Become A Member | Forum | Profiles | Personals | Classifieds | See Who's Online ...
 
View Topic
  Message Boards : Activism / Politics : View Topic : 114 Posts, Page 7 of 8
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStatsBlogs Login / Register
 
GLEN News / Press Releases
 
# 91 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 10:39
 
 
Someone said :
Forensic accounting! What does that cost ? Its a bit "overkill" for what appears to be an administrative issue and not an accountancy issue .
That solution is not fit for purpose ,it depends on the cost i suppose but if there is no financial issue its very hard to justify the cost of this.

The thing is we don't know the full details. The best course of action isto investigate so we can find out.
Reply
 
 Recent Message Board Topics
What's For Dinner Tonight Part 3
Video Games - What Are You Playing Right Now?
The Interesting Pictures Thread.
Interesting Websites
Going On Holidays? Where?
Public Caning In Indonesia
Can We Cope With Weather?
President Trump / Oompa Loompa News
 
Hey! If you enjoy shooting the breeze with like-minded people, check out
our Message Boards
• Advice • Coming Out
• Computers • Current Affairs
• Discussion • Food & Drink
• Going Out • Humour
• Health • Music
• Newbies • Sexual Issues
# 92 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 14:38
 
 
Someone said :

The thing is we don't know the full details. The best course of action isto investigate so we can find out.

i think its prudent to know how much this inveztigation will cost and whether its appropriate .

.
Reply
 
# 93 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:07
 
 
It doesn't matter how much it costs and yes it is appropriate.
Reply
 
# 94 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:22
 
 
Someone said :
It doesn't matter how much it costs and yes it is appropriate.

you paying for it then ? Easy when its somebody elses money ... isnt it

If everybidy us saying the accounts ate fine and just procedures werent followed a big expensive forensic audit is not appropriate.

And when will they ever learn transparency is the only way to go.

Reply
 
# 95 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:22
 
 
Someone said :
It doesn't matter how much it costs and yes it is appropriate.

you paying for it then ? Easy when its somebody elses money ... isnt it

If everybidy us saying the accounts ate fine and just procedures werent followed a big expensive forensic audit is not appropriate.

And when will they ever learn transparency is the only way to go.

Reply
 
# 96 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:22
 
 
Someone said :
It doesn't matter how much it costs and yes it is appropriate.

you paying for it then ? Easy when its somebody elses money ... isnt it

If everybidy us saying the accounts ate fine and just procedures werent followed a big expensive forensic audit is not appropriate.

And when will they ever learn transparency is the only way to go.

Reply
 
# 97 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:25
 
 
We are all paying for it babycakes! If a crime is suspected it must be investigated.
Reply
 
# 98 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 17:39
 
 
Someone said :
We are all paying for it babycakes! If a crime is suspected it must be investigated.

miss fecking marple
I dont think its in the remit of an auditor to investigate a crime , ahem we have something beginning with g for that
i mean did you hammer square bricks into round holes always as a child? Did you ever learn not to?
Reply
 
# 99 : Friday 28-4-2017 @ 22:29
 
 
I always hammer square bricks into round holes bbz. I wouldn't have it any other ways. Anyways, what are you getting your knickers in a twist for? There's a major indiscrepancy in GLENS finances. It needs to be investigated. Which it is! You throwing your fucking dollies out of your prams won't change that.
Reply
 
# 100 : Saturday 29-4-2017 @ 11:53
 
 
Someone said :
It doesn't matter how much it costs and yes it is appropriate.



Agreed. The public has been funding glen so I think it is completely appropriate to investigate if there has been a lack of transparency. Just like it was appropriate with Console.
Reply
 
# 101 : Sunday 30-4-2017 @ 10:54
 
 
Someone said :

you paying for it then ? Easy when its somebody elses money ... isnt it

If everybidy us saying the accounts ate fine and just procedures werent followed a big expensive forensic audit is not appropriate.

And when will they ever learn transparency is the only way to go.

If "everybody" are the people being investigated, then it is not proof: it is a defense.
If procedures were not followed, then it is not possible to know that the "accounts are fine"...
Procedures are there to ensure that money is not pocketed whilst leaving the impression that accounts are fine. Any subtle enough fraud does not show immediately in the accounts!

If 100-40=60, it does tell us that the account is balanced.
It says nothing about who used the 50, if they were really allowed ot, if it was used for what it says on the invoice, if the invoice was genuine.

Sometimes calling the company who invoice a service allows to find that that they did not exist. Or looking closer at their own books allows to see that they did not record the transaction for the same amount.

Accounts are only a book-keeping exercise, aimed at balancing things out. Thinks can be balanced, and still be dodgy!

Different kinds of audits exist, some more forensic than others.
Some audits will say "you said you would record such transaction on such a line and provide a paper saying 'bill'; you have, good man".
=rubber stamping.

More advanced audits might ask questions about the number of signatures on the checks, the approvals for such spendings, the need for such spendings, the conflicts of interests between the spender and the provider, the process that was followed to ensure best value for the organisation, etc.
=investigation
Reply
 
# 102 : Sunday 30-4-2017 @ 16:09
 
 
Someone said :

Procedures are there to ensure that money is not pocketed whilst leaving the impression that accounts are fine. Any subtle enough fraud does not show immediately in the accounts!

In addition, public funds may be used only for the purpose they were assigned, and pocketing does not need to occur for a serious breach to have occurred. If the HSE gives you money for HIV prevention work, it would be a breach to use some of that to, say top up a grant from the Department of Jobs to train job interviewers. Both could be perfectly legitimate reasons for a public body to give an NGO funds, but the NGO must not use them for a different purpose.

In this case, the HSE knows that some of its money was used for a purpose other than it had agreed with GLEN, and somebody in the organisation signed off on using them that way, so it makes utter sense for it to check all of the funds it gave GLEN.
Reply
 
# 103 : Monday 1-5-2017 @ 06:59
 
 
And yet there is no idea or indication of how much this audit will take most importantly how much it will cost ? if it was tendered? Was it a transparent process?
And then if the HSE has issues around how the funds it provided were used it would be easy to identify these ? There is no need replicate work already carried out and at the taxpayers expense.
But of course the accounting firm doing this audit will make a shitload of money out of it and thats whats really important isnt it
Reply
 
# 104 : Monday 1-5-2017 @ 09:08
 
 
Someone said :
And yet there is no idea or indication of how much this audit will take most importantly how much it will cost ? if it was tendered? Was it a transparent process?
And then if the HSE has issues around how the funds it provided were used it would be easy to identify these ? There is no need replicate work already carried out and at the taxpayers expense.
But of course the accounting firm doing this audit will make a shitload of money out of it and thats whats really important isnt it

What else do you suggest? It is clear there have been a number of significant anomalies in the accounts. I really don't see what the problem with checking the accounts through an audit is.

Should we allow the situation to turn into something as bad as console because heaven forbid money is spent on an audit.

Reply
 
# 105 : Wednesday 3-5-2017 @ 07:35
 
 
Someone said :

What else do you suggest? It is clear there have been a number of significant anomalies in the accounts. I really don't see what the problem with checking the accounts through an audit is.

Should we allow the situation to turn into something as bad as console because heaven forbid money is spent on an audit.


An audit is only as good as its scope , there must be transparency in how its procured , how much it will cost and what it will cover so there is an idea of what the report will say at the end, in the sense that some audits just sign off accounts ok etc etc

I think that the rule that bodies in receipt of state monies should completely change their people every 3 years should have been brought in much sooner because this doesnt look like anything more than ignoring their iwn systems and rules which comes with being in a system too long.
If a very expensive audit concludes the same thing isnt that a huge waste of money ???
Reply
 
Prev 12345678Next