Congrats to Luke "Ming" Flannagan getting elected as mayor of Roscommon...

Elevator

don't know if this was mentioned already but I want to share my excitmemt at the little man rising

fair play and he handled himself well on primetime tonight too imho

hope to bump into him again sometime for the auld chat, sound head and a real man of the people!!

power to the people

The_Minister

Cite?

Elevator

The_Minister wrote: »

Cite?

what?

Vargulf

Mayor

Despite an overthrowing of the Fianna Fáil led alliance at Roscommon County Council, which led to controversial Cllr Luke 'Ming' Flanagan becoming the new Roscommon Mayor, he was congratulated warmly by all sides of the house.

It was learned at the annual general meeting of the council this week that the Hospital Action Group councillors set about overthrowing the Fianna Fáil control of the council, by negotiating with the Independents and Sinn Féin members. The previous alliance, which was set up after the local elections last year, was made up of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, and Independent councillors.

However, behind the scenes negotiations brought by the health lobby group, got Fine Gael on board, and then Independent Cllr Luke 'Ming' Flanagan and Sinn Fein's Cllr Michael Mulligan. The Hospital Action Group councillors claimed at Monday's meeting that the negotiations were opened, to oppose the Fianna Fáil alliance nomination, and to highlight the possible future downgrading of Roscommon County Hospital.

However Labour's Cllr John Kelly, who was an Independent councillor when he joined the Fianna Fáil led council alliance, claimed at the AGM that Fine Gael's Deputy Denis Naughten was the architect of the new Fine Gael/Sinn Féin/Hospital Action Group/ Independent alliance. Under the agreement of the Fianna Fáil alliance Cllr Kelly would have become Mayor of Roscommon this year, were it not for the scuppering by the Fine Gael side of the house.

"Deputy Naughten instigated this one in the Dáil," said Cllr Kelly. "If this is Enda Kenny's policy, I wish him well."
He said that the reason he didn't join with the Hospital Action Group was that he was still willing to "gamble," on the Fianna Fáil alliance's power in safeguarding the hospital.

"Minister Michael Finneran has some power and I'm prepared to still gamble on him," said the Labour party councillor. Sinn Féin's Cllr Michael Mulligan proposed Cllr Flanagan for Mayor of Roscommon, and it was seconded by the Hospital Action Group's Cllr Paula McNamara. The proposal was also supported by the Fine Gael members. He was elected by 14 votes to 12.
An attempt by Fianna Fáil and four Independent councillors to elect Cllr Kelly as Mayor was defeated.

Cllr Luke 'Ming' Flanagan who lives in Castlerea replaced Curraghboy resident, Cllr Tony Ward, who was Mayor of Roscommon since June 2009. Mayor Flanagan has campaigned for the legalisation of cannabis for more than a decade.

The first person to congratulate the new Mayor was Cllr John Kelly, who reached over to shake the Mayor's hand. The Fianna Fáil members and other Independent members also congratulated Mayor Flanagan on his election. The new Mayor has enjoyed a certain popularity across the council chamber since he was first elected to the council in 2004. The new Deputy Mayor is Fine Gael's Cllr Ernie Keenan, who lives in Boyle.

Terrontress

Why Ming?

Ming the merciless?

sceptre

The_Minister wrote: »

Cite?

Covered in most of the reputable papers in the past few days. Try the Irish Times.

Other results here (most of the first page has relevant links - to be fair, while providing supporting links is good and desirable in any discussion, this has been mentioned in the news often enough in the past week that a little easy self-looking isn't a bad thing).

From what I hear from Roscommon locals, Flanagan has evolved pretty well from a single-issue campaigner to a good local representative on quite a few issues.

doctorwu

The same guy who wants to annihilate all our bogs while citing very dodgy facts because of tradition.?. Maybe he should have a spliff and think about how he can get even further up the gravy train.

Bebs

My grandmother is one of his constituents and she says he's the best candidate there.

limklad

Bebs wrote: »

My grandmother is one of his constituents and she says he's the best candidate there.

I hope he does the Ming the merciless performance on the Health boards

Irish Times wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0626/1224273343794.html

Roscommon councillors will make Luke ‘Ming the Merciless’ Flanagan mayor of the county on a platform of health reform rather than his usual campaign to legalise cannabis

As he points out, it was a health issue that led to the effort to elect him Roscommon town’s first citizen. An alliance of Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and independent councillors vehemently opposes the downgrading of Roscommon County Hospital. “Fianna Fáil has had the rug pulled from under them on this one,” Flanagan says. A pact agreed by the alliance means he should hold the mayoral chain this year, with Fine Gael taking it for the next three.


Flanagan freely admits that “personal experience” provides much of his political focus. When his late mother, Lily, was diagnosed with cancer he had a taste of the health services – and didn’t like what he saw. “At the same time, my father-in-law would not be alive today if it wasn’t for the treatment he got in Roscommon,” he adds.


In the 2004 local elections he topped the poll in Roscommon, and was re-elected on the first count last June.


Now the father of two children,aged five and seven, he has spoken out about the influence of the drinks lobby, about cuts to a teenage health initiative in his areaand, most recently, about the rights of turf-cutters affected by the EU-led ban on harvesting in 32 raised bogs.

Again, this is an issue that touches him personally. “My grand-uncle Harry Fleming cut the same area of bog for 67 years, and my father after him, and now me,” he said. “When we didn’t have much money at home it was the turf that my father took in on his Ferguson tractor that kept us in clothes and insured the Hillman Hunter.” He believes that if the EU and the Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, are interested in protecting raised bogs, they would first “repair the damage done by Bord na Móna”.

Now I understand why so many people vote him in. Despite his unusually behaviour, he has real convictions in highlighting major problems and pain that the community have to deal with and sticking to his values and know where his roots are firmly planted, rather than sell out the people like FF.

Hopefully he be "Ming the merciless" against the merciless and uncaring Health system known as the HSE. After Reading the Ombudsman report I would vote him in If he was running in my area.

http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualReports/AnnualReportoftheOmbudsman2009/

Well done to Roscommon.

Het-Field

While im aware that he is reputed as one of Ireland's best local workers, and a strong Councellor, the man is also know to have a nasty and insulting streak. He also hinders the pro-cannabis lobby with his rhetoric of "personal liberty", when there are far more salient and acceptable arguments.

Byron85

Het-Field wrote: »

While im aware that he is reputed as one of Ireland's best local workers, and a strong Councellor, the man is also know to have a nasty and insulting streak. He also hinders the pro-cannabis lobby with his rhetoric of "personal liberty", when there are far more salient and acceptable arguments.

He was rather rude to the woman on Prime Time last night. She's a scientist yet he kept interrupting her while she was talking. He effectively scoffed at scientific fact and he did the same during the cannabis debate in UCC. "You're only a doctor. You only learn things off". Something along those lines was one of his amazing retorts.

He's strong on local issues because he represents good old tribalism in this country, such as the turf cutters who were on Prime Time last night. It was actually embarrassing listening to them come out with their clichéd city slickers versus us good old country folk rhetoric.

Gael

It just goes to show that the radicals can succeed anywhere in politics as long as the're prepared to do the hard graft on the ground, which a lot of them don't seem prepared to do.
Good to see an alternative voice being prominent and he's always come across as very articulate and intelligent when I've seen him on TV, so fair play to him.

jmayo

sceptre wrote: »

Covered in most of the reputable papers in the past few days. Try the Irish Times.

Other results here (most of the first page has relevant links - to be fair, while providing supporting links is good and desirable in any discussion, this has been mentioned in the news often enough in the past week that a little easy self-looking isn't a bad thing).

From what I hear from Roscommon locals, Flanagan has evolved pretty well from a single-issue campaigner to a good local representative on quite a few issues.

AFAIK Flanagan was one of the few coucnillors anywhere to come out during our construction bubble and complain about giving planning for an estate in a local village.

He claimed they already had a new estate, of poor quality, and the locals did not want or need another tranch of houses.
These were probably section 23 houses aimed at landlords who might use them as weekend retreats now and again or as rentable properties for our supposed never ending supply of immigrants.

You have to hand it to him for his swipe at the greens last night.
He stated he would rather go swimming with concrete shoes than run for them as a candidate.

jmayo

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

He was rather rude to the woman on Prime Time last night. She's a scientist yet he kept interrupting her while she was talking. He effectively scoffed at scientific fact and he did the same during the cannabis debate in UCC. "You're only a doctor. You only learn things off". Something along those lines was one of his amazing retorts.

He's strong on local issues because he represents good old tribalism in this country, such as the turf cutters who were on Prime Time last night. It was actually embarrassing listening to them come out with their clichéd city slickers versus us good old country folk rhetoric.

FFS becuase someone is a scientists or doctor they should be shown differential treatment ?
Are doctors and scientists always right ?

I didn't think he was rude, he challenged her with facts from another state body AFAIK. They might be wrong, they might be right, I don't know.

I thought a lot of what you would term embarrassments came across quiet well, but I guess environmentalists, scientists and people who never set foot in a bog would know better. :rolleyes:

AlekSmart

I thought a lot of what you would term embarrassments came across quiet well, but I guess environmentalists, scientists,economists,property developers and people who never set foot in a bog would know better.

Jmayo,tweaked that for you...and feel free to add as required until fully flavoured !

FFS becuase someone is a scientists or doctor they should be shown differential treatment ?
Are doctors and scientists always right ?

Spot-On here too....we are as a nation only slowly pulling away from this deferential attitude to our "betters".

If we follow T.W.Byrons assertions then the Clerical abuse stories would never have reached paper,nor indeed would we be any the wiser as to the financial implosion of our country.

Faced with listening to Ming or Brian Cowen I know where my attention would be focused.....

Byron85

AlekSmart wrote: »

If we follow T.W.Byrons assertions then the Clerical abuse stories would never have reached paper,nor indeed would we be any the wiser as to the financial implosion of our country.

Faced with listening to Ming or Brian Cowen I know where my attention would be focused.....

Hold on a second. That's not what I insinuated at all. I was saying that it's rude to interrupt someone who is merely a scientist, with no axe to grind, and who didn't interrupt Ming. She stated the facts and Ming didn't like this so he decided to interrupt her and this is a tactic he likes to use; as already mentioned regarding the debate in UCC earlier this year. Frankly, when politicians interrupt each other it on Prime Time etc, it bugs me. People should be allowed to speak.

So, please don't equate my comments with the cover up of the rape of children by clerics as it's quite sickening to be perfectly honest.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

FFS becuase someone is a scientists or doctor they should be shown differential treatment ?
Are doctors and scientists always right ?

I didn't think he was rude, he challenged her with facts from another state body AFAIK. They might be wrong, they might be right, I don't know.

I thought a lot of what you would term embarrassments came across quiet well, but I guess environmentalists, scientists and people who never set foot in a bog would know better. :rolleyes:

She's put in 20 years working on bogs, if that was Catherine O'Connell. I doubt Ming has anywhere near the familiarity with them that she does - indeed, I doubt most farmers would either, any more than you apparently know about scientists.

What do you think environmental scientists do? Do you think they just sit in offices reading each others' reports? You think environmental scientists aren't out in the field as often as they can be? Do you know nothing?

very slight regards,
Scofflaw

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

She's put in 20 years working on bogs, if that was Catherine O'Connell. I doubt Ming has anywhere near the familiarity with them that she does - indeed, I doubt most farmers would either, any more than you apparently know about scientists.

What do you think environmental scientists do? Do you think they just sit in offices reading each others' reports? You think environmental scientists aren't out in the field as often as they can be? Do you know nothing?

very slight regards,
Scofflaw

Did I say she hadn't ever seen or been near a bog ?
Please tell me where I said it ?

Stop once again trying to twist what I say.

I do say a lot of the bandwagon jumpers are those that only ever see a bog as they drive past.

But of course like certain scientists, other professionals (as referenced by AlekSmart) and forum moderators, they always know best. :rolleyes:

Look how well our economic experts, that weren't to be questioned, handled our economic and financial system. :rolleyes:

The amount of people with f***ing superiority complexes around here is nauseating.

It became very evident on any thread dealing with FG, where anyone seen as a Kenny supporter was quickly labelled a bogger and where today someone labelled the new FG frontbench as resembling bidders at a cattle mart.

As if someone that frequents a cattle mart is somehow being of a lower educational less deserving viewpoint status in the Irish state.

Something a few or our supposed more educated, often urban cosmoplitans should note is the type of people who do go to cattlemarts will stand up for themselves and not take sh** from our supposed betters.

Tenderloins1

Congrats to him. I gather he is well respected and has done an aful lot of Work in the Community over the years.
His 2009 Slogan was
AT YOUR SERVICE
Not the bankers, Not the developers,
JUST YOU !

He has come a long way from his early days.



A Few more of his old posters HERE
His 2009 Leaflet HERE

conorhal

Pfft*

Well I suppose we did send Dustin the Turkey to the Eurovision.

I think Ming's election really tells us how far the Irish electorate have evolved post celtic tiger, instead of just electing the self intrested gombeen man on the right, we now have a choice electing the intrested gombeen man on the left too!

I dispair at the lack of serious realpolitik in the Irish electorate.

aDeener

jmayo wrote: »

FFS becuase someone is a scientists or doctor they should be shown differential treatment ?
Are doctors and scientists always right ?

I didn't think he was rude, he challenged her with facts from another state body AFAIK. They might be wrong, they might be right, I don't know.

I thought a lot of what you would term embarrassments came across quiet well, but I guess environmentalists, scientists and people who never set foot in a bog would know better. :rolleyes:

its this kind of attitude that's allowing doctors, dentists etc. charge extortionate prices too.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

She's put in 20 years working on bogs, if that was Catherine O'Connell. I doubt Ming has anywhere near the familiarity with them that she does - indeed, I doubt most farmers would either, any more than you apparently know about scientists.

Very true. Earlier in the programme there was a clip of the chairmen of the bog-cutters organisation who said that he would not be told what to do by some academic. (He communicated this in a much more dismissive tone than that. In particular, he mentioned something about armchairs.) Apparently going out and cutting up turf gives you a better knowledge of how the environment and geography works than studying for years in college!!

In the debate then Ming said some bog had grown by 40%, or 14%. Either way, is this not totally ridiculous?!

aDeener

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Very true. Earlier in the programme there was a clip of the chairmen of the bog-cutters organisation who said that he would not be told what to do by some academic. (He communicated this in a much more dismissive tone than that. In particular, he mentioned something about armchairs.) Apparently going out and cutting up turf gives you a better knowledge of how the environment and geography works than studying for years in college!!

In the debate then Ming said some bog had grown by 40%, or 14%. Either way, is this not totally ridiculous?!

you would be surprised. not the same thing but i know a man 75 years of age, a mechanic who is able to do things with hydraulics and parts that people who are fully qualified in the area have no idea how to do it. this man left school at 12 and jokes how he can barely write his name.

you shouldnt be so dismissive of people like that.

Byron85

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Very true. Earlier in the programme there was a clip of the chairmen of the bog-cutters organisation who said that he would not be told what to do by some academic. (He communicated this in a much more dismissive tone than that. In particular, he mentioned something about armchairs.) Apparently going out and cutting up turf gives you a better knowledge of how the environment and geography works than studying for years in college!!

In the debate then Ming said some bog had grown by 40%, or 14%. Either way, is this not totally ridiculous?!

Thank you. That's the point I was originally trying to make but my brain was still waking up.

When he came out with those statistics at the end I was somewhat bemused. A bog can grow even though it's being cut?? Surely that's a first in ecological history??

sink

Anti intellectualism is one of my pet hates. We have specialised roles in society for a reason, no one can be an expert in everything. Indeed in certain fields in can take a decade of laborious study just to get caught up with current research. Why do people think that someone who walks in off the street has just as valid an opinion on a topic as that of someone who has spent and entire career studying that field?

A turf cutters opinion on the environmental impact of cutting turf is to a petrol station owners opinion on the environmental impact of the petrochemical industry.

Eliot Rosewater

aDeener wrote: »

you would be surprised. not the same thing but i know a man 75 years of age, a mechanic who is able to do things with hydraulics and parts that people who are fully qualified in the area have no idea how to do it...

I can understand that. The job of a mechanic involves exploring and understanding the parts he works with. The bog-cutter is totally different. To cut turf you do not need to know the geographical processes by which turf and the wider environment are created. I think it's safe to say that a student of geography would know a lot more about the operation of the environment than someone who digs bogs.

And that's the issue here. Scientists are making an argument based on geographical study that bog-cutting is unsustainable.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Thank you. That's the point I was originally trying to make but my brain was still waking up.

Getting lazy for the summer?

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

When he came out with those statistics at the end I was somewhat bemused. A bog can grow even though it's being cut?? Surely that's a first in ecological history??

Yeah, it sounds a bit fantastical. My father, who has a degree in geography, was watching it and was equally bemused (his degree is over 30 years old, in fairness). I could see how bogs might expand by a few centimetres a year, but even 10% is just ridiculous.

It's a pity the women he was debating with didn't call him up on it. She's obviously not going to convince Ming, I just worry about lay-viewers who believe such scientific "facts".

He was also going on about Bord Na Mona's abuse of the bogs which, though possibly accurate, is ultimately irrelevant: these bogs aren't going to be dug by the government asfaik. I felt she should have made that point.

Eliot Rosewater

sink wrote: »

Why do people think that someone who walks in off the street has just as valid an opinion on a topic as that of someone who has spent and entire career studying that field?

I think it's because in a democracy everyone's vote is equally weighted. This leads people to believe that their opinion should also receive the same weighting as that of a specialist.

Barname

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

He was rather rude to the woman on Prime Time last night. She's a scientist yet he kept interrupting her while she was talking. He effectively scoffed at scientific fact and he did the same during the cannabis debate in UCC. "You're only a doctor. You only learn things off". Something along those lines was one of his amazing retorts.

He's strong on local issues because he represents good old tribalism in this country, such as the turf cutters who were on Prime Time last night. It was actually embarrassing listening to them come out with their clichéd city slickers versus us good old country folk rhetoric.

Patrick Neary was a financial regulator

Dr Michael Neary was a Doctor

Sean Fitzpatrick was chairman of a Bank

How dare anyone question the great and certificate wielding betters of society.

Byron85

Barname wrote: »

Patrick Neary was a financial regulator

Dr Michael Neary was a Doctor

Sean Fitzpatrick was chairman of a Bank

How dare anyone question the great and certificate wielding betters of society.

Where do you stand on the issue of climate change? Obviously you do not trust scientists if your response is anything to go by. I presume you don't take any medication whenever you are ill? I also presume you don't use any technology that has been made in the last 50 or so years? I presume you're somehow typing your response to me on a non-existent computer? Scientists can't be trusted you know.

See, even if I can make nonsensical equivalencies.

Edit: One more thing. Are you disputing the figures that the scientists discussed last night?? A scientist, by the way, whom would be an expert in the area of bogs etc who also said that they grow by less than 1mm whereas Ming, a councillor with no formal scientific training, has figures which say that the bogs have grown while being cut. I'm pretty sure the laws of thermodynamics prevent such a paradoxical event from taking place.

Elevator

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Where do you stand on the issue of climate change? Obviously you do not trust scientists if your response is anything to go by. I presume you don't take any medication whenever you are ill? I also presume you don't use any technology that has been made in the last 50 or so years? I presume you're somehow typing your response to me on a non-existent computer? Scientists can't be trusted you know.

See, even if I can make nonsensical equivalencies.

how many scientists were exposed to be getting paid to big up climate change so monies can be mad from the same, experts were being paid for a long time by tobacco companies to say smoking wasn't harmful for ya, swine flu also springs to mind,

expert scam artists more like. also when Ming was quoting figures about the growth of bogs he got that info from a government department so one says they're growing and the others say they're being depleted

who are we supposed to believe???

jmayo

sink wrote: »

Anti intellectualism is one of my pet hates. We have specialised roles in society for a reason, no one can be an expert in everything. Indeed in certain fields in can take a decade of laborious study just to get caught up with current research. Why do people think that someone who walks in off the street has just as valid an opinion on a topic as that of someone who has spent and entire career studying that field?

A turf cutters opinion on the environmental impact of cutting turf is to a petrol station owners opinion on the environmental impact of the petrochemical industry.

Yes and intellectual snobs or urban snobs looking down their noses at rural often less formally educated people as somehow having an irrelevant opinion to theirs is one of my pet hates.

Note I come from a very rural background, but have a degree in Engineering and a Masters in Computers so in theory I could fall into both camps.
Of course I am not an environmental scientist but guess what I live on planet earth so have a right to have an opinion on it.

I actaully do want to preserve bogs and not just the uncut, but cutaway bog as well.
But the way this is being rammed down rural residents throats is not the way to achieve it.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think it's because in a democracy everyone's vote is equally weighted. This leads people to believe that their opinion should also receive the same weighting as that of a specialist.

As Barname quiet pertinently listed what about all the cockups and disasters our so called experts, both in terms of education and work experience, have visited upon those whose opinions would be of less weight ?

A doctor in Drogheda was allowed continue for years ruining the lives of women and families, because after all he was THE EXPERT and why shoudl anyone speak up.
He had the diplomas, the degrees, the certifcates, the experience to prove his ability and what the f*** would anyone of a lesser wieghted opinion know.

The medical professsion is one of the worse for the amount of snobbery exhibited by it's practioners.
People are meant to fall and worship at the feet of these people.

We were told that by the so called experts within Central Bank, IFSRA and Dept of Finance that our banking system was fundamentally sound, the could handle all eventualities.
Rings a bit hollow now doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Michael O'Leary did a hell of an amount to dent the snobbery and arrogance that pilots used to exhibit.
Maybe we need more Michael O'Learys in this country.

Elevator

we defo need more o Learys here for sure!!!

sink

The point jmayo, Elevator and Barname that you're all missing is that in virtually all cases of professional malpractice or mistakes it is a fellow peer who uncovers such. Doctors who commit wrongs are found out by other doctors. Scientist who are mistaken are corrected by fellow scientists.

kippy

Okay,
Fair play to Ming etc.


This has always bugged me however, so any answers appreciated.

1.
Do the mayors of our various town/city councils get paid any extra?
2.
If not, do they have any "running costs" associated with the role? (Car/driver/Secretary etc)
3.
What is the role/function of the Mayor?

Eliot Rosewater

jmayo wrote: »

Yes and intellectual snobs or urban snobs looking down their noses at rural often less formally educated people as somehow having an irrelevant opinion to theirs is one of my pet hates.

It's not looking down on anyone. It's realising that someone who has gone to university to study geography and works in an area where that expertise is required has a more informed opinion on the effects of bog cutting than someone who just cuts said bog.

jmayo wrote: »

As Barname quiet pertinently listed what about all the cockups and disasters our so called experts, both in terms of education and work experience, have visited upon those whose opinions would be of less weight?

So because a few experts cocked up, any expert opinion on any issue should be dismissed?

jmayo wrote: »

A doctor in Drogheda was allowed continue for years ruining the lives of women and families, because after all he was THE EXPERT and why shoudl anyone speak up.

What's your alternative? Allow people with no training (ie non-experts) become doctors because some with training have messed up?

sceptre

We need a lot of things in this country that we don't have.

I'm not the biggest fan of someone having a bigger platform merely because they have an academic qualification in a particular field. But nor am I a fan of everyone having the same sized platform regardless of what their formal qualifications are merely because they have a view on something. "You're just a doctor, you only learn things off" isn't particularly helpful. "You're not a doctor" often is.

Hence, neither "I have a degree in X" nor "I'm from the area" are ultimate measures of whether a view is worth listening to or not. I'm a massive fan of everyone bringing something to the table of discussion. However, some people bring more than others. And sometimes the capacity of the table is limited, as it is in a TV panel discussion.

As you've probably noticed, I'm not much of a fan of ad hominem arguments and "you're just a doctor, you only learn things off" is rather ad hominem. Certainly an attempt to play the man (or woman[1]) and not the ball.

The fact of the matter is that an academic qualification is a defined, society recognised measure of a certain amount of knowledge (or measure of exams passed and standards met to the satisfaction of other academics if you want to be precise about it). There are plenty of academics who are plain scared of the world outside the college gates. Nowhere near all, mind you, but they exist. Academic qualification tied to practical experience is an excellent mix and not all academics have that. That's a potential chink in the wall of expertise. It exists. But the idea that every person's contribution to a discussion is equal in a "one man, one view" sort of way is laughable.

Now, as for the specific examples where qualified or ostensibly qualified people were just rubbish at their jobs, that's true in those cases. Not necessarily all that relevant of a greater evil where qualified people are not worthy to be listened to though. There's frequently a lack of peer review in many of these things, or a situation where the people designated as checks/balances fail to do their duty (and that certainly applies to any of the political appointments mentioned on this thread).

Bottom line is that if you have a recognised qualification, your voice has a greater weight in your subject of expertise or sort-of-expertise than that of someone who doesn't. That's the society we've built. We could abandon that society but that's not even the thin end of the wedge towards an idiocracy, it's the thick end, figuratively and double-figuratively. And I'm worried enough that we're already living in an pseudo-idiocracy that I'm damned if we're going to make it official.


[1] I like Monty Python

fontanalis

jmayo wrote: »

Yes and intellectual snobs or urban snobs looking down their noses at rural often less formally educated people as somehow having an irrelevant opinion to theirs is one of my pet hates.

Note I come from a very rural background, but have a degree in Engineering and a Masters in Computers so in theory I could fall into both camps.
Of course I am not an environmental scientist but guess what I live on planet earth so have a right to have an opinion on it.

I actaully do want to preserve bogs and not just the uncut, but cutaway bog as well.
But the way this is being rammed down rural residents throats is not the way to achieve it.



As Barname quiet pertinently listed what about all the cockups and disasters our so called experts, both in terms of education and work experience, have visited upon those whose opinions would be of less weight ?

A doctor in Drogheda was allowed continue for years ruining the lives of women and families, because after all he was THE EXPERT and why shoudl anyone speak up.
He had the diplomas, the degrees, the certifcates, the experience to prove his ability and what the f*** would anyone of a lesser wieghted opinion know.

The medical professsion is one of the worse for the amount of snobbery exhibited by it's practioners.
People are meant to fall and worship at the feet of these people.

We were told that by the so called experts within Central Bank, IFSRA and Dept of Finance that our banking system was fundamentally sound, the could handle all eventualities.
Rings a bit hollow now doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Michael O'Leary did a hell of an amount to dent the snobbery and arrogance that pilots used to exhibit.
Maybe we need more Michael O'Learys in this country.

I think it's clear they weren't experts, probably just connected.

dynamick

I found it frightening to see Ming claim last night that a bog could grow 40% in a few years. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on TV by a long shot. I don't care how many medical cards Ming has sorted out or how stoned he can get or how pointy he can train his beard.

That the people of Roscommon could pick such a hectoring gobdaw to represent them is beyond embarrassing.

Who needs knowledge like when you have a shovel?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2396128

sceptre

I see about three different discussions going on here. Depending, I may split them into three different threads later (or perhaps leave them as is) but carry on regardless folks, if it's desirable, I'll take care of it.

/mod

dynamick wrote: »

I found it frightening to see Ming claim last night that a bog could grow 40% in a few years. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on TV by a long shot.]

I haven't seen the show but Eliot mentioned above that he might have said 14% or 40%. Can anyone clarify which?

Not that it's all that important which, mind you. Irish bogs (or any bogs) do not expand at either level on a yearly basis (thanks dynamick for including something relevant to illustrate that point). I know lots of Irish people have this notion, fuelled by years of Bord na Móna adverts, that the bogs are easily renewable resources but they're not. It's an easy mistake, years of marketing the bogs as effectively our renewable fossil fuels have put that notion in our heads. I have to confess that I had the same mistaken notion myself until about two years ago when I was interviewing an environmental activist (eco-warrior if you like) and she solidly corrected me on that point. Despite her being one of those people whose views I'd have good regard for, I went and did some research myself anyway. They're not growing - with the harvesting, they're shrinking. Now, whether you see that as a problem or not is your own affair. I see it as a problem as it happens but the fact is that they don't "grow" anywhere near as fast as the 80s adverts seemed to imply that they do and with the harvesting, they're shrinking.

Elevator

dynamick wrote: »

I found it frightening to see Ming claim last night that a bog could grow 40% in a few years. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on TV by a long shot. I don't care how many medical cards Ming has sorted out or how stoned he can get or how pointy he can train his beard.

That the people of Roscommon could pick such a hectoring gobdaw to represent them is beyond embarrassing.

Who needs knowledge like when you have a shovel?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2396128

yes but as he pointed out last night it was a government agency that had furnished the figures on bog growth so it wasn't from the wind he got those figures, someone somewhere has an agenda going on

Elevator

he had figures for 3 or 4 bogs and I do think there was a figure of 40% in there somehwhere alright, I immediatly dismissed it as being rubbish until he revealed his source which I can't for the life of me remember

national parks and wildlife or something to that effect.

dynamick

I'd love to see his source.

Watch this guy in action. http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1075987
26 minutes in: bog grows 40%.

Elevator

dynamick wrote: »

I'd love to see his source.

Watch this guy in action. http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1075987

you can always watch the show on rte player and get the name of the source

fontanalis

What are his views on marijuana? Is it along the lines of it being no worse than drink, don't over do i t etc or you'll fry your brain or is he one of the new agey types that belives you'll unlock the secrets of the universe?

Mini Driver

lol that pic is hilarious

jmayo

sink wrote: »

The point jmayo, Elevator and Barname that you're all missing is that in virtually all cases of professional malpractice or mistakes it is a fellow peer who uncovers such. Doctors who commit wrongs are found out by other doctors. Scientist who are mistaken are corrected by fellow scientists.

Actually AFAIK the Irish Medical council or Irish association of obstetricians/gynecologists ?? did a supposed investigation and found he was fineallowing him to continue.
It was the whistleblowing of a nurse (someone of less weighty opinion according to some) who pursued it with HSE (who actually did a good job in counteracting the hospital and others) and then a British doctor investigated and exposed his methods as severly flawed.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's not looking down on anyone. It's realising that someone who has gone to university to study geography and works in an area where that expertise is required has a more informed opinion on the effects of bog cutting than someone who just cuts said bog.

So because a few experts cocked up, any expert opinion on any issue should be dismissed?

What's your alternative? Allow people with no training (ie non-experts) become doctors because some with training have messed up?

Ah come on now you are being facetious.

It just means non experts have a right to challenge expert opinion.
According to the attitudes of some around here they should just shut up and do as their betters dictate.

dynamick

Elevator wrote: »

you can always watch the show on rte player and get the name of the source

He didn't quote a source - he just said that it came from a report from the NPWS. You can read what the NPWS think of the impact of turf cutting on designated raised bogs here:http://www.npws.ie/en/media/NPWS/Publications/BogReports/Media,6767,en.pdf (executive summary page 6)

How in the name of Jesus could a bog grow 40% in a year? What would it consume to grow that much? Come on.

Ming is pro cannabis. Great, who isn't? Ireland should probably start growing it at this stage to earn some cash.

We are required by the EU habitats directive to protect a tiny number of bogs (4%). This of course spells doom for rural Ireland.

Maybe they have growing bogs on Mongo and he got confused.

sink

jmayo wrote: »

Actually AFAIK the Irish Medical council or Irish association of obstetricians/gynecologists ?? did a supposed investigation and found he was fineallowing him to continue.
It was the whistleblowing of a nurse (someone of less weighty opinion according to some) who pursued it with HSE (who actually did a good job in counteracting the hospital and others) and then a British doctor investigated and exposed his methods as severly flawed.

Why did they require a doctor to carry out a full investigation if the nurses opinion was just as valid? I'm not arguing that a layman's opinion is entirely worthless or incorrect just that it holds little weight.

There are many accusations thrown around by laymen on a daily basis against professionals; some of them are valid and some of them are complete fabrications. However in all cases it requires the investigations of a professional well studied in the field to determine the accusations validity.

Byron85

jmayo wrote: »

Actually AFAIK the Irish Medical council or Irish association of obstetricians/gynecologists ?? did a supposed investigation and found he was fineallowing him to continue.
It was the whistleblowing of a nurse (someone of less weighty opinion according to some) who pursued it with HSE (who actually did a good job in counteracting the hospital and others) and then a British doctor investigated and exposed his methods as severly flawed.



Ah come on now you are being facetious.

It just means non experts have a right to challenge expert opinion.
According to the attitudes of some around here they should just shut up and do as their betters dictate.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a point of view. There's a big problem with disputing hard scientific fact. It's the equivalent of saying "i'm not going to listen to some armchair city dweller scientist tell me that the Germ Theory of Disease is real when I know that it's nonsense".

Bogs don't grow by 40% per annum. Someone is lying.

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

It just means non experts have a right to challenge expert opinion.

Everyone has a right to challenge expert opinion. All anyone asks is that they do so using logic and reason.

It's all very well to say "I think thon Einstein chappie was full of it", but unless you're going to point out a flaw in his reasoning, I'm going to stick with his view of the universe.

Bottle_of_Smoke

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6683124943448353514#

Have a lot of respect for the guy after watching this documentary. Very intelligent guy.