Hats off to Trevor Sargent

Blackhorse Slim

Hagar wrote: »

It's a sad reflection on the whole shambles that Irish Politics is that we judge the worth of our politicians on how well they behave when they are caught doing something dishonourable. Until the people start making errant politicians pay the full price for their mis-deeds then we will have to suffer on with their corruption and arrogance. I honestly despair, will the people of Ireland ever wake up and start electing people on merit?

I don't think Sargent did anything dishonourable - unlawful, yes, but not dishonourable or corrupt.

There are very few honourable politicians here, in any party, but I think he's one of them.

Sir Oxman

Fake Locke wrote: »

Then you are not informing yourself fully of the facts here.

There's only one fact that anyone needs to be aware of in this case - a Minister of State and TD tried to interfere with a prosecution.
Anything else is irrelevant.

Spiritoftheseventies

gambiaman wrote: »

There's only one fact that anyone needs to be aware of in this case - a Minister of State and TD tried to interfere with a prosecution.
Anything else is irrelevant.

Sargent as mentioned by his own cabinet colleagues was an excellent junior minister. He has lost his ministry and thats where it should rest.

Hagar

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't think Sargent did anything dishonourable - unlawful, yes, but not dishonourable or corrupt.

You forgot the smiley.

It was unlawful because it was dishonourable and corrupt.
If it was unlawful as you say, can we look forward to the DPP pressing charges?
Oh look, a flying pig.

Mad_Max

littlesthobo wrote: »

IIRC the green party members voted to go into government with fianna fail and he then stepped down as he had previously committed to doing. He only promised that he would not lead the party in government with fianna fail, a promise he kept

Fair enough, as I said, I wasn't fully informed. Personally I don't see much of a difference between 'leading into government with' and 'being in government with' but thats not the point here.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't think Sargent did anything dishonourable - unlawful, yes, but not dishonourable or corrupt.
.

Unlawful and corrupt are not mutually exclusive.

Spiritoftheseventies

Mad_Max wrote: »

Fair enough, as I said, I wasn't fully informed.

Enough said.

Mad_Max

Fake Locke wrote: »

Enough said.

Context much? I said I wasn't fully informed about his promise to not lead into government. Read the rest of that sentence.

I'm as informed as I feel I need to be about the circumstances of his resignation.

Blackhorse Slim

Hagar wrote: »

It was unlawful because it was dishonourable and corrupt.
If it was unlawful as you say, can we look forward to the DPP pressing charges?
Oh look, a flying pig.

It was unlawful because if it was lawful it could be used for dishonourable and corrupt purposes.

If the DPP feels a case is justified then fair enough.

Blackhorse Slim

Mad_Max wrote: »

Unlawful and corrupt are not mutually exclusive.

But neither does one follow from the other.

Mad_Max

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

But neither does one follow from the other.

No, it doesn't but if you are in a position of power as a politician it's an awfully grey area.

Ash.J.Williams

So it looks like ministers can survive without a hefty payoff...

fair play to him all the same he was under no obligation to give it away.

Hagar

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

It was unlawful because if it was lawful it could be used for dishonourable and corrupt purposes.

If the DPP feels a case is justified then fair enough.

Why would the DPP not feel a case was justified?
Law broken + admission of guilt by resignation = conviction of criminal act. Simples.

Mr. Incognito

God the usual rabble rabble rabble off with their heads are out. Half of whom probably voted green or finna fail at the last election.

He intervened on behalf of a constituent who felt intimidated because he had done they right thing and confronted a scumbag neighbour and got headbutted for his trouble.

He was unaware this might be unlawful. When he was made made aware of it he stepped down and donated his payoff.

People are wading in here with high and mighty opinions without the facts.

Willie lied in a sworn affadavit and refused to step down saying it was a matter for the Taoiseach, declared himself a victim when he was pushed and took the pay off.

Compare/ Contrast.

littlesthobo

gambiaman wrote: »

There's only one fact that anyone needs to be aware of in this case - a Minister of State and TD tried to interfere with a prosecution.
Anything else is irrelevant.

Yes, he did and that was wrong. But the more important question is did he intentionally break the law. My feeling is that he didnt and was making a representation on behalf of a constituent. It was naive. He shouldnt have done it, but it would be unfair to disregard his previous impeccable personal and political record over one mistake. He resigned, it was the right thing to do. No way should he have been paid off. But i commend the man for what he did with it.

Blackhorse Slim

Hagar wrote: »

Why would the DPP not feel a case was justified?
Law broken + admission of guilt by resignation = conviction of criminal act. Simples.

Perhaps because there is no penalty for breaking this law? Also because it is not criminal, although unlawful - they are not the same. But that's a question for the DPP

Mad_Max

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

He was unaware this might be unlawful. When he was made made aware of it he stepped down.

Willie lied in a sworn affadavit and refused to step down saying it was a matter for the Taoiseach, declared himself a victim when he was pushed and took the pay off.

Compare/ Contrast.

Rabble rabble rabble

Back in 2002 when Bobby Molloy was forced to resign as a junior minister for writing to a judge with a plea of mitigation, none other than Sargent lectured him about the importance of the constitutional separation of the judiciary from the executive as he deplored the “the nature and extent of political representations”.

In that same debate, the then Green leader also said: “Any representation relating to a court case ought to be acknowledged with a warning about the need not to interfere in any way with due judicial process. It is shocking that this should occur after Deputy Molloy’s 37 years of experience as a TD and minister and this highlights that this warning cannot be repeated too often.”

Oh and btw I agree, O'Dea is worse. By a long long way.

humanji

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

So it looks like ministers can survive without a hefty payoff...

fair play to him all the same he was under no obligation to give it away.

But it's a better publicity stunt to give it away.

The_Minister

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

God the usual rabble rabble rabble off with their heads are out. Half of whom probably voted green or finna fail at the last election.

He intervened on behalf of a constituent who felt intimidated because he had done they right thing and confronted a scumbag neighbour and got headbutted for his trouble.

He was unaware this might be unlawful. When he was made made aware of it he stepped down and donated his payoff.

People are wading in here with high and mighty opinions without the facts.

Willie lied in a sworn affadavit and refused to step down saying it was a matter for the Taoiseach, declared himself a victim when he was pushed and took the pay off.

Compare/ Contrast.

When Bobby Molloy did nearly the same thing he went nuts in the Dail, and castigated him viciously.

He knew what he did was wrong.

jmayo

Fake Locke wrote: »

Awful post. Sargent has acted with utmost of integrity since he resigned. He donates his ministerial pay off to St Vincent De Paul and you seek to put that down. Absolutely Disgraceful :mad:

Why the hell is it an awful post ?
He should never have gotten involved in a Garda criminal case in the first place.
And if he had real effing integrity he would have resigned two years ago when he probably discovered it was the wrong action to take getitng involved as he did.
Oh but did he ?
No he only resigned when it became public and was found out.
Thus he is no better than the rest.

We all saw what integrity the guy had when he conveniently used the actual wording of his pre-election 2007 promises, rather than the intended spirit and meaning behind them.

He promised he would not lead GP into government and back ff, which to most voters meant the he and the GP would not back ff.
That was why lots of other parties supporters gave them second or third preference in believe they were not voting for ff.

What did he do ?
He resigned as the leader, but was quiet happy to still vote for ff and accept a junior ministry form them.

If he had the integrity that his party's desperate supporters, or what's left of them, claim he would have made a stand and at the very least refused to be a minister under a bertie led government.
Did he hell.

If the guy had integrity he would not have stood by as his party threw out most of their core election promises in return for a few futile gestures.

Some f***ing integrity all right. :mad:

Fake Locke wrote: »

It detracted from Sargent's gesture. And at no stage has Sargent sought to absolve himself from responsibility. OP pointed out that he had donated his payoff to SVP. So yeah hats off to Sargent. He didnt take the pay off.

It is easy to give away someone elses money.
Are the greens now so desperate for some positive publicity ?

This was a publicity gimmick and it appears it has worked looking at the plaudits the two faced gob**** is not getting.

BigDuffman wrote: »

Whilst I am in anyway a fan of the greens but Mr. Sgt. showed himself to be made of the right stuff unfortunately it was upon his exit.

+1 OP

If he was the really the right stuff he would never have been in the position in the first place.
And by handling the situation a little better than the lying git o'dea doesn't exactly deem him a hero as some would have us believe.

peasant wrote: »

The point of this thread is that a politician with honesty and integrity is such an endangered species these days that it is well worth highlighting that they do in fact exist.

Even in the original article, honesty and integrity were only worthy of a footnote ...in my opinion they are worthy at least one headline and one thread of their own, that's why I made one.

As I said above the guy doesn't have integrity as can be seen from his massive uturn post 2007 election.
Two faced scheming shyster would be more apt in my eyes.

Fake Locke wrote: »

It was a pre election promise. He stood by it. He didn't lead Greens into power with FF.

Ah so for gp we should go by the letter/wording of the statement rather than the spirit or very obvious implied meaning ?

Should we examine all gp policies in much the same way ?
Oh wait a sec I will just look up the ff policies.
As they often say why bother dealing with the monkeys just go straight to the organ grinder.

Hagar

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

God the usual rabble rabble rabble off with their heads are out. Half of whom probably voted green or finna fail at the last election.

Attack the posts not the posters.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

He was unaware this might be unlawful.

Ignorance of the law is no defence, particularly if you happen to be one of our lawmakers.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Willie lied in a sworn affadavit and refused to step down saying it was a matter for the Taoiseach, declared himself a victim when he was pushed and took the pay off.

I'll go out on a limb here and say nobody in the FF inner circle will ever be prosecuted for anything they do while in office.

Sir Oxman

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

God the usual rabble rabble rabble off with their heads are out. Half of whom probably voted green or finna fail at the last election.

He intervened on behalf of a constituent who felt intimidated because he had done they right thing and confronted a scumbag neighbour and got headbutted for his trouble.

He was unaware this might be unlawful. When he was made made aware of it he stepped down and donated his payoff.

People are wading in here with high and mighty opinions without the facts.

Willie lied in a sworn affadavit and refused to step down saying it was a matter for the Taoiseach, declared himself a victim when he was pushed and took the pay off.

Compare/ Contrast.

Rabble? Citizens of this country that are annoyed and voicing their opinions, that is okay, isn't it?

This is the same TD who made a song and dance (and rightly so) about Bobby Molloy and others making representations on behalf of their constituents to judges etc
He also sent another letter just over a week ago to the Supt in Balbriggan and then says he was unaware/forgot about the case until the EH published details on Tuesday.

As I said previously, the circumstances of the case are irrelevant and even moreso given TS's previous stance on judicial representations.

As for O'Dea, fully in agreement but that does not absolve Sargent.

IrishTonyO

Mad_Max wrote: »

I think I've personally made my opinion clear that I think the praise is undeserved. For me, he needs to resign as a TD to be given any sort of cudos.

And yes I have a major gripe with ministerial pensions but seen as he hasn't said he's giving it up, I can only assume he's taking it. After admitting he done wrong. Another reason I believe your praise is wrong.

Maybe you should check your facts, you have to be a minister for 3 years before you get a pension.

Liam Byrne

I've asked this in the other thread, too.....what's the story with the revelation that he wrote to a senior Garda last week ?

If so, it means that two parts of his earlier stance (only wrote to the Garda, and had forgotten about it) were lies, doesn't it ?

Not accusing, btw - just asking, because I'm completely confused now!

Sir Oxman

littlesthobo wrote: »

Yes, he did and that was wrong. But the more important question is did he intentionally break the law. My feeling is that he didnt and was making a representation on behalf of a constituent. It was naive. He shouldnt have done it, but it would be unfair to disregard his previous impeccable personal and political record over one mistake. He resigned, it was the right thing to do. No way should he have been paid off. But i commend the man for what he did with it.

My opinion is that not one inch can be given to people in his position.

And I cannot commend him for taking public monies no matter what he does with it.

Mad_Max

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Maybe you should check your facts, you have to be a minister for 3 years before you get a pension.

That's made me smile. Now if he just stepped down as a TD, I'd go along with the title of this thread and take my hat off*.


*Not actually wearing hat

gizmo555

Hagar wrote: »

Why would the DPP not feel a case was justified?
Law broken + admission of guilt by resignation = conviction of criminal act. Simples.

Because while the communication from Sargent to the Gardaí was unlawful, it's not a crime and there are no penalties for doing it.

It may seem odd, but I gather it was done in that way for two reasons: firstly, for the protection of TDs themselves, who if asked to intervene in a criminal case can refuse, truthfully saying would be illegal for them to do so; and secondly, it requires the Gardaí not to heed any communication from TDs regarding an ongoing investigation.

CFlower

What seems very dodgy to me is that Trevor Sargent resigned (as a Minister for State) but strongly defended what he did, expressing no real regret, in his TV interview with RTE in spite of the fact that he conceded it was unlawful.

Trevor Sargent appears to believe that he knows better than the Courts and that it was OK (except he was caught) to use his Ministerial position to put pressure on the Gardai.

He then plays to the gallery in true Fianna Fail style saying the "the people elected me" and will decide. But when he stood for election he did not make his comtempt for the law known to the voters.

If he was sincere, he would let them decide by resigning from the Dail and standing again in a By-election.

Laminations

1. I'm still not wholly convinced of the 'I'll not go into government with FF' but then finding a loophole in stepping down as leader, feels a bit like a trick.
2. He is of far better calibre than W'OD or most other FFers or even nost other members of the Dail.
3. The circumstances around his resignation were unfortunate. My reading of it suggests he was trying to protect an upstanding citizen against a family of thugs - unfortunately we have the courts to make this distinction (even though they quite often seem inept at doing so) and so he stepped out of line with his interference
4. He was right to resign, and he did it without being pushed showing his standards and integrity.
5. He showed his class when he gave the payment away, although equally he could have refused to accept the payout.
6. This event has again highlighted the types of mad payments in politics and the lack of serious consequences for behaviour unbecoming of high office. The issue rises up far beyond Trevor, there was W'ODs payoff, J'ODs payoff and subsequent appointment to various committees, Berties multiple pensions and questionable tax exemption. Compared to the UK there seems to be very little if anything a politicain can do that is career-ending. People might want to mock legitimate concerns and frustrations with exaggerations such as

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yeah and maybe we could make him walk around a pole dragging a heavy weight for hard labour too.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

God the usual rabble rabble rabble off with their heads are out. Half of whom probably voted green or finna fail at the last election.

Is it too much to expect serious consequences for misconduct in office? No need for beheadings or whippings but a serious dint to their pocket (pensions) or to their right to stand again for re-election.

gizmo555

humanji wrote: »

But it's a better publicity stunt to give it away.

Got it in one.

What this amounts to is a five figure donation from the public purse to Sargent's re-election campaign.

Hagar

Thanks Gizmo, well explained. So we only need the one noose then?