Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

I have not seen anything in his behavior that would make me doubt his integrity.

You have not managed to convince me.

On the other hand you have got a group of like minded anti FF posters who no doubt agree with you.

As I said multiple times in the thread , I do not wish to convince you. Really. I don't care about you in the least

I hope you voted Gallagher.

A certain percentage of the population have voted Gallagher.

Some people are attracted to this type of candidate.

Good luck .... I'm out

Capt'n Midnight

kippy wrote: »

Even the facts of the incident which "Jonnie" was involved in haven't been fully followed up.........there were 30 people at that event (I believe) 5K a head. 150K. That year, I believe FF only said they got 11K in "political donations". Perhaps they used a loophole to "hide" the rest........this needs to be investigated.

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/GeneralPublications/ReviewofLegislation/Name,2294,en.htm

Political parties are required to report details of the following donations:

donations of more than £1,000 made to an accounting unit (e.g. a branch) of the party;
donations of more than £5,000 made to the party headquarters;
donations of more than £1,000 made to the party headquarters by anyone who has already made a donation in the same year;
donations of more than £5,000 made to different sections of the party;
any donations from impermissible or unidentifiable sources.

Parties must submit four quarterly donation returns every year within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter (Jan-Mar, etc.).

Ozymandius2011

One thing that is clear from threads like this here and on politics.ie, sluggerotoole.com etc. is that this will run and run and the last word on this affair has not yet been written or spoken. I think people are beginning - too late - to ask questions of this Morgan character and his dubious credility as a convixted fuel smuggler and convicted tax-evader.

KELTICKNIGHTT

michael999999 wrote: »

Can you expand, thats a little vague?

Did they have bondholders in the dark ages?

sf extreme fascists view has no place in Ireland
maybe it works for them in north where people have no choice but sf but in south ,we have a little more better choice
people say the north is more trouble than it's worth and most still believe it today in south.

michael999999

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

One thing that is clear from threads like this here and on politics.ie, sluggerotoole.com etc. is that this will run and run and the last word on this affair has not yet been written or spoken. I think people are beginning - too late - to ask questions of this Morgan character and his dubious credility as a convixted fuel smuggler and convicted tax-evader.

Answer one question Oz

How many questions did Fianna Fail ask Morgan before accepting and cashing hes cheque for 5,000?

michael999999

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

sf extreme fascists view has no place in Ireland
maybe it works for them in north where people have no choice but sf but in south ,we have a little more better choice
people say the north is more trouble than it's worth and most still believe it today in south.

You are a scot, how proud they must be!

KELTICKNIGHTT

ClaireMorris wrote: »

Is there any possibility that Sean Gallagher is actually Kelticknightt.. ?

You said this about sean g :

I voted for sean gallagher because of all the negative stuff i saw about him on these posts. I knew that all the lies about him were not the truth because Sean said so and sean does not tell lies unless some nasty person like mmg tricks him into telling the truth

SO you voted sean g then
interesting

KELTICKNIGHTT

michael999999 wrote: »

Answer one question Oz

How many questions did Fianna Fail ask Morgan before accepting and cashing hes cheque for 5,000?

Do sinn fein ask questions when getting funds ,,outside robbing post offices and banks

KELTICKNIGHTT

michael999999 wrote: »

You are a scot, how proud they must be!

are you british ?

would explain few things.

Capt'n Midnight

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

One thing that is clear from threads like this here and on politics.ie, sluggerotoole.com etc. is that this will run and run and the last word on this affair has not yet been written or spoken. I think people are beginning - too late - to ask questions of this Morgan character and his dubious credility as a convixted fuel smuggler and convicted tax-evader.

What questions ?

It was Gallagher himself who first used the words "fuel smuggler". If he thought that the guy was dodgy then why did he take the cheque in the first place. Character assassination was mentioned earlier. Sean tried a bit of that on Hugh.




And even if he can prove to everyone's satisfaction that this one deal was squeaky clean how does that relate to any of the other stuff ?

michael999999

michael999999 wrote: »

Answer one question Oz

How many questions did Fianna Fail ask Morgan before accepting and cashing hes cheque for 5,000?

Are you not going to answer the question OZ?

You have been watching bertie for too long, picking up FF habits!

irishdude11

CDfm wrote: »

I have not seen anything in his behavior that would make me doubt his integrity.

You have not managed to convince me.

On the other hand you have got a group of like minded anti FF posters who no doubt agree with you.

If you see nothing wrong with charging local amatuer GAA clubs 5K to handle a grant application, while then portraying yourself as a tireless volunteer/community worker in the Presidential Election campaign, well then I dont think you are a very good judge of integrity.

Gallagher is typical FF, typical disgusting cronyism, you have to pay off the FFer with a brown envelope if you want to get anywhere. This is how FF have been operating for at least the last 30 years, completely abusing their position, it is a complete an utter disgrace that decent people go out of their way to fundraise for their local GAA club and then that cash ends up in the Bagman Gallagher's pockets, it is an absolute disgrace.

Then he has the cheek to make himself out to be some big hero doing all this community and volunteer work when he was in fact taking advantage of the real local heroes. He is just as a bad as all the other dodgy FFers, he's a complete spoofer and I hope to god he runs in the next election for FF as he will be a great reminder of how FF operate. The truth was very late coming out in this election campaign so many of the public weren't aware of it but you can be guaranteed that if he puts his name forward as a TD in future everyone will be fully briefed on his shady past by time voting comes around and he will actually hurt FF's overall vote in the process.

If you think Gallagher has integrity after riding these these local GAA clubs, and all the other stuff he has gotten up to, such as going to court to avoid paying back a grand or two (of taxpayers money) while he was simultaneously drawing down massive wages (that also came out of taxpayer funded grants), well then good luck to ya, it's amazing that there still people out there that see nothing wrong with this type of Fianna Fail sh*te.

Ozymandius2011

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What questions ?

It was Gallagher himself who first used the words "fuel smuggler". If he thought that the guy was dodgy then why did he take the cheque in the first place. Character assassination was mentioned earlier. Sean tried a bit of that on Hugh.




And even if he can prove to everyone's satisfaction that this one deal was squeaky clean how does that relate to any of the other stuff ?

He says he didn't know at the time he was a criminal. Also it is now proven by the bank-clearance on 30th June before the FF event that he can't have received the cheque when McGuinness originally said he did.

irishdude11

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He says he didn't know at the time he was a criminal.

Lmao, yeah, a very well known businessman from the same place as Gallagher and who sponsors the country team, and who Gallagher was cold calling looking for a 5K donation, and this guy had also been the subject of a primetime documentary a few months previously. Lmfao, it would be very very strange to think Gallagher didnt know of this guy before he was asked to call him up for 5K, but even if magically he wasn't aware of him, I am sure that he was given the basic details of the man he was calling when FF asked him to solicit a substantial amound of money from this gentleman. Jesus Christ.

Or maybe you think Gallagher is some kind of complete and utter halfwit who will do anything his Fianna Fail masters tell him without any enquiry into what is being asked of him? Is that it?

Also it is now proven by the bank-clearance on 30th June before the FF event that he can't have received the cheque when McGuinness originally said he did.

Yawn, we all know McGuinness hadn't the exact details of the story 100% correct, he's not a journalist, he wasn't taking notes when he was on the phone to Morgan. But we also all know that McGuinness had the premise of the story entirely correct. That Gallagher solicted money from this man, orgranised a photo of him and Cowen and went to his premises with a photograph, and at some stage collected a cheque from him. Hugh Morgan himself released and extremely conclusive statement on the whole affair, much clearer at than any of the spoof that came out of Gallaghers mouth, and the only way it differs from Gallagher's 'recollection' is that Morgan says he personally handed the cheque to Gallagher, which Gallagher denies.

Anyway, whatever about this cheque, I think the 5K cheques the Bagman Gallagher was taking from the local GAA clubs are a much better indicator of his character, or rather the complete lack of it.

michael999999

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

One thing that is clear from threads like this here and on politics.ie, sluggerotoole.com etc. is that this will run and run and the last word on this affair has not yet been written or spoken. I think people are beginning - too late - to ask questions of this Morgan character and his dubious credility as a convixted fuel smuggler and convicted tax-evader.

How many questions did fianna fail ask about Morgan before bagging hes 5k?

CDfm

irishdude11 wrote: »

If you see nothing wrong with charging local amatuer GAA clubs 5K to handle a grant application, while then portraying yourself as a tireless volunteer/community worker in the Presidential Election campaign, well then I dont think you are a very good judge of integrity.

.

I think that you are spoofing and you do not know particularly what work he did or what was involved in the grant application.

I dont know .

What I do know was when I was involved on the board of a charity state grant work was onerous and time consuming.

So I tend to judge people based on my experience as to whether a situation has a ring of truth to it.

That is the reason I took an interest in the thread , as the reports were biased and unfair, drawing conclusions that exceeded the obvious or simple explanation.

Occams law siggest the simpler explanation is the most likely.

Capt'n Midnight

CDfm wrote: »

Occams law siggest the simpler explanation is the most likely.

The simplest explanation that meets ALL the observed facts,
5K envelope
folding company to keep loan and not paying back any of it until legal action was instigated and still owing on it
5K from sports clubs (plural)
having problems with recollection (yes he used the R word)
trying to dissociate himself from FF even though he is from the FF gene pool
taking a loan to greater than the value of a company
having the companies most valuable asset accidentally published in the prospectus when they still owned the patent themselves
etc.



Like I said any one of these occurrences could be explained away easily as an honest mistake. When you have to apologise for a whole litany of stuff...

Occams Razor states that if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

CDfm

There is a thread here that is covering media coverage and the fourth estate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75207194&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post75207194

I think he has been treated harshly.

That is irrespective of the presidency thing.

raymon

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The simplest explanation that meets ALL the observed facts,
5K envelope
folding company to keep loan and not paying back any of it until legal action was instigated and still owing on it
5K from sports clubs (plural)
having problems with recollection (yes he used the R word)
trying to dissociate himself from FF even though he is from the FF gene pool
taking a loan to greater than the value of a company
having the companies most valuable asset accidentally published in the prospectus when they still owned the patent themselves
etc.



Like I said any one of these occurrences could be explained away easily as an honest mistake. When you have to apologise for a whole litany of stuff...

Occams Razor states that if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

The fact that Gallagher was a liar and manipulator is not in question.

The evidence is in abundance overwhelming.

I have no doubt that more lies will emerge in time

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

There is a thread here that is covering media coverage and the fourth estate.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75207194&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post75207194

I think he has been treated harshly.

That is irrespective of the presidency thing.

Untrue , I am very familiar with that thread

I have concluded that he was given more positive exposure than any other candidate .

Leading the cheerleading was his old FF roommate Noel Whelan

So let's not change the subject CdFm.

Do you have something to say regarding the OP, ( Some people have had excellent arguments for and against the OP )

If not please join the thread that most suits what you have to say , or start a new thread.

Changing the subject continually is rude

irishdude11

CDfm wrote: »

I think that you are spoofing and you do not know particularly what work he did or what was involved in the grant application.

I dont know .

What I do know was when I was involved on the board of a charity state grant work was onerous and time consuming.

So I tend to judge people based on my experience as to whether a situation has a ring of truth to it.

That is the reason I took an interest in the thread , as the reports were biased and unfair, drawing conclusions that exceeded the obvious or simple explanation.

Occams law siggest the simpler explanation is the most likely.

The simpler explanation is most certainly most likely - that the FF Bagman was paid off.

Why do you say Im spoofing, this story was in the national media last week. There is a direct quote from one of the clubs involved that shows the reason Gallagher was hired - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/presidential-election/gallagher-charged-gaa-clubs-up-to-euro5000-for-grants-advice-2915300.html

He was inside with Fianna Fail and the ministers and (he had) the inside track, he had been (Dr Rory) O'Hanlon's secretary. Once you got him to do it, you were going to get the grant. "We weren't going to him looking for ham sandwiches, you know. There was unspoken word.

It is blatant cronyism. You pay the FFer off if you want to get the grant. It says in the report that there was around 20 hours work involved - €250 an hour to handle a grant application for a local GAA club. That is a ridiculous amount of money, top medical consultants aren't even on nearly that. The €5K was is the price of doing business in the FF cronyism culture.

And then there is the issue of being a complete hypocrite in that Gallagher was making himself out to be some kind of local hero volunteer when he was actually enriching himself by charging the real local heroes two hundred and fifty euro an hour to 'handle' a grant application for them.

So don't bother saying Im spoofing, I deal with facts, this stuff is all in the public domain, if you are looking for spoof give Gallagher or some other FFer a call.

CDfm

@ raymon

I thought you were out of the thread raymon and I specifically answered a point. I thought the thread was unfair and some of the media coverage unfair as it is an area I know something about. I stated my reasons.

I am not saying SG is a saint and I am not even a huge supporter of him but the material used -in the media - was trite. The area is an area I know something about.

A good thread by the way and I enjoyed it because it made me think of the democracy issues and it was provocative.

You kept me engaged. 2000 posts is an achievement

Its ok to be anti FF by the way - it would be cool if you spread your incisive skills amongst the parties and issues of government.

CDfm

irishdude11 wrote: »

It is blatant cronyism. You pay the FFer off if you want to get the grant. It says in the report that there was around 20 hours work involved - €250 an hour to handle a grant application for a local GAA club. That is a ridiculous amount of money, top medical consultants aren't even on nearly that. The €5K was is the price of doing business in the FF cronyism culture.

.

I do not know that area. I do know other grant application areas though and they are complex.

They also involve representation to civil servants to get anywhere.

So I dont know. I dont pretend to know either.

Berti Vogts

irishdude11 wrote: »

And then there is the issue of being a complete hypocrite in that Gallagher was making himself out to be some kind of local hero volunteer when he was actually enriching himself by charging the real local heroes two hundred and fifty euro an hour to 'handle' a grant application for them.

This is the real issue. Making himself out to be this amazing "community worker" but actually charging disgusting amounts of money.

Deeply worrying that 28% of the electorate could not see the reality of this individual.

CDfm

Possibilities wrote: »

This is the real issue. Making himself out to be this amazing "community worker" but actually charging disgusting amounts of money.

Deeply worrying that 28% of the electorate could not see the reality of this individual.

Are you talking about the grant application process or what.

I was involved in grant applications and on one a few years back the skills required took 3 or 4 years to acquire and these were for genuine charities..

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

I do not envy anyone having to make applications.

Happyman42

CDfm wrote: »

Are you talking about the grant application process or what.

I was involved in grant applications and on one a few years back the skills required took 3 or 4 years to acquire and these were for genuine charities..

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

I do not envy anyone having to make applications.

I am on several committees that make grant applications of varying complexity, never has there been the need to employ an 'outside consultant' although for one very big tranche of joint Irish/European money it was 'suggested' that it would be in our favour to have certain people onside. Ridiculous and thankfully resisted.


p.s. didn't stop said individuals claiming kudos for the award anyway. :rolleyes:

AnnyHallsal

CDfm wrote: »

Are you talking about the grant application process or what.

I was involved in grant applications and on one a few years back the skills required took 3 or 4 years to acquire and these were for genuine charities..

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

I do not envy anyone having to make applications.

What you're insinuating here is corruption. The attempt to justify or make excuses for it is reprehensible. Shame on you.

Ozymandius2011

Now Morgan is saying it might have been Seamus Kirk - not Gallagher - who invited him to the FF event! Kirk says he 'does not recollect'!

Bannasidhe

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now Morgan is saying it might have been Seamus Kirk - not Gallagher - who invited him to the FF event! Kirk says he 'does not recollect'!

Can anyone in FF recollect anything? :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Possibilities wrote: »

This is the real issue. Making himself out to be this amazing "community worker" but actually charging disgusting amounts of money.

To be fair Mary Davis was at that too.

But then again she also has links to Fianna Fail.

Happyman42

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now Morgan is saying it might have been Seamus Kirk - not Gallagher - who invited him to the FF event! Kirk says he 'does not recollect'!

What people can't admit was that what we saw on Frontline and the next morning was Gallagher slipping into an easy lie, just like Haughey, Ahern etc.

Bannasidhe

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

To be fair Mary Davis was at that too.

But then again she also has links to Fianna Fail.

And Shane Ross' article that dubbed her the Quango Queen did huge damage to her as did her constant attempts to imply she had been a selfless worker for the Special Olympics rather then a highly paid government appointee.

The difference was Davis' membership of quangos and her lucrative role in the Special Olympics was exposed very early (significantly by a senator, not by what passes for an investigate journalist here) while the media was too busy slinging dirt at Norris and McGuinness to investigate Gallagher properly. If the information on Gallagher had come out earlier would he have had a 40% poll lead in the first place?

irishdude11

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now Morgan is saying it might have been Seamus Kirk - not Gallagher - who invited him to the FF event! Kirk says he 'does not recollect'!

Yeah, Morgan was unsure who invited him but thankfully Gallagher clarified it last week by admitting multiple times he solicited money from Morgan.

Ozymandius2011

Nor Morgan says he "cannot recollect" (!) meeting Gallagher at his home! I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up in the courts under the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923

"Every person who, before or during any election and for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at that election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of such candidate, and the directors of any body or association corporate which before or during any election and for the purpose aforesaid makes or publishes any such false statement as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an illegal practice."

KELTICKNIGHTT

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can anyone in FF recollect anything? :rolleyes:

Can morgan

irishdude11

CDfm wrote: »

Are you talking about the grant application process or what.

I was involved in grant applications and on one a few years back the skills required took 3 or 4 years to acquire and these were for genuine charities..

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

I do not envy anyone having to make applications.

Lmao, my local club got a grant 7 or 8 years ago to build a stand and they didn't need any outside help from a Bagman to help them. Filling out a GAA grant form isn't rocket science, dont be talking sh*te, the hard part is getting the application 'viewed in a favourable light'. I reckon one of the club members in my locality had pull with government so thats why they didnt have to pay off a Bagman, unlike the unfortunate clubs in Gallaghers area who mustn't have had a FFer of their own so they had to procure the local 'youth worker and community volunteer' Sean Gallagher who selflessly pulled the required strings for a mere 5K.

Eamonn Sweeney sums up the situation nicealy in the Independent today -

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/inside-track-puts-paid-to-gallagher-2921026.html

He apparently put in as many as 20 hours' work into one application, giving him a measly return of €250 an hour for his efforts. And the clubs got their grants. Which must have come as a surprise.
But, if the grant system is so complicated that clubs need to spend their hard-earned money on 'advisers', perhaps it should be simplified.
A form which costs five grand to be filled out properly surely has something wrong with it. But top marks to Seán. This is, I suppose, the famous 'entrepreneurial spirit' we hear so much about. You see a chance to make a handy few bob and you take it.
Seán Gallagher lives near the clubs involved. It didn't seem to occur to him that he might have provided his specialised services for free, as many, many people in the GAA do.
That's what keeps the show on the road, this outpouring of voluntary communal effort which epitomises everything that is best about this country.
Whereas Seán Gallagher epitomises . . . (finish the sentence yourselves.)

If only I had've known that you were able to make 250 an hour filling out GAA grant forms I would have left off school at 16 and learned this hard graft so I would now be in a position to command a higher pay rate than the heart surgeon in my local hospital.

Wallflower

FFS,

For the umpeenth time - nobody gives a chinese shyte - if he collected or didn't collect money, cheques, diesel, currant buns, lollipops whatever from Morgan.

He said that he never "solicited" funds (and by the way, so what if he did) - but he was forced to admit on six-one news that he did. Do you get it ? HE LIED about it......by his own admission (the only thing he wasn't sure of was if asking for donations could be regarded as soliciation!!:eek: - but rightly he didn't persue that).


The Morgan thing caught him out because he wasn't sure if Morgan was one of his "donors", cemented the fact that he did solicit/collect funds.

And again, for the Upteenth time - all he had to do was say early in the campaign he organised fundraisers for FF. My view is that people more than anything want honesty and integrity in their President. This was his downfall, and while he might be upset at the "SF Ambush", he has accept the primary responsibilty for the mess.

irishdude11

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Nor Morgan says he "cannot recollect" (!) meeting Gallagher at his home! I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up in the courts under the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923

"Every person who, before or during any election and for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at that election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of such candidate, and the directors of any body or association corporate which before or during any election and for the purpose aforesaid makes or publishes any such false statement as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an illegal practice."

It doens't matter if Morgan himself is/was unsure, Gallagher himself has already admitted multiple times that he solicited money from him. Gallagher and FF are trying to muddy the waters over the details of the collection/delivery of the cheque/photograph, as if that is what is most important when it is not - the main issue is crystal clear - Gallager solicited money for FF, something which he had denied and then was shown to be a blatant liar when he came out and admitted it.

CDfm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

What you're insinuating here is corruption. The attempt to justify or make excuses for it is reprehensible. Shame on you.

I am not and you are twisting what I have posted and you are approaching everything from the mindset that the activities were dishonest. Not only that, but, I am posting about my experience in sectors and while you may not intend to do so , it implies that I was involved in dubious activities.

I am saying that there is a professional skillset required and a knowledge base.

The other issue is that what you think might be a valid cause may not fit into the grant aid criteria and it is there that you need the expertise and even applying for the wrong grant.

In voluntary organisations , and one on which I was on the board , meetings can go on and on and an experienced external person/expert can be of real value.

Happyman 42 has sat on commities and has mentioned some people go the corrupt route which of course is wrong. It is an achievement when you do it the right way, but, and an independent voluntary body may need to apply for funding renewals so it would be a double edged sword.


An inexperienced volunteer can do the opposite. The last voluntary body I was involved in had one commitee member change applications that had been agreed in principle in a way that they had to be rejected by a government official.

Not only that but 2 members have had a bitter legal dispute.

What I am saying is that you may be undervalueing the work, time and professional skill involved.

Nothing would drag me onto the board of a voluntary organisation these days.

KELTICKNIGHTT

irishdude11 wrote: »

It doens't matter if Morgan himself is/was unsure, Gallagher himself has already admitted multiple times that he solicited money from him. Gallagher and FF are trying to muddy the waters over the details of the collection/delivery of the cheque/photograph, as if that is what is most important when it is not - the main issue is crystal clear - Gallager solicited money for FF, something which he had denied and then was shown to be a blatant liar when he came out and admitted it.

show proof that sg got money from morgan a sf supporter/member several time ?

Wallflower

I think I gave an example similar to thsi on another thread.

Question to Michael D - "Did you ever smoke Cannabis (drugs)"
Answer - "Yes I did, and I inhaled to". (sniggers in audience)

Issue over. As it was...

However, hypothetically......

Question to Michael D - "Did you ever smoke Cannabis (drugs)"
Answer - "No I didn't"

Cue: Cannabis-smoking friend confirms he did.
Headline: "Michael D denies smoking pot", "MD lies about drugs-use!!"


Comprendez-vous?

Liam Byrne

ClaireMorris wrote: »

the posters on here giving out about SG are all FG or Sinn Fein..

Untrue. Personal statement of fact. Obviously the election campaign hasn't taught Gallagher supporters that lies are counterproductive.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can anyone in FF recollect anything? :rolleyes:

Did Michael D include his membership and the circumstances of him leaving FF on his CV.

If in fact he has left , where is the resignation letter ?

AnnyHallsal

CDfm wrote: »

Are you talking about the grant application process or what.

I was involved in grant applications and on one a few years back the skills required took 3 or 4 years to acquire and these were for genuine charities..

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

I do not envy anyone having to make applications.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not and you are twisting what I have posted and you are approaching everything from the mindset that the activities were dishonest. Not only that, but, I am posting about my experience in sectors and while you may not intend to do so , it implies that I was involved in dubious activities.

I am saying that there is a professional skillset required and a knowledge base.

The other issue is that what you think might be a valid cause may not fit into the grant aid criteria and it is there that you need the expertise and even applying for the wrong grant.

In voluntary organisations , and one on which I was on the board , meetings can go on and on and an experienced external person/expert can be of real value.

Happyman 42 has sat on commities and has mentioned some people go the corrupt route which of course is wrong. It is an achievement when you do it the right way, but, and an independent voluntary body may need to apply for funding renewals so it would be a double edged sword.


An inexperienced volunteer can do the opposite. The last voluntary body I was involved in had one commitee member change applications that had been agreed in principle in a way that they had to be rejected by a government official.

What I am saying is that you may be undervalueing the work, time and professional skill involved.

Nothing would drag me onto the board of a voluntary organisation these days.

I twisted nothing. I quoted you and said what you were insinuating is corruption. Let's go back to this:

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

In what way would it be 'ok', legally or ethically, to pay someone to get a decision swung in your favour?

Why are the decisions tricky? Are you saying there's a lack of transparency about how decisions are made? If you're entitled to it, why would you not get it? Is it because someone else is more entitled? Or had more influence? Influence they should not legally or ethically have?

Your words verbatim: if you could have paid someone to get the outcome you wanted you would have. So don't accuse me of twisting anything.

irishdude11

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

show proof that sg got money from morgan a sf supporter/member several time ?

He soliticited money. That is what he denied and hence he was shown to be a liar when he had to admit, on live TV, that he did solicit money. Go look up the 6.01 interview where he gets filletted by Brian Dobson, there's your proof.

Wallflower

CDfm wrote: »

Did Michael D include his membership and the circumstances of him leaving FF on his CV.

If in fact he has left , where is the resignation letter ?

I trust that was a wind-up..in case not I have my suspicions that...

On the basis MDH is/was member of and TD from the Labour Party for the best part of 40-odd years and was its President - electorate figured out that this was proof enough he was no longer a very active member of FF.:D:D:D

CDfm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I twisted nothing. I quoted you and said what you were insinuating is corruption. Let's go back to this:

You said corruption as opposed to professional fees.

I do not need to quote you to point this out.

Its not a school debate or an essay.

AnnyHallsal

CDfm wrote: »

You said corruption as opposed to professional fees.

I do not need to quote you to point this out.

Its not a school debate or an essay.

That was your oversight, not mine. You wrote this:

I can honestly say that if we could have paid someone 5 grand on either application and got approval we would have done.

The problem with both was that even though we were entitled to the grants the decisions were with civil servants who were notoriously tricky.

You should have made it clear you meant 'professional fees.' I can only judge you on what you write.

Now that you've clarified, I accept you mean 'professional fees.'

I'm interested in learning more about these fees. Is anyone familiar with this 'profession', taking five grand from GAA clubs to ensure their application forms are filled out correctly? I'm interested in this profession, and its fees.

CDfm

Wallflower wrote: »

I trust that was a wind-up..in case not I have my suspicions that...

Bannisidhe says he was FF and I am just making sure, as you do, that he resigned from the party and a copy of a resignation letter is acceptable as proof. .

On the basis MDH is/was member of and TD from the Labour Party for the best part of 40-odd years and was its President - electorate figured out that this was proof enough he was no longer a very active member of FF.:D:D:D

There have been rumours about MDH for some years leading a double life and closets have been mentioned.

Who would have thought this was what it meant .;)

irishdude11

CDfm wrote: »

I am not and you are twisting what I have posted and you are approaching everything from the mindset that the activities were dishonest. Not only that, but, I am posting about my experience in sectors and while you may not intend to do so , it implies that I was involved in dubious activities.

I am saying that there is a professional skillset required and a knowledge base.

The other issue is that what you think might be a valid cause may not fit into the grant aid criteria and it is there that you need the expertise and even applying for the wrong grant.

In voluntary organisations , and one on which I was on the board , meetings can go on and on and an experienced external person/expert can be of real value.

Happyman 42 has sat on commities and has mentioned some people go the corrupt route which of course is wrong. It is an achievement when you do it the right way, but, and an independent voluntary body may need to apply for funding renewals so it would be a double edged sword.


An inexperienced volunteer can do the opposite. The last voluntary body I was involved in had one commitee member change applications that had been agreed in principle in a way that they had to be rejected by a government official.

Not only that but 2 members have had a bitter legal dispute.

What I am saying is that you may be undervalueing the work, time and professional skill involved.

Nothing would drag me onto the board of a voluntary organisation these days.

Jesus Christ its a GAA grant for a clubhouse or something, it is not a grant to build a multibillion dollar national infrastructure project or a state of the art college facility. Dont be trying to exaggerate it into something complicated. You fill out a couple of forms with the details of the club and the new clubhouse or whatever, and then you send it off. It is not rocket science.

Gallagher was making €250 an hour doing this. Because it was all about his pull with the government, the spokesman for the club basically said this - he didnt mention anything about needing someone with very high technical expertise to fill out this GAA grant form (lol), they needed someone with the 'inside track' and who had pull with goverment. Because once Gallagher handled the application they would be 'sure to get it'.

There is no point trying to portray this as anything other than cronyism at its worst. The clubs themselves admitted they paid him for his ability to pull strings and the ridiculous amount of money he charged also concurs with the fact that they were looking for someone who had 'more to offer' than technical know how.

Any GAA club around the country will have over dozens/hundreds of members, no GAA club would ever be stuck for finding a guy who has the ability to fill in a few forms. Gallagher was paid for cronyism, as the clubs themselves said.