Liveline thread 12/08/16 to date

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We don't know their financial position as Joe never asked that important question as to how the trip was financed and how much it cost.

It isn't an important question, it is irrelevant.

When you go through the decisions of the RAT, you see that lot of asylum seekers have been involved in political activism, are related to politicians, or have worked in media. These are very middle-class people, Deegan is correct. But it hardly nullifies their claim of persecution and being subjected to violence.

Outside of warzones like Syria, in countries like DRC and Zimbabwe, Poor people are probably less likely to be the subjects of political violence than the middle classes.

yosser hughes wrote: »

Who are these people that 'know what they are talking about'?
Give us an example.

The Irish Refugee Council came out against some of the odd statements he made on Prime Time last year, and I heard similar from Dr Liam Thornton. I'll have a look for the statement.

But they were saying what we all know: financial information is not a material fact in the assessment of an asylum claim. Refugee status is not means-tested.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

As Sean Deegan pointed out - correctly IMO - if his decisions were that out of kilter then he'd have been up in front of the High Court explaining himself a lot more than he was (if he was at all?) He stated again and again that he was simply implementing the refugee laws as they were at the time.

I have never, ever seen an individual name of the member of the Tribunal. I challenge anyone to find one.

I just did a quick search of Judicial Review judgments for longstanding members of the Tribunal, and in no cases have I been able to find the name of any of them.

That's because the Court always refers to 'the Tribunal', it never refers to the individual member of the Tribunal, since the Tribunal is legally one single personality. When Michael O'Kennedy S.C. was sitting it was 'the Tribunal, and when Sean Deegan was sitting it was 'the Tribunal'.

When a judicial review is launched in the High Court, the RAT is notified by lawyers for the Applicant, but the individual member is never notified, and I have never seen a member named. It's inconceivable that Deegan's decision was never judicially reviewed, but his name would never be attached to the review. He would not personally be joined to the application or called to give evidence. He would never know about it, except by fluke accident (e.g. if he happened to be representing the Tribunal or the Applicant before the High Court on that day)

Have you? I haven't, didn't know they were a matter of public record tbh.

They're a matter of public record to anyone who is granted access to the Archive, and yes I have seen them.

In other publicly available documents, the Courts have criticised the Tribunal for its formulaic copy & paste jobs.

So the Tribunal would write a brief biographical background and basis to the claim, then insert a long copy & paste job on the Convention law, then offer its decision, briefly, at the end. Most of them could easily have been typed up in half an hour, although I admit reading the documentary evidence would take longer. Still, many barristers would jump at the opportunity to conduct that kind of important work, but it is reserved for party hacks and in some cases, retired politicians.

And as for the references to income - it was the snide/sneering tone of Joe's questions that infuriated me - he can't just ask a straight question, but seemed to want to imply that Deegan was in it for the money

He certainly wasn't in it for the passion.

Deegan was not a high-profile barrister. He wouldn't have been on a salary approaching a decent senior counsel.

Some of his comments were bizarre. What was that weird tangent about knowing a woman wasn't a Christian, because her son's name was Andrew, and he saw that name in the Qu'ran?

Joe's salary is a matter of public record as it should be since it's paid by the national broadcaster.

Payments made to members of the R.A.T. are paid directly from the Central Fund of taxation, and these people are political appointees; I am not the biggest fan of Joe Duffy but he's been doing some important work over the past few days, and when asking about salaries, he asked a perfectly legitimate question.

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

If you were Séan, would you?

Was listening on the move today so couldn't post.

It was shocking the way Joe tried to talk down and discredit Sean. So one sided it was disgraceful broadcasting.

Does Joe not appreciate that a lot of his listenership actually don't have the same bleeding heart he does? And yes, there are a large percentage of chancers and people wasting time and money in appeal after appeal. And to compare the DP centres to a concentration camp is frankly an insult to the people who died in those camps.

So, you can only eat meals at certain times...SO WHAT? You're not working so why not get along to the dining room at those times.

You have to share accommodation with strangers? Well guess what, no one forced you to come here.

You spend years in a DP centre? Your fault for lodging appeal after appeal


Has the World gone mad?? We are fulfilling our obligation and more to these people.

Atlantic Dawn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In other publicly available documents, the Courts have criticised the Tribunal for its formulaic copy & paste jobs.

Most likely because the format of the stories they were hearing from the failed aslyum seekers were of a copy and paste format to begin with.

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Most likely because the format of the stories they were hearing from the failed aslyum seekers were of a copy and paste format to begin with.

No, that's not the case, and you if you want an easily accessible way of seeing that, start with the High Court judgments on courts.ie

I'll quote you from one decision about the copy and paste job (there are a few)

“...the decision has appeared verbatim in other decisions of the RAT and is suggestive of a blanket rejection of previous RAT decisions without further consideration or evaluation. This element of the decision, together with the rejection of the contents of the medical report without reference to reasons, is suggestive of a want of fair process.” (L.C.L. v.  Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 26)

People are getting paid 300-400 euro for that kind of copying and pasting. In that case, like many others, the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was quashed. Seriously, if people are concerned about public money, that organisation needs to get more professional and hire professional people who are specialists in this area, not friends of political parties.

Pherekydes

Bigbok wrote: »

U ever been to bullymun,tallaght to name just two

You want to compare Soweto with Bullymun [sic]?


Before you answer, Soweto has a similar sized population to Dublin.

Breaston Plants

That Parody Joe Duffy Twitter is gas craic.

vicwatson

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

.

TLDR

ButtersSuki

Looks like I missed a classic so to speak.....

Odyssey 2005

Deleted User wrote: »

Was listening on the move today so couldn't post.

It was shocking the way Joe tried to talk down and discredit Sean. So one sided it was disgraceful broadcasting.

Does Joe not appreciate that a lot of his listenership actually don't have the same bleeding heart he does? And yes, there are a large percentage of chancers and people wasting time and money in appeal after appeal. And to compare the DP centres to a concentration camp is frankly an insult to the people who died in those camps.

So, you can only eat meals at certain times...SO WHAT? You're not working so why not get along to the dining room at those times.

You have to share accommodation with strangers? Well guess what, no one forced you to come here.

You spend years in a DP centre? Your fault for lodging appeal after appeal


Has the World gone mad?? We are fulfilling our obligation and more to these people.

I
Was also driving and listening,Sean was put on trial by Duffy. Took umbrage at "not asking the right questions" and so tried to belittle Sean with yer man on the phone. Utterly despicable act of one-up-man-ship.
Sean was 100% honest and forthright but Duffy was his complete polar opposite.

ButtersSuki

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can't sleep so reading the thread.

Asked these questions yesterday in the following post that you didn't answer (perhaps you didn't see it?):

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Felix didn't argue your points however; his view certainly appeared to be that "they got it wrong" when the result wasn't in his favour and that (again) appeared to be the only criteria he was applying to the decision. As a later caller pointed out, some just appeal and appeal until they get the result they want, others "disappear" from the system (a caller was in a relationship with one such man today).

Felix (open to correction on that) was the caller who claimed his country was too dangerous for him, yet left his wife and child there - nice. He came across as a complete chancer and a Spoofer tbh.

The Norwegian example is unfair as they are immeasurably richer than us as a nation.

The others you list, fair enough BUT Joe once again presented the topic today as if all of these asylum seekers were 100% legit. I simply don't believe that to be factual myself.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the system is appalling, however I do have to ask do you think the system is being abused? Do you think we have false claimants? And if so, what do you think should happen to them?

Extra: for the record, I'm not saying 100% are chancers either btw.

Also, re. Duffy's questioning of people regarding money/fees/remuneration; it's not so much the question itself (although on a basic level that is rude and questionably unprofessional of a broadcaster to do so in certain cases), it it the snide and sneering tone he asks those questions in while conveniently ignoring the utter hypocrisy of his own grotesque fees, and the morally and ethically questionable avenues he goes does to exercise tax avoidance.
He certainly doesn't like being asked about his own financial arrangements or status as evidenced by when he as on The Craig Doyle Show a number of years ago or on D'Arcy's tv show more recently when D'Arcy called him out on his portrayal of himself as "working class", when clearly he is not.

Never voluntarily listen to Joe Duffy but was in someone elses car yesterday and couldn't avoid it.

What struck me and I was dying for someone to ask it was why is it child abuse/human rights abuse etc. for families to have to share one room but yet I've never heard Joe calling out any travellers for making their children live in a caravan.
I presume Joe is very pro traveller (please correct me if I'm wrong) and would fight for their right to raise their children in this "culture", whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Itssoeasy

I see that Joe is "hosting" a forum in city hall in Dublin next Wednesday about the increase in mudder in dublin so to speak. so that's a PBH day then.

sligojoek

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Joe is "hosting" a forum in city hall in Dublin next Wednesday about the increase in mudder in dublin so to speak. so that's a PBH day then.

They'll probably use that day to slip in a few apologies.

ThisRegard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Joe is "hosting" a forum in city hall in Dublin next Wednesday about the increase in mudder in dublin so to speak. so that's a PBH day then.

Yip, I thought to be a moderator you have to, at least on the surface, appear to be neutral on the topic?

http://www.thejournal.ie/joe-duffy-crime-dubler-2990717-Sep2016/

Itssoeasy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yip, I thought to be a moderator you have to, at least on the surface, appear to be neutral on the topic?

http://www.thejournal.ie/joe-duffy-crime-dubler-2990717-Sep2016/

Ah but you see when it comes to joes home city neutral doesn't apply. Sure isn't Joe the most knowledgeable person ever on Dublin so to speak ?

ButtersSuki

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Ah but you see when it comes to joes home city neutral doesn't apply. Sure isn't Joe the most knowledgeable person ever on Dublin so to speak ?

True, he bleeds coddle so to speak.

ButtersSuki

WARNING!

IN CASE
YOU FORGOT,
TODAY IS A
FUNNY FRYDAY
ON A TURRSADY
SO TO SPEAK
LAHV FROM
TULLAH-MORE-RAY

yosser hughes

yosser hughes wrote: »

Who are these people that 'know what they are talking about'?
Give us an example.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Irish Refugee Council came out against some of the odd statements he made on Prime Time last year, and I heard similar from Dr Liam Thornton. I'll have a look for the statement.

But they were saying what we all know: financial information is not a material fact in the assessment of an asylum claim. Refugee status is not means-tested.

I'm sorry, you lost me there. The IRC have no credibility when it comes to this.

ButtersSuki

I laughed more at this pic than I ever could at a Funny Fryday.... esp. the woman with the "FASHION" top (I assume she's being ironic) and the expression on the face of the guy beside her - clearly enjoying the show so to speak.

Atlantic Dawn

Service Dogs Europe featured on Rip Off Britain yesterday morning on BBC One, woman felt she was "scammed" in to buying the dog, it said the company ceased trading in October 2015, no mention of any feature on De Liveline so to speak :pac: ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wxx5x

Solocheck still says company is up and running so to speak...
http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Service-Dogs-Europe-Limited-542437

TheHomeService

Jeez that photo of the Funny Friday tent!

It's more like this, from the mourning for the Dear Leader:

somesoldiers

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I laughed more at this pic than I ever could at a Funny Fryday.... esp. the woman with the "FASHION" top (I assume she's being ironic) and the expression on the face of the guy beside her - clearly enjoying the show so to speak.

Ah yes but a piece of well chosen leopard print can add class to any outfit. Reminds me of a hotel in Guernsey I stayed in a few times, the Leopard Bar was like looking into Kat Slater/ Bet Lynch's knicker drawer!

Dan Jaman

ButtersSuki wrote: »

SEPT 23 1989

hopefully one of the prize bulls breaks out of his pen and heads straight for that red waistcoat

ButtersSuki

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

hopefully one of the prize bulls breaks out of his pen and heads straight for that red waistcoat

Won't happen. The bull wouldn't fancy his chances against a significantly heavier animal.

snubbleste

Joe launches Deirdre Purcell's new buke.
https://twitter.com/HachetteIre/status/778656620985380864

ButtersSuki

snubbleste wrote: »

Joe launches Deirdre Purcell's new buke.
https://twitter.com/HachetteIre/status/778656620985380864

Just one of the Hachette Familee helping anudder so to speak.....he can use all de skills he did learned in RTE to help him in that dept. so to speak. Guaranteed to make Joe's Buke of De Year too then as well no doubt so to speak.

ButtersSuki

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And then at the end - TULLAMORAY :eek:

I really, truly and seriously thought you lot were just slagging about something he'd said years ago, but no - he came right out with it, deadpan, no giggle or "so to speak", just like that's how you say it.

WTF???

Heidi me auld flower, how are you? We miss you here so to speak.....

WHOY are you surprised? That's one of his stock phrases. In fairness, no one on the thread could make up something that stupid. I'm more surprised it's taken you until now to hear it.

Odyssey 2005

ButtersSuki wrote: »

WARNING!

IN CASE
YOU FORGOT,
TODAY IS A
FUNNY FRYDAY
ON A TURRSADY
SO TO SPEAK
LAHV FROM
TULLAH-MORE-RAY

Fuk da..I'm out even before I'm in.
I hope the Dubland bus drivers get their busses out of the ploughing and back to Dubland in time to go on strike...:(

cowboyBuilder

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Fuk da..I'm out even before I'm in.
I hope the Dubland bus drivers get their busses out of the ploughing and back to Dubland in time to go on strike...:(

But but ... the comedy ... it will be Gold!!!