they do the exact same thing, (claiming 3 times over the odds in rent allowance and buying Venetian blinds and home entertainment systems), only with out apologising.

I don't care if they're entitled to it because it was within the laws. It's still immoral and it contravenes the way MLM and SF portray themselves.

It also annoys me that party supports like yourself refuse to see any wrong in this corruption and waste.

You yourself said it doesn't bother you how they spend their massive expenses because the British government democratically decided that because SF MPs don't take their seats they shouldn't get paid a salary and you believe they should have been paid £2 million for sitting on their collective arses. It just beggers belief that you don’t see any wrong in SF wasting your money.

But then again I’m not of the opinion that it’s OK because everyone else is doing it.

goldenbrown

but unfortunately I have to vote for her as part of the national Fianna Fail detox programme and reduce chances of Eoin Ryan of FF getting elected..a lot done ..more to do ...dont you know

InFront

Nodin wrote: »

Did Gay Mitchell have a baby in 2006?

There have been some strange claims made in this thread (most strikingly including that SF MPs ought to be paid for not sitting in parliament). However, the suggestion that having a baby gets McDonald off the hook for doing a lesser job and having a higher rate of absenteeism than Mitchell is just too much.
I have a genuine problem with this way of thinking. A female politician cannot expect to offset her motherhood against the job she has been selected for and paid for. This certainly includes post natal commitments, but also ante natal, within reason. Having a baby is not a necessity it is a lifestyle choice.

Lets not forget that McDonald is not self employed. She is employed by the electorate to do a job in Europe at its considerable expense. If working for anybody else, she could not arbitrarily choose when she would and would not go to work on account of her motherhood, that excuse just cannot be allowed any weight in any place of employment. It doesn't even arise for fathers and the case with women should be very similiar.

There is, in my opinion, an issue in general with regard to working mothers, absenteeism and maternity leave but where public financing is involved, a greater ethical dimension is added to the issue. There is quite simply no excuse.

A Dub in Glasgo

You might want to check legislation before spouting off that it is unacceptable that mothers take time off from their job when pregnant and after giving birth. You will probably be shocked (strikingly so) to see that what you are proposing is illegal.

Nodin

Teh intarweb never ceases to amaze me.....

InFront wrote: »

A female politician cannot expect to offset her motherhood against the job she has been selected for and paid for. This certainly includes post natal commitments, but also ante natal, within reason. Having a baby is not a necessity it is a lifestyle choice. .

O dear. O dear o dear o dear.

InFront wrote: »

Lets not forget that McDonald is not self employed. She is employed by the electorate to do a job in Europe at its considerable expense. If working for anybody else, she could not arbitrarily choose when she would and would not go to work on account of her motherhood, that excuse just cannot be allowed any weight in any place of employment. It doesn't even arise for fathers and the case with women should be very similiar. .

Women are entitled to maternity leave. They do not need anyones permission to become pregnant. I'd stop now, were I you.

InFront wrote: »

There is, in my opinion, an issue in general with regard to working mothers, absenteeism and maternity leave.

Oddly enough, I gathered that allright.

InFront wrote: »

There is quite simply no excuse..

'bonding with the child'?

jimmmy

If she wants to bond with her child fine ; but let it not be forgotten the taxpayer has got very poor value from her in terms of the quantity and quality of work she was supposed to do when elected. Maybe the party which claims large expenses from the UK government, and which yet sells t-shirts and other memorabilia glorifying the same organisation which killed and attacked members of the same government in the not too distant past, should pay for a nanny ?

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

. Maybe the party which claims large expenses from the UK government, and which yet sells t-shirts and other memorabilia

How many times do we have to hear the exact same thing?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60240685&postcount=80

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60242624&postcount=89

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60244189&postcount=91

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60244547&postcount=93

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60255360&postcount=104

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60256430&postcount=107

And thats only on this thread.....

jimmmy wrote: »

. should pay for a nanny ?

So you're saying a woman isn't entitled to maternity leave in certain circumstances?

jimmmy

Souljacker wrote: »

The record is from 2004 to the present day, even if McDonald didn't attend for 12months that doesn't account for such a huge difference.
56% to 88% . That's a difference of 32%

Sorry my friend 12 months service doesn't nearly account for a 32% difference over 5 years (unless your using some sort of maths unknown to mankind).

But to give her the benifit of the doubt lets take her attendance from 2008.

Mary Lou McDonald:

1. 14/01/2008 Strasbourg
2. 15/01/2008 Strasbourg
3. 16/01/2008 Strasbourg
4. 30/01/2008 Brussels
5. 19/02/2008 Strasbourg
6. 20/02/2008 Strasbourg
7. 10/04/2008 Brussels
8. 21/04/2008 Strasbourg
9. 22/04/2008 Strasbourg
10. 23/04/2008 Strasbourg
11. 07/05/2008 Brussels
12. 24/06/2008 Brussels
13. 07/07/2008 Strasbourg
14. 08/07/2008 Strasbourg
15. 09/07/2008 Strasbourg
16. 22/09/2008 Brussels
17. 23/09/2008 Brussels
18. 08/10/2008 Brussels
19. 09/10/2008 Brussels
20. 20/10/2008 Strasbourg
21. 21/10/2008 Strasbourg
22. 22/10/2008 Strasbourg
23. 23/10/2008 Strasbourg
24. 17/11/2008 Strasbourg
25. 18/11/2008 Strasbourg
26. 19/11/2008 Strasbourg
27. 03/12/2008 Brussels
28. 16/12/2008 Strasbourg
29. 17/12/2008 Strasbourg
30. 12/01/2009 Strasbourg
31. 13/01/2009 Strasbourg
32. 14/01/2009 Strasbourg
33. 02/02/2009 Strasbourg
34. 03/02/2009 Strasbourg
35. 04/02/2009 Strasbourg
36. 10/03/2009 Strasbourg
37. 11/03/2009 Strasbourg
38. 23/03/2009 Strasbourg
39. 24/03/2009 Strasbourg
40. 25/03/2009 Strasbourg

Gay Mitchall

1. 14/01/2008 Strasbourg
2. 15/01/2008 Strasbourg
3. 16/01/2008 Strasbourg
4. 17/01/2008 Strasbourg
5. 31/01/2008 Brussels
6. 18/02/2008 Strasbourg
7. 19/02/2008 Strasbourg
8. 20/02/2008 Strasbourg
9. 21/02/2008 Strasbourg
10. 10/03/2008 Strasbourg
11. 11/03/2008 Strasbourg
12. 12/03/2008 Strasbourg
13. 13/03/2008 Strasbourg
14. 09/04/2008 Brussels
15. 10/04/2008 Brussels
16. 21/04/2008 Strasbourg
17. 22/04/2008 Strasbourg
18. 23/04/2008 Strasbourg
19. 24/04/2008 Strasbourg
20. 08/05/2008 Brussels
21. 20/05/2008 Strasbourg
22. 21/05/2008 Strasbourg
23. 22/05/2008 Strasbourg
24. 04/06/2008 Brussels
25. 05/06/2008 Brussels
26. 16/06/2008 Strasbourg
27. 17/06/2008 Strasbourg
28. 18/06/2008 Strasbourg
29. 19/06/2008 Strasbourg
30. 24/06/2008 Brussels
31. 08/07/2008 Strasbourg
32. 09/07/2008 Strasbourg
33. 10/07/2008 Strasbourg
34. 01/09/2008 Brussels
35. 02/09/2008 Brussels
36. 03/09/2008 Brussels
37. 04/09/2008 Brussels
38. 22/09/2008 Brussels
39. 23/09/2008 Brussels
40. 24/09/2008 Brussels
41. 25/09/2008 Brussels
42. 08/10/2008 Brussels
43. 09/10/2008 Brussels
44. 20/10/2008 Strasbourg
45. 21/10/2008 Strasbourg
46. 22/10/2008 Strasbourg
47. 23/10/2008 Strasbourg
48. 17/11/2008 Strasbourg
49. 18/11/2008 Strasbourg
50. 19/11/2008 Strasbourg
51. 20/11/2008 Strasbourg
52. 03/12/2008 Brussels
53. 04/12/2008 Brussels
54. 15/12/2008 Strasbourg
55. 16/12/2008 Strasbourg
56. 17/12/2008 Strasbourg
57. 18/12/2008 Strasbourg
58. 12/01/2009 Strasbourg
59. 13/01/2009 Strasbourg
60. 14/01/2009 Strasbourg
61. 15/01/2009 Strasbourg
62. 02/02/2009 Strasbourg
63. 03/02/2009 Strasbourg
64. 04/02/2009 Strasbourg
65. 05/02/2009 Strasbourg
66. 18/02/2009 Brussels
67. 19/02/2009 Brussels
68. 09/03/2009 Strasbourg
69. 10/03/2009 Strasbourg
70. 11/03/2009 Strasbourg
71. 12/03/2009 Strasbourg
72. 23/03/2009 Strasbourg
73. 24/03/2009 Strasbourg
74. 25/03/2009 Strasbourg


Oh dear, Oh dear Oh dear would you like me to work out the percentage difference between 74 and 40 or would you be in agreement with me that it’s quite substantial?

I think Gay Mitchall was quite right to call McDonald's attendance at the EP pathetic. It annoys me that Mary Lou thinks’ it's justifiable to ignore her MEP job to such an extent but I look forward to hearing you explain her way out of this one.

Source: European Parliament website (attendance list).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?country=IE&partNumber=1&zone=Dublin&language=EN&id=28112

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?country=IE&partNumber=1&zone=Dublin&language=EN&id=28111

Maternity leave Nodin ?

NB nodin If you quote me, you should quote the whole sentence, so points can be viewed in context.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Maternity leave Nodin ?

NB nodin If you quote me, you should quote the whole sentence, so points can be viewed in context.

Part of the difference in attendance can be explained by the fact she was on maternity leave.

Are you therefore saying she should take no maternity leave?

jimmmy

Was she on maternity leave for half of 5 years ?

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Was she on maternity leave for half of 5 years ?

I'd imagine she had a few months maternity leave, and the usual first few years of doctors appointments, sickness etc that accompany any child. That would obviously impact on attendance.

jimmmy

Souljacker wrote: »

Just to change the direction of the thread a little what has McDonald ever done in her political career?

Her record of attendance (by her own admission) for committee meeting, votes in Brussels is pathetic but I think the thing that most annoys me about Mary Lou, that fact that she doesn't seem to do anything annoys me the most. But I'm sure a few of here devotes here might be able to enlighten me as to what she's actually achieved in her role as an MEP.

Over 4 or 5 years she has had a child and perhaps taken it to the doctors, or perhaps someone else took it to the doctors if and when the baby got sick, as most children sometimes do....this explains her pathetic record of attendance ?

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Over 4 or 5 years she has had a child and perhaps taken it to the doctors, or perhaps someone else took it to the doctors if and when the baby got sick, as most children sometimes do....this explains her pathetic record of attendance ?

It would explain a good part of it. It would be most unusual if it didn't, as its par for the course with children. Now unless you have something to prove otherwise, apart from restating what I've posted and adding a question mark at the end......

jimmmy

Nodin wrote: »

It would explain a good part of it.

We all know it would explain part of it, but what of the rest ? As someone else wrote "The record is from 2004 to the present day, even if McDonald didn't attend for 12months that doesn't account for such a huge difference.
56% to 88% . That's a difference of 32%
Sorry my friend 12 months service doesn't nearly account for a 32% difference over 5 years "

Oh, and about the other matter, any explaination yet ? Maybe if someone cannot attend somewhere that much, a career in on-line selling may be more suitable ?

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

As someone else wrote

If you're too lazy to come up with your own thoughts Jimmy, don't expect me to bother with you. I'm tired of you repeating other people ad nauseam.

jimmmy wrote: »

Oh, and about the other matter, any explaination yet ? Maybe if someone cannot attend somewhere that much, a career in on-line selling may be more suitable ?

What are you on about?

jimmmy

Nodin wrote: »

If you're too lazy to come up with your own thoughts Jimmy, don't expect me to bother with them.

I have my own thoughts, thank you ; I was merely quoting some statistics. Now how about you answering the question ? ( regarding the rest of her absenteeism, for want of a better word, over many years )

Nodin wrote: »

What are you on about?

see your post of 12.50 today.....no explanation yet as to why that type of merchandising of those products is part of a political party website


Anyway, I do not expect to get a satisfactory answer, so am going to refrain from posting on this thread again.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Now how about you answering the question ?

I've no idea as to why the rest of the disparity exists. However it states on the website "votewatch" that "This person's attendance score is not displayed as he/she has had documented reasons for not attending all plenary sessions.".
http://www.votewatch.eu/cx_parlamentar_detalii.php?euro_parlamentar_id=417&lang=en&eps=8
I'd suggest that you perhaps start providing some reasons for the muck you're throwing, as evidently shes been able to satisfy the EU as regards her non-attendance.

jimmmy wrote: »

see your post of 12.50 today.

It's a non-issue, which you seem hell bent on dragging into every single Sinn Fein related thread. Your repetition does rather underline the paucity of your case though.

InFront

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You might want to check legislation before spouting off that it is unacceptable that mothers take time off from their job when pregnant and after giving birth. You will probably be shocked (strikingly so) to see that what you are proposing is illegal.

I am not 'proposing' anything. I am making two seperate points. In the first instance, while nobody expects a bloated, exhausted expectant mother to be walking the corridoors of Strasbourg at theirty seven weeks, motherhood in itself is a very different issue and can be no excuse - not in the slightest - for a bad attendance. I am keeping the issues of delivery of a child and motherhood very seperate
What I am talking about here is not illegal. People here are talking about McDonald's motherhood, her children being sick, doctor's visits and the likes impacting on her ability to do her job. Nodin even mentioned the need for 'bonding', am I the only one who finds that crazy? I think that blindly accepting that sort of distraction in any employee is not good practice. Where is the child's father and should he be allowed the same level of absenteeism throughout his child's early years? How long exactly will McDonald be cutting back on her elected duties for, four years? ten? eighteen?

Secondly I mentioned that yes there is an ethical issue with maternity leave in any employment situation. This is not particularly relevant to McDonald however ... or not moreso than any other mother.

jimmmy

Even though I said I would not post again on this thread, I just want to answer that, thank you.

Nodin wrote: »

I've no idea as to why the rest of the disparity exists. However it states on the website "votewatch" that "This person's attendance score is not displayed as he/she has had documented reasons for not attending all plenary sessions.". .

So you think her poor attendance record is ok so , as long as its documented.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest that you perhaps start providing some reasons for the muck you're throwing, as evidently shes been able to satisfy the EU as regards her non-attendance.

I am only asking questions, not throwing muck, ....maybe she has been able to satisfy the EU as regards her non-attendance ...that does not mean she automatically is a politician worthy of re-election in everyones eyes.

Nodin wrote: »

It's a non-issue,

Maybe with you, but other people have raised the matter too,

Nodin wrote: »

which you seem hell bent on dragging into every single Sinn Fein related thread.

Wrong, I do not even post on every Sinn Fein related thread. Anyway I am not going to post any more on this thread, as its tiresome. Thank you for your debate. In all fairness, I do not know if her child was badly sick or not, ( or indeed she herself could have had abnormal health or social or family reasons , I do not know ) ....maybe she has genuine reasons for her poor attendance record, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt. On that note, end of this thread for me.