Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

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?

Seriously if you want to know put a FOI request in. I doubt any here can tell you.

Odysseus

[PHP][/PHP]

curlzy wrote: »

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

Apologies, I misunderstood your post

Odysseus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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?

I think I don't know for definite that there are too many seperate services. I don't know if there is one HSE, each region is seperate, even then there are seperate services etc. So many different payrolls etc.

Maybe someone can explain it better, but say the is a big difference between HSE Dublin Mid-Lenister and say HSE South Cork

flutered

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

all the above does not excuse giving an ill bed ridden elderly patient living alone a slow acting enema then discharge the patient, the enema did not kick in until during the night, this is enexcusable.

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

Really, that's the best you can do? We get it, you're with the union. Sorry about what's coming down the road, I don't think you'll enjoy it.

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

No you don't. You said so yourself.

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

Did you even read the comment you were responding to.

Odysseus wrote: »

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.

So what, the difference between you and I is I don't get paid from those taxes.

Now you're camped out on this thread raising spurious objections along with the real ones, trying to kick up as much mud as possible, singlehandedly accounting for what, half the posts? Oh you do indeed protest too much, the only real question is why, assuming you've been telling the truth so far. Don't take it personally, I could claim I'm queen elizabeth of england on the internet if I wanted.

You aren't trying to respond seriously, you aren't trying to engage, and at a time when public confidence in government services is at an all time low you're telling us that you think the public should just be quiet and keep forking over the shekels, the public sector will look after its own.

Can you not see how that's the problem.

Odysseus

flutered wrote: »

all the above does not excuse giving an ill bed ridden elderly patient living alone a slow acting enema then discharge the patient, the enema did not kick in until during the night, this is enexcusable.

Of course not, however as I have nursed a terminally ill parent and have an idea of how difficult that is, I don't think I have posted anything that would suggest that such behaviour is excusable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Really, that's the best you can do? We get it, you're with the union. Sorry about what's coming down the road, I don't think you'll enjoy it.

.

Not a case of "the best I can do" as I don't believe I'm in a competition. Nor do I beleive I have to be in a union to think that corporate fraud was in some way wrong.

I just want you to clarify your stance on employee (and by employee I mean everyone from ground level up to CEO) fraud and we'll ignore the ad homeinems.

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Not a case of "the best I can do" as I don't believe I'm in a competition. Nor do I beleive I have to be in a union to think that corporate fraud was in some way wrong.

I just want you to clarify your stance on employee (and by employee I mean everyone from ground level up to CEO) fraud and we'll ignore the ad homeinems.

Oh being in a union is an ad hominem is it? It has been clarified every which way already, anyone that doesn't get it by now doesn't want to get it.

If I'm not paying for it and it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Once again, simple. If someone is skimming the till at Spar, I don't care. If some corporate bigwig is doing insider trading, I don't care. If a bus driver in the employ of the state is keeping half his fares aside, I do care. As far as this discussion goes, the moral right or wrong isn't an issue.

Read this comment three times before you reply, since its a copy of the other responses to you.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Really, that's the best you can do? We get it, you're with the union. Sorry about what's coming down the road, I don't think you'll enjoy it.


No you don't. You said so yourself.


Did you even read the comment you were responding to.


So what, the difference between you and I is I don't get paid from those taxes.

Now you're camped out on this thread raising spurious objections along with the real ones, trying to kick up as much mud as possible, singlehandedly accounting for what, half the posts? Oh you do indeed protest too much, the only real question is why, assuming you've been telling the truth so far. Don't take it personally, I could claim I'm queen elizabeth of england on the internet if I wanted.

You aren't trying to respond seriously, you aren't trying to engage, and at a time when public confidence in government services is at an all time low you're telling us that you think the public should just be quiet and keep forking over the shekels, the public sector will look after its own.

Can you not see how that's the problem.

Come on you know what I believe better than me know? I raised the question of who needs to know in post 30, in post 34 I state the right of FOI requests.

So you saying I am not being honest or impling that is it? Why? You even asked me personal question which have no connection to this topic and I answered.

You don't get paid by the state, why because you don't work for them I do, which is I get a few bob every few weeks. However, I don't see what that has to do with the topic, except maybe I have a bit more knowledge about some of the HSE systems.

As I keep saying I like anyone else I have to work with have to answer to those I and every other tax payer have charge with overseeing our services. I do not have to answer to the average joe, or does everybody out there have the right to tell me how to work?

To answer that I will say no. Not being answerable to every member of the public does not equate with not being answerable.

I think I can post as often as I have an opinion to express, just like yourself.

It is not personal for me, actually far from it, but I think you are taking a tad personally.

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

Come on you know what I believe better than me know? I raised the question of who needs to know in post 30, in post 34 I state the right of FOI requests.

No, I stated the right of FOI requests, you backtracked.

Odysseus wrote: »

I do not have to answer to the average joe, or does everybody out there have the right to tell me how to work?

Please, show me where I said that.

And I quote you again...

Odysseus wrote: »

Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made.

Let's make this simple and settle the question: Do you believe that any information regarding the operation or finances of groups within the public sector should be witheld from the public, down to the last cent? A yes or no will do.

Odysseus wrote: »

It is not personal for me, actually far from it, but I think you are taking a tad personally.

Mentally read everything I write in a raspy yet sonorous tone if that helps, like Al Swearengen.

Doc Ruby

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So what, the difference between you and I is I don't get paid from those taxes.

I have seen similar statements here before and it makes no sense. You get paid at the end of the month and you have deductions from your wages, a public sector worker gets paid at the end of the month and they have deductions from their wages (more deductions than a private sector worker as it happens).

Why on earth do you think they feel any better than you do about the money they pay in tax. They are working just like you and the tax they pay means less money at the end of the month just like you.

Boombastic

Max Faithful Flesh wrote: »

........................ They are working just like you and the tax they pay means less money at the end of the month just like you.

The point of this thread though is the some are not working like you and me, in fact they are not working at all and yet they are still picking up the wage packet

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

The point of this thread though is the some are not working like you and me, in fact they are not working at all and yet they are still picking up the wage packet

I'm fairly sure he was referring to public sector workers in general in that statement.

Doc Ruby

Max Faithful Flesh wrote: »

I have seen similar statements here before and it makes no sense. You get paid at the end of the month and you have deductions from your wages, a public sector worker gets paid at the end of the month and they have deductions from their wages (more deductions than a private sector worker as it happens).

Why on earth do you think they feel any better than you do about the money they pay in tax. They are working just like you and the tax they pay means less money at the end of the month just like you.

And up we go.

HondaSami

curlzy wrote: »

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

Some of us work shift work, not in work this am. When you are tucked up in bed tonight I will be at work.

curlzy wrote: »

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

I was not busy bashing the PS, just because im a PS does not mean i agree with all the crap that goes on.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

No, I stated the right of FOI requests, you backtracked.


Please, show me where I said that.

And I quote you again...

Let's make this simple and settle the question: Do you believe that any information regarding the operation or finances of groups within the public sector should be witheld from the public, down to the last cent? A yes or no will do.


Mentally read everything I write in a raspy yet sonorous tone if that helps, like Al Swearengen.

I think you are incorrect, what post number did you mention FOI in, I metioned it first in post 34, did you mention it before then? Check back.

Why not qoute me where I mention FOI, rather than where I don't, though in that post I acknowledge thos those who are charged to over see services should access that info. The in turn can inform the general public what they want/need to know.

That is a very wide question, I don't know, I have have to supply a answer on the spot. If it includes just naming people the way some posters have implied NO. But I would require more info to make an informed decision.

God, if you want joke go ahead, but try make them funny eh

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

That is a very wide question, I don't know, I have have to supply a answer on the spot. If it includes just naming people the way some posters have implied NO. But I would require more info to make an informed decision.

How is that wide? In what circumstances could you justify answering no to that question? Be specific here please.

Odysseus wrote: »

God, if you want joke go ahead, but try make them funny eh

Youtubed Al, eh.

Odysseus

Any information regarding the operation or finances of services? Any information for a start, then followed regarding the operation, both of these are very wide, What is any info who can get it, how can they get it etc?


Did you check the post numbers on the FOI yet?

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

Any information regarding the operation or finances of services? Any information for a start, then followed regarding the operation, both of these are very wide, What is any info who can get it, how can they get it etc?

Why, what are you trying to hide? Specific, I said.

Odysseus wrote: »

Did you check the post numbers on the FOI yet?

You mean the one where you subsequently expressed doubts as to the right of the public to learn where their taxes were being spent? Also previous to the one where you figured out what the thread was actually about, some three pages in, not even having read the OP never mind the article apparently yet quite happy to rush wildly to the defence of the accused, which brings us full circle right back to why exactly you're so interested.

I don't really care why myself, but speculation is mildly entertaining.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Why, what are you trying to hide? Specific, I said.


You mean the one where you subsequently expressed doubts as to the right of the public to learn where their taxes were being spent? Also previous to the one where you figured out what the thread was actually about, some three pages in, not even having read the OP never mind the article apparently yet quite happy to rush wildly to the defence of the accused, which brings us full circle right back to why exactly you're so interested.

I don't really care why myself, but speculation is mildly entertaining.

I'm really only interested in these threads because I believe some people are posting sh!te.

No I mean the post which would have show you where incorrect and also wrong when you stated that you said it and I back tracked.

But keep avoid the topic and try focus on me why don't you?

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm really only interested in these threads because I believe some people are posting sh!te.

No I mean the post which would have show you where incorrect and also wrong when you stated that you said it and I back tracked.

But keep avoid the topic and try focus on me why don't you?

Not used to being analysed? And you still haven't answered the question posed by myself, which is all kinds of telling, to the extent in fact that you almost needn't answer the question at all.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not used to being analysed? And you still haven't answered the question posed by myself, which is all kinds of telling, to the extent in fact that you almost needn't answer the question at all.

Oh believe me I'm used to it, but I would say judged is the correct word here.

You seem happy to answer your questions to me for me, so tell me what does it tell you?

I think it is more correct to say you didn't get the answers you wanted.

Anyway to get back to the topic I think it fair to say that people here will never get access to the type of questions or rights that I have seen here.

Again of course they can use FOI to ask questions, but thankfully being a tax payer does not give some people the type of rights they think they should have.

Paying taxes does not allow people to think they are managers.

Boombastic

Odysseus wrote: »

Oh believe me I'm used to it, but I would say judged is the correct word here.

You seem happy to answer your questions to me for me, so tell me what does it tell you?

I think it is more correct to say you didn't get the answers you wanted.

Anyway to get back to the topic I think it fair to say that people here will never get access to the type of questions or rights that I have seen here.

Again of course they can use FOI to ask questions, but thankfully being a tax payer does not give some people the type of rights they think they should have.

Paying taxes does not allow people to think they are managers.

Nobody wants to be a manager??



Why shouldn't people be inquisitive about people being paid for work they are not doing?

Pottler

I've no real interest in what individual Public service workers do, that's not the issue. Management sets the tone. If it is weak or overly "flexible" and undemanding, the workers output will be low and poor. Management tolerance, tacit approval and acceptance of poor output and working practices is the key to why an organisation loses money and produces weak results. Management needs to up its game, and upper management needs to drive this. It has to be demanded though, and not just "aimed for".

Jarrod

OP reminds me of a case I heard of recently.

Allegedly, an agency worker at a hospital who had been working there for quite some time and was offered a full time position at the hospital. She was then being paid by the hospital but continued to ask her manager to sign timesheets to be submitted to the agency for payment. So she was being paid twice. This went on for over a year before being discovered.

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

Oh believe me I'm used to it, but I would say judged is the correct word here.

You seem happy to answer your questions to me for me, so tell me what does it tell you?

Hm, more evidence that the mind cannot behold itself. Silly question anyway, more salient is why would it want to.

Odysseus wrote: »

I think it is more correct to say you didn't get the answers you wanted.

Anyway to get back to the topic I think it fair to say that people here will never get access to the type of questions or rights that I have seen here.

Again of course they can use FOI to ask questions, but thankfully being a tax payer does not give some people the type of rights they think they should have.

Paying taxes does not allow people to think they are managers.

You can twist and turn any way you like, but as long as you keep ducking the specifics I'm going to be sitting here, chuckling mildly to myself with an Al Swearengen overtone.

Pottler

Jarrod wrote: »

OP reminds me of a case I heard of recently.

Allegedly, an agency worker at a hospital who had been working there for quite some time and was offered a full time position at the hospital. She was then being paid by the hospital but continued to ask her manager to sign timesheets to be submitted to the agency for payment. So she was being paid twice. This went on for over a year before being discovered.

Again, poor management and poor record keeping. If the Area manager (in the case of the OP)was on top of his game, he would be reviewing costs regularily and cross-referencing to a budget. If he expected wages to amount to x and instead they were running to y, he should have asked the question.
In the case of the above, who discovered it and how? Once that is established, mechanisms should be put in place to have those controls click in earlier and those controls should be strengthened.

It's just lax management. In the best run private sector Companies, costs are analysed daily, weekly, monthly. Payroll is scutinised, stock is micro managed to ensure no waste or over-runs and even seemingly trivial wastage is pursued. KPI are studied in depth continually. Staff output is monitored, charted and analysed in depth.

I've had dealings with HSE operated facilities, professionally, and procedures are just waay too lax IMO. It is just not professionally run and the whole ethos is too collegial and accepting of waste and wasters. If good managers were put in place, or existing managers sat down and told, up your game or leave, you have six months to improve performance or be fired, things would change. It is hard to see this happening, tbh.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh being in a union is an ad hominem is it? It has been clarified every which way already, anyone that doesn't get it by now doesn't want to get it.

Well put it this way: exactly what part of my post was the union remark related to?

If I'm not paying for it and it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Once again, simple. If someone is skimming the till at Spar, I don't care. If some corporate bigwig is doing insider trading, I don't care. If a bus driver in the employ of the state is keeping half his fares aside, I do care. As far as this discussion goes, the moral right or wrong isn't an issue.

Read this comment three times before you reply, since its a copy of the other responses to you.

What you outline here is stealing as oopposed to fraud, but that;s no relevant. What's relevant is the fact that you are ocmpfortbale with private sector crime. Fine. Why did you get upset and accuse me of being in a union when the statement I made was ultimatly accurate?

Personally, I see this as a moral issue as opposed to a consequentialist one. I like to see people who break the law brought to justice. Lots of crimes don't effect me personally, but it doesn't mean I'm okay with them.

The last sentence is also ad homeninem by the way.

Jarrod

Pottler wrote: »

Again, poor management and poor record keeping. If the Area manager (in the case of the OP)was on top of his game, he would be reviewing costs regularily and cross-referencing to a budget. If he expected wages to amount to x and instead they were running to y, he should have asked the question.
In the case of the above, who discovered it and how? Once that is established, mechanisms should be put in place to have those controls click in earlier and those controls should be strengthened.

It's just lax management. In the best run private sector Companies, costs are analysed daily, weekly, monthly. Payroll is scutinised, stock is micro managed to ensure no waste or over-runs and even seemingly trivial wastage is pursued. KPI are studied in depth continually. Staff output is monitored, charted and analysed in depth.

I've had dealings with HSE operated facilities, professionally, and procedures are just waay too lax IMO. It is just not professionally run and the whole ethos is too collegial and accepting of waste and wasters. If good managers were put in place, or existing managers sat down and told, up your game or leave, you have six months to improve performance or be fired, things would change. It is hard to see this happening, tbh.

Last I heard the case was still in court so I dunno how much I can say on here. I think it came to light when someone at the agency realised they were paying the hospital for bookings that were never made. It's disgraceful on the part of everyone involved really. Having worked in an agency capacity in a number of hospitals I can see how it could be done quite easily due to a lack of a real structure in some hospitals. Some have quite well structured Admin departments that wouldn't let something like it happen but I can see how it could happen in others, where the organisation is non existent.

Fox_In_Socks

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh being in a union is an ad hominem is it? It has been clarified every which way already, anyone that doesn't get it by now doesn't want to get it.

If I'm not paying for it and it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Once again, simple. If someone is skimming the till at Spar, I don't care. If some corporate bigwig is doing insider trading, I don't care. If a bus driver in the employ of the state is keeping half his fares aside, I do care. As far as this discussion goes, the moral right or wrong isn't an issue.

Read this comment three times before you reply, since its a copy of the other responses to you.

Anglo Irish Bank






QED

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Well put it this way: exactly what part of my post was the union remark related to?



What you outline here is stealing as oopposed to fraud, but that;s no relevant. What's relevant is the fact that you are ocmpfortbale with private sector crime. Fine. Why did you get upset and accuse me of being in a union when the statement I made was ultimatly accurate?

Personally, I see this as a moral issue as opposed to a consequentialist one. I like to see people who break the law brought to justice. Lots of crimes don't effect me personally, but it doesn't mean I'm okay with them.

The last sentence is also ad homeninem by the way.

As I said, if you haven't got it, you don't want to. You are very obviously not arguing in good faith, so good luck. Your next post will be one protesting that your intentions are not in question, trying to shift the discussion to an individual moral standpoint since that's where accountability is less important, and countering with further strawmen and misrepresentation. If only the Weather Girls had released 'It's raining logical fallacies', I'd link to it about now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

As I said, if you haven't got it, you don't want to. You are very obviously not arguing in good faith, so good luck. Your next post will be one protesting that your intentions are not in question, trying to shift the discussion to an individual moral standpoint since that's where accountability is less important, and countering with further strawmen and misrepresentation. If only the Weather Girls had released 'It's raining logical fallacies', I'd link to it about now.

Probably the most hypocritical post I've read around here.

Read the question in the title. Then telll me how this is not an answer to it.

Personally, I see this as a moral issue as opposed to a consequentialist one. I like to see people who break the law brought to justice. Lots of crimes don't effect me personally, but it doesn't mean I'm okay with them.

And then for the love of Christ actully relate what you write to what you have read here and not your imagined image of who I am or what I do.

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Probably the most hypocritical post I've read around here.

Read the question in the title. Then telll me how this is not an answer to it.



And then for the love of Christ actully relate what you write to what you have read here and not your imagined image of who I am or what I do.

Start a new thread if you want to discard many pages of reasoned discussion and debate just because you've lost. This:

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What's relevant is the fact that you are ocmpfortbale with private sector crime.

wasn't so much the iceberg as the last gurgling bubbles before the waves resumed business as usual.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Hm, more evidence that the mind cannot behold itself. Silly question anyway, more salient is why would it want to.


You can twist and turn any way you like, but as long as you keep ducking the specifics I'm going to be sitting here, chuckling mildly to myself with an Al Swearengen overtone.

You should read your own posts, you can't answer and don't answer questions. Chuckle away, because I do think your post are funny.

I am important because I pay taxes, well I will have a laugh on Thursday when I go the bank, because as you keep stating I get paid by your taxes.

Sadly though for you I am not responsible to you, though you seem to wish I was.

So thanks for that cash yeah, I won't woory to much about this down the road you have spoken of as I have been hearing people sh!te on about that for years.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

And then for the love of Christ actully relate what you write to what you have read here and not your imagined image of who I am or what I do.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Start a new thread if you want to discard many pages of reasoned discussion and debate just because you've lost. This:

wasn't so much the iceberg as the last gurgling bubbles before the waves resumed business as usual.

Answer ther points raised.

Odysseus wrote: »

You should read your own posts, you can't answer and don't answer questions. Chuckle away, because I do think your post are funny.

Bingo.

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

You should read your own posts, you can't answer and don't answer questions. Chuckle away, because I do think your post are funny.

I am important because I pay taxes, well I will have a laugh on Thursday when I go the bank, because as you keep stating I get paid by your taxes.

Sadly though for you I am not responsible to you, though you seem to wish I was.

So thanks for that cash yeah, I won't woory to much about this down the road you have spoken of as I have been hearing people sh!te on about that for years.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Answer ther points raised.

Bingo.

Marvellous. Good thing I'm not paying taxes towards your debating skills. As devastating as these responses have been, I retain yet a glimmer of hope that the good folk of AH can see beyond the brilliantly drawn (and spelled) veils of complex obfuscation cast about the reality of the situation.

Gentlemen, I remain, as always, with a chuckle...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Marvellous. Good thing I'm not paying taxes towards your debating skills. As devastating as these responses have been, I retain yet a glimmer of hope that the good folk of AH can see beyond the brilliantly drawn (and spelled) veils of complex obfuscation cast about the reality of the situation.

Gentlemen, I remain, as always, with a chuckle...

Answer the points raised.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Marvellous. Good thing I'm not paying taxes towards your debating skills. As devastating as these responses have been, I retain yet a glimmer of hope that the good folk of AH can see beyond the brilliantly drawn (and spelled) veils of complex obfuscation cast about the reality of the situation.

Gentlemen, I remain, as always, with a chuckle...

Cheers, I'll raise my drink to that, chuckle on I say.