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

Tom O' Higgins quitting Houses of the Oireachtas Commission's audit committee

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    thebman wrote: »
    lol and why should he stick around to take all the blame when he was making the recommendations and was being ignored?

    He stuck around and made his recommendations, why weren't they implemented is the scandal TBH.

    The point I'm making is he shouldn't have been around and the fact that is around now he should be bearing some responsability.

    It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.


  • Options
    #33
    bigstar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭bigstar


    workaccount wrote: »
    He sat in his cushy seat for 5 years on a nice salary and decides to quit before it explodes. He would be still there for another 5 if things hadn't gone they way they have with the economy. Pushes all the blame away from himself then. Taxpayers were paying his salary. If he's so principled that he quits his top civil job because the TD's are not listening to him why didn't he do it a few years ago.

    Whatever the TD's do doesn't excuse him at all.
    workaccount wrote: »
    The point I'm making is he shouldn't have been around and the fact that is around now he should be bearing some responsability.

    It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.

    no his job was not to oversee payments, he worked for the politicians, it is their job to oversee him. thats what you have wrong. do you think that if he had quit years ago, then the expense system would have fixed itself. no it wouldnt, he can do more in the system than outside it.

    look your entitled to your view, but neither of us know the man so talking about his principles is pointless. we only have the facts. the fact is he at least brought the abuse of expenses to the attention of those who could do something about it. the politicians ignored this and seeing a they are his employers and the only people who could change this disgraceful waste of taxpayers money, i think the blame obviously lies with them.


  • Options
    #34
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    bigstar wrote: »
    no his job was not to oversee payments, he worked for the politicians, it is their job to oversee him. thats what you have wrong. do you think that if he had quit years ago, then the expense system would have fixed itself. no it wouldnt, he can do more in the system than outside it.

    look your entitled to your view, but neither of us know the man so talking about his principles is pointless. we only have the facts. the fact is he at least brought the abuse of expenses to the attention of those who could do something about it. the politicians ignored this and seeing a they are his employers and the only people who could change this disgraceful waste of taxpayers money, i think the blame obviously lies with them.

    I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

    You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

    Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.


  • Options
    #35
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    workaccount wrote: »
    I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

    You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

    Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.

    True but then his hands were tied. If he came out a few years ago and said the expenses were too high and he couldn't do anything and steped down then nobody would have cared because sure we were rolling in cash attitude.

    Doing it when we are bankrupt achieves a lot more. I think he stepped down at the right time. Hopefully could help and be the little bit of extra pressure required to get the expense problems fixed.

    Don't know the guy either so this may not have been his intention.


  • Options
    #36
    bigstar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭bigstar


    workaccount wrote: »
    I was provoked into conjecture above by people attacking my point of view when I didn't have the facts and they didn't have the facts either. I said it wasn't my job to administer justice - I just thought there was a case.

    You say he can do more in the system than outside it - I say he didn't do anything in the system related to this problem at all that actually was worthwhile.

    Maybe the expense system would have been fixed years ago - it certainly didn't do the system any good to have him there.

    man this pointless. maybe it would, maybe it would be worse now, maybe it was worse when he took over and is better now but still crap, maybe he went to venice with o donoghue, maybe hes a mormon. again we dont know. we know he tried and didnt succeed while others would prefers things stayed as is. seems a decent man to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    thebman wrote: »
    True but then his hands were tied. If he came out a few years ago and said the expenses were too high and he couldn't do anything and steped down then nobody would have cared because sure we were rolling in cash attitude.

    Doing it when we are bankrupt achieves a lot more. I think he stepped down at the right time. Hopefully could help and be the little bit of extra pressure required to get the expense problems fixed.

    Don't know the guy either so this may not have been his intention.

    Yeah this argument has been put forth above. I think that people would have been very interested to know what Fianna Fail were up to and the money they were spending on ridiculous expenses. People already thought they were getting paid enough but some people getting the same or more in expenses than their salary?

    I think it would have been tightened up then. Tightened up even more that were in recession? Maybe.

    Mr. Higgins must have known there was going to be a recession for years - should have warned a few other people.


  • Options
    #38
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    bigstar wrote: »
    man this pointless. maybe it would, maybe it would be worse now, maybe it was worse when he took over and is better now but still crap, maybe he went to venice with o donoghue, maybe hes a mormon. again we dont know. we know he tried and didnt succeed while others would prefers things stayed as is. seems a decent man to me.

    That was a reply to someone elses post. If you don't have a serious point to make please refrain from meager remarks.

    I've already given my opinion on conjecture and my argument is not based on that.


  • Options
    #39
    bigstar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭bigstar


    workaccount wrote: »
    That was a reply to someone elses post. If you don't have a serious point to make please refrain from meager remarks.

    I've already given my opinion on conjecture and my argument is not based on that.

    it was actually a reply to my post if you look above. im not looking for silly arguments but maybe this and that arent good enough reasons to blame someone. your argument is that this civil servant should have made more effort to address the expense problem. he did make an effort. unfortunately civil servants can only advise, they have no power to act on their advise.

    and i did make a serious point. he tried, but was ignored.


  • Options
    #40
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    bigstar wrote: »
    it was actually a reply to my post if you look above. im not looking for silly arguments but maybe this and that arent good enough reasons to blame someone. your argument is that this civil servant should have made more effort to address the expense problem. he did make an effort. unfortunately civil servants can only advise, they have no power to act on their advise.

    and i did make a serious point. he tried, but was ignored.

    Yep, but while workaccount is unwilling to let the rest of us think any different and say so, he still regurgitates the same version of his outlook on events!
    ...he tried, but was ignored.
    Your wasting your time here - workaccount don't get that or is unwilling even to see that... let him keep deflecting and/or PR spinning away.
    We can all make up our own minds without this further trolling on and on.


  • Options
    #41
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    Biggins wrote: »
    Your wasting your time here - workaccount don't get that or is unwilling even to see that... let him keep deflecting and/or PR spinning away.
    We can all make up our own minds without this further trolling on and on.


    I do get the "tried" part Biggins - did we not discuss this a few days ago already? :p

    You just can't stay away from this thread can you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bSlick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 248 ✭✭bSlick


    workaccount wrote: »
    It was his job to oversee the payments not the politicians. I've made the same point a few times now - just read the rest of my posts if you want to reply again. I've made my argument as clear as possible.

    It was his job to recommend cuts, he had no power to actually implement them. How hard is that to understand? He can tell the politicians to cut this, that and the other til the cows come home but if they don't actually agree nothing will be done. And that is exactly what happened. Eventually he got sick of being ignored and quit. This line you are taking of 'he was at fault.....he did nothing in the job...' is nonsense as he never had the power to make any cuts, only the power to recommend them.


  • Options
    #43
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    bSlick wrote: »
    It was his job to recommend cuts, he had no power to actually implement them. How hard is that to understand?

    Very easy to understand. So his job was to recommend cuts then was it? Your the first to say it here. I read differently somewhere else though - I read that his job was to oversee payments and expenses. That's very different to what your saying isn't it?
    bSlick wrote: »
    He can tell the politicians to cut this, that and the other til the cows come home but if they don't actually agree nothing will be done. And that is exactly what happened. Eventually he got sick of being ignored and quit.

    So what? Sit back and enjoy the salary. He didn't get sick of it and quit though - he quit when it was about to blow up.

    bSlick wrote: »
    This line you are taking of 'he was at fault.....he did nothing in the job...' is nonsense as he never had the power to make any cuts, only the power to recommend them.

    Again where are you getting this information about what his job entailed?


  • Options
    #44
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    Just to add I think the politicans are a waste of space and should be held responsible.

    I think this guy is a waste of space as well and should be accountable.


  • Options
    #45
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    workaccount wrote: »
    ... I think this guy is a waste of space as well and should be accountable.

    I have just read through the entire thread. It looks as if you don't know what O'Higgins's job actually was, yet that does not stop you from passing judgement on how he discharged it. This is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, verdict after".


  • Options
    #46
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I have just read through the entire thread. It looks as if you don't know what O'Higgins's job actually was, yet that does not stop you from passing judgement on how he discharged it. This is straight out of Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, verdict after".

    He just don't get it. He wants to shoot anyone else down and shut other folk up that thinks different, he's not willing to listen and even possibly see the other side of events.
    At this stage he's just trolling.
    I wish someone would lock this crap up!


  • Options
    #47
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    He's not trolling. He's asking a question that a lot of people are. What exactly was this guy's job?

    If it was to make cuts, then he should have capped expenses. if it was to recommend cuts, without any power, then there wasn't a lot he could have done.

    It's all about his remit and responsibility.

    If he had some power to do anything about it, then him resigning looks like he's jumping ship.

    If he was powerless, then fair play to him for getting out when things are going bad. The only thing is now that things are out in the open and there's a good chance that reform will happen, it would be better to hafve a guy like that on the inside to suggest changes.


  • Options
    #48
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    He's not trolling. He's asking a question that a lot of people are.

    He's not asking apparently, he's telling and lecturing at this stage!
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    If it was to make cuts, then he should have capped expenses. if it was to recommend cuts, without any power, then there wasn't a lot he could have done.

    It's all about his remit and responsibility.

    Thank you. EXACTLY!
    He and his department according to the manadate they were given was to oversee the whole area of the Dail and government departmental systems and see where cuts could be implemented. Their role was NOT just to ONE area. They carried on in their duties in other areas - apparently successfully - otherwise we should be able to gather that their asses would have been fired a long time ago!

    It seems that they had only a limited range of powers. One of the powers they hadn't got was that of altering the level of expenses of the TD's. That power apparently is reserved for those that are actually able to alter/control themselves, their own money! (Classic Irishness).

    Your right again, with he and his department limited by what they could enact, there was not a lot more what they could do.
    What was left to do - finally - was alter the money the TDs was getting.
    After five years of trying to do this while he and his department was being ignored, shunned, stopped, stalled and plain barked at - he apparently decided right, we have done all what we can do (in other areas) and seeing as whats left is being repeatedly blanked over (to put it lightly), there was no point in being treated like schite any more!

    To stay and just continue to take from the state in wages and further pension contributions, would have been wrong - and he knew it.

    So he did the decent thing.
    He killed two birds with one stone.
    He publicised some disgusting actions (and lack of actions too) of those that were treating he and his staff like schite and he left so not to be remaining in a position where his (and department) were now just banging their heads against a not listening TD's wall or door!

    ...but workaccount don't get that nor is he willing to look at the facts of the case as they appear (but only as he can PR spin them).
    He's just too busy lecturing us all on just how wrong the man was. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #49
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    Biggins wrote: »
    He's not asking apparently, he's telling and lecturing at this stage!

    No I was asking actually. You were the one telling when you didn't actually have any answers yourself.

    How many times have I said I'm not trying to hang him - I'm looking for answers, truth but you seem to ignore that consistently.


    Biggins wrote: »
    Thank you. EXACTLY!

    Someone has finally been able to say what Biggins couldn't say all along.
    Biggins wrote: »
    Their role was NOT just to ONE area. They carried on in their duties in other areas - apparently successfully - otherwise we should be able to gather that their asses would have been fired a long time ago!

    It seems that they had only a limited range of powers. One of the powers they hadn't got was that of altering the level of expenses of the TD's. That power apparently is reserved for those that are actually able to alter/control themselves, their own money! (Classic Irishness).

    Your right again, with he and his department limited by what they could enact, there was not a lot more what they could do.
    What was left to do - finally - was alter the money the TDs was getting.
    After five years of trying to do this while he and his department was being ignored, shunned, stopped, stalled and plain barked at - he apparently decided right, we have done all what we can do (in other areas) and seeing as whats left is being repeatedly blanked over (to put it lightly), there was no point in being treated like schite any more!

    To stay and just continue to take from the state in wages and further pension contributions, would have been wrong - and he knew it.

    So he did the decent thing.
    He killed two birds with one stone.
    He publicised some disgusting actions (and lack of actions too) of those that were treating he and his staff like schite and he left so not to be remaining in a position where his (and department) were now just banging their heads against a not listening TD's wall or door!

    Biggins - have you an original thought in your head at all?
    Your reiterating the exact same things as have been said before - what is actually new here that everyone hasn't already been made aware of on this thread?

    The only new thing you add is whatever point someone else has just made that's changed the dynamics of this argument.

    Can you not just go away until you have something useful to add?


  • Options
    #50
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    workaccount wrote: »
    No I was asking actually...

    From your original post:
    What was one of his jobs? A TOP accountant charged with overseeing political expenses...

    Basically from what I gather he hasn't been doing his job and has quit now trying to deflect the blame to other people.

    That's not asking; that's telling.


  • Options
    #51
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    workaccount wrote: »
    Can you not just go away until you have something useful to add?

    No, I and others you have tried so silence, won't shut-up just because you say so or you don't agree with us.
    We live in a democratic society with forms of free speech. Learn to live with it or leave.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    From your original post:


    That's not asking; that's telling.

    No I was stating what I gathered from the article I read - initial impression. I was looking for this initial impression to be challenged which I went to the trouble of explaining further down the thread and a few times since.

    It's seems to me that a few people have jumped onto this thread to try to attack me (as if I am trying to divert blame from the government) rather than look at the issue I am talking about and realize that along with the government wasting money on electronic voting machines and over budget projects they have also wasted money by creating useless civil positions.

    In my opinion the people that take up these positions are just as useless. I welcome a challenge to this statement - I'm quite open to changing my mind.

    I want to know what Tom O Higgins was getting paid, what benefits he was getting and exactly what he achieved in that five years.


  • Options
    #53
    workaccount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,460 ✭✭✭workaccount


    Biggins wrote: »
    No, I and others you have tried so silence, won't shut-up just because you say so or you don't agree with us.
    We live in a democratic society with forms of free speech. Learn to live with it or leave.

    I'm interested in your opinions Biggins. I'm not trying to silence you in that respect at all.

    All your arguments are overlaid with what's beginning to seem like personal digs or even attempted bullying - Have you anger issues or something? This is maybe what I would like silenced! ;)

    I think you get really mad when someone doesn't agree with you after you have given your best efforts to make them understand your POV.


  • Options
    #54
    Shadowless
    Registered Users Posts: 396 ✭✭Shadowless


    workaccount wrote: »

    I want to know what Tom O Higgins was getting paid, what benefits he was getting and exactly what he achieved in that five years.


    +1


    How long was too long for him to be ignored?
    1 year? 2 years?

    No apperently O'Higgins sat back, got paid whatever a man of his "integrity and experience" deserves for 5 whole years and then the very week there's an expenses scandal decides actually enough is enough.

    And when someone tries to raise ths point that this is a tad fishy, we get huff & puff & bluster about how could someone possibly cast a shadow on this mans moral fortitude.

    I want to know exactly what recomendations he made and to whom.
    Where are the reports? And why did he wait until now to resign?


  • Options
    #55
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    workaccount wrote: »
    I'm interested in your opinions Biggins. I'm not trying to silence you in that respect at all.


    You too have made many valid points and I agree with the aspect that questions do need to be answered.
    However like the expenses fiasco, I suspect that those questions WILL NOT be asked if only because the answers will come back to bite the thugs in the Dail in the ass!
    They know what they have done, ignored, not done when they should have, etc.
    The last thing they want is some form of inquiry or questions asked, only for the answers to be put on record and then into the public domain!

    They are crapping themselves at the moment over the expenses scandal (and praying it will quietly go away) - the last thing they will do is make the hole they are digging, even bigger.

    Expect no answers from the direction of Dublin.


Advertisement