What has all so angry about the scandal of the failed Renewable Heat Initiative?
Is it the fact that we know that someone within the upper echelons of the DUP has acted to the detriment of the public good and that we are frustrated to watch the “he done it, no she done it” squabble which has ensued?
Or is it that we know that for the blinking of an eye we saw the worst excesses of greedy capitalism at work by some of the most wealthy and powerful “movers and shakers” in our society?
I am opting for the latter!
I think the squabble between DUP First Minister Arlene Foster and DUP Ex-minister Jonathan Bell is a side show, a distraction to take our eye of the real prize – to unearth the identities of some of the greediest elements within our society.
Let us remember that we are in the middle of some of the most severe cuts to our public services in generations. Benefits and DLA claimants are being hammered, care homes are being closed, we have food banks operating in nearly every town in the country, the numbers of homeless has swelled the health service is creaking under the strain of demand and lack of resources.
What makes people angry is the fact that the poorest in society are being punished while perhaps a millionaire is having his luxury car showroom heated for free and receiving 60% extra while the ordinary man or woman on the street who are struggling to heat their own homes are paying to heat a facility which they could never in their wildest dreams see themselves using.
I have heard commentators say, yes but what these individuals and companies have done is not illegal. I agree that it may not be illegal but it most certainly is unethical!
Let me illustrate the difference between the two. A bailiff could come to the home of a debtor and remove items to be sold to recover the balance of a debt. Distasteful as this may seem it is perfectly legal and will cause little public outcry because generally (excluding lone-sharks) the public have a default belief that people should pay for things that they purchase so therefore it is not necessarily unethical.
Now imagine the same bailiff came to a home and only removed the children’s Christmas presents which had been lovingly wrapped by their parents who were struggling over Christmas while trying to shield the children from the impending hardships to come. We would quite rightly think this was unethical even though it is entirely legal and the media would be quick to jump all over the story!
Don’t be fooled by the diversionary line “You can’t blame the companies because it was entirely legal”. Some guy burning wood pellets as quickly as they can be delivered to him in an empty shed so that he can receive money is wrong! Anybody who grew up in a home without central heating knows that is wrong! Anybody who reads about a pensioner who can only afford to run her heating for two hours on Christmas Day knows that is wrong!
It is like being back at school and watching one child taking a handful of sweets from the teacher’s box knowing that there is one per child and that someone else will have to do without; only in this case the teacher doesn’t want the other children to know which child it was, because his father is the Chair of the board of governors!
As Jude says “Follow the money”!
It is the fact that those responsible for managing the institutions which directly impact on peoples lives, having realised that there were flaws in the scheme that could cost vast sums of money and have a direct negative impact on the most vulnerable of our people, decided to deliberately delay the closure of the scheme costing hundreds of millions and to date have offered no satisfactory explanation as to why the delays were needed.
The fact there are inconsistencies and accusations among those directly involved, namely Jonathan, Arlene and various spad’s further fuel the suspicions that there was full knowledge of the schemes flaws and that the delays to close it were deliberate, we can only assume to allow time for DUP supporting businesses to get the claims in during the short window the DUP imposed delay provided.
What seems to have happened is that the word spread far beyond the businesses that wanted to get in and the floodgates were bust open resulting in a huge an unexpected and costly spike in applications.
Basically this was a heist on the public purse that bit off a far greater amount than was ever expected and some more religious elements find it difficult to live with the guilt.
Yes Jessica, and here is another question which was posed to me. The DUP knew the scheme was ripping of the Government why did it only become a problem when the British said they were not paying for it?
Does the DUP think it is ok to rip off the government as long as it is the British Government?
I wonder what people surviving of food banks in towns and cities iacross England would think of them?
That is a good point.
I do recall the suggestion that there was a belief initially that the scheme was being fully funded from London and only later did it become clear that there would be a direct cost to the block grant and our own people would be fitting a hefty chunk of this money.
I also read a post on another topic on this site, suggesting that the 485 million is only our part in the costs, that the total cost could be as much as 1 billion, and the rest is actual expense to the UK tax payer.
Interesting to hear what the tax paying people in England will make of this abuse of their money.
I cant see someone not doing time for this.
This is above petty politics, this is either criminal negligence or wilful fraud.
unethical,lol..
with most crimes involving money.the only crime is getting caught,oh,and whos implementing these most severe cuts in generations.
The most galling thing of all is that this will not change our electoral choices. There will be no dawning of a new era in our politics.
2013 and the Nolan show and the rest were vilifying SF and the SDLP for trying to soften the Tory’s austerity measures and at the same time Alrene was signing off on a scheme to give free money to companies, corporations and rich people. I wonder why she was never asked about this. I see now also that they have found four terrified DUPer women who have suddenly realised J Bell is fair game. I suppose they only have to ‘feel’ intimidated even if he was not trying to do that
We also need to unravel the link between the funding of political parties and their business associates.
For years Stephen Nolan followed the BBC mantra for interviews: give unionists an easy time, but interrupt Sinn Fein and don’t let them ever get a complete answer.
During the summer Nolan’s right-hand-man Davy Gordon jumps ship, presumably for a lot more money and a better pension, plus promotion prospects.
Nolan was not a happy bunny, but said nothing (in public anyway).
The Charter 21 fiasco breaks, when Arlene is pictured handing over a £1.7m cheque to UDA boss Dee Stitt. When questioned afterwards she said: ‘Well, we have to look after our own’.
Nobody seemed to pick up that quote, but since then Nolan has been like a demented dervish every time he’s interviewing somebody from the DUP, and especially now with the RHI fiasco, he seems to be in his shock jock’s heaven, even putting extra staff to work overtime to see what dirt they can dig up – and by God there’s plenty more to dig up!
Nolan is finally doing the job he has been paid to do all these years – could we have an inquiry into why he was not so assiduous for all that time?
Sherdy I would agree with you he has played a blinder over the last couple of days, doing his job so well that Gregory Campbell implied a threat that perhaps someone would do some digging on him and expose him to public redicule.
I suspect Stephen Nolan has another source inside the DUP and can drip feed embarrassing information at his leisure.
On another note Jim Allister has been very effective on Nolan’s show at tackling DUP spokespersons and has been running rings around them. On Thursday he reduced Christopher Stanford to personal name calling!
Is it possible to get the names of participants of this scheme through the Freedom of Information Act.? After all it is a Government Contract between the two!!!