Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Kathy Sinnott and fraud?
Options
Comments
-
I was up at CUH, Wilton when Kathy and her cronies got really scary (I was frightened and wasn't involved - just collecting someone from work !). She is against free speech as the guy there that day never got to deliver his address. That is not what should be elected in a democracy i.e. someone who doesn't support the basic tenets of democracy.
Kathy, Kathy, Kathy, OUT OUT OUT !0 -
It's completely fair to those who have opposed every European treaty since 1973 - Sinn Fein, Anthony Coughlan, McKenna, the various fringe left groups, COIR (which poses the question for Libertas), SPUC, etc etc. Their criticisms are often dismissable because they involve a set of assumptions about the nature and direction of the EU which has never been borne out in practice.
I have no problem with questioning the EU, and have my own areas of strong reservation, but I do have a problem with the kind of criticisms that involve wearing a tinfoil hat. Anything that starts off by assuming a European superstate, or demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how the EU works, isn't worthwhile criticism. It's like listening to a diagnosis of your computer troubles by someone who's still wondering where the little people in the TV go at night.
cordially,
Scofflaw
If only the issue was black and white, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. While I may not agree with the analysis made by some, that doesn't necessarily mean I am right and they are wrong. Sometimes its not black and white and can be a matter of opinion. And just because we judge some might have got it wrong in the past, doesn't automatically mean that they, or others, will be proven wrong in the future.
For example, England's First Lord of the Treasury has grown and assumed and amassed power to the office way beyond what was originally intended. If the EU doesn't have a constitution to define the role of EU President and limit that role, the lack of a constitution may mean that whoever gets the job (Tony Blair? Bertie?) will probably play politics and manouver himself into a position of amassing more and more power to the office. the irony is that the very people who opposed the constitution may well, if Lisbon is passed, see their opposition to the constitution paving the way for this to happen.
Even in this country where we have a constitution, our Taoiseach has now amassed much more power to himself at the expense of our Dáil, so its not surpsring some have reservations about such issues as a president of the EU.0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »Even in this country where we have a constitution, our Taoiseach has now amassed much more power to himself at the expense of our Dáil, so its not surpsring some have reservations about such issues as a president of the EU.
Eh, the main amassing of power was done by De Valera and his neutering of the Seanad etc. It's not a recent phenomenon at all.0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »If only the issue was black and white, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. While I may not agree with the analysis made by some, that doesn't necessarily mean I am right and they are wrong. Sometimes its not black and white and can be a matter of opinion. And just because we judge some might have got it wrong in the past, doesn't automatically mean that they, or others, will be proven wrong in the future.
For example, England's First Lord of the Treasury has grown and assumed and amassed power to the office way beyond what was originally intended. If the EU doesn't have a constitution to define the role of EU President and limit that role, the lack of a constitution may mean that whoever gets the job (Tony Blair? Bertie?) will probably play politics and manouver himself into a position of amassing more and more power to the office. the irony is that the very people who opposed the constitution may well, if Lisbon is passed, see their opposition to the constitution paving the way for this to happen.
Even in this country where we have a constitution, our Taoiseach has now amassed much more power to himself at the expense of our Dáil, so its not surpsring some have reservations about such issues as a president of the EU.
The role of the President is very well outlined in the Treaty. Back last year I assembled every single bit of the Treaty that refers to the position - I can either repost it or point you to it. There's very little in the way of power there, mostly because none of the member states would accept any such thing. I'm really not at all sure why people think the member states would write up a position that could be used to dominate them - unless, of course, people believe that the EU writes the EU treaties!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The role of the President is very well outlined in the Treaty. Back last year I assembled every single bit of the Treaty that refers to the position - I can either repost it or point you to it. There's very little in the way of power there, mostly because none of the member states would accept any such thing. I'm really not at all sure why people think the member states would write up a position that could be used to dominate them - unless, of course, people believe that the EU writes the EU treaties!
cordially,
Scofflaw
Hey Scofflaw - could you repost or give a link to that? Would be very interested to read it.
Thanks!0 -
Advertisement
-
Hey Scofflaw - could you repost or give a link to that? Would be very interested to read it.
Thanks!
I'll repost - it's not all that long:If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.
A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.
Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.
As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.
The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.
The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.
Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union
The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.
The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.
If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.
Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.
If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.
Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.
I should really go back and add article numbers, but anyone who really needs them can do a text search in a PDF of the consolidated treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
In my opinion a vote for Kathy Sinnott is a vote for an empty seat in the European Parliament
0 -
Thats a good point Raiser.
At the end of the day people like Sinnot actually engage the EU properly. Instead they just stand at the fringe whinging, and engaging in pointless token acts like voting against every commission put forward for election. People like this do not provide effective representation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fraud who be too strong a word because it was perfectly legit.Each time I pass an election poster picture (taken 25 years ago
) of Krazy Kathy I fondly remember her German Television debut http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMtc_QJ4-E
I was just wondering if anyone has any recollection of Kathy Sinnott ever putting forward her opinions/stance on the issue of fraud or corruption in present day Ireland.
She was physically there on the day to sign up as the youtube video showed.
If I was an MEP and sign up for attending and sit in the parliament and catch some need sleep (believe me they can you put you to sleep) except for UKIP leader, (he entertaining). and I can still pass the rules.
The question I would have is Did she actually work for her constituency? I believe yes as I could find traces of her work. she been annoying to other MEP's which showed that she is no yes girl and do not follow the sheep.
As MEP Politicians go, she has done more than some others.
Read her EU profile
Her EU questions0 -
Fraud who be too strong a word because it was perfectly legit.
She was physically there on the day to sign up as the youtube video showed.
If I was an MEP and sign up for attending and sit in the parliament and catch some need sleep (believe me they can you put you to sleep) except for UKIP leader, (he entertaining). and I can still pass the rules.
The question I would have is Did she actually work for her constituency? I believe yes as I could find traces of her work. she been annoying to other MEP's which showed that she is no yes girl and do not follow the sheep.
As MEP Politicians go, she has done more than some others.
Read her EU profile
Her EU questions
If you refer back to my OP it clearly asks if anyone is aware of what Kathy Sinnotts position on fraud as committed by individuals other than herself.
- In my opinion if anyone can arrive anywhere at the crack of dawn and sign an attendance register for that day and then fcuk off to the Airport to eat bagels with cream cheese and drink lattes with chocolate sprinkles on top while waiting to snooze on a flight home there is something seriously wrong.
The situation itself and your stance on it is a precarious journey from brazen behaviour to desperate excuses in defence of same - Hopefully others will agree on this polling day...........Thats a good point Raiser.
At the end of the day people like Sinnot actually engage the EU properly. Instead they just stand at the fringe whinging, and engaging in pointless token acts like voting against every commission put forward for election. People like this do not provide effective representation.
Hey! You're the Dude offa that Prime Time special - Have you got Groupies and everything now Turgon!!!!!0 -
You or me cannot truly say what she does or not as we do not follow her everyday. I been reading you posts and your have an agenda rather than trying to find the truth. I haven't hear anything from you to prove as fact only hear say and half truths. That a more dangerous stance to take.The situation itself and your stance on it is a precarious journey from brazen behaviour to desperate excuses in defence of same - Hopefully others will agree on this polling day...........
By your Stance, We should fire all the MEP's for poor performance.0 -
The role of the President is very well outlined in the Treaty. Back last year I assembled every single bit of the Treaty that refers to the position - I can either repost it or point you to it. There's very little in the way of power there, mostly because none of the member states would accept any such thing. I'm really not at all sure why people think the member states would write up a position that could be used to dominate them - unless, of course, people believe that the EU writes the EU treaties!
cordially,
Scofflaw
of course I am well aware of the outline in the treaty. But I am also aware that its not a static position. Just as another poster pointed out, even Devalera, and most leaders, manouver to amass more power and influence to themselves. So it will be with the EU President. Imagine someone with the political skills of someone like, for example, Tony Blair, in the job. It's a one way street and no political leader since the time of Herod has ever given up any power. Any political leader worth his salt will be able to slowly, and steadily, increase his power and influence.
No member state's people would agree, or have ever agreed, to the usurption of its parliament to give their prime minister more and more personal power, but that's what has happened in most countries in Europe (Ireland and the UK included). Its happened by ambitious politicians wanting more and more power, and by electorates who have either not cared or not seen what's happening until its too late, and that's likely to be what will happen to the job with the title "President of the EU".
You may disagree, and you may be right, who knows. But I'll bet that when you look at this thread in 20 years time, I'll be more likely to be right.0 -
Fraud who be too strong a word because it was perfectly legit.
She was physically there on the day to sign up as the youtube video showed.
Its sort of a lost cause at this point but the youtube video was only half of the issue. If Kathy Sinnott was only caught on the youtube video and that was that it could have been left as an issue that is here say she say etc.
But she responded to the video quite aggressively stating that she had worked through the night and was therefore entitled to the pay. It was pointed out to her that this pay does not extend to night work and she removed the video.
Which is irritating because searching the internet you can find traces of the argument across forums and blogs but not the video itself, her response was very aggressive, very defensive and it has been challanged that she isnt even genuine in it because the headings on the emails she shows as proof that she was working on are suspect (emails she sent to herself etc).
She has since removed her response and has been pretty much ignoring the issue completely.0 -
bokspring71 wrote: »of course I am well aware of the outline in the treaty. But I am also aware that its not a static position. Just as another poster pointed out, even Devalera, and most leaders, manouver to amass more power and influence to themselves. So it will be with the EU President. Imagine someone with the political skills of someone like, for example, Tony Blair, in the job. It's a one way street and no political leader since the time of Herod has ever given up any power. Any political leader worth his salt will be able to slowly, and steadily, increase his power and influence.
No member state's people would agree, or have ever agreed, to the usurption of its parliament to give their prime minister more and more personal power, but that's what has happened in most countries in Europe (Ireland and the UK included). Its happened by ambitious politicians wanting more and more power, and by electorates who have either not cared or not seen what's happening until its too late, and that's likely to be what will happen to the job with the title "President of the EU".
You may disagree, and you may be right, who knows. But I'll bet that when you look at this thread in 20 years time, I'll be more likely to be right.
The main reason I would disagree is that the process whereby prime ministers have gained power isn't really applicable. Prime Ministers have more power now because the Government/Cabinet in general has more power, and the Government/Cabinet has more power because there is no free voting in the parliaments courtesy of the Whip system. That certainly allows the PM to look powerful, because any disagreements are dealt with inside the Cabinet, where they go unreported.
That's hardly something that applies to the President of the Council vis a vis the member states, because the 'Cabinet' is composed of the member states, and the member states hold the strings of the EU. The counterweights available to the President against the Council are the Commission (appointed by the member states) and the Parliament (no true whip system, directly elected). The President has no power to reward MEPs or promote a party agenda, and the MEPs have no power over the Treaty provisions that govern the Presidency.
It's a very carefully constructed set of checks and balances, the EU system. If it shows any signs of getting out of the control of the member states, they can change the rules at the next treaty. I suspect the Presidency will be watched very carefully for several years before any powers are added to the office.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
She did response badly but we all respond in different manner when we relies that we had been caught and do not usually do wrong. She also a terrible liar, therefore she not a practise liar. Also in the Video the Reporter did move aggressively towards her and started accusing her. So Her responds aggressive back does not bother me and it is expected just like other MEP's using the opposite Flight response to escape. Both reactions are normal when accused (innocent or guilty). It is the smooth operators who claim that then not do wrong or minimise it and then distract you in a different direction to keep the attention off themselves so they can relaxed and fool you.BlitzKrieg wrote: »Its sort of a lost cause at this point but the youtube video was only half of the issue. If Kathy Sinnott was only caught on the youtube video and that was that it could have been left as an issue that is here say she say etc.
But she responded to the video quite aggressively stating that she had worked through the night and was therefore entitled to the pay. It was pointed out to her that this pay does not extend to night work and she removed the video.
Which is irritating because searching the internet you can find traces of the argument across forums and blogs but not the video itself, her response was very aggressive, very defensive and it has been challanged that she isnt even genuine in it because the headings on the emails she shows as proof that she was working on are suspect (emails she sent to herself etc).
She has since removed her response and has been pretty much ignoring the issue completely.
Look at the responses at the MP's in England at Expense expose as they got caught.0 -
She did response badly but we all respond in different manner when we relies that we had been caught and do not usually do wrong
I wasnt referring to her response in the video itself. She released a youtube video of her own where she tried to prove her position (again reiterating the working all night defence) and she then took down her video response and has since buried it when its content was questioned.
The result is there is a whole second part to this debate that she has purposely buried and cannot be resurrected essentialy because she was the person who instigated it and any discussion about it now can be fobbed off with ignorance because she deleted the evidence.
Take for example this commentary about her response: http://ocaoimh.ie/2008/06/30/the-eu-gravy-train/#comment-651934Quite apart from the fact that the day allowance specifically does not cover night work meaning that she was, absolutely, abusing the system, has anyone in the Irish media actually slowed down the video and LOOKED at the emails she quickly flashes up as proof that she was working all night?
Faking emails headers is easy but it is also easy to make small mistakes when doing so:
22:58PM, 6 words, from SINNOTT KATHY to ‘Jenny and Neil Farrell’
23:58PM, 3 paragraphs, from SINNOTT KATHY to ‘jmabbott2@eircom.net’
00:38AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to SINNOTT Kathy - to herself, no independent verification possible.
01:28AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Jene Kelly’
01:43AM, 2 words, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnot’ - again, to herself, so, no independent verification possible BUT, note that, this time, the app prints out the TO name differently; HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
02:05AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to SINNOTT Kathy, cc SINNOTT Kathy.
03:22AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘jnmi@eircom.net’
04:02AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to HOWITT Richard
04:39AM, 1 sentence, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Michael O’Sullivan’
04:54AM, 2 words, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnot’ - again, the TO name is not in line with how the application has previously displayed it. How is this possible? Also, read the content: a reply, sent to herself, in response to another email sent by Kathy to herself with the subject line “Kathy - Do we have information on JP Bonde”. Why on Earth would hail herself by name in a quick reminder email? Does anyone send notes to themselves like “Bob, don’t forget the milk”? I’m guessing the subject and contents were hastily cut n’ pasted from another email, sent to her by someone else at a different time.
05:10AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnott’, cc ‘daithiherriot@yahoo.ie’ - strange, standard practice would be to reply to the person and cc to yourself.
06:41AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Therese Dovel’, cc ‘Therese Dovel’. This email contains instructions from Kathy to, apparently, the employee/service provider who provides email-related tech support, so, no independent verification possible and an interesting coincidence that it is to precisely the person you might go to if you needed advice on faking email headers.
SO … in her video she claims to have spent the night “processing hundreds of emails” but that actually turns out to be 12, including 5 quick “Thanks for your email” messages and 4 simple reminders to herself, two of which appear to have been forged.
The differing format of the TO name used in different emails sent to herself is the main problem - an email application would display this in the same way, with the same case, every time. This is a typical rookie mistake when an email is hastily forged.
Also, the workflow does not ring true: anyone dealing with any volume of correspondence would deal with the really short “Thanks for your email” stuff in a batch but, here, the 5 such emails are spread throughout this alleged marathon session.
Even if not faked, it is more than a little deceptive to flash up 4 emails sent only to yourself, as reminders, trying to give the impression they were correspondence.
So, according to Kathy, stem cell research which saves lives and offers hope to millions is wrong, but abusing public funds and fabricating documents when caught with your hand in the jar is okay.
Yes we could argue bias by the commentator and I wouldnt expect anyone to accept it as proof that she is guilty. But I would argue that there is a stark difference between *reacting badly when put on the spot* to *completely taking down your defence and burying the issue when people genuinely question it*0 -
Staying up all night "working" is only actually carried out by Students, Security Guards and the previously mentioned Fred West.......:p0
Advertisement