General Irish politics discussion thread

Tell us the number of times? I only heard it once, when he posited a question. " In hindsight, would I have done things differently? Yes, I think I would have done things differently."

That is hardly evidence of not doing his job.

The truth seems to be that a decision was made by NK RT and DF to get around pay-cuts but making a payment under the table. There are the three people who have questions to answer. We have no idea what was said between AO'L and DF or SNiR and DF but it can only be assumed that some explanation or justification was offered by DF.

everything else is just manufactured outrage. Anyone with any knowledge of business , not just media, would be aware of the wining and dining of clients that happens. We may not like it , I would like to see a fully public funded RTE, but it is naïve in the extreme to pretend it doesn't happen. It is the role of the CFO to ensure payments are accounted for and recorded correctly but the CFO does not usually have oversight of every payment. That is normally the responsibility of the budget holder for each department.

But you never answered the important question, Even if I accept your view of the executive, , do you think it is appropriate for politicians to get involved in the hiring and firing of staff in a publicly funded body?

@FrancieBrady "I see nothing wrong about politicians saying what they think should happen. They all do this. Gilmore did it with FÁS. Michael Noonan did it with the FAI etc etc."

Nor I. I do have a problem with politicians suggesting identifiable people within an organisation should lose their jobs. Particularly in a media organisation where independence from political interreference is paramount. There is an oversight board, the previous RTE Authority, in RTE for that very reason.

But what's more, can the next public meeting of the PAC be anything other than a farce when the chair, Mr. Stanley, has already said those witnesses before the board should lose their jobs?

Contrast the treatment of the witness between the PAC and the Arts, Media etc committee.

Yes, we know that is your opinion, but have you objectively considered whether you have sufficient knowledge of what happened to consider them as sackable offences? Where do their rights sit in all of this? You have ruled them guilty without knowing the evidence.

It's not my job to sack them,

I will leave that to the CEO.

My 'opinion' is, having listened to the evidence presented to PAC, is that some of them should be sacked.

He ignored things he should have been taking actions on as the Chief Financial Officer. The buck stops somewhere and it is with him.

The bending over backwards to excuse people in these jobs is exactly why the system is so sick here.

We see this level of excusing right up to government level.

P.S. I won't be assisting in the rather desperate effort to divert to the Shinners.

This is a forum for 'opinions'.

I have very clearly given my opinion on why some of the Executive should be sacked.

I.E. It was their job to spot and question anomalies and they clearly didn't and admit to not spotting/asking the relevant questions. They would in hindsight is not good enough at this level IMO.

It is the CEO's responsibility to operate within employment law, not mine.

It is also his responsibility to ensure competency in the various depts he is responsible for.

Failure to do your job as laid down in the job description will result in dismissal in any business that has to survive without subsidy.

It should be no different in the Public Service/government etc. But we know it is, there are always those to excuse and defend.

You get respect if you give respect would be my code.

It was clear early on that some of the execs had no respect for the process and had to come back again because their answers were not satisfactory. It has been a criticism of almost everybody that this Board and Executive have been difficult, to say the least.

They turned it into the combatitive/confrontational environment. Some on PAC overstepped but the Board and Executive did too.

As there is an ongoing inquiry and they have shown that they are not forthcoming with all the facts unless under duress. It's not tenable to have somebody like that in their positions.

So Stanley has stayed within acceptable comment, calling on these people to be 'stood aside'.

Personally, I think any company not dependent on subsidy would have fired them already. That is my opinion because that is my experience of what happens in the real world.

You ask for respect from others etc, yet you indulge your own disrespectfulness by coming up with demeaning names for certain politicians? Really?

Do you have an actual opinion on what happened in RTE and what should happen as a result?

P.S. 'Stepping aside' would not save them from scrutiny or questioning.

I think both committees have done sterling work in exposing the rot in the State broadcaster. And not allowing just Forbes to scapegoated. They (FF, FG SF members of PAC included) asked questions that showed that a number of people were sound asleep at the wheel of their jobs.

Not the first time, they have done several stories on SF TD's.

Google , the Ditch, SF TD and you'll find them. I can't manage to link from my phone.

It's all rather convenient that this all became apparent once D4bes was already on her going away holidays, isn't it?

Probably leaked by somebody disgruntled at not getting chosen over Bakhurst.

I wonder will it be one of those moved aside next week, as looks likely now.