Angela Kerins resigns as head of rehab

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,891
Twitter
No
There are a number of organisations in Ireland pulling stunts because their definition as an organisation allows loosely for it. Some of the organisations listing themselves as a 'cultural lobbying' organisation, a private business, and then as a charity are using the various hats allowed them to escape governance.

There is a large environmental organisation in Ireland which has been doing that for years. It describes itself three different ways depending on who it is talking to.
 


stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,144

"Rehab Group was at the centre of controversy in recent years with particular focus on the €240,000 salary of its former CEO Angela Kerins.

She was succeeded by Ms Flynn, who took a salary of €140,000 - a sum on a par with other charity chiefs.

Its 2017 accounts showed 12 staff earned more than €100,000".


So Rehab get the 2m extra, given salaries there, it will not last 12 months.

What is not disclosed is how much Angela and Frank continue to cost them.
 

Florence

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
1,383
Surely they are not on paid gardening leave like John delaney?

They won't be costing anything now. Though there is the cost of the damage they did to rehab's image and the effect that must be having on fundfaising...
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,350
I'd ask the question again, which I've never gotten an answer to, and whether you agree with the idea or not, there should be an answer.

How should the constitution have been written to give members of our parliament the same absolute right of free-speech as other parliaments? There has to be some form of words that would allow it. Or else we are not a sovereign people, and are ultimately ruled by unelected judges.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,093
I'd ask the question again, which I've never gotten an answer to, and whether you agree with the idea or not, there should be an answer.

How should the constitution have been written to give members of our parliament the same absolute right of free-speech as other parliaments? There has to be some form of words that would allow it. Or else we are not a sovereign people, and are ultimately ruled by unelected judges.
Our parliamentarians have the right of absolute free speech under the current constitution.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,144

"The costs ruling means the case could end up costing the taxpayer in the region of €1m".

Down a mill already to her lawyers now she will go for the jugular and want personal compo, it will be 7 figures given her 240k salary,
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,093

"The costs ruling means the case could end up costing the taxpayer in the region of €1m".

Down a mill already to her lawyers now she will go for the jugular and want personal compo, it will be 7 figures given her 240k salary,
Blame for any expense the state must now bear belongs entirely to the PAC. Had it behaved lawfully this case wouldn't have been necessary.

The only disappointing aspect of what's been reported so far is that the judgement appears to close the door on victims of abuse of Oireachtas privilege during debates to seek relief.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,039
The first chink in the armour of parliamentary privilege.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,104
The first chink in the armour of parliamentary privilege.
Not really, the Court has pointed out what was done wrong and told the Oireachtas to fix it so it doesn't happen again. I'm just glad we didn't give them power to summon witnesses.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,350
Orbit v2 said:
I'd ask the question again, which I've never gotten an answer to, and whether you agree with the idea or not, there should be an answer.

How should the constitution have been written to give members of our parliament the same absolute right of free-speech as other parliaments? There has to be some form of words that would allow it. Or else we are not a sovereign people, and are ultimately ruled by unelected judges.
Our parliamentarians have the right of absolute free speech under the current constitution.
I know you have been playing these word games since the start of this controversy, but my question was quite precise.

Read it again and focus on the word same in "same absolute right of free-speech" as other countries. You've previously acknowledged we shouldn't "slavishly" follow the UK and others. So, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not (and I know you don't), the question was how would we word the constitution to give our TDs the same right that British MPs have to say anything, to ask any question, no matter what effect it has on another person's reputation etc etc.

Because if we can't come with such a form of words, and the Supreme Court continually interfere with free speech in parliament then we are effectively ruled by these judges rather than ourselves as a people.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
16,441
Dreadful decision by the Supreme court that sees the legal profession completely over step the mark on the separation of powers IMO
What ruined her reputation wasn't PAC but the publication of her salary and her various "schemes" with select overpaid political cronies that sickened the public .

(Hilariously she felt she was worth 240k but couldnt handle some "robust" questioning).

The rancid Irish legal Mafia is definitely the biggest obstacle to change , accountability and a functioning republic ...time for widespread changes
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,093
I know you have been playing these word games since the start of this controversy, but my question was quite precise.
Ah, you're stating your position but I'm playing word games, that's what we're reduced to now.

Has it occurred to you that other people can form and genuinely hold beliefs that differ from yours?

Read it again and focus on the word same in "same absolute right of free-speech" as other countries. You've previously acknowledged we shouldn't "slavishly" follow the UK and others. So, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not (and I know you don't), the question was how would we word the constitution to give our TDs the same right that British MPs have to say anything, to ask any question, no matter what effect it has on another person's reputation etc etc.
Your seeming inability to understand the import of this case doesn't alter the fact that our constitution is already worded to guarantee that.

Because if we can't come with such a form of words, and the Supreme Court continually interfere with free speech in parliament then we are effectively ruled by these judges rather than ourselves as a people.
Repeating an error doesn't correct it.

The Supreme Court has not interfered with free speech in parliament. Quite the opposite, it has stated that it can not do so.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,144
Dreadful decision by the Supreme court that sees the legal profession completely over step the mark on the separation of powers IMO
What ruined her reputation wasn't PAC but the publication of her salary and her various "schemes" with select overpaid political cronies that sickened the public .

(Hilariously she felt she was worth 240k but couldnt handle some "robust" questioning).

The rancid Irish legal Mafia is definitely the biggest obstacle to change , accountability and a functioning republic ...time for widespread changes
Whether one believes her or not, the suicide claims sickened the public as many have taken this course following Celtic Tiger debts and she did not belong to that league of people, probably people saw her as opportunist given she was essentially living off the public tit and willing to sue them for millions of "Lotto" perceived losses.

Greed is the word for her in spades.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,350
The Supreme Court has not interfered with free speech in parliament. Quite the opposite, it has stated that it can not do so.
Let's step back then.

I refer to the judgement (in this case) of the Supreme Court on 27 Feb this year:


Starting from section 8.20
8.20 It is inevitable that, when considering the history and nature of parliamentary privileges in a bicameral system, reference will be made to the privileges afforded to parliament under the Westminster system.
....
The more limited scope of the privileges established under the 1922 Constitution (and essentially reproduced in Article 15 of the 1937 Constitution) was first noted by Kohn, The Constitution of the Irish Free State, (London, 1932), at p.229:

  • “The wide sphere of parliamentary privilege, the repository in the British Parliament of latent powers of extensive scope, has been restricted by the Irish Constitution within the narrow limits of practical expediency.”
So, the supreme court accepts that Bunreacht na hEireann has restricted the scope of free speech in parliament, as compared with the UK parliament.

The practical implication of that is that Kerins's case would fail in the UK.

My question therefore, is what form of words would be required to give the Oireachtas the same powers as the UK parliament in this regard. It's a simple enough question.
 
Last edited:

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,093
Let's step back then.

I refer to the judgement (in this case) of the Supreme Court on 27 Feb this year:


Starting from section 8.20

So, the supreme court accepts that Bunreacht na hEireann has restricted the scope of free speech in parliament, as compared with the UK parliament.

The practical implication of that is that Kerins's case would fail in the UK.

My question therefore, is what form of words would be required to give the Oireachtas the same powers as the UK parliament in this regard. It's a simple enough question. Please, no more bluster.
The Supreme court has accepted no such thing. You inferred it because it suits your flawed and incomplete understanding of the judgement.

The restriction on parliamentary privilege noted by Kohn and referred to in the judgement is in relation to freedom from arrest which in our case only extends to members travelling to and from either house but in the UK extends to members wherever they are during the parliamentary session and for 40 days before and after it.

Kohn acknowledges the constitutional guarantee of free speech for Oireachtas members and even says that our constitution "has gone some way to clarify a subject of much controversy in the history of the British Parliament".

So you see, when you call for Oireachtas members to have the same powers as UK parliamentarians you are in fact calling for an amendment to reduce the current provisions.

Below is a pic of the relevant page of Kohn. Excuse the poor quality but it was taken with a phone in shaky hands. It's still quite legible though.


18323
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,335
Let's step back then.

I refer to the judgement (in this case) of the Supreme Court on 27 Feb this year:


Starting from section 8.20

So, the supreme court accepts that Bunreacht na hEireann has restricted the scope of free speech in parliament, as compared with the UK parliament.

The practical implication of that is that Kerins's case would fail in the UK.

My question therefore, is what form of words would be required to give the Oireachtas the same powers as the UK parliament in this regard. It's a simple enough question.
You are misreading what was said. "The more limited scope of the privileges established under the 1922 Constitution " The Court was referring to privileges in general being more restricted. It did not say that the privilege of free speech was more restricted.
 

cobhguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
2,335

"The costs ruling means the case could end up costing the taxpayer in the region of €1m".

Down a mill already to her lawyers now she will go for the jugular and want personal compo, it will be 7 figures given her 240k salary,
I don't see it being a high figure. Not more than low 5 figures if even that. Really all she can claim for is the distress that happened to her that day. All the rest that happened to her, was not from the questioning, which the Court has said is unlawful but was from the information released to the public about her.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,350
You are misreading what was said. "The more limited scope of the privileges established under the 1922 Constitution " The Court was referring to privileges in general being more restricted. It did not say that the privilege of free speech was more restricted.
That's not correct. I quoted the beginning of the relevant section of the judgement, not the entirety. You would ask why would the supreme court have said the above if it wasn't relevant to this case which is all about freedom of speech in parliament.

Take the following specific quote:
Thus, in 1971 the House of Commons at Westminster simply resolved that it would no longer entertain any claim of breach of privilege in respect of publication of debates. This flexibility is not a feature of a constitution which entrenches rights and prescribes privileges.
That clearly relates to freedom of speech in parliament.

It doesn't matter (for the purposes of my question) that it was merely a resolution of the HOC rather than being "a feature of a constitution which entrenches rights and prescribes privileges".

My question stands. How would we word the constitution such that the Oireachtas has the same degree of privilege as the UK parliament?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom