Friday, 6 August 2010

Noel Dempsey takes Government jet to Donegal MacGill conference.

You might think with the ongoing Callely revelations, burgeoning dole queues, and a growing budget deficit, that our politicians would make some effort to at least be seen to moderate their innate piss-taking propensities.  Not so.

Transport minister Noel Dempsey is the latest to hog the spotlight for wasting public money and racking up needless expense.  He took the government Gulfstream IV jet on a short hop to give a speech last July at the MacGill Summer School – a pointless talking shop that takes place each year to “debate issues of national importance”.  The jet costs €7,890 an hour and is capable of flying across the Atlantic, according to a report in the Indo.

As if that was not bad enough, his Garda driver travelled the 274KM from Dublin to pick him up at Derry Airport, before chauffeuring him the remaining 94km to Glenties, Donegal, where MacGill is held.

And what was the topic of discussion at the conference?

"Reforming the republic—issues of politics, economics and accountability".

Back to Gombeen Nation main page


Ella said...

Hi GM, attached is a link to said speech. Well, I for one don't think he was worth it.

I'll bet it was perfectly legitmate for such a busy important electected reprentative to spend our money in such a fashion.

Laurence said...

Funnily enough Ella, when you go to that link on Noel Dempsey's website, one of the first things you see is a heading labeled "Travel Costs", and when you click through you get a lot of waffle trying to justify his 9, and only 9 overseas trips promoting Ireland. No mention of jaunts like flying up to Donegal and having a car drive all the way up from Dublin to meet you at the airport.

Anyone who'd share a platform with vermin like B. Ahern is rotten within.

Laurence said...

Actually, looking at his speech, you've got to wonder.... Not "gotta".

You gotta love the current electoral system. [sic]

It elects people to do a very responsible and serious job – to shape the country and its laws for the benefit of all its citizens.

Once elected, you get well paid to do that job. And the best part of it all is you don’t have to do it.


If like me you leave the role of a Member elected to National Parliament is to hold the Government accountable to scrutinise Government actions; to ensure Government Departments and State Agencies do their job properly and spend taxpayers’ money wisely in addition to looking after individual constituents.

Dakota said...

I don't know whats worse Mr Dempseys chartering the government jet or the fact he was going to the McGill (as you say GM) talking shop. One very important concept to remember - and this would save all these good people having to waste time and money - if you want to see how NOT to run an economy then debate the mess which was the last decade and a half here, in your own time. End of, summer shool can go home now..... Egotisism and self indulgence, in Ireland, whatever next? IMO the boom here was a bad joke, there is nothing essentially positive to talk about, with regards to business here. Its all on the shirt tails of the global economy. Thats it, thats all you need to know. Sad, sad island.

I've got an idea - one for the school this - why not, just paint the words BANANNA REPUBLIC on the side of that fine mode of transport and be done with it. Having said that, the bold Mr Dempsey wassssss saving on toll money of course. LOL....

Grand day in the emerald isle, again......

Anonymous said...

what an amazing rancid little paradise gm, stone broke and bankrupt yet jumped up GOMBEEN chancers riding around on unpaid for jets followed by a chauffer in a mercedes sounds like something out of africa uganda or zimbabwe wouldnt a scooter do a gobsheen like him tis a grand soft day here in the hills thanks be to god. BH

Bernd said...

How much would a return ticket on Route 30 plus a local taxi have cost? If (and only if) this conference was worth attending anyway ...

The Gombeen Man said...

Ella, Laurence, Dakota, BH, Bernd:

Banana republic is right, it's the kind of thing you might expect in some tinpot dicatorship.

We can be truly proud of the world-beating calibre of our gombeen politicians and the half-wit populace that votes them in. Time after time after time.

anna said...

This post is deeply unfair to Dempsey who made wondrous comments in an IT article on 3rd June, and this post made search for it again:
The Minister is is evidently a modest man- I could not find item below on his website. However more zealous searching unearthed it, and I am proud to unveil this to the nation; An item that revels the true depth of wisdom, wit, erudition , and competence ( both professional nad mental ) of Minister Dempsey

‘Mandatory testing for alcohol at the scene of all driving collisions would not be a good use of Garda time, the Minister said.
At the Select Committee on Transport Dempsey opposed an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill 2009 that would require Gardaí test all drivers for alcohol when they attend road traffic accidents.
The Bill is currently at committee stage. If introduced in its current form, Gardai will be required to test for alcohol at crash scenes only when a person has been injured.
Labour TD Tommy Broughan said there was an overwhelming desire that alcohol tests at the scene of all accidents should be mandatory as There needed to be a strong commitment to tackle drink driving.
F G Shane McEntee said if people knew they were going to be tested they would give more consideration before driving.
But Mr Dempsey said mandatory testing at all accidents would not be a good use of garda time. Even if a driver was in the wrong "he would be getting a Garda out to the scene in the hope that someone had a glass of wine at lunch", he said.(!!!!!)) (IN WHAT OTHER EU COUNTRY WOULD YOU GET A TRANSPORT MINISTER COMING OUT WITH A COMMENT LIKE THAT????) (*)
The Minister did agree to an amendment to make those found guilty of drink driving liable for the costs of their prosecution. He also said he would revisit a provision which seemed to require that the garda who attended the accident was the garda that had to test for alcohol when the person was taken to a garda station.
The Minister declined to change the legislation to allow preliminary roadside tests to be used as evidence in court cases. And he would not increase the sentence for a summary finding of drink driving from 6 months to 12 months. The AG had strongly advised against such a high sentence at summary level, he said.
The committee will met again on June 16th to consider additional amendments to the Bill before it is sent forward to the Seanad. After debate there, it will return to the Dail for final approval. Deputies are hopeful it will be passed before the Dail closes for the summer break.’
* I rest my case…
AND NO- I DID Not make that up.

ANNA said...

Drink-Driving Law in the UK( GOT THIS OFF A WEBSITE)
This is a brief summary of the current LAW. Links to firms of solicitors specialising in drink-driving cases can be found on this site. Resident Lawyer website, operated by a firm of solicitors, offers basic legal advice on drink-driving cases, if you need detailed legal advice I recommend you consult a lawyer.
The Legal Limit - see Drink-Driving Guidelines. It is impossible to draw an accurate correlation between the amount of alcohol consumed and the resulting peak BAC, and anyone trying to "drink up to the limit" runs a serious risk of exceeding it.
It is also possible to be charged with driving or attempting to drive under the influence of drink or drugs even with a BAC level is below 80 mg. Such cases are rare but
The UK legal limit for drivers is 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, often referred to as a BAC or blood-alcohol concentration. In US terms this would be expressed as 0.08%., OR in terms of breath alcohol - 35 µg (microgrammes) per 100 ml (which is now the usual official measure in the UK), or alcohol in the urine - 107 mg per 100 ml.
This is often reckoned to be equivalent to two pints of ordinary beer which, for a man of average weight, is broadly true, but should not be used as a general rule - see Drink-Driving Guidelines.
It is also possible to be charged with driving or attempting to drive under the influence of drink or drugs even with a BAC level is below 80 mg. Such cases are rare but not unknown. In addition, a BAC level not far below 80 mg is likely to be regarded by the courts as an aggravating factor if charges are brought for causing an accident.
In 1998, the UK government issued a consultation paper proposing the reduction of the UK legal limit from 80 mg to 50 mg, but after lengthy deliberations announced in March 2000 that they were not going to proceed, pending a European Union Review - see 80 mg Limit to Stay (for now).
NB*******Police Powers
For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either:
(a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc.,
(b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or
(c) have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by driving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion .
Although there have often been calls for the police to be given "unfettered discretion" to administer breath tests, this has never been implemented. However, in practice the police interpret the law on a good chance of obtaining a positive result. ( IE; REASONABLE SUSPICION)
Although there are restrictions on police powers to require breath tests, the police are entitled to stop any vehicle without giving a reason. This allows them to operate anti drink-driving roadblocks, particularly over the Christmas period.
It is difficult to conceive of circumstances under which the current law prevents police from carrying out a breath test where they checkpoint, and then stop vehicles at their discretion - which they are perfectly entitled to do.

anna said...

Here’s the rest of that: UK Drink drive laws: its quit elong but illuninating: although there are restrictions on police powers to require breath tests, the police are entitled to stop any vehicle without giving a reason. This allows them to operate anti drink-driving roadblocks, esp over Xmas .
They typically set up an checkpoint, and stop vehicles at their discretion - . They will ask the driver if he has been drinking. If he says "yes", or "just 1", they have grounds for suspicion and administer a breath test. If he says "no", the police officer replies "then you won't have any objections to a breath test, will you ?" While the driver is entitled to refuse, most people - would accede to the test. Few people want to be branded as a troublemaker. This is pushing the existing powers beyond where they were intended to go, but has now become a widely-used tactic.
The law applies to a "road or public place", so you can be convicted of drink-driving anywhere the public have access, Including private car parks - you do not have to be on a public road. Specifically, and contrary to popular myth, the police can require a breath test on a pub car park. However, it is not a specific offence on private land to which the public do not have access, although various charges could be brought if driving under the influence of alcohol led to death or injury.
The police officer at the roadside will administer a screening breath test using a digital breathalyser. This uses a "traffic light" system: green = no alcohol, amber some alcohol but below the legal limit, and red alcohol possibly above the legal limit. A refusal to provide a specimen at this point is an offence, but of itself does not lead to mandatory disqualification, particularly if you subsequently provide a specimen at the police station. This is partly to deter wasting police time.
If your reading is red, you will be arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and required to take a further test at a police station. You cannot be convicted purely on the evidence of the roadside breath test. If the police officer is in a car, he might take you directly to the police station, but more likely (and certainly if he is on a motorcycle) he will call for another police vehicle to attend the scene to provide transport.
At the police station, you will be required to provide 2 breath samples for the Intoximeter equipment, which is accurately calibrated and is used to provide the evidence of your BAC that is presented in court. The reading that will be used is the lower of the two samples. At this stage, a refusal to provide a specimen is an offence that is treated in law as the equivalent of being convicted with a BAC above the legal limit.
If your breath-alcohol level is between 40 and 49 µg, you will be offered the opportunity to take a blood or urine test as an alternative. This option should always be taken, as you have nothing to lose, and there is a chance it may result in a more favourable figure, particularly if you consider your alcohol level is falling. If the police fail to offer this alternative they have not applied the procedure correctly and this can be used as a defence in court. You also have the right to be given a sample of blood or urine for independent analysis, but experience suggests that the alcohol level is unlikely to vary significantly from the official test.
In practice, prosecution guidelines followed by the policeyoumg over the legal limit, if the breath-alcohol level was above 40 µg. This explains why press repowhich should be aware that the police will prosecute for blood and urine alcohol levels of 1 mean that drivers are not normally prosecuted until they reach 40 µg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, equivalent to a blood alcohol level of over 90 mg. However, rts occasionally appear of individuals being prosecuted with a BAC of 81 mg, seems to

anna said...

3rd page of that UK drink drive: i think i pasted it all_ it's long but illuminating, the difference is ther're Not irish :
law seems to go against the discretion outlined above. The 40 µg threshold is only a discretionary one, and the police may prosecute for a 36 µg level if, for an example, a driver appeared to be very drunk, but gave an unexpectedly low reading.
To stop you from driving again while you are still over the limit, the police may keep you at the police station for some time, sometimes 1 night Once released you will be expected to make your own way home , and also to retrieve your vehicle.
For any offence of driving or attempting to drive while over the prescribed alcohol limit, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of one year's disqualification. This can only be waived in very exceptional circumstances, such as if the offence was committed in response to a medical emergency, or if the offender would be completely unable to earn a living. A first offender will also receive a fine, around £300 - £400, although fines can be below £100 for offenders of limited means.
Magistrates have the power to impose longer periods of disqualification and are increasingly making use of this - in some cases 18-month bans have been imposed for BACs below 120 mg. The maximum sentence that can be imposed for driving with excess alcohol is a fine of £5,000, and a 6-month prison sentence, something that is not as widely appreciated as it should be.
If an offender has committed a second offence within a ten-year period, or has a BAC over 2.5 times the legal limit (i.e. 200 mg or above), they will be classed as a "high-risk offender". They will receive a three-year minimum mandatory period of disqualification, and before they can drive again will be required to satisfy a doctor - at their own expense - that they do not have an ongoing alcohol problem.
The penalties for refusing a breath or blood test at the police station are identical to those for a "standard" offence. However, the courts are likely to impose penalties well above the minimum for this offence - often a ban of eighteen months or two years - as refusal can clearly be used to conceal a very high blood-alcohol level.
There are also various charges relating to being "in charge" of a vehicle, but not driving or attempting to drive it. These do not carry mandatory disqualification, although the penalties can still be severe, typically 10 penalty points. The police often take a very broad view of attempting to drive - for example a man who had left his car in a pub car park, had too much to drink, and decided to retrieve his briefcase from the boot before phoning for a cab home, was convicted of attempting to drive, and disqualified.
You should be aware that if your car is parked in the street, you are committing an offence if you even so much as touch it while over the drink-drive limit. You should certainly not, for example, help to push it away from blocking a driveway.''

all the above explains why the UK is one of the safest places to drivein Europe: I do keep an eye on Eu wide road safety stats as it is a big inteest of mine:NB:
1) I am very aware our road rate has gone well down over the last 3 yrs- all this because the authorities are tryign to crack down harder on dangerosu/ drunken driving, getting the safety message across etc
2)But with Minister Dempsey at the helm, or should i say steering wheel, the only wya our road fatality way can go is back up.

Anonymous said...

I posted a comment but hey, it vanished?
Here we go again:

Talking round in circles is like barking at the moon.
Organise to direct angst etc towards the targets...bankers, politicians etc

Do the streets belong only to the politicians and bankers.Is there a curfew?

'wasted energy otherwise.

Writer 64