Meanwhile, At The Public Accounts Committee

at

Screen Shot 2014-12-04 at 11.01.43

Josephine Feehily, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners

Watch the proceedings live here

Previously: The Regressive Democrats

28 thoughts on “Meanwhile, At The Public Accounts Committee

  1. Lilly

    Why on earth has she not seen the whistleblower Ansbacher dossier? What’s the point in paying a senior civil servant to investigate if the findings can’t be pooled?

    1. Rep

      I guess because she employs people she trusts can do their job correctly so feels she is able to delegate things to them. I’d imagine there is quite a lot of stuff that goes through the revenue that she has not seen.

      1. Lilly

        Are you kidding me? She’s appearing before the PAC and she doesn’t bother taking a look at the dossier, I don’t think so.

    2. ollie

      frank daly was revenue boss at the time of ansbacher, it’s a total cover up to bring feehily to pac knowing full well that she hasn’t ( deliberately) read the report.

      1. Buzz

        If I were on the PAC, I’d tell Feehily to go away and read the report and stop wasting our time. Reschedule, this is a farce.

    1. Lilly

      True. My disillusionment was complete yesterday with the news that Des O’Malley was on that list. And as for his lame explanation – all he had to do was close the damn account when he took office. Is there no end to the greed.

      1. Mark Dennehy

        According to himself, he specifically opened the account on taking office to avoid the conflict, put all the assets that could cause a problem into that account, and handed control of it over to a third party and from that point on had no knowledge or say in what was done to it and declared all earnings on it to the Revenue.

        I’d have problems with some of the stuff O’Malley did in his term of office, but that specific detail doesn’t really seem to be anything other than best practice, and his story is readily verifiable.

        1. Lilly

          I suppose he had no way of knowing at the time they were dodgy. But I have trouble believing a guy who had built up an investment portfolio would just sit back and hand over total control. He should have divested himself of it when he took office.

          1. cluster

            Lilly, if Dessie’s story stands up (and it does seem plausible), then he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

  2. ahyeah

    Somewhat interesting to see Eoin O’Malley getting involved in the discussion. Assume he’s checked things with dad first.

  3. ahjayzis

    Respect for ‘due’ process rightfully wanes and dies if ‘due process’ involves an investigation that takes so long most of the accused are dead or dying by the time it gets anywhere.

    Looking forward to the criminal charges brought against Anglo et all in 2034.
    Please adopt us, Germany.

    1. Lilly

      That’s why I’m delighted to see Mary Lou cutting through the bullsh*t lately to give us glimpses of what’s actually going on.

          1. Mark Dennehy

            Yes, but “cutting through the bullsh*t” is not what I’d call standing up in the Dail and listing off a bunch of names and saying they’re guilty without any proof.

            “Pulling a Harney” is what I’d call it, named lovingly for that time the Tanaiste got an ex-Taoiseach out of a lot of legal hot water by contaminating the case against him and getting it thrown out of court by accidentally saying he was probably guilty in public.

            Because no matter how bad the bullsh*t gets, throwing even the notion of due process out the window to deal with it is a very bad idea.

            Besides, if she wanted to cut through the bullsh*t, she could list off the paedophiles her party protected under privilege. Or tell us where the last of the disappeared are. Or give a definitive list of the people who were in the IRA.

            But no, let’s instead cause a PR stir in the press to take the heat off of the party leader.

          2. Mark Dennehy

            Yup, it should always be timely. Justice delayed, justice denied and so on.

            However, when it’s not timely, we don’t just decide to ignore it and skip straight to the bit where we kneecap someone. Or else you wind up with “policing”, IRA-style. Was thirty-odd years of that not enough?

          3. Mark Dennehy

            That doesn’t make any sense – the statute of limitations will still run out just as fast as before, naming people under privilege doesn’t affect that nor does it speed a trial along. All it can do is contaminate any possible jury for such a trial and thereby it effectively protects the people named.

    2. cluster

      Adopt us Germany? Do you know anything about German politics? Read up about these large two Chancellors – Kohl & Schroder. How many days did they spend in jail?

      We need to put the pressure on the system ourselves rather than waiting for done mythical foreignness white knight to do it for us.

    1. Jay

      She is missing her front 4 teeth (her canines are more obvious as a result). Must have lost her denture.

Comments are closed.