The strange affair of Dimmy Tooley

charlie14

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 are so obsessed with anything related to Fine Gael that you are now sounding like Frankie Howard in Up Pompeii
"Infamy infamy they all have it in for me."

If you had of taken the time to check rather than your usual jumping in you would have seen my reply to expectationlost`s post in relation to 17th. Jan.2019.

But then that was probably too much to expect when you have got this idea in your head that I believe it was incorrect for just Fine Gael TD`s and Ministers to vote on behalf of others.
I have stated it was incorrect for any TD or Minister to do so nd have even posted how incorrect it is under both the Constitution and Dáil Standing Orders

171170

charlie14 wrote: »

She is a bit of a looker.;)

A bit is right! She wouldn't be my cup of tea.

charlie14

171170 wrote: »

A bit is right! She wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Not a facial expression that would show anyone at their best.
To each their own, but personally I would regard her as quite a physically attractive women.

Plumbthedepths

This is more flattering tbh.

https://images.app.goo.gl/scwD7xkAc38gGcbx6

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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

I didn’t find it because there is nothing in the Electoral Amendment Act of relevance to the Dail.

You have been caught out making stuff up again.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

You are so obsessed with anything related to Fine Gael that you are now sounding like Frankie Howard in Up Pompeii
"Infamy infamy they all have it in for me."

If you had of taken the time to check rather than your usual jumping in you would have seen my reply to expectationlost`s post in relation to 17th. Jan.2019.

But then that was probably too much to expect when you have got this idea in your head that I believe it was incorrect for just Fine Gael TD`s and Ministers to vote on behalf of others.
I have stated it was incorrect for any TD or Minister to do so nd have even posted how incorrect it is under both the Constitution and Dáil Standing Orders

You claimed it was illegal, but can’t produce the legislation

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn’t find it because there is nothing in the Electoral Amendment Act of relevance to the Dail.

You have been caught out making stuff up again.

For someone who has been caught out so often bluffing if I didn`t know you as I do I would be tempted to admire your brass neck.

Are you seriously suggesting that vote impersonation while being a crime under an Irish Statute Electoral Amendment for Joe and Josephine Soap is perfectly legal for Irish TD`s elected by said Soaps is all hunky dory.

Especially when it is not allowed under the Constitution and Dáil Standing Orders 77(1) & 77(2).
Both of which I posted for you 1st. of November here when you disappeared before now resurfacing with your usual nonsense.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

You claimed it was illegal, but can’t produce the legislation

So what are you claiming now ?
(a) It`s fine for all TD`s to engage in vote impersonation.
or
(b) It`s fine for just Fine Gael TD`s to engage in vote impersonation because...

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

For someone who has been caught out so often bluffing if I didn`t know you as I do I would be tempted to admire your brass neck.

Are you seriously suggesting that vote impersonation while being a crime under an Irish Statute Electoral Amendment for Joe and Josephine Soap is perfectly legal for Irish TD`s elected by said Soaps is all hunky dory.

Especially when it is not allowed under the Constitution and Dáil Standing Orders 77(1) & 77(2).
Both of which I posted for you 1st. of November here when you disappeared before now resurfacing with your usual nonsense.

charlie14 wrote: »

So what are you claiming now ?
(a) It`s fine for all TD`s to engage in vote impersonation.
or
(b) It`s fine for just Fine Gael TD`s to engage in vote impersonation because...

So you can’t produce the legislation. Fine, just admit it. I have said all along that it was wrong and bad practice for someone to push the button for you while in the Chamber but that it was not illegal or against Dail Standing Orders.

Getting someone to vote for you while you are outside the Dail Chambers is against Standing Orders because it expressly says the doors will be closed and you have to be in the Chamber to cast your vote.

Keep doubling down on this, your FF friends, Dooley, Chambers and Collins have broken Standing Orders, and it now appears Lisa lied to the investigating committee about it being the only time.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

So you can’t produce the legislation. Fine, just admit it. I have said all along that it was wrong and bad practice for someone to push the button for you while in the Chamber but that it was not illegal or against Dail Standing Orders.

Getting someone to vote for you while you are outside the Dail Chambers is against Standing Orders because it expressly says the doors will be closed and you have to be in the Chamber to cast your vote.

Keep doubling down on this, your FF friends, Dooley, Chambers and Collins have broken Standing Orders, and it now appears Lisa lied to the investigating committee about it being the only time.

Back to look at all the lovely forest but ignore that tree with your doors closed rubbish attempting to deflect from the specific Dáil Standing Order that actually specifically deals with the matter of casting votes. Standing Order 77.

Not only does Standing Order 77 show it is not legal to cast the vote of someone else, it also states that under the Constitution it is not legal to do so.

When it comes to who is defending friends here I could point out the irony that I have never defended any party or individual for breaking Standing Orders while you have been going through hoops attempting to defend Fine Gael for doing it but it would be lost on you.

Plumbthedepths

So Fergus O' Dowd lodges a compliant on behalf of FG stating Lisa Chambers voted for her party colleague, you forgot you did it also Fergus? Couldn't make this crap up .


https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/10/22/vote-early-vote-often/

expectationlost

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So Fergus O' Dowd lodges a compliant on behalf of FG stating Lisa Chambers voted for her party colleague, you forgot you did it also Fergus? Couldn't make this crap up .


https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/10/22/vote-early-vote-often/

he admitted to it, Chambers denied doing it twice, thats the difference http://ift.tt/32zkLrx

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

where are the January 2019 Dail video files http://oireachtas.heanet.ie

oh the post 2018 video files are linked from the oireachtas debate record page https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-01-17/ divisions start after 2 hrs 30 minutes on video, where is Timmy Dooley for all that time I didn't notice him walk in or leave, why is Stephen Donnelly sitting in her seat?

McMurphy

expectationlost wrote: »

he admitted to it, Chambers denied doing it twice, thats the difference http://ift.tt/32zkLrx

Ridiculous imo, O'Dowd grasses on Chambers - Chambers in return will grass on O'Dowd and round and round it goes.

FG opened Pandora's box with this one, big furore over something they were at themselves, while they should be commended for highlighting the whole voting malpractice thing, they only did so to try and score points, obviously unaware they were at it too.

I can't rock up to my local polling station with my mate Dave, and send Dave in to vote on my behalf because I'm on the phone to the local takeaway ordering a spice bag.

Same thing here. No one should be voting for anyone else, in the chamber / out of the chamber it makes no odds.

expectationlost

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Ridiculous imo, O'Dowd grasses on Chambers - Chambers in return will grass on O'Dowd and round and round it goes.

FG opened Pandora's box with this one, big furore over something they were at themselves, while they should be commended for highlighting the whole voting malpractice thing, they only did so to try and score points, obviously unaware they were at it too.

I can't rock up to my local polling station with my mate Dave, and send Dave in to vote on my behalf because I'm on the phone to the local takeaway ordering a spice bag.

Same thing here. No one should be voting for anyone else, in the chamber / out of the chamber it makes no odds.

it was the Indo that broke these stories but I understand why people would think FG and the Indo are in cahoots.

NuttyMcNutty

The amount of times she voted for him, I'd say he was in Lisa Chambers.

expectationlost

Report of the results of an investigation into a complaint against Deputy Lisa Chambers https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/committee_on_members_interests_dail_eireann/reports/2019/2019-12-16_report-of-the-results-of-an-investigation-into-a-complaint-against-deputy-lisa-chambers_en.pdf

just says it was wrong, don't do it again

reports on Timmy Dooley and Niall Collins to come, Lisa Chambres report is out first because she said it genuine mistake that she hadn't done before.

charlie14

expectationlost wrote: »

it was the Indo who broke these stories but I understand why people would think FG and Indo are in cahoots.

The Indo would always have been looked on as a FG backing paper.
Whether it exposed this voting scam on its own our with FG help we will never really know but either way FG were very quick to jump all over it and as happens with all sensationalised headlines got a bit of a bump up in the soon to follow opinion polls.

When it emerged that all and sundry were playing fast and loose with the voting rules the general attitude among the public was a plaque on all your houses. We elected ye, we pay ye enough that the least ye could do is press your own buttons not gather like a bunch of gossiping kids while getting someone else to press your button

You had a problem with me joining in a conversation with two others on bringing Dara Murphy into this topic.
This latest revelation, to use the term loosely, by the Indo for me at least was nothing more than an attempt to revive an old story where FG had originally got a bit of an opinion poll rise now at a time when they were in trouble on two fronts over insurance claims and a TD on a two year sabbatical still claiming salary and expenses using a dodgy signing in system to do so.
With the Indo`s traditional political affiliations that would not have taken from my opinion nor I suspect would it have from many others.

Just an aside on the Indo.
It seems Denis O`Brien lost around 500M. on the recent sale of the Indo. Couldn`t happen to a nicer fella.

expectationlost

charlie14 wrote: »

The Indo would always have been looked on as a FG backing paper.
Whether it exposed this voting scam on its own our with FG help we will never really know but either way FG were very quick to jump all over it and as happens with all sensationalised headlines got a bit of a bump up in the soon to follow opinion polls.

When it emerged that all and sundry were playing fast and loose with the voting rules the general attitude among the public was a plaque on all your houses. We elected ye, we pay ye enough that the least ye could do is press your own buttons not gather like a bunch of gossiping kids while getting someone else to press your button

You had a problem with me joining in a conversation with two others on bringing Dara Murphy into this topic.
This latest revelation, to use the term loosely, by the Indo for me at least was nothing more than an attempt to revive an old story where FG had originally got a bit of an opinion poll rise now at a time when they were in trouble on two fronts over insurance claims and a TD on a two year sabbatical still claiming salary and expenses using a dodgy signing in system to do so.

the reason we're discussing Lisa Chambers is that its highlighting a contradiction, looks at these forums all sorts of bads things happen, but when everyone agrees they are bad there's not much discussion, its only when somebody disagrees or spots a contradiction that the discussion generates... whilst probably looking at Timmy Dooleys previous votes somebody found this contradiction regarding Lisa Chambers thats what is newsworthy.

Even Timmy Dooley being unseen for a whole voting session while votes are being recorded in his seat isn't a new thing because we already read about it, seen it and discussed it, Lisa Chambers voting at somebody elses seat repeatedly over 50 minutes and not accidentally once is a new thing, which makes it news.

charlie14

expectationlost wrote: »

the reason we're discussing Lisa Chambers is that its highlighting a contradiction, looks these forums all sorts of bads things happen, but when everyone agrees they are bad theres not much discussion, its only when somebody disagrees or spots a contradiction that the discussion generates, while probably looking at Timmy Dooleys previous votes somebody found this contradiction thats whats it is newsworthy.

I can get all that, but the real contradiction here is that when this first came out FG jumped all over it on it breaking voting rules when they were doing the same themselves.

The one specific Dáil Standing Order dealing with voting is Order 77. Casting vote and abstentions.

It states : Members present and voting means members present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.
It does not state, members present wandering around the place while someone else uses their vote..

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I can get all that, but the real contradiction here is that when this first came out FG jumped all over it on it breaking voting rules when they were doing the same themselves.

The one specific Dáil Standing Order dealing with voting is Order 77. Casting vote and abstentions.

It states : Members present and voting means members present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.
It does not state, members present wandering around the place while someone else uses their vote..

Standing Order 77 does not say that you cannot cast your vote by asking someone else in the Chamber with you to push the button for you.

It is not the only Standing Order dealing with voting. The whole section from Section 70 deals with divisions i.e. voting. It sets out quite clearly how the bells are rung, how you have to get to the Chamber and how the doors are closed, therefore setting out quite clearly what is meant by present.

In respect of walk-through voting, it also sets out how those votes are conducted with tellers etc. In respect of electronic voting, it is vague. That is the issue.

The following extract sets out what supervision there is of electronic voting:

"Where the Ceann Comhairle informs the Dáil at any time that it is not possible to conduct
divisions by electronic means or that the result may be unreliable or where, for any other
reason, he or she considers that divisions should not be so conducted, the Ceann Comhairle
may order the Dáil to divide or to divide again, as the case may be, on the question, whether
by electronic means or otherwise, as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, or
may postpone the taking of the division to such later time as he or she shall direct.
"

Your limited analysis of Section 77 falls well short of a comprehensive overview of how divisions are conducted in the Dail Chamber under the whole part of the Standing Orders. In short, it is absolutely clear that you have to be there - which Timmy Dooley was not. However, it is not absolutely clear that you have to push your own button or whether you can ask someone else in the Chamber to push that button, so long as both of you are in the Chamber. The Standing Orders are silent on how you cast an electronic vote, while clearly specifying how you have to be there, and how you cast a non-electronic vote.

Yes, it is bad practice to be in the Chamber talking to someone else and getting a third party to push your button, but there is nothing specifically in the Standing Orders or in legislation that says that is wrong. That there should be something, I would agree; however, the fact is there is not at the moment.

I do appreciate that you have backed down from the position that it is illegal to one of saying it is in breach of Standing Orders but I am of the opinion that you have failed to point to the specific breach of standing orders.

expectationlost

blanch152 wrote: »

Standing Order 77 does not say that you cannot cast your vote by asking someone else in the Chamber with you to push the button for you.

It is not the only Standing Order dealing with voting. The whole section from Section 70 deals with divisions i.e. voting. It sets out quite clearly how the bells are rung, how you have to get to the Chamber and how the doors are closed, therefore setting out quite clearly what is meant by present.

In respect of walk-through voting, it also sets out how those votes are conducted with tellers etc. In respect of electronic voting, it is vague. That is the issue.

The following extract sets out what supervision there is of electronic voting:

"Where the Ceann Comhairle informs the D at any time that it is not possible to conduct
divisions by electronic means or that the result may be unreliable or where, for any other
reason, he or she considers that divisions should not be so conducted, the Ceann Comhairle
may order the D to divide or to divide again, as the case may be, on the question, whether
by electronic means or otherwise, as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, or
may postpone the taking of the division to such later time as he or she shall direct.
"

Your limited analysis of Section 77 falls well short of a comprehensive overview of how divisions are conducted in the Dail Chamber under the whole part of the Standing Orders. In short, it is absolutely clear that you have to be there - which Timmy Dooley was not. However, it is not absolutely clear that you have to push your own button or whether you can ask someone else in the Chamber to push that button, so long as both of you are in the Chamber. The Standing Orders are silent on how you cast an electronic vote, while clearly specifying how you have to be there, and how you cast a non-electronic vote.

Yes, it is bad practice to be in the Chamber talking to someone else and getting a third party to push your button, but there is nothing specifically in the Standing Orders or in legislation that says that is wrong. That there should be something, I would agree; however, the fact is there is not at the moment.

I do appreciate that you have backed down from the position that it is illegal to one of saying it is in breach of Standing Orders but I am of the opinion that you have failed to point to the specific breach of standing orders.

voting by electronic means means pressing the button yourself it doesn't mean winking or waving or speaking, its electronic means, you press the button.

ILoveYourVibes

I would say this is fairly common. And I would love to know how common.

expectationlost

charlie14 wrote: »

I can get all that, but the real contradiction here is that when this first came out FG jumped all over it on it breaking voting rules when they were doing the same themselves.



..

they jumped over somebody seemingly arranging to vote for somebody else while they left the chamber while admitting that they themselves had voted for people who they said they could see in the chamber.



now they are jumping over somebody who said they didn't think they did it, even for somebody who was in the chamber and it turns out she did. (although we can't see if he really was in the chamber)

Plumbthedepths

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I would say this is fairly common. And I would love to know how common.

Not common anymore as all the TD's got a collective slap on the wrist and are now required to be in their assigned seats for votes. Amazing that very well paid adults had to be told it was wrong to vote on behalf of another, yet I have often heard it said 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not common anymore as all the TD's got a collective slap on the wrist and are now required to be in their assigned seats for votes. Amazing that very well paid adults had to be told it was wrong to vote on behalf of another, yet I have often heard it said 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

If they got paid more it wouldn't make any odds, it's the sweet deals, after retirement jobs and pensions that's where it's really at.
I'd say Noonan is coining it in right now thanks to inappropriate behaviour not to forget Bertie, Harney, Kenny, Biffo and others.

ILoveYourVibes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not common anymore as all the TD's got a collective slap on the wrist and are now required to be in their assigned seats for votes. Amazing that very well paid adults had to be told it was wrong to vote on behalf of another, yet I have often heard it said 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

But ...they are paid a lot!

salmocab

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

But ...they are paid a lot!

The English comedian David Mitchell was talking a few weeks back about politicians pay, he said they should be paid more with better pensions but banned from having other interests or taking jobs like lobbying. It actually made sense. (Obviously he was talking about English politicians but it’s a transferable thought)

McMurphy

Seen Varadkar and Martin going at it hammer and tongs today.

One slagging the other about vote gate, and the other about dodgy expenses and claims.

Gonna be a very amusing election that's for sure, it will be interesting to watch one shower of scheming robbing bastard's trying to claim higher ground than the other shower of robbing scheming bastard's.

The thorn in FGs side will be that insurance premiums come up for renewal far more than elections do, and insurance fraud cheat us all. (Just like welfare cheats)

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Standing Order 77 does not say that you cannot cast your vote by asking someone else in the Chamber with you to push the button for you.

It is not the only Standing Order dealing with voting. The whole section from Section 70 deals with divisions i.e. voting. It sets out quite clearly how the bells are rung, how you have to get to the Chamber and how the doors are closed, therefore setting out quite clearly what is meant by present.

In respect of walk-through voting, it also sets out how those votes are conducted with tellers etc. In respect of electronic voting, it is vague. That is the issue.

The following extract sets out what supervision there is of electronic voting:

"Where the Ceann Comhairle informs the Dáil at any time that it is not possible to conduct
divisions by electronic means or that the result may be unreliable or where, for any other
reason, he or she considers that divisions should not be so conducted, the Ceann Comhairle
may order the Dáil to divide or to divide again, as the case may be, on the question, whether
by electronic means or otherwise, as he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances, or
may postpone the taking of the division to such later time as he or she shall direct.
"

Your limited analysis of Section 77 falls well short of a comprehensive overview of how divisions are conducted in the Dail Chamber under the whole part of the Standing Orders. In short, it is absolutely clear that you have to be there - which Timmy Dooley was not. However, it is not absolutely clear that you have to push your own button or whether you can ask someone else in the Chamber to push that button, so long as both of you are in the Chamber. The Standing Orders are silent on how you cast an electronic vote, while clearly specifying how you have to be there, and how you cast a non-electronic vote.

Yes, it is bad practice to be in the Chamber talking to someone else and getting a third party to push your button, but there is nothing specifically in the Standing Orders or in legislation that says that is wrong. That there should be something, I would agree; however, the fact is there is not at the moment.

I do appreciate that you have backed down from the position that it is illegal to one of saying it is in breach of Standing Orders but I am of the opinion that you have failed to point to the specific breach of standing orders.

Still sending rambling missives from a rabbit hole in that forest you are attempting to use as distraction with how doors are closed and e.voting.

The one specific Standing Order that covers casting of votes is Standing Order 77. The same Standing Order 77 you ran away from weeks ago when your whole shtik on the legality of voting impersonation was shown for what it was.
There is nothing in Standing Order 77 that needs detailed analysis and where you got the idea into your head that I "backed down from the position that it is illegal" to partake in voting impersonation beats me.

Standing Order 77 states : "members present and voting means members present and casting an affirmative or negative vote".
If nothing else the "an" (a determiner, which by definition is the form of the indefinite article used before words beginning with a vowel sound)in this case the vowel A, blows your whole rubbish on the legality of voting impersonation to shreds.

Standing Order 77 clearly states a member being present and casting A vote either for or against a motion. Not present and voting as often as you like impersonating others voters. It`s a simple as that.

Voting impersonation is a criminal offence unless you are granted permission to do so by proxy so unless you can find something in the Constitution or even Dáil Standing Orders, that grants TD`s open ended proxies to vote on others behalf then both you and FG`s argument of it being fine legal and dandy to commit voter impersonation is a load of nonsense.