Waterford gives a shirt.

ART6

Cabaal wrote: »

So are you suggesting Sully shouldn't post because people might disagree with him?...thats just plain silly and it defeats the purpose of a discussion forum. Sully has remained civil throughout his posts unlike many others that have responded/border line abused him.

There's a far far bigger issue with negative and off-topic posting in this forum,

There has been an awful lot of complaints about the continued negative posting thats going on in this forum recently...thats certainly putting people off far more then some fools that don't like Sully.

Threads that have NOTHING to do about an issue like the airport or WRH where people have attempted numerous times to drag them off topic, other threads such as the 'Winterval' Festival thread had to have numerous posts deleted by Sully and others mods/cmods because all people wanted to do was sh** on something positive.

There is a mindset that I've seen get bigger and bigger in Waterford and that is people being negative no matter what,

Its not a good thing and I see many people that I know that basically sh** all over anything that is positive, thats not a good mindset to have.

Looking at the Boards rules, I don't see anything that prevents a mod from expressing an informed opinion. In fact, I would expect that someone is selected to be a mod because he or she has some detailed knowledge of subjects that might come up (like Scofflaw in Politics). The difference between a moderation input and an opinion is that the former has usually been typed in bold. Therefore, I assume that if a mod expresses an opinion in plain type, then it is just that: an opinion. So his post can be challenged upon its content (attack the post not the poster) but not for some false accusation that as a mod he shouldn't have posted. To add to that that as both a mod and a FG member he shouldn't be permitted an opinion is an attack on free speech. If he had infracted someone for disagreeing with him, then I could see the problem, but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.

I have said before that I am simply a Boards supporter and contributor. I do not operate a Mods Defence Department. But I simply cannot see the issue here and I wish we could get back to rational discussion of the first post of this thread without arguing over what mods can or cannot do.

7upfree

Cabaal wrote: »

So are you suggesting Sully shouldn't post because people might disagree with him?...thats just plain silly and it defeats the purpose of a discussion forum. Sully has remained civil throughout his posts unlike many others that have responded/border line abused him.

No-one has a problem with him posting. Even if its some FG BS. Have a long look at what you've posted above. People disagreeing defeating the purpose of a discussion forum?? WTF? Anytime anyone disagreed with him there was, inevitably, some mod on their case. Because they held a different viewpoint. And weren't peddling party politics.

Cabaal wrote: »

There has been an awful lot of complaints about the continued negative posting thats going on in this forum recently...thats certainly putting people off far more then some fools that don't like Sully.

Hard to credit you posted that. So, because some people rightly took offence at
the constant berating of anyone who dared disagree with FG's treatment of Waterford city - and took him to task on it - they are now classed as "fools" in your book? And you are a moderator? Isn't there some guidelines that you are supposed to treat people with respect in that position?

Cabaal wrote: »

Threads that have NOTHING to do about an issue like the airport or WRH where people have attempted numerous times to drag them off topic, other threads such as the 'Winterval' Festival thread had to have numerous posts deleted by Sully and others mods/cmods because all people wanted to do was sh** on something positive.

There is a mindset that I've seen get bigger and bigger in Waterford and that is people being negative no matter what,

Its not a good thing and I see many people that I know that basically sh** all over anything that is positive, thats not a good mindset to have.

I'm presuming the "something positive" was the news that Waterford received less than Wexford and Mayo (and marginally more than Kilkenny) in the sports grants? So we should just take this up the ass as well?

Here's the reality:

Waterford people are - rightfully - fuming at their treatment at the hand of this Government - at every angle.

They are within their rights to criticise the lunacy being proposed, particularly in relation to the hospital.

They really don't care about the feelings of politicians - or those who choose to support and defend them. If Sully chooses to go down that road, that is what he faces. If he can't handle it then heat, kitchen, etc.

"People being negative no matter what". I presume, as a Kilkennyman, you would react in the same manner if it were Kilkenny under threat. So please, give people credit with some intelligence. This is not the 1960s - where the brainwashed party-politcal masses accepted the drivel being doled out on a daily basis.

7upfree

ART6 wrote: »

To add to that that as both a mod and a FG member he shouldn't be permitted an opinion is an attack on free speech.

Equally, to reprimand people who challenge what he posts, while others term them as fools, is also an attack on free speech. But those behind boards will tell you there is no free speech here. Some animals more equal than others, etc.

takola

7upfree has been banned for a week for repeatedly ignoring mod instructions.

Let me be perfectly clear; this thread is not the place for anyone to discuss moderation. It is not the place for anyone to perform their own witch-hunt on any other users regardless of their posting status. When Sully posts in these threads, he does so as regular user. He is entitled to have an opinion. He is entitled to express that opinion in a civilised manner and he is entitled to partake in a debate with other users who disagree with him as long as everything is kept civil. Those are the entitlements of every user of boards.ie. We (the mods) have discussed Sully's posting in these threads with him and we have all had our say. The CMods have looked at the thread and had their say (in the thread!). If anything, Sully has shown patience with those of you who refuse to give up on constantly throwing your toys out of the pram because "moderator" appears under his username. He has left the thread! He's not posting any longer and he has decided to take a break from moderating. (Why are you still complaining?)

Sully is not the problem here.

The problem in the forum right now are the users who, despite constant mod instruction to stop going off-topic - to stop disrupting threads so they can have yet another go at Sully - refuse to listen and continue whinging. Those users are the problem.

So, to be absolutely clear, from now on anyone who decides to discuss any moderation issue in a thread rather than a PM with the mods will face an infraction, followed by a ban. Each ban accrued will be for a longer period until you are perma-banned. This also goes for any trolling or off-topic posting.

For the last time; if you have a problem with the moderation that cannot be solved with the moderator themselves, PM the other mods. If they don't solve the problem to your liking, PM the CMods. If further escalation is necessary, they will tell you how to go about that.

This forum is supposed to be a fun place for people to come and discuss all things Waterford related. Right now it isn't, but hopefully it will be again soon.

Now, can we please get this thread back on topic? Civilly. Thank you.

Yes Boss

To get this thread back on topic. The areas that WGAS focused on were as follows:

• Job losses in Waterford
• The loss of Government Agencies in Waterford (VEC, IDA etc)
• Proposed downgrading of Waterford City relative to Cork and Galway
• The demolition of the SouthEast Region
• Downgrading of WRH
• The Risk of losing the Highcourt. (not now)
• No University
• Threat to the Airport

Simple set of concerns really. I don't know what all the fuss was about. Solutions were provided for all the above.

wellboy76

At the end of the day, it's such a shame our city is being downgraded. This is a fact, I am not misleading anybody by saying this. We will now be the vauxhall conference of cities.
Plenty more issues WGAS are trying to deal with. For those who say you dont agree with what were about, please read the statement on the website. If you are from Waterford I would hope you can agree with what we are trying to highlight. Personal grievances for whatever reason to run down a campaign should not be put on websites to smear a positive campaign designed to benefit everyone who lives here.

Thanks

Jambo

According to Mary Roche (@maryroche) on twitter
Motion opposing amalgamation of #Waterford city & county councils passed 9-6 @waterfordcityco meeting this evening. 4 FG 2 Lab in favour.
(https://twitter.com/maryroche/status/278235591844458496)

wellboy76

Jambo wrote: »

According to Mary Roche (@maryroche) on twitter
Motion opposing amalgamation of #Waterford city & county councils passed 9-6 @waterfordcityco meeting this evening. 4 FG 2 Lab in favour.
(https://twitter.com/maryroche/status/278235591844458496)

Wonder who the other 3 are. What a legacy

Yes Boss

wellboy76 wrote: »

Wonder who the other 3 are. What a legacy

The Councillors that voted for Waterford City and County to be mergerd are as follows:

• Cllr Hilary Quinlan FG,
• Cllr Tom Cunningham FG,
• Cllr Jim D'Arcy FG,
• Cllr John Cummins FG,
• Cllr Pat Hayes Lab and
• Cllr Jack Walsh Lab

Fair play to Cllr Seamus Ryan for sticking by his principles.

Chiparus

Well done FG/lab

wellboy76

And what about our mayor for his hypocritical support for the campaign. When these guys say we will remain a city, don't believe a word of it.

Kenny said it was morally unjust to tax a persons home and labour would not touch children's allowance. Believe nothing from these liars.

wellboytoo

So we are now going to lose finance planning roads et al almost halve of all services to the small town of Dungarvan and this will be good for us! The big spending departments to be stripped from us but its not a downgrade! What a crock of sh1t people have swallowed we are being raped and not a word from our fg labour politicos,

Finnbar01

wellboytoo wrote: »

So we are now going to lose finance planning roads et al almost halve of all services to the small town of Dungarvan and this will be good for us! The big spending departments to be stripped from us but its not a downgrade! What a crock of sh1t people have swallowed we are being raped and not a word from our fg labour politicos,

What are you talking about?

Trotter

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Blog re: Working document on Customer Service Locations and Workforce Planning for the proposed merged Waterford City & County Councils

7upfree

Trotter wrote: »

Blog re: Working document on Customer Service Locations and Workforce Planning for the proposed merged Waterford City & County Councils

So for all the "Waterford will be the HQ" by Coffey & Co. it is now being seen for what it is. An attack from all sides, including Dungarvan. The price of having no sitting city TD in power.

FFS - planning - in DUNGARVAN?? Can someone point out the cost savings in, essentially, keeping two operations going - when there was supposed to be a single authority? This is sheer lunacy.

Bards

7upfree wrote: »

So for all the "Waterford will be the HQ" by Coffey & Co. it is now being seen for what it is. An attack from all sides, including Dungarvan. The price of having no sitting city TD in power.

FFS - planning - in DUNGARVAN?? Can someone point out the cost savings in, essentially, keeping two operations going - when there was supposed to be a single authority? This is sheer lunacy.

Fg and lab want to destroy the city, that has been their aim every time they have gotten their grubby greedy hands on ministerial office and the proof is in that document.

Burn the lot of them i say.

wellboy76

What is the local FG position on this now?
Still backing it lads - no city downgrade me arse. Planning and Roads amongst others to Dungarvan

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7_7aViC4b50b19sWVNKOWZ6RGs

Yes Boss

They are merging the two and then dividing them in half. This is a positive move according to Fine Gael. It is nothing short of a strategic attack on our City/County.

In addition, dividing the services between two locations is inefficient. They are trying to divide the County between East and West so that we have to fight for services.

Never again will I vote for Fine Gael.

7upfree

Yes Boss wrote: »

They are merging the two and then dividing them in half. This is a positive move according to Fine Gael. It is nothing short of a strategic attack on our City/County.

In addition, dividing the services between two locations is inefficient. They are trying to divide the County between East and West so that we have to fight for services.

Never again will I vote for Fine Gael.

As I said it is indicative of Government wastage at its worth in order to placate the antics of one Phil Hogan. And his stooges on the council just accommodate him.

Psychedelic

I disagree with the new report and its recommendations, but just to correct the above posters, that this was put together by the Waterford Local Government Committee (i.e. Waterford people), not Fine Gael.

Also, the 'working document' is just that, it's not set in stone, and it clearly states that more consultation is to follow before anything is definite:

It has to be emphasised that proposals in the document are consequent on very significant assumptions that may be valid or not and consequently significant change may occur through the process. The issues will revert to the Implementation Committee in early February for consideration following detailed analysis and consultation.

and

The Implementation Committee will also be meeting with political representatives from both City and County and will be meeting in early February to further consider the issues.

I'm not defending these recommendations, I think it's stupid that they are supposed to be merging the councils yet are keeping two locations and dividing services between them, but let's stick to the facts.

7upfree

Psychedelic wrote: »

I think it's stupid that they are supposed to be merging the councils yet are keeping two locations and dividing services between them, but let's stick to the facts.

I've bolded the facts there.

wellboy76

Psychedelic wrote: »

I disagree with the new report and its recommendations, but just to correct the above posters, that this was put together by the Waterford Local Government Committee (i.e. Waterford people), not Fine Gael.

Also, the 'working document' is just that, it's not set in stone, and it clearly states that more consultation is to follow before anything is definite:


and


I'm not defending these recommendations, I think it's stupid that they are supposed to be merging the councils yet are keeping two locations and dividing services between them, but let's stick to the facts.

I just wanted to know the FG position, this was not by FG but would love to know their position. Especially those based in the East of the county where it is tipped against in favour

Swinng

Can I ask who is on the Waterford Local government Implementation committee?

Psychedelic

The Waterford Local Government Committee was chaired by Mr. Sean Aylward, and its membership included Mr. Joe Allen, Ms. Louise Grubb, Mr. Ned O’Connor and Mr. Frank O’Regan. Ms. Orla O’Donnell was secretary to the Committee

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,31307,en.pdf

Sean Alyward is a former Secretary General or something like that. Frank O'Regan is a Vice President at Bausch & Lomb, Louise Grubb is owner of her own business NutriScience, don't know who the others are, think one of them is a former Co. Council Manager.

I just wanted to know the FG position, this was not by FG but would love to know their position. Especially those based in the East of the county where it is tipped against in favour

We know the local Fine Gael position in the city anyway, all their city councillors are in favour of the merger, didn't they all vote for it at the last city council meeting? Can't remember if the FG councillors in Tramore had stated their stance on the merger.

7upfree

Psychedelic wrote: »

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,31307,en.pdf

Sean Alyward is a former Secretary General or something like that. Frank O'Regan is a Vice President at Bausch & Lomb, Louise Grubb is owner of her own business NutriScience, don't know who the others are, think one of them is a former Co. Council Manager.

What the hell gives unelected people the right to be involved in this?

Psychedelic

7upfree wrote: »

What the hell gives unelected people the right to be involved in this?

Because elected people i.e. Phil Hogan presumably asked them to be involved. Sure all these types of reports are usually put together by unelected people anyway e.g. civil servants, independent professional consultants etc. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is.

7upfree

Psychedelic wrote: »

Because elected people i.e. Phil Hogan presumably asked them to be involved. Sure all these types of reports are usually put together by unelected people anyway e.g. civil servants, independent professional consultants etc. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is.

True. But so wrong. The very future of an 1100 year-old City is being decided by these people. And what, exactly, qualifies them to do so????

7upfree

Psychedelic wrote: »

We know the local Fine Gael position in the city anyway, all their city councillors are in favour of the merger, didn't they all vote for it at the last city council meeting?

So did Labour with the exception of Seamus Ryan.

Yes Boss

Psychedelic wrote: »

Because elected people i.e. Phil Hogan presumably asked them to be involved. Sure all these types of reports are usually put together by unelected people anyway e.g. civil servants, independent professional consultants etc. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is.

Whoever pays for the report/statistics get the conclusion/recommendation they are looking for. Therefore, whilst the report was not directly prepared by Fine Gael, I'm certain they indirectly influenced its conclusions....

Yes Boss

Also - from the names mentioned, there don't appear to be a Waterford City representative on the Committee. Incredible.