The strange affair of Dimmy Tooley

James Brown

No distinction. Being in the chamber to vote implies you are present to vote. It's the least these chancers can do. Making excuses is just that. If someone votes for me and I'm playing candy crush two seats back or in the house watching Coronation street, absolutely no difference.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did you type they out with a straight face, because I "peddled it" once......

Today.


Some irony blanch.

Doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you did or didn't post it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No distinction. Being in the chamber to vote implies you are present to vote. It's the least these chancers can do. Making excuses is just that. If someone votes for me and I'm playing candy crush two seats back or in the house watching Coronation street, absolutely no difference.

As the document shows, Standing Orders are clear on the need to be in the Chamber, but are not clear that you actually need to push your own button. There is a difference.

You are free to have your own opinion on the matter, but the facts are that the Standing Orders do not prevent me shouting over and saying Matt, press the yes button for me, so long as I am present in the Chamber.

Here is what I said on this before:

"being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal."

I pretty much stand over that, I view it as something wrong but not illegal, needs cleaning-up but the Dooley actions are more serious.

Jinglejangle69

blanch152 wrote: »

As the document shows, Standing Orders are clear on the need to be in the Chamber, but are not clear that you actually need to push your own button. There is a difference.

You are free to have your own opinion on the matter, but the facts are that the Standing Orders do not prevent me shouting over and saying Matt, press the yes button for me, so long as I am present in the Chamber.

Here is what I said on this before:

"being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal."

I pretty much stand over that, I view it as something wrong but not illegal, needs cleaning-up but the Dooley actions are more serious.

Wasting your time, it’s FG they have in their crusade with full blinkers on and nothing will change that.

No other party can do wrong.

blanch152

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Wasting your time, it’s FG they have in their crusade with full blinkers on and nothing will change that.

No other party can do wrong.

FG are doing a lot wrong, but posters should try and at least get the facts right.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Wasting your time, it’s FG they have in their crusade with full blinkers on and nothing will change that.

No other party can do wrong.

You obviously don't read anyone's comments. Many have said anyone at it is wrong. The discussion at the min is FG shills defending FG. Show one poster defending FF or what ever....

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You obviously don't read anyone's comments. Many have said anyone at it is wrong. The discussion at the min is FG shills defending FG. Show one poster defending FF or what ever....

Have FG shills replaced FG bots as the scourge of the day?

This is at least the second time I have seen posts from you refer to shilling and FG. If it is bothering you so much, maybe you should start a thread in Feedback?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

As the document shows, Standing Orders are clear on the need to be in the Chamber, but are not clear that you actually need to push your own button. There is a difference.

You are free to have your own opinion on the matter, but the facts are that the Standing Orders do not prevent me shouting over and saying Matt, press the yes button for me, so long as I am present in the Chamber.

Here is what I said on this before:

"being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal."

I pretty much stand over that, I view it as something wrong but not illegal, needs cleaning-up but the Dooley actions are more serious.

As usual with with when caught out it`s bluster and deflect.


Proxy voting under the Constitution as you have been shown before is illegal without proper sanction.
Shouting over to someone to press your button regardless of where you are is not legal sanction.
Neither is it under Dáil Standing Orders even though you make great play of attempting to distract by pointing at the forest hoping no-one will notice the relevant tree.


Dáil Standing Order 77.
(1) Questions in the Dail or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, shall, save as otherwise provided by the Constitution, be determined by a majority of the members present and voting....


So for once either man up and admit you got it wrong, or show where TD`s from any party got sanction under the Constitution to vote on an others behalf.

Other than your attempt to distract it is not legal under the Constitution or Dáil Standing Orders.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

FG are doing a lot wrong, but posters should try and at least get the facts right.

It really would help if you did.

It would save a lot of time and effort for others.

Plumbthedepths

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Wasting your time, it’s FG they have in their crusade with full blinkers on and nothing will change that.

No other party can do wrong.

Did you miss the comments that stated all parties were at it ? Or are you blinkered?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

As usual with with when caught out it`s bluster and deflect.


Proxy voting under the Constitution as you have been shown before is illegal without proper sanction.
Shouting over to someone to press your button regardless of where you are is not legal sanction.
Neither is it under Dáil Standing Orders even though you make great play of attempting to distract by pointing at the forest hoping no-one will notice the relevant tree.


Dáil Standing Order 77.
(1) Questions in the Dail or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, shall, save as otherwise provided by the Constitution, be determined by a majority of the members present and voting....


So for once either man up and admit you got it wrong, or show where TD`s from any party got sanction under the Constitution to vote on an others behalf.

Other than your attempt to distract it is not legal under the Constitution or Dáil Standing Orders.

Let's look again. The Standing Orders are clear that the doors are closed and only if you are inside, can you vote.

The Standing Orders then say nothing, good or bad, about whether you have to press your own button, or if you are having a chat, whether you can ask a colleague to press your button. You are present, your vote is being cast, the conditions of the Constitution are being met, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders to say what you are doing is wrong or illegal. So, not illegal, just bad practice.

Not so with your friend Timmy. He was outside the Chamber, while his friend from Limerick pressed the buttons for him. For some reason, you are interested in downplaying the seriousness of his actions by saying that everyone is at it. They aren't. They actually turn up and stay in the Chamber and their vote is cast.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's look again. The Standing Orders are clear that the doors are closed and only if you are inside, can you vote.

The Standing Orders then say nothing, good or bad, about whether you have to press your own button, or if you are having a chat, whether you can ask a colleague to press your button. You are present, your vote is being cast, the conditions of the Constitution are being met, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders to say what you are doing is wrong or illegal. So, not illegal, just bad practice.

Not so with your friend Timmy. He was outside the Chamber, while his friend from Limerick pressed the buttons for him. For some reason, you are interested in downplaying the seriousness of his actions by saying that everyone is at it. They aren't. They actually turn up and stay in the Chamber and their vote is cast.

Will you get up the yard.
The conditions of the Constitution have not been meet, nor have you shown where they were.
Under the Constitution to vote on behalf of someone else without legally sanctioned proxy is an offence.

Neither is there anything in Dáil Standing Orders to negate that fact.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Will you get up the yard.
The conditions of the Constitution have not been meet, nor have you shown where they were.
Under the Constitution to vote on behalf of someone else without legally sanctioned proxy is an offence.

Neither is there anything in Dáil Standing Orders to negate that fact.

Where does it say in the Constitution that to vote on behalf of someone else without legally sanctioned proxy is an offence?

I don't recall the Constitution setting out what is and isn't an offence, and it is usually interpreted by legislation, statutory instruments, and in the case of the Oireachtas, standing orders. If you could link the relevant article.........

expectationlost

and Lisa Chambers on Jan 17th was voting for Timmy Dooley for 50 minutes, which is a very long time.

171170

expectationlost wrote: »

and Lisa Chambers on Jan 17th was voting for Timmy Dooley for 50 minutes, which is a very long time.

In fairness, it's clear that she's not the brightest so she was probably dithering over which button to press for 49 of those 50 minutes.

James Brown

expectationlost wrote: »

and Lisa Chambers on Jan 17th was voting for Timmy Dooley for 50 minutes, which is a very long time.

Her defense was she often sat in his seat

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Where does it say in the Constitution that to vote on behalf of someone else without legally sanctioned proxy is an offence?

I thought from reading other posts of yours you had at least a basic understanding of the Irish legal system and penalties.
Seems you were missing the day voting impersonation was discussed.
Since 2004 the penalty is up to 2 years and 10,000 fine under the Electoral Amendment Bill.

expectationlost

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Her defense was she often sat in his seat

so where was he?

charlie14

expectationlost wrote: »

so where was he?

Supposedly in the chamber.



Perhaps out of habit she sat on his seat and she didn`t notice he was there until he said "Push my button Lisa"
As good an excuse as some of the other for buttons being pressed on their behalf.
Better in fact. She is a bit of a looker.;)

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I thought from reading other posts of yours you had at least a basic understanding of the Irish legal system and penalties.
Seems you were missing the day voting impersonation was discussed.
Since 2004 the penalty is up to 2 years and 10,000 fine under the Electoral Amendment Bill.

Just checked that Act and don't see anywhere in it a reference to Dail votes being subject to that Act. Must be missing something, but I am sure you can help me find the correct reference.

Plumbthedepths

charlie14 wrote: »

I thought from reading other posts of yours you had at least a basic understanding of the Irish legal system and penalties.
Seems you were missing the day voting impersonation was discussed.
Since 2004 the penalty is up to 2 years and 10,000 fine under the Electoral Amendment Bill.

Ah i remember someone once claiming there was no difference between a plebiscite and a referendum . Shortly after when their ignorance was pointed out they disappeared. Damned if I can remember the posters name. Although I do get echoes of them from time to time. ;-)

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ah i remember someone once claiming there was no difference between a plebiscite and a referendum . Shortly after when their ignorance was pointed out they disappeared. Damned if I can remember the posters name. Although I do get echoes of them from time to time. ;-)

Now that you mention it, I do recall that particular poster.
Seems to have passed on but I also get echoes of that poster.
It`s as if there is someone here acting as a medium for his channeling.
Eerie.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Just checked that Act and don't see anywhere in it a reference to Dail votes being subject to that Act. Must be missing something, but I am sure you can help me find the correct reference.

You very well may be.
But then again you didn`t find anything in the Constitution or Dáil Standing Orders either that allowed TD`s commit voting impersonation by using other TD`s vote

expectationlost

somebody was probably looking for times Timmy Dooley went missing and found her voting for him, but she said she "thought" that she never done it before. http://ift.tt/32zkLrx .mp3 this was the second time of asking after she had time to think about it.

its because she denied doing it that she's the story.

Jinglejangle69

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Did you miss the comments that stated all parties were at it ? Or are you blinkered?

This thread started again yesterday after the video was released and the first response was what about Dara Murphy and his expenses and the usual posters joined in.

Just think about that for one second and the sheer whataboutery.

But that’s how around here operates and get away with it.

It’s pathetic.

Jinglejangle69

charlie14 wrote: »

Supposedly in the chamber.



Perhaps out of habit she sat on his seat and she didn`t notice he was there until he said "Push my button Lisa"
As good an excuse as some of the other for buttons being pressed on their behalf.
Better in fact. She is a bit of a looker.;)

No he wasn’t supposedly in the chamber.

He was out of the chamber.

Once again you know this but will deflect to try make anyone else except FG look good.

expectationlost

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

No he wasn’t supposedly in the chamber.

He was out of the chamber.

Once again you know this but will deflect to try make anyone else except FG look good.

he is talking about jan 17th not oct 17th


Dooley claims he was in the chamber Jan 17th ( RTE reports that he confirms he was there, him saying he was isn't a confirmation) https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/1215/1099258-lisa-chambers-timmy-dooley/

somebody has already admitted voting for Timmy Dooley while he wasn't in the chamber theres a chance it happened before

Snow Garden

The game is afoot.

Ye'll be getting an earlier general election than ye bargained for.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

No he wasn’t supposedly in the chamber.

He was out of the chamber.

Once again you know this but will deflect to try make anyone else except FG look good.

You're obsessed with Fine Gael. There's other parties and people involved in this. Really...

They are all at fault, thing is, nobody is making excuses for any party involved...except...Hint, they're in government...hint they don't like the sick or poor....c'mon you've got this

Plumbthedepths

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

It’s pathetic.

Just a question but are you being compelled to view or comment on this site? You seem quite upset, maybe take a break.