Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its always funny when these threads come along and someone responds with "but private sector workers" as if they were two teams in a match.

Nobody gives a feck about private sector workers since nobody is obliged to pay their wages.

Public sector workers on the other hand take a cut out of every bit of profit I make and every cent I earn, so I feel I have the right to be annoyed at tales of corruption (and this is far from the first), incompetence, and fraud.

Absolute bollocks, unless you're arguign that, because they're public sector, it's worth it.

My point is fraud is fraud. I don;t give a **** who's committing it, they should be charged and if found guilty, prosecuted. Pullign sector into it, as swfcork did, is a smokescreen, and claiming "bashing" is bull****. Show me where there was unfair bashing before his/her post.

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

Instead of travelling to meetings, The meetings should be done over skype or some other type of software and cut out all the travel expenses.

Some people don't even have email. It is not always an option, but when they are they are used, in my experience.

hyperborean

HAHA, would be easier getting a guard into court than getting a HSE employee in, 50% of the PS with a mighty union,

No chance of this going to court,

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

So you posted this whilst I was writing up the answer to your question. Now that you read it do you still hold the above opinion?

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Absolute bollocks, unless you're arguign that, because they're public sector, it's worth it.

My point is fraud is fraud. I don;t give a **** who's committing it, they should be charged and if found guilty, prosecuted. Pullign sector into it, as swfcork did, is a smokescreen, and claiming "bashing" is bull****. Show me where there was unfair bashing before his/her post.

This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?


This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

Em... you're paying for corporate fraud via your taxes whether you like it or not.

I'm not dividing anyone here, just pointing out the obvious. Swfcork was the one who tred to turn it into a sector issue, not me.

Odysseus

Where To wrote: »

They can't get away with on their own though, payments have to be sanctioned

Yeah, well some has to sign it off, I really wonder especially with that 8.33 a mile example was that a mistake from both sides, taxi and HSE.

From my experience it is some low paid worker dealing with that payment, so I find it very difficult to not see it as a mistake. If it was a regular payment I am sure that reporter would have made a much bigger deal of it.

From the HSE side I still have not seen anything criminal yet

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Em... you're paying for corporate fraud via your taxes whether you like it or not.

I'm just as vocal about corporate fraud that affects the taxpayer, for example the banks. 99% of corporate fraud does not affect the taxpayer though, to say otherwise is complete nonsense.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I'm not dividing anyone here, just pointing out the obvious. Swfcork was the one who tred to turn it into a sector issue, not me.

It is a sector issue. If it was Dunnes employees skimming off the till, who cares?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm just as vocal about corporate fraud that affects the taxpayer, for example the banks. 99% of corporate fraud does not affect the taxpayer though, to say otherwise is complete nonsense.


It is a sector issue. If it was Dunnes employees skimming off the till, who cares?

Anglo Irish says it does effect the taxpayer.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?


This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

No my opinion has not changed, I never said they have not right, I said I'm not sure how much of a right they have.

As I said they can ask questions that is what FOI is there for, but how much info should just be declared I'm not sure. As I said those who are evaulating should have free access.

I don't buy the I pay taxes, you should answer to me, I don't I answer to my various managers and it then goes up that line.

I don't know why changing you opinion in the question I asked depends how I feel about my position.

MagicSean

hyperborean wrote: »

HAHA, would be easier getting a guard into court than getting a HSE employee in, 50% of the PS with a mighty union,

No chance of this going to court,

Well there is nothing to suggest this is criminal or fraudulent at all. In typical Indo fashion they give as little information as possible when they cant make a case and then they let others like yourself fill in the blanks. You can be sure if there was any evidence to suggest it was fraudulent they would have included it.

runawaybishop

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah, well some has to sign it off, I really wonder especially with that 8.33 a mile example was that a mistake from both sides, taxi and HSE.

That could be a lone extreme example though, a taxi stuck in traffic perhaps, or some other extenuating circumstances.

Odysseus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Em... you're paying for corporate fraud via your taxes whether you like it or not.

I'm not dividing anyone here, just pointing out the obvious. Swfcork was the one who tred to turn it into a sector issue, not me.

Corporate fraud would be illegal? Am I correct? If so where is the fraud here? Would somebody not need to be decieved for fruad to occur?

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Anglo Irish says it does effect the taxpayer.

Which is exactly what I said.

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't buy the I pay taxes, you should answer to me

Feel free not to accept your paycheque then.

Of course joe public shouldn't be able to wander in off the streets and start looking through filing cabinets, but that's not what you're talking about - you're talking about the right to information. Of course the public has the right to information. If that right was taken more seriously we wouldn't be getting stories like this one, and the public sector wouldn't have a reputation that starts flame threads.

Odysseus

runawaybishop wrote: »

That could be a lone extreme example though, a taxi stuck in traffic perhaps, or some other extenuating circumstances.

Yeah you may be right, but funny how that is never implied in these reports, it always goes the other way.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said.


Feel free not to accept your paycheque then.

Of course joe public shouldn't be able to wander in off the streets and start looking through filing cabinets, but that's not what you're talking about - you're talking about the right to information. Of course the public has the right to information. If that right was taken more seriously we wouldn't be getting stories like this one, and the public sector wouldn't have a reputation that starts flame threads.

I never refuse money:D My question is more about how far your right to question my wage goes, not very far in my opinion. You seem to differ, but it is just an opinion like mine.

runawaybishop

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah you may be right, but funny how that is never implied in these reports, it always goes the other way.

"Reasonable Taxi Expenses" as a headline doesn't gather the same interest.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said.

Then I misunderstood. You seemd to be under the impression you were immune.

Anyway, the question was, should criminal proceedings be brought against them and I sai yes. Because they may have indulged in uillegal activity, not because of the sector they come from.

greenheart

I said no in the poll because it will only cost us more money to bring them through the courts etc. But I do think they should be made pay back what they stole and named and shamed.

Odysseus

greenheart wrote: »

I said no in the poll because it will only cost us more money to bring them through the courts etc. But I do think they should be made pay back what they stole and named and shamed.

Exactly what do you believe was stolen here?

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Then I misunderstood. You seemd to be under the impression you were immune.

Anyway, the question was, should criminal proceedings be brought against them and I sai yes. Because they may have indulged in uillegal activity, not because of the sector they come from.

Once again, I and most people only care about it because its coming out of our pockets.

Odysseus wrote: »

I never refuse money:D My question is more about how far your right to question my wage goes, not very far in my opinion. You seem to differ, but it is just an opinion like mine.

And this is exactly the kind of attitude that upsets people, as I said earlier. If you want to start your own country club, feel free to reach into your own pockets and finance it. Until such time, the only department that should be getting a bigger budget is the Auditors.

greenheart

Odysseus wrote: »

Exactly what do you believe was stolen here?

Didn't read the link only the op's post but if I'm right in thinking they stole money that they weren't entitled to. They were payed for work they never done at a center that wasn't opened??
Did I get that wrong? Maybe I should of read the link first.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Odysseus wrote: »

Corporate fraud would be illegal? Am I correct? If so where is the fraud here? Would somebody not need to be decieved for fruad to occur?

Sean Fitzpatrick was investigated by the fraud squad back in 2010, if you are referring to Anglo Irish.

If you are referring to the situation here, I imagine that the fraud comes from obtaining money via false pretenses, i.e., taking payment for work which was not done. Whether this actually happened, i do not know, but then I never said anyone should be convicted of fraud, just charged. Or at the very least, investigated. Nor have I argued that they should pay the money back, unless they are discovered to have obtained it under said false pretences.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Once again, I and most people only care about it because its coming out of our pockets.

So, fraud is fine, as long as it doesn't effect the taxpayer...?

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Once again, I and most people only care about it because its coming out of our pockets.


And this is exactly the kind of attitude that upsets people, as I said earlier. If you want to start your own country club, feel free to reach into your own pockets and finance it. Until such time, the only department that should be getting a bigger budget is the Auditors.

See I don't think I have to. Now of course any citizen can put a FOI request in and I believe in that right.

However, this attitude that I pay taxes, I pay you that is bo!!ocks; same with because I pay taxes I know the best in this situation and I should know everything.

We all pay taxes me include, my taxes pay for people to question my work and I need to answer to those people, not the person outside my office now having a smoke.

TheChizler

runawaybishop wrote: »

That could be a lone extreme example though, a taxi stuck in traffic perhaps, or some other extenuating circumstances.

Perhaps 4 passengers (€3) plus the initial charge (€4.something) going just under a mile? Does the report give just the full price and the total mileage or the actual driving rate agreed by both parties?

Odysseus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sean Fitzpatrick was investigated by the fraud squad back in 2010, if you are referring to Anglo Irish.

If you are referring to the situation here, I imagine that the fraud comes from obtaining money via false pretenses, i.e., taking payment for work which was not done. Whether this actually happened, i do not know, but then I never said anyone should be convicted of fraud, just charged. Or at the very least, investigated. Nor have I argued that they should pay the money back, unless they are discovered to have obtained it under said false pretences.

No I am refering to the examples here, as not yourself but others have stated that. I must have picked you up wrong about the corporate part.

As I asked the last poster who stated something illegal happen here, exactly where? I really cannot see it. Now you have cleared your position thanks, but I [could be wrong; at least I regularly admit that] cannot see a reason for any staff member to be investigated or charged.

Yes some questions may need to be asked but not under a caution. Sorry if that is a bit muddled.

flutered

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

MOL will be charging you per injection, for each cuppa tea, arse wipe, blanket, and if you're not better by the time he says you should be, he'll toss you out on the street.

i have seen worse, an elderly relative who lived alone was in hospital in limerick, he was diagnoised with an internal blockage due to difine intake, he was given a slow acting enema then sent home yup you can imagne the rest, that op was a fcukin disgraceful thing to do.

Dawn Rider

The staff aren't stealing anything. If their employer tells them to report to work but doesn't provide any, it's hardly their fault.


This was covered in Yes Minister in 1981

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY

Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A

marcsignal

Dismissal, court proceedings, repayment of every cent of stolen monies, lifetime ban from state and / or semi state employment, name and shame, end of.

Boombastic

Dawn Rider wrote: »

The staff aren't stealing anything. If their employer tells them to report to work but doesn't provide any, it's hardly their fault.
....]

did the stay on the premises for the contracted time?

Odysseus

flutered wrote: »

i have seen worse, an elderly relative who lived alone was in hospital in limerick, he was diagnoised with an internal blockage due to difine intake, he was given a slow acting enema then sent home yup you can imagne the rest, that op was a fcukin disgraceful thing to do.

I can imagine, however, to go with those type of ideas would be a disaster for patient care. There was uproar here just before christmas when the media showed that hospitals are being told to charge cancer patients the 75e daily rate. People cannot have it both ways

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

did the stay on the premises for the contracted time?

Come on be serious, I doubt it, as the unit was closed.

Boombastic

Odysseus wrote: »

Come on be serious, I doubt it, as the unit was closed.

Why not? If they are being paid to be there, they should be there, otherwise they are being complicit in the scam.

Odysseus

marcsignal wrote: »

Dismissal, court proceedings, repayment of every cent of stolen monies, lifetime ban from state and / or semi state employment, name and shame, end of.

Again I ask exactly on what grounds? Talk about trial by media

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

Why not? If they are being paid to be there, they should be there, otherwise they are being complicit in the scam.

Because maybe the where told to go home?

If it was passed and we have no info to say different they are complicit in nothing but doing as ordered.

flutered

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah, Maybe I'm wrong, I thought the payment whilst the unit was closed referred to a unit being closed over the x-mas period, hence the extra payments.

I could be wrong, it is not mentioned in the link, now I looked at the times when I was getting milk this morning so maybe I saw it there. Because I had a big smile reading it, thinking I beg there is a thread on this calling for blood.

It is the paper not naming the unit, I imagine the know, as well as the reasons why this was signed off. However, I'm not sure WE NEED TO KNOW how many staff.( quote).

what about openess and transparency, if it involved the private service they would be named by now, why the secretecy, this reminds me that when one could look up on the net the amount a particular farmer recieved in grants, this was stopped, the reason given was it was no ones buisness how much a particular individual recieved, but social welfare rates are well known.

curlzy

HondaSami wrote: »

I'm a public servant and this type of abuse really annoys me, it gives the hard working people in the ps a bad rep.
Management have a lot to answer for imo. It's not ps bashing when it's fair to bash them.

And yet you're posting at 11am, or are you not in work today?

Dawn Rider

Boombastic wrote: »

did the stay on the premises for the contracted time?

I know someone who was in a similar situation as these staff.
He was told to keep reporting for work until something was found for him to do.
If he didn't, he knew he'd be fired for breech of contract.
He'd watch DVD's and read until home-time.

He has since left as he felt he was wasting his life in there, and didn't want to be thought of as being a p1ss taker.

I'm not bashing the Public Sector but, it does seem a lot easier to take the p1ss and get away with it than with private firms.

Odysseus

flutered wrote: »

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah, Maybe I'm wrong, I thought the payment whilst the unit was closed referred to a unit being closed over the x-mas period, hence the extra payments.

I could be wrong, it is not mentioned in the link, now I looked at the times when I was getting milk this morning so maybe I saw it there. Because I had a big smile reading it, thinking I beg there is a thread on this calling for blood.

It is the paper not naming the unit, I imagine the know, as well as the reasons why this was signed off. However, I'm not sure WE NEED TO KNOW how many staff.( quote).

what about openess and transparency, if it involved the private service they would be named by now, why the secretecy, this reminds me that when one could look up on the net the amount a particular farmer recieved in grants, this was stopped, the reason given was it was no ones buisness how much a particular individual recieved, but social welfare rates are well known.

Why do I need to know their names? What purpose does that serve? If there is something unethical happening here, then certain people need that info, I can't see why you need that info?

As to the famers, what right have I to know what grants the lad up the road gets? That is not openess, have I the right to know someones welfare payments? as we all know the rates

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

curlzy wrote: »

And yet you're posting at 11am, or are you not in work today?

Oh come on! He's hardly the only person posting during work hours!

Odysseus

curlzy wrote: »

And yet you're posting at 11am, or are you not in work today?

What business is that of yours? Do you think you can ask that because you pay taxes?

Ad hom

Ghost Buster

sfwcork wrote: »

you cant beat the public sector bashing threads on here

What bashing?
My wife works in the public sector and sees this crap going on a day, every day. She cannot complain as it is the very people she should bring such activity to the attention of who are doing it.

Quin_Dub

I don't think that we can call any of this fraud at this point.

We can definitely call it pi$$ poor management and shockingly disorganized.

What always strikes me about this stuff is the clear lack of a central structure or guidelines about how to do business . There also seems to be little to no effort put in to leveraging buying power and economies of scale to get better , consistent pricing.

There's no single group with a view of all the expenditure - All these operating expenses should be centrally managed by a single group to ensure that we are getting the best value for money across the board

Why do we have each individual unit negotiating costs?

Dawn Rider

Ghost Buster wrote: »

What bashing?
My wife works in the public sector and sees this crap going on a day, every day. She cannot complain as it is the very people she should bring such activity to the attention of who are doing it.

My Sister -in-Law works in the PS and one year her department realised they hadn't spent all their budget. So they bought a new photocopier and tonnes of paper to make sure they got the same amount of money allocated to them the following year! That's just one of the stories...

Again, I'm not bashing the PS as a whole but, it is annoying when some p1ss takers can hide behind certain policies.

marcsignal

Odysseus wrote: »

Again I ask exactly on what grounds? Talk about trial by media

Actually, you have a point there. I only browsed over the article, because I'm doing something else here, so I'll amend my original post.

If it is found that there has been deliberate jiggery pokery of expenses, the incumbent should face, Dismissal, court proceedings, repayment of every cent of stolen monies, lifetime ban from state and / or semi state employment, name and shame, end of.

As regards the taxis: If the taxi driver was found to be on the fiddle, he/she should face disciplinary action from the taxi regulator. The HSE should be chasing up the best possible deal with the taxi firm(s), and a rate set, that is reasonable.

It sounds like people there were just going through the motions, and not paying detailed enough attention to what they were signing off on*

*In the same way that I just skimmed over the article, I guess

The question is who here would refuse the money? Very few if any. I certainly wouldn't. Being paid extra money and not actually having to work, you'd be mad to say no.

curlzy

Odysseus wrote: »

What business is that of yours? Do you think you can ask that because you pay taxes?

Ad hom

He was busy bashing other PS workers (but excluding himself) without having any of the facts. Just thought I'd give him a taste of unfairness. You're right, it's none of my business, I don't think it's anyone business besides the person who's in employment, it just sickened me to see a PS worker bashing the PS, it's so pathetic IMO

flutered

Odysseus wrote: »

I can imagine, however, to go with those type of ideas would be a disaster for patient care. There was uproar here just before christmas when the media showed that hospitals are being told to charge cancer patients the 75e daily rate. People cannot have it both ways

what do you mean by both ways.

Boombastic

here is a centre in Limerick that is closed, seems to have been a bit of a daster since it opened?

2005 report on the place


2012 Report on the place 'Closed care unit labelled a ‘disgrace’'



Are teh staff in this unit also getting paid while it is closed?

Odysseus

flutered wrote: »

what do you mean by both ways.

What I meant is people are very annoyed over this waste; I give the example of the hospital cost thread.

Hospital followed up on unpaid bills, response was hang on they are pestering sick people about bills, disgusting. How could those who look after sick people do this? Waste is wrong, but addressing watse is also wrong in some cases.

Also running hospital like a business, when people find out out the various charges etc, it is often a case why should I pay.