Angela Kerins resigns as head of rehab



Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,028
Whether one agrees with the decision or not the SC is most definitely not "acting above its pay grade". It's doing exactly what it's required to do under the constitution.
It isn't. The Oireachtas is not subject to the SC.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,020
Twitter
No
All we have to do now is ensure the people, not the state, are sovereign and we'd finally be getting somewhere with this Republic malarkey.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
If you devote the long weekend to learning comprehension you'll discover that you must consider all the words in the piece you're trying to comprehend. Leaving out words that don't fit with your preconceptions leads to a failure of comprehension.

The words you've emphasised read:-

"to where it was [...] before the Kerins decision"

Which is a different meaning to the words written in the article:-

"to where it was understood to be before the Kerins decision"

Oh Dear God the sheer stupidity of it!!!!!

The word understood , in this instance, refers to the belief that the Courts had no jurisdiction in the proceedings of the Dail prior to this judgement

So it in fact reinforces the fact that................

You are (yet again) utterly totally completely unambiguously WRONG!!!!!:rolleyes:不不


I thought even a dullard like you would understand , given i also quoted the IT High Court correspondent .Clearly its a slow process with you and I'll have to quote it again

Contrary to the long-accepted view that parliamentary freedom of speech renders what happens in the Oireachtas and its committees immune from judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court decided there is no absolute barrier to bringing a case over the actions of a parliamentary committee.

Now you claimed , the judgement changed nothing , based on nothing but your own semantic stupidity ...and yet Ive quoted 2 highly distinguished people from the paper of record to confirm that in fact

You are (yet again) utterly totally completely unambiguously WRONG!!!!!:rolleyes:不不




Its quite hilarious for someone , seemingly incapable of understanding the basic English of the IT High Court correspondent and a Law Professor quoted above ...to accuse others of comprehension issues

But yet , with a stunning lack of self awareness . you do it ...feckin priceless不不不
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
Oh Dear God the sheer stupidity of it!!!!!

The word understood , in this instance, refers to the belief that the Courts had no jurisdiction in the proceedings of the Dail prior to this judgement

So it in fact reinforces the fact that................

You are (yet again) utterly totally completely unambiguously WRONG!!!!!:rolleyes:不不


I thought even a dullard like you would understand , given i also quoted the IT High Court correspondent .Clearly its a slow process with you and I'll have to quote it again

Contrary to the long-accepted view that parliamentary freedom of speech renders what happens in the Oireachtas and its committees immune from judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court decided there is no absolute barrier to bringing a case over the actions of a parliamentary committee.

Now you claimed , the judgement changed nothing , based on nothing but your own semantic stupidity ...and yet Ive quoted 2 highly distinguished people from the paper of record to confirm that in fact

You are (yet again) utterly totally completely unambiguously WRONG!!!!!:rolleyes:不不




Its quite hilarious for someone , seemingly incapable of understanding the basic English of the IT High Court correspondent and a Law Professor quoted above ...to accuse others of comprehension issues

But yet , with a stunning lack of self awareness . you do it ...feckin priceless不不不
I should have realised that someone who writes as you do would also struggle with reading.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
I should have realised that someone who writes as you do would also struggle with reading.
Yes as you keep saying ...but offer nothing except your own smug stupidity ...I on the other hand have the backing of the IT courts reporter , a Law professor and even a dictionary. :rolleyes: 不

Not only do you appear illiterate , you also seem to struggle with how debate works ...making points , links ....coherency ........but then thats very understandable given the issues you have with comprehension ...or even basic knowledge.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
9,683
We can indeed.

No matter how you think of Kerins and even she was all the things her detractors claim, she has struck a blow for the citizen against the abuse of power by thuggish politicians.

If she gets her old job back at Rehab, doubtful as below her salary expectation, she could end up presenting the award to herself, how ironic would that be.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,028
The Oireachtas is subject to the law. You wouldn't quibble I'm sure, if the SC struck down an Act of the Oireachtas as unconstitutional.
Different entirely.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,028

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,746
We can indeed.

No matter how you think of Kerins and even she was all the things her detractors claim,
What exactly did her detractors claim about her? I don't think anyone said much other than say she is overpaid. Hardly that big a deal. It was her lack of preparedness for the questions (any irrelevant ones of which should have been easy to deflect) and her hysterical reaction that is really what all this is about.
she has struck a blow for the citizen against the abuse of power by thuggish politicians.
The citizen, indeed. The only citizens in this situation are highly paid individuals responsible for huge sums of tax-payer money. In her case, in addition her company was planning to sue the state for an eye watering sum, all because the state had the temerity to get into the business of charitable lotteries. Not that that was ever raised at the hearing.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
What exactly did her detractors claim about her? I don't think anyone said much other than say she is overpaid. Hardly that big a deal. It was her lack of preparedness for the questions (any irrelevant ones of which should have been easy to deflect) and her hysterical reaction that is really what all this is about.

The citizen, indeed. The only citizens in this situation are highly paid individuals responsible for huge sums of tax-payer money. In her case, in addition her company was planning to sue the state for an eye watering sum, all because the state had the temerity to get into the business of charitable lotteries. Not that that was ever raised at the hearing.
The mask slips.

After all those posts purporting to be concerned about parliamentary privilege, flitting from one misunderstanding to the next, grasping at anything that looked remotely like a straw in a vain attempt to present the judgement as invalid, we now get to the nub of it.

You don't give a dam about the principles, all you wanted was Kerins' head on a platter because you don't like her.

Fortunately for us the court delivered justice rather than petty resentment.
 

lostexpectation

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
14,004
Website
dublinstreams.blogspot.com

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,746
The mask slips.

After all those posts purporting to be concerned about parliamentary privilege, flitting from one misunderstanding to the next, grasping at anything that looked remotely like a straw in a vain attempt to present the judgement as invalid, we now get to the nub of it.

You don't give a dam about the principles, all you wanted was Kerins' head on a platter because you don't like her.

Fortunately for us the court delivered justice rather than petty resentment.
As usual biffo, you don't address the question posed. Just a load of bluster and waffle. "because you don't like her" that's school yard stuff.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,308
As usual biffo, you don't address the question posed. Just a load of bluster and waffle. "because you don't like her" that's school yard stuff.
Angela Kerins was the subject of a hate campaign by unscrupulous politicians and lazy journalists. You know what the calumnies were and I'm not going to repeat them.

You've revealed your true motivations.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
9,683
Supreme Court judgement quotes divisional court which said Angela Kerins was "subjected to interrogation about her modes of transport." erm a they referring to the helicopter trips with a developer? https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2019/02/angela-kerins-v-mcguinness-ors-final.pdf we're suppposed to feel sympathy re that?
Could also be swanning around on Paul Coulson's megayacht in the south of France, a well known property owner in the area where Rehab had an office, she fancied herself as a property developer, long way from being a midwife but then again she had the political connections in FF.

She abused private donations to double her salary all on the basis of she was running a 90m turnover company and not benchmark herself against civil servants which is essentially what she was.

Pretty sure private donors never knew or would have approved of their funds doubling her salary.

Also having a 50k discretion was wrong.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,020
Twitter
No
That 50k discretionary spending caper shouldn't be allowed anywhere. I don't think CEOs or Presidents should have that facility. It is an open door to abuse and I would like to see how that would be signed off by auditors and risk committees.

I do have authorisation to sign off on 瞿5k in my job but I would have to explain any proposed spend under that condition. I wouldn't have it any other way as it keeps me safe from criticism if I have clearance from higher up, and have satisfied all procurement requirements.

I definitely would feel wary of any situation where I was signing off thousands in expenditure without a sound buy-in and understanding from above and all the proper paperwork.

50k without question cannot be satisfactory or even prudent for the person concerned.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top