Have the govt done it this time!

dbnavan

There are several crisises in the country which are a result of bad govt management at the moment, Hospitals, schools, housing etc. But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

Surely anyone outside the state must be laughing at bertie and his troops, another political gaff! Surely this is the final nail in their coffin.

lostexpectation

someone did point out how bertie has been evading the heat on most of these issues

I was hearing yesteday about these grumbling back benchers, I so often here of labour rebels in the UK and RINOS in the US but I would have no clue who are the FF rebels?

The ones with individual minds rather the the cranks and country bumpkins?

anyone? I mean does FF not even have a black caucus ??

does politics.ie have this info?

MrPudding

dbnavan wrote:

But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

In fairness, the government did not quash the judgement, the judiciary did. The government were in court fighting for it not to be quashed.

I am not defending them. Their arguement for not doing something when they knew there was a problem seems to be that it would have been politicl suicide. Well, I don't care. They are supposed to be protecting the people of this nation not their own jobs. If they had any pride in the work they are supposed to be doing they would do things for the good of the people and not the party.

MrP

Dirk Gently

You'll have to do better than that if you want to get yourselves into government dbnavan.

While I agree it is bad government on the issues you mentioned, how would a FG government do any better? If FG had that decision sprung on them like FF/PD had it sprung on them, would FG react quicker and better to close the loophole.( or does FG have every loophole covered that could possibly arise)

If you want Bertie out (which I also do) you have to convince people of a better alternative. It's not good enough to say Bertie and Harney are useless, you have to convince people that FG/LAB would handle Hospitals, schools, housing and the occasional law loophole better than the current Government. I'm not convinced they would but would love to be convinced otherwise. It's not good enough to say get them out because they're bad. You have to convince people to put you in rather than put them out.

lostexpectation

10 years is the reason as I keep saying... this is the ten year syndrome reason enough

silverharp

clown bag wrote:

If you want Bertie out (which I also do) you have to convince people of a better alternative. It's not good enough to say Bertie and Harney are useless, you have to convince people that FG/LAB would handle Hospitals, schools, housing and the occasional law loophole better than the current Government. I'm not convinced they would but would love to be convinced otherwise. It's not good enough to say get them out because they're bad. You have to convince people to put you in rather than put them out.

I'm of the view that there is no answer to this, the system as we have it guarantees the status quo, all special interests groups from the civil service to the health service all have their fiefdoms, and the ability of gov to manage change is hampered assuming thay have logical policies to start with. Since the sheeple seem to buy into this, it doesn't matter which group of pigs are at the trough.

dbnavan

dbnavan wrote:

But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

If by 'they' you mean the Government, then your post is factually incorrect.

If by 'they' you mean the judiciary, then I presume you should rephrase the thread title.

trippy30

I wish we had a better opposition but I dont think we do.

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional) and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Fundamentally when it comes to government, I dont care who it is, as long as they are competent.

You can of course argue the toss on whether the current govt is or is not and sometimes I too think they are not.

But lately I honesty think the opposition is more scary, I dont see them being progressive enough, I dont see them as particualrly compentent and I dont see them as responsible or constructive.
Lately the oppositions tactic has been to use fear as a weapon to scare people to win over the electorate.

Politics in my mind is about being responsible not creating, manufacturing chaos or calling for 'heads' until its justified.

If it works fine (in terms of the electorate), but at what cost to society. Personally I dont find that ethical, instead I find it desperate and I stop sympathising for them at that point.

trippy30

trippy30 wrote:

I wish we had a better opposition but I dont think we do.

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional) and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Fundamentally when it comes to government, I dont care who it is, as long as they are competent.

You can of course argue the toss on whether the current govt is or is not and sometimes I too think they are not.

But lately I honesty think the opposition is more scary, I dont see them being progressive enough, I dont see them as particualrly compentent and I dont see them as responsible or constructive.
Lately the oppositions tactic has been to use fear as a weapon to scare people to win over the electorate.

Politics in my mind is about being responsible not creating, manufacturing chaos or calling for 'heads' until its justified.

If it works fine (in terms of the electorate), but at what cost to society. Personally I dont find that ethical, instead I find it desperate and I stop sympathising for them at that point.

I agree

Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich

The_Minister

trippy30 wrote:

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Bertie is pretty religious too. On Ash Wednesday he was the only one in the Dail wearing ashes on his forehead (that I could see)

samb

I am no fan of the present Government and would prefer, slightly, the opposition but I would agree that all this outrage is misplaced.

The law as it was was stupid and I think we should be thankful that our constitution recognises everyone's right to fair defence. The reason Mr A was released in the first place was because he was charged with the wrong offences. He should have been charged with regular rape, abuse etc..nobody seems to be pointing the finger at those who are really to blame..the Gardai and the DPP. They should investigate and charge people with what the are guilty off instead of taking the easy option.

Time Magazine

trippy30 wrote:

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional)

No it wasn't. That's just bull.

and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

What's impractical about ensuring that people go to the GP before A+E so that A+E can be prepared prior to their arrival?

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so.

Coming from Mr Unconstitutional? Something is only ever deemed unconsitutional if

• The Supreme Court dismiss a Bill when asked to investigate its constitutionality by the President, according to Article 26 of the Constitution.
• The High Court/Supreme Court rule it to be unconstitutional when a case is brought to them.

The man is not dim. He's actually extremely bright. He genuinely knows the country inside out, and is keen on most all issues. He's boring, by all means the man is dull, but to suggest he's dim is way off the mark. If you want to see a politician who's dim in the actual sense of the word, I would refer you to Mary Coughlan, Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher, Willie O'Dea, Dick Roche, Noel Dempsey, John O'Donoghue, and, of course, Patrick Bartholomew Ahern.

Not to mention the man is religious. Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

As opposed to every single taoiseach we've ever had? And ever president we've had? And every president of the US ever? And a good 70% of the population who are religious?

Get over it. A lack of belief in God does not make you any more competent a politician.

trippy30

Angry Banana wrote:

No it wasn't. That's just bull.

Well perhaps you can explain why many have said it is.
Here is a link to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties view on the matter

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/09/story2891.asp

They said

“We have also stated that using electronic tagging as a condition of bail would not stand the legal or constitutional test,”

Angry Banana wrote:

What's impractical about ensuring that people go to the GP before A+E so that A+E can be prepared prior to their arrival?

That bits fine, it was the drunk tanks I was referring to in his speech. I understand other parties have said that also. I think it was Harney – correct me if I’m wrong.

Angry Banana wrote:

He's actually extremely bright. He genuinely knows the country inside out, and is keen on most all issues. He's boring, by all means the man is dull, but to suggest he's dim is way off the mark.

I realise that you and I have a personal opinion, that’s fine if you think that. Personally speaking I have not found him good on issues that are shall we say... more complex in nature. Dim might be a bit unfair, you might be right. However in contrast to other leaders he isn’t as sharp and clued in, he cannot speak off the cuff without sounding like a ‘plank’ to be honest. He good when he is reading from something scripted though.

Angry Banana wrote:

If you want to see a politician who's dim in the actual sense of the word, I would refer you to Mary Coughlan, Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher, Willie O'Dea, Dick Roche, Noel Dempsey, John O'Donoghue, and, of course, Patrick Bartholomew Ahern.

I’m not disputing there are others at all. Agree with you on a lot of them. My own exp of Dick Roche would lead me to conclude he is one of the worst. But I have now doubt there are more. (slaps all round)

Angry Banana wrote:

As opposed to every single taoiseach we've ever had? And ever president we've had? And every president of the US ever? And a good 70% of the population who are religious?

I’m not, and as such see religion as a liability to be honest. It’s my own personal take on it. I don’t believe in politics and religion should mix. Frequently I see evidence of that in Ireland, US and the UK. Can you honestly conclude that religion has helped Bush or Blair?

Religion as I see it is a barrier to being objective and fair. There are many in Ireland who are not religious also.
I know we are not a majority, but I hope you can understand my point in this and why I feel this way.

Angry Banana wrote:

Get over it. A lack of belief in God does not make you any more competent a politician.

See previous reponse to quote and below
History would demonstrate that in many ways religion has been a barrier to advancement in science and human evolution. Held us back from being more progressive and challenging institutional beliefs.
Its also oppressive to those it rejects.
For instance if we listen to recent to what the Pope said - all gays are pretty much evil. His words were ‘intrinsically evil’
Now I don’t accept that, most people in Ireland wouldn’t, but you can see how damaging it can be. Just look at how it targets minorities for instance.

Never underestimate or dismiss how much the RC church , Islam and other religions oppress people or how it leads to conflict. I come from NI, I rejected religion at an early age, if I didn’t I think I in many ways would be part of the problem, along with the cultural conditioning to reinforce discrimination that goes along with it.

Now if you believe in religion honestly and completely, in effect you buy into that on a level. You buy into discrimination in a way. Few religions truly respect and encourage others to be treated as equal. despite what we all would like to think.
I understand people will accept religion to a degree but I still think its not good. I recognise I’m in a minority in that way of thinking and politics has always been based on the majority thinking that it’s a good think cos it makes you moral or responsible, but Im not convinced on that.

Back to topic

On the issue of equality I cannot understand Labour saying they will go into coalition with FG, given FG said some of the following things.

Bill Tormey wanting specific immigrants to tested for diseases.
Michael Noonan saying he wanted to ban hoodies
Then FG leader Enda said they have their right to express their view.
I find it confusing as to what we will get when they go into power. I’m assuming they will this election.

But it is bizarre to be honest.

In effect it seems FG, a right of centre party and a left of centre Labour are going to work together. How that will work – who knows? I haven’t seen this being examined enough.
Either there will be a compromise of what they represent and stand for, or it will fall apart. But we don’t know who is going to compromise yet. Id be left of centre, but knowing FG I honestly I would not vote Labour.

I’m not happy with the coalition and I hate goverment. Basically Im between a rock and a hard place.

lostexpectation

trippy30 wrote:

Well perhaps you can explain why many have said it is.
Here is a link to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties view on the matter

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/09/story2891.asp

They said

“We have also stated that using electronic tagging as a condition of bail would not stand the legal or constitutional test,”

ah but FF/PD will be as likely to bring in tagging as FG are, you hardly expect any politician to take any notice of what the ICCL says do you?

Cork

trippy30 wrote:

Bill Tormey wanting specific immigrants to tested for diseases.
Michael Noonan saying he wanted to ban hoodies
Then FG leader Enda said they have their right to express their view.
I find it confusing as to what we will get when they go into power. I’m assuming they will this election.

But it is bizarre to be honest.

Its politics. Some may believe hoodies should be banned. He might have got a few votes out of it.

The opposition last week were a joke. Courts are entitled to interpet the laws that politicians make.

Bertie and Michael McDowell gave a reasoned respose not the knee jerk rantings displayed by the opposition.

trippy30

lostexpectation wrote:

trippy30 wrote:

ah but FF/PD will be as likely to bring in tagging as FG are, you hardly expect any politician to take any notice of what the ICCL says do you?

Well if the govt do, they are off their heads too.
This is the sort of thing that sounds good to the public but can be resolved in less 'dramatic' practical way.

oscarBravo

samb wrote:

The reason Mr A was released in the first place was because he was charged with the wrong offences. He should have been charged with regular rape, abuse etc..nobody seems to be pointing the finger at those who are really to blame..the Gardai and the DPP. They should investigate and charge people with what the are guilty off instead of taking the easy option.

The problem with that approach - a problem which the new legislation has unfortunately but inevitably introduced - is that it requires cross-examination of the victim. For all its flaws, the old law allowed prosecution of child rapists without further traumatising the child by forcing her/him to testify and be cross-examined in court.

I'm not arguing that the old law should have been kept - if it was broken, it needed to be fixed - merely that it's simplistic to argue that the Gardaí and the DPP should have pursued a certain course of action when there was a more victim-friendly approach available to them.

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

I don't know, MR A could still get out couldn't he, the supreme court could sttick with its premise.

I'd be very annoyed at Joe Duffy if he led me (and his victims(mother) (one of which said there was on his show)) to believe that O Rouke could have possibly gotten out early, but a article in the times yesterday calrified that this was never the case


expediancy!

I always wonder why people aren't prosecuted for every particular crime they commit rather the then more important charges, and when peopel plead guilty the trial is les detailed, sounds like justice could be missed in there, even if it speeds up the law process.

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

I don't know, MR A could still get out couldn't he, the supreme court could sttick with its premise.

Given that it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Government's appeal, and issued an arrest warrant for Mr A - I doubt it.

is_that_so

oscarBravo wrote:

T

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

Dirk Gently

is_that_so wrote:

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

I don’t necessarily agree with that. Maybe if you're talking individually, yes we are moany cnuts and like nothing better than a moan in the pub about how sh!t the government is but it doesn't translate into a communal voice. As a nation of people we are hopeless at venting anger in a positive way which actually affects government decisions.

Fair enough the frenchies will strike at the drop of a hat but at least they give a sh!t and form mass movements to strike and march to illustrate their anger. (and it works) Irish people are at the opposite end of the scale as we do nothing except moan to our mates in the pub and do nothing to put the government under pressure. We have the government we deserve because we allow them to do what they do. I’m pretty sure Bertie could do away with corporate tax all together, raise paye tax and bring in water charges and lump a 1000 euro a year carbon tax on motorists overnight and there would barley be a whimper from the Irish public as a collective force. Sure people would be righteously pissed off but would be more likely to vent their anger over an over priced pint than with feet on the ground.

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

I don’t necessarily agree with that. Maybe if you're talking individually, yes we are moany cnuts and like nothing better than a moan in the pub about how sh!t the government is but it doesn't translate into a communal voice. As a nation of people we are hopeless at venting anger in a positive way which actually affects government decisions.

Fair enough the frenchies will strike at the drop of a hat but at least they give a sh!t and form mass movements to strike and march to illustrate their anger. (and it works) Irish people are at the opposite end of the scale as we do nothing except moan to our mates in the pub and do nothing to put the government under pressure. We have the government we deserve because we allow them to do what they do. I’m pretty sure Bertie could do away with corporate tax all together, raise paye tax and bring in water charges and lump a 1000 euro a year carbon tax on motorists overnight and there would barley be a whimper from the Irish public as a collective force. Sure people would be righteously pissed off but would be more likely to vent their anger over an over priced pint than with feet on the ground.

well the french still have the union structures to organise mass opposition we don't. fecking weakly unions

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

Given that it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Government's appeal, and issued an arrest warrant for Mr A - I doubt it.

well its only a another appeal isn't it? and when final ruling comes he could still get out early?

Cork

is_that_so wrote:

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

Many were lead by the nose by an opportunist opposition and media.

At work yesterday - I tols a woman that a march on the Dail was pretty pointless. She looked at me with disbelief.

They are many gullable people out there that are lead by cheap radio talk shows are 3rd rate Tds.

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

A quality sadly lacking in the opposition.

lostexpectation

Cork wrote:

Many were lead by the nose by an opportunist opposition and media.

At work yesterday - I tols a woman that a march on the Dail was pretty pointless. She looked at me with disbelief.

They are many gullable people out there that are lead by cheap radio talk shows are 3rd rate Tds.

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

he might have showed reason and knowledge then most Ill give him that but he quite clearly lied about who knew what when and where the responsibilty layed.

trippy30

lostexpectation wrote:

well the french still have the union structures to organise mass opposition we don't. fecking weakly unions

Im glad we don’t. Anybody imagine what that can do to a country from an international competitiveness footing. The French have the reputation, but Im sure there are consequences as a result.

For instance its also one of the many things large multinationals consider before investment (Stability).

If unions have too much sway, its not good for the country, or for our pockets, so there def needs a balance to be struck.
Its one area I think Labour will be useless on (challenging them) - I just cannot see how they will do it. They are so 'in' with them on that level. FF are not much better.
So it really is up to FG or PDs to do it.

For all the rest of us who are not lucky enough to be part of a union its maddening to see them to have the power and the authority they do over our politicians anyway.

I honestly cant see how unions in Ireland are having a raw deal. Compared to those of us who work in the private sector or the charity sector for instance.
Thoose are the areas that the government should nuture more.

Everytime I see a union complaining about something I struggle to hold an objective view on it I must admit. I have little time for their protests.

As for the demo/protest - whether it makes a difference (we will see).

Its best judged on what happens afterwards.
I do think the recent demos have struck a nerve with people - but rather than being entirely political I see the recent one as being issue based.

Its not whining about more money, resources etc.

So I do think it was a good idea.

cast_iron

Cork wrote:

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

I agree - McDowell did indeed show reason. One would think he himself orsered the release of Mr A the way some people have being talking/writing. Like him or loathe him, he was right in what he said all along. It is precisely this that irritates his enemies so much.

Cork wrote:

A quality sadly lacking in the opposition.

This is exactly the problem. Take the OP for example, which was factually incorrect for a start. This lack of clarity and complaining for the sake of complaining has done them no favours at all.

Maybe somebody can point out exactly what the scandalous thing the Govt has done in this "scandal". Perhaps a lack of foresight, but very little else.

ateam

The opposition have a duty to oppose, but Fine Gael and Labour are acting opportunistically and trying to score political points with this issue. After all, if it was so obvious as emphasised by the opposition, why didn't they point it out before the Supreme Court decision.

Michael Mcdowell has acted with speed and integrity, exactly the qualities we need in a minister and the qualities the opposition lacks.

lostexpectation

Ok apart from unions or even protest aside how do you suppose people are supposed to show there anger at issues?? dont tell me via their local politician, politicians arn't people.

lostexpectation

cast_iron wrote:

I agree - McDowell did indeed show reason. One would think he himself orsered the release of Mr A the way some people have being talking/writing. Like him or loathe him, he was right in what he said all along. It is precisely this that irritates his enemies so much.



This is exactly the problem. Take the OP for example, which was factually incorrect for a start. This lack of clarity and complaining for the sake of complaining has done them no favours at all.

Maybe somebody can point out exactly what the scandalous thing the Govt has done in this "scandal". Perhaps a lack of foresight, but very little else.

the AG and DPP and the MOJ knew about this case and didn't prepare for the worsts its simple as that.

is_that_so

lostexpectation wrote:

Ok apart from unions or even protest aside how do you suppose people are supposed to show there anger at issues?? dont tell me via their local politician, politicians arn't people.

Nothing wrong with protest but squawking on Joe Duffy or Gerry Ryan is not protest. There has been an excess of hysteria this week.