John O'Donoghue and his travel spending spree

sceptre

Fulton Crown wrote: »

What the fcuck is going on that a Minister has a Chauffer driven motor at a race meeting.

Of all the expenses that have come out in the wash so far, it's the limo from terminal 3 to terminal 1 at Heathrow that has struck me as being the least necessary. The default transfer from 1 to 3 and vice-versa is to walk as they're not a long distance at all (it's ten minutes if you dawdle). Pulling 500 quid out of the kitty for that two minute drive isn't normal unless you're some sort of celebrity with leg problems.

narwog81

Here's a suggestion for every TD, especially mininsters:

quietly, without any fanfare, publicity or announcement, just start using public transport every now and again.

the postive publicity that would be recieved from a snapshot of a minister communting to work by bus/train/luas whatever would be incalcuable. It doesnt have to be a directive or party policy, it doesnt take a PR advisor to know what the general public would respond to.

please. or are you too afraid of the reaction you would recieve if the "ordinary" people are allowed come too close?

MrMicra

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Before people condemn The Bull out of hand, he probably had nothing to do with the actual booking arrangements.

Blame the Civil Servants who set up these things,great little people at spending taxpayers money.

That said, someone should have queried to expenditure and set out guidelines for such occasions.

That isn't correct. O'Donohue didn't make his own bookings but he explicitly demanded the best. Fluttering Bantam defending FF again.

Yitzhak Rabin

narwog81 wrote: »

Here's a suggestion for every TD, especially mininsters:

quietly, without any fanfare, publicity or announcement, just start using public transport every now and again.

TDs shouldn't have to use public transport. They've been elected to one of the highest position in the country, they shouldn't have to slum it with the lower classes. Most of them are highly qualified people.

Think before you say something so foolish.

Seth Brundle

yekahs wrote: »

TDs shouldn't have to use public transport. They've been elected to one of the highest position in the country, they shouldn't have to slum it with the lower classes. Most of them are highly qualified people.

Think before you say something so foolish.

Are you for real?
TDs are meant to represent the people of Ireland - many of whom use public transport. In fact I know many highly qualified people (PhDs, and Professors) who use public transport.
I think that you should do some thinking before posting!

thebman

yekahs wrote: »

TDs shouldn't have to use public transport. They've been elected to one of the highest position in the country, they shouldn't have to slum it with the lower classes. Most of them are highly qualified people.

Think before you say something so foolish.

Your suggesting everyone that uses public transport is lower class?

zootroid

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Good point pal..ref a previous thread of mine entitled "Who are our media stars"

From recent media reports it seems that the Civil Servants are getting the rap - however if we assume - as we should - that the Bulls expenses are only the tip of the iceberg then the hacks should start digging.

What the fcuck is going on that a Minister has a Chauffer driven motor at a race meeting.

Obscene - I say shame and obscene !:mad:

The indo has more details on TDs expenses:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/odonoghue-deal-worth-8364543000-over-two-years-1873500.html

This is the part that annoys me most:

The revelations will fuel debate over the Oireachtas expenses system, which does not require TDs to produce receipts for most of the expenditure they incur.

If that is the case, what is there to stop them making bogus expense claims, such as was seen in the UK?

And, if it were to come to light that TDs did make bogus expense claims, would they be prosecuted for fraud?

Seth Brundle

thebman wrote: »

Your suggesting everyone that uses public transport is lower class?

Maybe Thatcher has joined boards!

Raiser

Something struck me on Friday when reading the Independent (I know - not by choice) George Lee, who has been quieter than a Hamsters fart of late, was making the tiniest little mutterings about the John O'Donoghue non-scandal.

I noticed that he seemed to have accidentally and reluctantly gotten drawn into the whole thing after mailing someone on Politics.ie and then when he did begin to comment on the whole issue of abuse of privilege/expenses/standards in public office he was at great pains to emphasise that he was speaking about Politicians in general and not John O'Donoghue????

WTF? Are Politicians in general afraid to be seen to criticise the Emperor Of Expense???

So can the Ceann Comhairle hijack buses, pillage graves and hold orgies in Churches and still not face any consequences?

We need to start somewhere and I'd be so happy to see this little shít dealt with - fcuk him out the door and let him find other work or sign on.

- In my opinion he shouldn't be trusted to go to the shop for a pint of milk :mad:



Spot the difference - I've been checking since midday yesterday and I'm still not sure.

Riskymove

I agree that the whole expenses for politicians system needs an overhaul and some of the amounts are disgraceful but I think it should be pointed out for clarity that the figures bandied about today for the Bull include the allowance for being Cean Comhairle.

This allowance makes up the majority of the expenses and if you look past he compares similarly to most TDs from areas furthest from the Dail. The same would apply to Brendan Howlin who is also mentioned.

Raiser

Riskymove wrote: »

I agree that the whole expenses for politicians system needs an overhaul and some of the amounts are disgraceful but I think it should be pointed out for clarity that the figures bandied about today for the Bull include the allowance for being Cean Comhairle.

This allowance makes up the majority of the expenses and if you look past he compares similarly to most TDs from areas furthest from the Dail. The same would apply to Brendan Howlin who is also mentioned.

Whats the average wage in this Country again?

Whats the average industrial wage?

You cannot justify cynical, opportunistic, morally bankrupt excess by comparing it to other cynical, opportunistic, morally bankrupt excess [?]

Tony Killeen (Clare) (FF) - has expenses of €21,063 for the same period of time and I bet he didn't hitch-hike around and live on cold beans from Aldi. If we have any decent Journalist left in this Country I'd urge them to interview both Howlin and Killeen and ask some insightful questions on the disparity between the figures quoted.

I've noticed that a lot of your posts seem to condone/justify/minimise/explain/play down the antics of Fianna Fail?

- Have you someone close to you involved?

Riskymove

Raiser wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of your posts seem to condone/justify/minimise/explain/play down the antics of Fianna Fail?

- Have you someone close to you involved?

ah yes the usual "if someone takes a rational approach to something they must have a hidden agenda" approach

I have not, in fact, done any of the things you suggest, I am simply pointing out a fact in the story.

If the Bull was not Ceann Comhairle he would be down €235,000 on the expenses and someone else would be getting it.

I said that "the whole expenses for politicians system needs an overhaul and some of the amounts are disgraceful "...hardly support is it?


BTW Tony Killeen is a Minister of State in the period involved and therefore has higher wages and comes under a different system for allowances (another fact for you, although you'll probably see something sinister in that too)

meathstevie

Riskymove wrote: »

well there wont be any march will there...cause this is Ireland and the truth of the matter is many people are happy to let politicians do what they want as long as their constituency is looked after

on a lighter note, I doubt very much some over the top expenses is the reason the country is in the sh**e...

In relation to your last line...it's exactly this attitude to public money that got us in a serious mess. No matter how bad this is on an ethics and personal level for O'Donoghue on the wider scale of running a country it's petty cash indeed. It's the spending of public money with a "devil may care" attitude which is the problem. If anyone wants examples : Luas running madly over budget, the port tunnel running madly over budget, the M3 motorway coming with a garanteed income clause for it's operator, voting machines bought and stored, HSE software being a joke....

In the meantime government policticians are rushing to bail out developpers and banks while secondary roads all over the country are reverting to their natural state of pockmarked anti-tank defences. Gardia, teachers, nurses, firemen etc are being slaughtered with levies and bans on overtime. Ordinary working people are facing tax increases left right and center. For what ? So the government can continue to waste money and it's members to swan around like 19th century maharaja's ?

We've come a long way and grown up a lot since one of our leading lights went to the states early in the twentieth century on a fundraiser and used a right chunk of the result to set up his newspaper. At least it's good to see Fianna Fail and it's servants have stuck to their moral code with some consistency.

Riskymove

meathstevie wrote: »

It's the spending of public money with a "devil may care" attitude which is the problem.

I couldn't agree more; it's the era of Bertie the fixer throwing cash at everything and the level of greed involved in our property/land bubble that has brought us to where we are

Jaysoose

Riskymove wrote: »

I couldn't agree more; it's the era of Bertie the fixer throwing cash at everything and the level of greed involved in our property/land bubble that has brought us to where we are

Using the property bubble/bertie as a reason for these people to spend money like they are oil sheiks is a terrible argument.

The personal responsibility should fall on these people as they know what they are doing is ridiculous and they should be held accountable.

Any TD that feels they are so important that they are above a bus ride in the airport then spends hundreds on a limo should be forced to resign with immediate effect, its irresponsible and arrogant.

Its wrong and unjustifiable, simple as that.

AdMMM

John O'Donoghue came into where I work last weekend and ordered a few drinks. He paid, but stuffed the receipt back into his wallet. Sigh.

Raiser

AdMMM wrote: »

John O'Donoghue came into where I work last weekend and ordered a few drinks. He paid, but stuffed the receipt back into his wallet. Sigh.

I thought they didn't need to keep receipts as they are all made up unvouched expenses?

- A parent of someone I know did some contract work for a few months for the HSE and was expected to submit expense afterwards. When they did they were sent back as being too low; They were told that they all had to "make a living" and to re-submit them inflated fourfold.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

Using the property bubble/bertie as a reason for these people to spend money like they are oil sheiks is a terrible argument.

who made that argument?

bonzos

The like of o donoghue are no better than gangsters in our prisons!He is the same as a bad employee dipping his hand in the till and stealing from his employer...to only difference is that he is taking €100k at a time . Anyone who can defend someone who hires a taxi costing €500 to travel between two terminals at an airport(when a 3min bus ride is free) must also ahve a hidden agenda!the likes of o donoghue are a cancer on this country and anyone reading about this carry on from anywhere else in the world would surely form the option that ireland is riddled with corruption

bonzos

bonzos wrote: »

The like of o donoghue are no better than gangsters in our prisons!

That sort of nonsensical hysteria is what always drags these threads down and weakens the case against O'D by diluting the good points with patent rubbish.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head in a drug deal and paying too much on car hire. Check out the definition of a crime and get back here.

bonzos

Deleted User wrote: »

That sort of nonsensical hysteria is what always drags these threads down and weakens the case against O'D by diluting the good points with patent rubbish.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head in a drug deal and paying too much on car hire. Check out the definition of a crime and get back here.

His abuse of public money is no better than white collar crime!this guy has a duty to spend the tax payers money in a responsible way!the money that he was wasting on taxis and hat hire might be better spent preventing crime if it was channelled into the right areas

Raiser

bonzos wrote: »

The like of o donoghue are no better than gangsters in our prisons!

Deleted User wrote: »

That sort of nonsensical hysteria is what always drags these threads down and weakens the case against O'D by diluting the good points with patent rubbish.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head in a drug deal and paying too much on car hire. Check out the definition of a crime and get back here.

Actually in my opinion a lot of individuals incarcerated in the Nations prisons may well have taken far less from the hard-working taxpayer than John O'Donoguhe has lined his greasy, bulging pockets with over the years.

In your opinion, is it more criminal and morally destitute to commit a crime in a moment of poor judgement than it is to defraud the Public at large and disrespect the people by living like a pre-revolution French King for years on the broken backs of the working man???

- I predict that he'll attempt to quietly stand down in about a week or ten days; I'd like to see him leave empty handed though. Give back what you took, take no pay-off, no pension and fcuk of with your little rats face.....

Jaysoose

F

bonzos

Deleted User wrote: »

That sort of nonsensical hysteria is what always drags these threads down and weakens the case against O'D by diluting the good points with patent rubbish.

There is a difference between shooting someone in the head in a drug deal and paying too much on car hire. Check out the definition of a crime and get back here.

It would be interesting to see if o donoghue and his wife splashed out on such lavish expences with their own business (legal practice)...surly if he conciders these expenses acceptable when the tax payer is paying of him then it is also acceptable for his own business.

Raiser

Raiser wrote: »

In your opinion, is it more criminal and morally destitute to commit a crime in a moment of poor judgement than it is to defraud the Public at large and disrespect the people by living like a pre-revolution French King for years on the broken backs of the working man???

It is not comparable. They are different issues. But interesting that you defend gangsters as people 'caught in moments of poor judgements'. The lengths people will go to to damn O'Donoghue are almosty amusing, to the point of defending those poor old murderers!

Raiser wrote: »

Give back what you took, take no pay-off, no pension and fcuk of with your little rats face.....

That's a bit strong. I think it's exactly the hysteria to which I referred above. One can make calm and cogent arguments about why he has a case to answer, your bizarre suggestion that he physically resembles vermin really has no place in that argument.

bonzos wrote: »

It would be interesting to see if o donoghue and his wife splashed out on such lavish expences with their own business (legal practice)...surly if he conciders these expenses acceptable when the tax payer is paying of him then it is also acceptable for his own business.

Private fee arrangements between him as his clients are none of our business, and not relevant anyway. Would he be better or worse for charging clients more or less? Surely the issue merits attention and condemnation in its own right?

bonzos

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not comparable. They are different issues. But interesting that you defend gangsters as people 'caught in moments of poor judgements'. The lengths people will go to to damn O'Donoghue are almosty amusing, to the point of defending those poor old murderers!



That's a bit strong. I think it's exactly the hysteria to which I referred above. One can make calm and cogent arguments about why he has a case to answer, your bizarre suggestion that he physically resembles vermin really has no place in that argument.



Private fee arrangements between him as his clients are none of our business, and not relevant anyway. Would he be better or worse for charging clients more or less? Surely the issue merits attention and condemnation in its own right?

I take it from your coments that you think that john is been given a bit of a hard time and this is unfair.....interesting perspective:rolleyes:

bonzos

bonzos wrote: »

I take it from your coments that you think that john is been given a bit of a hard time and this is unfair.....interesting perspective:rolleyes:

Now now, don't get all touchy and defensive because I pointed out the obvious nonsense in your post.

I have already said his actions seem "outrageous" and "obscene". I would have thought that clear enough. Where did you pluck your "hard time and unfair" nonsense from?

Just because I distinguish him from The General, or point out that whether you think he looks like a certain animal is irrelevant, its hardly the same thing as defending him. It's just asking for a bit more calm and logic, and less raving.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not comparable. They are different issues. But interesting that you defend gangsters as people 'caught in moments of poor judgements'. The lengths people will go to to damn O'Donoghue are almosty amusing, to the point of defending those poor old murderers!

Conor, I haven't seen anybody defend those "poor old murderers", except for you ironically with that turn of phrase. But to put your inability to see how O'Donoghue and his ilk with their white collar crime are as bad as any gangster in Ireland with their blue collar crime, I'll put these names to you;

• Nick Leeson
• Bernard Madhoff

Shurrrrrre didn't they only take a bit o'money from de till, t'rascals. Cuuuute h00rs they were t'be true t'be true and fair plaayyy to them.

/me vomits.


O'Donoghue and his ilk are no better than the above, only the sum differs (or perhaps doesn't alarmingly enough given the vast amounts of public monies they've presided over squandering ....). I'd consider them worse than the above considering the likes of Leeson & Madhoff knew what they were doing was illegal and tried to be discrete about it. O'Donohuge is an arrogant disrespectful gluttonous b*stard who has shown two fingers to the very people he swore to represent and serve; i.e. the Irish people.

You don't have to have a gun in your hand to destroy lives.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

But to put your inability to see how O'Donoghue and his ilk with their white collar crime are as bad as any gangster in Ireland with their blue collar crime

Okay, we'll discuss this issue.

For starters, what crime did O'Donoghue commit. Please specify exact acts, sections etc. The Madoff comparison is pretty lame, do you realise that wrongs differ in type and scale?

Naming people who actually committed crimes and were convicted such as Nick Leeson, or making some frankly weird comment in Darby O'Gill speak (I think the internet phrase is 'wtf?') doesn't advance the argument at all.

Lemming wrote: »

O'Donoghue and his ilk are no better than the above, only the sum differs

I beg to differ too. Your argument is paper thin. You say O'Donoghue is the same as Nick Leeson, and Nick Leeson is no better than gangsters. Sure why don't they all get the exact same sentences too then?

I think the legal system and the tariffs handed down by the courts in this country and indeed in others (how much did your Nick Leeson serve and what is the tariff for gangland crime in Singapore?) would bear me out.

As for the 'you don't have to pull a trigger to destroy lives', I'm not sure anyone ever suggested otherwise. But a murderer, a rapist, a bank robber and someone who screws the expenses are not all the same deserving the same treatment and held in the same light. As I said, I can come back with an indication of penalties handed down by courts to show my opinion is not unusual.

Stark

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It almost seems like we need a civil war / revolution; or alternatively (given that the UK has sorted themselves out) rejoin the UK ???? While I wouldn't be a fan, there's no point being independent if we're being shafted by "our own".

It's like Animal Farm. We go to the trouble of ousting Mr. Jones, things are good for a while, then the pigs take over and lavish themselves with luxury at the taxpayer's expense. They're not even being subtle with the physical resemblance...