http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1210/fahym.html

The independent Galway councillor Michael Fahy has been found guilty on one count of obtaining €7,000 by false pretences from Galway County Council in 2002. It took the jury at Galway Circuit Criminal Court just over six hours to return a guilty verdict on one charge and not guilty on four other charges of fraud and false accounting. Judge Michael White has adjourned sentencing until this afternoon.

Quote :

Councillor Fahy denied charges of misappropriating funds in relation to fencing on his private lands in Ardrahan during a road-widening scheme approved by Galway County Council. Councillor Fahy had already served seven months of a one-year prison sentence on similar charges last year and was fined €75,000. However, he was given early release after the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered a retrial following the introduction of inadmissible evidence.

Quote :

During the trial, counsel for the State Conor Fahy said the work carried out on Cllr Fahy's farm was solely for his benefit and he described the obtaining of council funds by false pretences as 'dishonesty on a grand scale and an abuse of power'. Tom Kavanagh said in evidence that he was not aware of any agreement between a local engineer and Cllr Fahy to take the stone from Mr Fahy's old cottage in lieu of council work on his land. Former county manager Donal O'Donoghue told the court that in 2004 he ordered Cllr Fahy to repay the council €7,000 and to donate €3,000 to charity after becoming aware of irregularities in invoices submitted by Cllr Fahy.

Two months later, following a Freedom of Information request from Irish Independent journalist Brian McDonald, a decision was taken by the council to refer the matter to the gardaí, which lead to a criminal investigation.

(RTE report)

An old man who may well have given years of public service served seven months for a sad little fiddle over fencing. I have no sympathy for his crime whatsoever, but it seems to me that the County Manager's response was closer to fitting the crime that the punitive one year jail and 75,000 euro fine given out by the Court. At the same time we have robber barons walking free who have rooked us of millions and given away natural assets. The small man always gets it.

cactus flower wrote:

An old man who may well have given years of public service served seven months for a sad little fiddle over fencing. I have no sympathy for his crime whatsoever, but it seems to me that the County Manager's response was closer to fitting the crime that the punitive one year jail and 75,000 euro fine given out by the Court. At the same time we have robber barons walking free who have rooked us of millions and given away natural assets. The small man always gets it.

Poor little corrupt politician!
I've no sympathy for him and I would have been quite happy to see him land back in Castlerea prison.
He shafted the taxpayers, gave a fine to a church disguised as an act of generosity, and has garnered far too much sympathy from his fellow councillors. They allowed him to keep his seat, which was quite against the rules, and some gave a standing ovation when he came back to the chamber. It is also highly likely he will top the poll here next year.

What is Stroke Fahy being scapedgoated for, cactus?

eoinmn wrote:

What is Stroke Fahy being scapedgoated for, cactus?

Who, not what. Do you want a list of names ?

and

Quote :

I have no sympathy for his crime whatsoever

Sure plenty of politicians did worse, and got away with it thanks to selective memory loss.
But there is a low-grade corruption at local level, hell even at party level, that is not tackled in this country. It is just accepted as par for the course.
This man could have gone on to a be TD or minister. We did well to spare ourselves that.

http://www.advertiser.ie/galwayfirst/article/5861

Quote :

A parish priest and his parishioners thanked a county councillor at
Sunday Mass for a €3,000 contribution he made to their Lourdes
Pilgrimage Fund, unaware that the money was part of a penalty imposed
over allegations of fraud and false accounting.
Cllr Michael Fahy made the donation after a county council
investigation into allegations related to a road-widening scheme in the
parish.

This is kind of attitude we are dealing with.

All political corruption should be punished with mandatory jail sentences and a monetary fina if appropriate. Absolutely NO exceptions. Jail ALL who are found guilty.

eoinmn wrote:

http://www.advertiser.ie/galwayfirst/article/5861

Quote :

A parish priest and his parishioners thanked a county councillor at
Sunday Mass for a €3,000 contribution he made to their Lourdes
Pilgrimage Fund, unaware that the money was part of a penalty imposed
over allegations of fraud and false accounting.
Cllr Michael Fahy made the donation after a county council
investigation into allegations related to a road-widening scheme in the
parish.

This is kind of attitude we are dealing with.

I wonder if the priest gave it back.

Slim Buddha wrote:

All political corruption should be punished with mandatory jail sentences and a monetary fina if appropriate. Absolutely NO exceptions. Jail ALL who are found guilty.

Why be so lenient? Surely they deserve worse than that. It is a form of treason. Make examples of them. After all part of the problem at the minute is a belief that those who should be setting standards are corrupt. That needs to be addressed with appropriate severity.

Squire wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

All political corruption should be punished with mandatory jail sentences and a monetary fina if appropriate. Absolutely NO exceptions. Jail ALL who are found guilty.

Why be so lenient? Surely they deserve worse than that. It is a form of treason. Make examples of them. After all part of the problem at the minute is a belief that those who should be setting standards are corrupt. That needs to be addressed with appropriate severity.

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

cactus flower wrote:

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

I know so many people who vote for x because they think he got them their planning permission. They genuinely don't realise they were entitled to the planning permission, and some planner gave them their planning permission because their plans conformed with the rules, not because x put in a good word for him!
This makes my blood boil.
But the problem is that x, and the supporters of x, who DO know better, keep the myth alive, for electoral gain.

This is the kind of low grade corruption I'm on about.

And when I tell people that x didn't get the planning permission for them they think I'm either a) lying to get electoral advantage for the party I support or b) trying to take their planning permission off them (as if that were possible).

eoinmn wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

I know so many people who vote for x because they think he got them their planning permission. They genuinely don't realise they were entitled to the planning permission, and some planner gave them their planning permission because their plans conformed with the rules, not because x put in a good word for him!
This makes my blood boil.
But the problem is that x, and the supporters of x, who DO know better, keep the myth alive, for electoral gain.

This is the kind of low grade corruption I'm on about.

And when I tell people that x didn't get the planning permission for them they think I'm either a) lying to get electoral advantage for the party I support or b) trying to take their planning permission off them (as if that were possible).

Exactly. The "clinic" system itself is a form of political corruption in that politicians foster the impression that by constituents going to them rather than Citizens Advice Bureaux, the misguided voter has "a better chance" of obtaining something he/ she may be perfectly entitled to have in the first place. Gobshite nation.

Slim Buddha wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

I know so many people who vote for x because they think he got them their planning permission. They genuinely don't realise they were entitled to the planning permission, and some planner gave them their planning permission because their plans conformed with the rules, not because x put in a good word for him!
This makes my blood boil.
But the problem is that x, and the supporters of x, who DO know better, keep the myth alive, for electoral gain.

This is the kind of low grade corruption I'm on about.

And when I tell people that x didn't get the planning permission for them they think I'm either a) lying to get electoral advantage for the party I support or b) trying to take their planning permission off them (as if that were possible).

Exactly. The "clinic" system itself is a form of political corruption in that politicians foster the impression that by constituents going to them rather than Citizens Advice Bureaux, the misguided voter has "a better chance" of obtaining something he/ she may be perfectly entitled to have in the first place. Gobshite nation.

Good public representatives who don't play the game in the past have been kicked out, so it is hard to change that culture. But why do people not question if its right to push someone more needy off the housing list for their own gain? It is a deep me feinism across the population, maybe inherited from having very prolonged hard times, and it was a matter of survival?
Or is it to do with belonging to the winning tribe, and getting the spoils of war? Is there not a broader sense of community and responsibility that can be built on?

There is indeed cactus. But first things first. It must be demonstrated that corruption at the lowest level does not pay. Rather than jailing them I'd bar them from public office and fine them to within an inch of their lives. Deny enough of them access to the trough and it will cease to be treated like a trough. I agree that Fahy is small beans, but it the same way all the big names started and if they had been caught out earlier in their 'careers' west dublin (for one) wouldn't be the sprawling industrial estate it is today. The main victims of this stroke culture are all the poor bastards living along the M50 smothered by traffic with rubbish public transport, overcrowded schools & hospitals and now negative equity.

Fahy isn't a scapegoat. He's a criminal.

I'm not saying all the gombeen men in Galway who invited this criminal back into their ranks should be shot, but it's a crying shame Lawlor lived long enough to destroy Dublin, so I hope the thicks in Gaillimh learn that lesson before they too live in a shitty version of LA.

It is fitting that once again the beacon of western civilisation is aflame in Greece. Them boyos know a thing or two about democracy. We could learn a lot.

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

I know so many people who vote for x because they think he got them their planning permission. They genuinely don't realise they were entitled to the planning permission, and some planner gave them their planning permission because their plans conformed with the rules, not because x put in a good word for him!
This makes my blood boil.
But the problem is that x, and the supporters of x, who DO know better, keep the myth alive, for electoral gain.

This is the kind of low grade corruption I'm on about.

And when I tell people that x didn't get the planning permission for them they think I'm either a) lying to get electoral advantage for the party I support or b) trying to take their planning permission off them (as if that were possible).

Exactly. The "clinic" system itself is a form of political corruption in that politicians foster the impression that by constituents going to them rather than Citizens Advice Bureaux, the misguided voter has "a better chance" of obtaining something he/ she may be perfectly entitled to have in the first place. Gobshite nation.

Good public representatives who don't play the game in the past have been kicked out, so it is hard to change that culture. But why do people not question if its right to push someone more needy off the housing list for their own gain? It is a deep me feinism across the population, maybe inherited from having very prolonged hard times, and it was a matter of survival?
Or is it to do with belonging to the winning tribe, and getting the spoils of war? Is there not a broader sense of community and responsibility that can be built on?

How many of you have ever been to a politician’s clinic?

From what I know of them they act as either an advance citizens advice bureau or a court of last appeal for people who feel the system has treated them in an arbitrary fashion, they may not get a better result but at least they got face to face with someone who listened to them.

No one gets anything they are not entitled to by going to a clinic, but people know politicians understand the system to a greater extent than the average and good advice for dealing with the various departments is there to be had.

The alternative view as expressed here seems to me, and I mean no insult to anyone, to come from a general feeling of superiority to the average voter, I’d always question that as an explanation for anything the electorate, in their individual or collect wisdom, decide to do.

In the past this same electorate have even decided to elect a FG led Government, who can understand that?, nonetheless we have to accept it and respect it as a decision they came to and probably for their own very good reasons, no matter how inexplicable that may be to ourselves.

I'm sure most of us have been to these clinics from time to time. I have a very clear recollection of chatting to an ould one in the waiting room on one such ocasssion and she sung the praises of the TD in question, utterly convinced that he had personally secured a council house for her and her daughter.

I doubt there were any brown envelopes involved, but do you mean to tell me that if the same ould one thanked said TD for same he responded "ah no missus, sure weren't you entitled to it anyway, all I did was help you fill out the forms" or maybe something along the lines of "don't forget who got you your council house at the next election"?

tonys wrote:

How many of you have ever been to a politician’s clinic?

From what I know of them they act as either an advance citizens advice bureau or a court of last appeal for people who feel the system has treated them in an arbitrary fashion, they may not get a better result but at least they got face to face with someone who listened to them.

I haven't been to one.
And I don't deny that some good comes out it. I understand that TDs provide a service to their community, free of charge, by helping people navigate the bureaucracy of the social welfare department, etc.

tonys wrote:

No one gets anything they are not entitled to by going to a clinic, but people know politicians understand the system to a greater extent than the average and good advice for dealing with the various departments is there to be had.

But some times people are led to believe they got something they were not fully entitled to, thanks to the intervention of a public rep.
Or some times people are led to believe that contacting their TD about the issue, is the official way to interact with the state when it is not.

tonys wrote:

The alternative view as expressed here seems to me, and I mean no insult to anyone, to come from a general feeling of superiority to the average voter, I’d always question that as an explanation for anything the electorate, in their individual or collect wisdom, decide to do.

One of the most intelligent, (and high earning) women I know was utterly convinced that in order to get planning for a house she had to ask the local TD (who in this case is a (very senior) minister). She was given this information by a FF member.
I feel this is utterly a waste of her time and his time.
There is an obligation on those of us, who are ordinary party members, not to filling people's heads with this misinformation.

tonys wrote:

In the past this same electorate have even decided to elect a FG led Government, who can understand that?

Well I certainly can't!

tonys said

Quote :

How many of you have ever been to a politician’s clinic?

From what I know of them they act as either an advance citizens advice bureau or a court of last appeal for people who feel the system has treated them in an arbitrary fashion, they may not get a better result but at least they got face to face with someone who listened to them.

No one gets anything they are not entitled to by going to a clinic, but people know politicians understand the system to a greater extent than the average and good advice for dealing with the various departments is there to be had.

The alternative view as expressed here seems to me, and I mean no insult to anyone, to come from a general feeling of superiority to the average voter, I’d always question that as an explanation for anything the electorate, in their individual or collect wisdom, decide to do.

In the past this same electorate have even decided to elect a FG led Government, who can understand that?, nonetheless we have to accept it and respect it as a decision they came to and probably for their own very good reasons, no matter how inexplicable that may be to ourselves.

I've been at a good few, both in my own right and with other people. I have a lot of time for local elected representatives, who put in huge hours and get much abuse.

I have great respect for democracy as a process, and I am very much opposed to the erosion of democracy though increased bureaucratisation, that some people seem to favour. At least if you don't like what a politician is doing, you can vote and campaign against them in the next election.

Often in recent times in planning issues, it has been the local elected representatives who have stood up against officials to try to put the brakes on crazy development proposed for their areas. There are still bad things that go on from time to time, but local councillors understand a lot more about what the impacts of bad planning can be than they did in the 70s and 80s, when they didn't have much in the way of development to look at.

I do think voters need a kick up the derriere to stop pressurising Councillors to make inappropriate interventions on their behalf.
Its not a question of superiority, it that if we want change, we have to acknowledge that the way some things are done now are
unacceptable.

When I look at sentencing (and compare it with sentences for rape, murder and causing fatalities from drunk driving, I find the original sentence for Fahy bizarre. few hundred hours Community service and a fine would have been a good option. I think it is dodgy starting to disbar people from office and it is an interference in democracy.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys said

Quote :

How many of you have ever been to a politician’s clinic?

From what I know of them they act as either an advance citizens advice bureau or a court of last appeal for people who feel the system has treated them in an arbitrary fashion, they may not get a better result but at least they got face to face with someone who listened to them.

No one gets anything they are not entitled to by going to a clinic, but people know politicians understand the system to a greater extent than the average and good advice for dealing with the various departments is there to be had.

The alternative view as expressed here seems to me, and I mean no insult to anyone, to come from a general feeling of superiority to the average voter, I’d always question that as an explanation for anything the electorate, in their individual or collect wisdom, decide to do.

In the past this same electorate have even decided to elect a FG led Government, who can understand that?, nonetheless we have to accept it and respect it as a decision they came to and probably for their own very good reasons, no matter how inexplicable that may be to ourselves.

I've been at a good few, both in my own right and with other people. I have a lot of time for local elected representatives, who put in huge hours and get much abuse.

I have great respect for democracy as a process, and I am very much opposed to the erosion of democracy though increased bureaucratisation, that some people seem to favour. At least if you don't like what a politician is doing, you can vote and campaign against them in the next election.

Often in recent times in planning issues, it has been the local elected representatives who have stood up against officials to try to put the brakes on crazy development proposed for their areas. There are still bad things that go on from time to time, but local councillors understand a lot more about what the impacts of bad planning can be than they did in the 70s and 80s, when they didn't have much in the way of development to look at.

I do think voters need a kick up the derriere to stop pressurising Councillors to make inappropriate interventions on their behalf.
Its not a question of superiority, it that if we want change, we have to acknowledge that the way some things are done now are
unacceptable.

When I look at sentencing (and compare it with sentences for rape, murder and causing fatalities from drunk driving, I find the original sentence for Fahy bizarre. few hundred hours Community service and a fine would have been a good option. I think it is dodgy starting to disbar people from office and it is an interference in democracy.

I know nothing of Mr. Fahy, except the courts found him guilty on several counts of corruption (wrongly as it turns out) first time around and guilty on one count second time around, he still says he is innocent of the charge and obviously he is entitled to pursue that to the end.
Having said that if in the end his conviction is upheld, I don’t think he can complain about the severity of the sentence, he would have betrayed a trust and a heavy price has to be paid for that.

I did think yesterday that the judges comments, as reported, advising Fahy’s resignation, was interference in political matters, which in my view are none of the judges business and given his own position as a member of the judiciary, he would be well advised himself to leave very much alone. Am I wrong there?

I did think it unusal Tonys. It borders on political interference, and the judge would have better off keeping his views to himself.

Having said that, someone in Galway had to say it to Fahy. The opposition have been remarkably quiet.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

And what will be do to all the people who corruptly gave their votes to these people in exchange for supposedly being bumped up the housing list or getting a summer job in the Council for their child? Horsewhipping is it, or would the stocks and a gentle pelting with mouldy veg do?

It all comes down to the voters: these guys are experts at doing exactly what the voters want. We vote for someone else or stand ourselves if we want to get something different.

I know so many people who vote for x because they think he got them their planning permission. They genuinely don't realise they were entitled to the planning permission, and some planner gave them their planning permission because their plans conformed with the rules, not because x put in a good word for him!
This makes my blood boil.
But the problem is that x, and the supporters of x, who DO know better, keep the myth alive, for electoral gain.

This is the kind of low grade corruption I'm on about.

And when I tell people that x didn't get the planning permission for them they think I'm either a) lying to get electoral advantage for the party I support or b) trying to take their planning permission off them (as if that were possible).

Exactly. The "clinic" system itself is a form of political corruption in that politicians foster the impression that by constituents going to them rather than Citizens Advice Bureaux, the misguided voter has "a better chance" of obtaining something he/ she may be perfectly entitled to have in the first place. Gobshite nation.

Good public representatives who don't play the game in the past have been kicked out, so it is hard to change that culture. But why do people not question if its right to push someone more needy off the housing list for their own gain? It is a deep me feinism across the population, maybe inherited from having very prolonged hard times, and it was a matter of survival?
Or is it to do with belonging to the winning tribe, and getting the spoils of war? Is there not a broader sense of community and responsibility that can be built on?

How many of you have ever been to a politician’s clinic?

From what I know of them they act as either an advance citizens advice bureau or a court of last appeal for people who feel the system has treated them in an arbitrary fashion, they may not get a better result but at least they got face to face with someone who listened to them.

No one gets anything they are not entitled to by going to a clinic, but people know politicians understand the system to a greater extent than the average and good advice for dealing with the various departments is there to be had.

The alternative view as expressed here seems to me, and I mean no insult to anyone, to come from a general feeling of superiority to the average voter, I’d always question that as an explanation for anything the electorate, in their individual or collect wisdom, decide to do.

In the past this same electorate have even decided to elect a FG led Government, who can understand that?, nonetheless we have to accept it and respect it as a decision they came to and probably for their own very good reasons, no matter how inexplicable that may be to ourselves.

I write as someone who once worked in a Ministers Office and saw countless appeals for one handout or another where the applicant went straight to the politician without ever approaching the issuing agency. It is a symptom of a culture of cute-hoorism that this sort of nonsense is tacitly encouraged by politicians, particularly TDs because in our system of electing parliamentarians, the candidates see their fellow candidates from the same party as great, if not a greater, threat to them as candidates from opposition parties. It is a particularly cancerous component of our poolitical system that, to some extent, infantalises a section of the electorate.

Slim Buddha said

Quote :

I write as someone who once worked in a Ministers Office and saw countless appeals for one handout or another where the applicant went straight to the politician without ever approaching the issuing agency. It is a symptom of a culture of cute-hoorism that this sort of nonsense is tacitly encouraged by politicians, particularly TDs because in our system of electing parliamentarians, the candidates see their fellow candidates from the same party as great, if not a greater, threat to them as candidates from opposition parties. It is a particularly cancerous component of our poolitical system that, to some extent, infantalises a section of the electorate.

How do we get over that then? Cut the number of TDs ?

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha said

Quote :

I write as someone who once worked in a Ministers Office and saw countless appeals for one handout or another where the applicant went straight to the politician without ever approaching the issuing agency. It is a symptom of a culture of cute-hoorism that this sort of nonsense is tacitly encouraged by politicians, particularly TDs because in our system of electing parliamentarians, the candidates see their fellow candidates from the same party as great, if not a greater, threat to them as candidates from opposition parties. It is a particularly cancerous component of our poolitical system that, to some extent, infantalises a section of the electorate.

How do we get over that then? Cut the number of TDs ?

It would be a good start. 166 is ridiculous. At least half of them are invisible. Glorified messanger boys, nothing more.

Down with TDs! (Numerically, anyway)

cactus flower wrote:

Down with TDs! (Numerically, anyway)

We need 80 tops. The rest are dead wood and totally superfluous.