The Curse of Defective Concrete (Mica, Pyrrhotite, etc.) in Donegal homes - Read Mod warning Post 1

MrMusician18

I wonder what the protesters would make of this solution.
If your house has to be demolished you get to choose a replacement from one of say 12 types of timber frame house
3 types of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. Homes would be planning exempt and built to current standard. Basic finish would be the offer.

Mass production at this kind of scale would offer significant opportunity for efficiency to be achieved as well as getting people back in their homes quickly.

Swindled

Swindled wrote: »

... blaming the victims.

It's numerous times you have mentioned victim blaming.

Can you quote one post in this thread where this occured?

Just one will do.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I wonder what the protesters would make of this solution.
If your house has to be demolished you get to choose a replacement from one of say 12 types of timber frame house
3 types of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. Homes would be planning exempt and built to current standard. Basic finish would be the offer.

Mass production at this kind of scale would offer significant opportunity for efficiency to be achieved as well as getting people back in their homes quickly.

You mean victims as well as protestors I take it.

Also why would we answer these questions when you refuse to answer any put to you ?

gizabeer

Swindled wrote: »

This is more of the "bank cheque" slander.
The current realistic market rates of what a house costs per sq m are well known in each area, and Donegal has one of the lower rates in Ireland.
The floor area should be capped at like for like.
The government should ensure there is enough competition and supply to build these houses at realistic market rates instead of blaming the victims.

This is very true and hardly slander , there are currently 2 house on my road which have both just had pyrite remedial works carried out one after the other , House number 1 which the bill is being picked up by the government is roughly 90K and house number 2 is being payed for by the owner is 30k , there is 1 house between these 2 houses .

Swindled

gizabeer wrote: »

This is very true and hardly slander , there are currently 2 house on my road which have both just had pyrite remedial works carried out one after the other , House number 1 which the bill is being picked up by the government is roughly 90K and house number 2 is being payed for by the owner is 30k , there is 1 house between these 2 houses .

That is still not a "blank cheque", and yes if you read the thread slanderous allegations were made that victims were looking for blank cheques, and mod warnings issued for same.

Why don't you ask this on the actual Pyrite thread ? This is the Donegal forum Mica thread.

Also, why don't you report this with proof of your allegations and proper details to the authorities ?

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Please don't attribute opinions or arguments to me that I never made. It was poster Cee-jay-cee that claimed that people knew long ago that the blocks were no good, not me.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.

Yes Cee-jay-cee said that Cassidys knew due to stories circulating of light/soft blocks. This could have been from feedback from builders directly to Cassidys. Was every home owner on site when every block was sent back or every bad block story was told? No. Of course not. But Cee-jay-cee left it open. His post was informative. It added something to this thread.

You then quipped that it was "odd" how everyone knew but no-one knew blocks were "rubbish". A real nice implication. I'm pretty sure I can attribute that to you.

MrMusician18

Swindled wrote: »

The taxpayer shouldn't, but as the state has already accepted, that's where it's ended up for now until the state sort this emergency out, and hopefully recoup it for all us taxpayers somehow, just like they have attempted to do in other state scandals.

I'm a taxpayer, and so are all the victims, who bought and paid for their house without any state help, and paid huge amounts of tax in the process.
Why should my taxes go to anything I don't directly benefit from ?
Why should taxpayers help fund Leo's 820k house ?
Why should my taxes go on humane prison care for criminals at a cost of over 100k per year for each and every one of them ?
Why should my taxes go to Pyrite claims in Leinster ?
Why should my taxes go towards the cervical cancer scandal or hospital negligence cases ?
Why do you not go on other threads and complain to the victims about taxpayers having to pay, demand to know from the victims why taxpayers should, and demand the victims there accept less ? Why don't you continually harass and interrogate those actually responsible ?
Why don't you make accusations about blank cheques to them ? Why don't you make snide remarks about their counties roads and accident rates there?
Why don't you make false technical claims there ?
Answer each of those questions please, don't think about skipping any of them, and then I will have lots more questions for you.

Is this the one you want me to answer? Most of this is unrelated nonsense
1. The State pays for things that are in the common interest or for the common good.
2. I presume that Leo and his partner are paying for their own house
3. The state has a responsibility to those in its care, including prisoners
4. They shouldn't have had to, homebond should have covered pyrite tbh
5. Where officers of the state have harmed individuals the state should compensate then
6. I go on lots of threads complaining about lots of things, it's what a discussion forum is for
7. I don't harass anyone on boards, if anything, in being poked here. It's ok I can handle it
8. Any scheme where the limitations are not bounded clearly will lead to run away costs.
9. That remark was a mistake, it was below the standard of posting I aspire to.
10. I think I've addressed that. If you have to add water to increase workability, you need to add more cement to maintain ratio.

Can we get back to mica?

Cherry Blossom

Guys I don’t like the tone of a lot of posts are taking the last few pages. There is a lot of back and forth sniping at each other. Both sides are at fault here. You are not required to agree with each other but you are required to address each other in a civil and respectful manner. Please bare this in mind before you submit your posts.
Thanks,
CB.

Penfailed

whatnow! wrote: »

Anyone that pays taxes in Ireland has a right to have their opinion on this if they will be paying for it.

You can have an opinion on anything under the sun. The tax part of it is irrelevant. You don't get to decide what your taxes are spent on in any other scenario.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is this the one you want me to answer? Most of this is unrelated nonsense

It's very relevant to the claims and allegations you have been making.
Also you have not answered all the questions you were asked, and skipped a few. No, I am not going to post them again for you unless you continue to try to evade them. You are well able to look back a few pages and find them. Don't pretend otherwise.

While you're doing that, you claim to be a former construction professional, but have not stated in what role or county you worked it.
This is relevant to the victims here and your allegations / remarks about them / and line of questioning.
And no one is looking for personally identifiable information, in case you try that excuse.

Families have been destroyed over this and friends have taken their lives, you are not going to get away with making unfounded allegations and slurs against the victims here.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

1. The State pays for things that are in the common interest or for the common good.

Correct, well done.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

2. I presume that Leo and his partner are paying for their own house

Who pays Varadkar so he can afford such a house ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

3. The state has a responsibility to those in its care, including prisoners

The sate also has responsibility to victims and law abiding citizens, not just offenders.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

4. They shouldn't have had to, homebond should have covered pyrite tbh

Why would homebond be guaranteeing, insuring and testing all the various structural materials provided by all the various manufacturers and their processes ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

5. Where officers of the state have harmed individuals the state should compensate then

It wasn't just the state and their officers that failed in their responsibilities.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

6. I go on lots of threads complaining about lots of things, it's what a discussion forum is for

Actually you don't going by your posting history, go on the pyrite thread or any other thread interrogating the victims and blaming them for the taxpayer bill and claiming they should not be fully compensated.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

7. I don't harass anyone on boards, if anything, in being poked here. It's ok I can handle it

Why don't you open a thread and question quarry owners, and those in the industry / public service actually responsible for this mess ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

8. Any scheme where the limitations are not bounded clearly will lead to run away costs.

The scheme is bounded clearly as you well know, and no one, as you well know has asked for an unbounded scheme.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

9. That remark was a mistake, it was below the standard of posting I aspire to.

Pretty revealing though, that was your first post / thought.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

10. I think I've addressed that. If you have to add water to increase workability, you need to add more cement to maintain ratio.

No you don't correct poor workability, poor mix design, and excess water with additional cement, you get the mix design and aggregate quality/testing right in the first place.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Can we get back to mica?

We've been on Mica for years, and will be long after your gone onto making snide remarks and allegations about victims somewhere else.

Can't have a discussion with someone who is saying rebuild my house now regardless of the cost.

You're still in limbo because you won't have a discussion with organisations that need to work to a budget.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

Can't have a discussion with someone who is saying rebuild my house now regardless of the cost.

You're still in limbo because you won't have a discussion with organisations that need to work to a budget.

More false allegations. Reported. Over to the mods.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I wonder what the protesters would make of this solution.
If your house has to be demolished you get to choose a replacement from one of say 12 types of timber frame house
3 types of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. Homes would be planning exempt and built to current standard. Basic finish would be the offer.

Mass production at this kind of scale would offer significant opportunity for efficiency to be achieved as well as getting people back in their homes quickly.

I want what I originally paid for.

MrMusician18

Swindled wrote: »

It's very relevant to the claims and allegations you have been making.
Also you have not answered all the questions you were asked, and skipped a few. No, I am not going to post them again for you unless you continue to try to evade them. You are well able to look back a few pages and find them. Don't pretend otherwise.

While you're doing that, you claim to be a former construction professional, but have not stated in what role or county you worked it.
This is relevant to the victims here and your allegations / remarks about them / and line of questioning.
And no one is looking for personally identifiable information, in case you try that excuse.

Families have been destroyed over this and friends have taken their lives, you are not going to get away with making unfounded allegations and slurs against the victims here.


Correct, well done.



Who pays Varadkar so he can afford such a house ?



The sate also has responsibility to victims and law abiding citizens, not just offenders.



Why would homebond be guaranteeing, insuring and testing all the various structural materials provided by all the various manufacturers and their processes ?



It wasn't just the state and their officers that failed in their responsibilities.



Actually you don't going by your posting history, go on the pyrite thread or any other thread interrogating the victims and blaming them for the taxpayer bill and claiming they should not be fully compensated.



Why don't you open a thread and question quarry owners, and those in the industry / public service actually responsible for this mess ?



The scheme is bounded clearly as you well know, and no one, as you well know has asked for an unbounded scheme.



Pretty revealing though, that was your first post / thought.



No you don't correct poor workability, poor mix design, and excess water with additional cement, you get the mix design and aggregate quality/testing right in the first place.



We've been on Mica for years, and will be long after your gone onto making snide remarks and allegations about victims somewhere else.

What allegations? Not everyone is going to think the demands are reasonable and have every right to air them - even if they make uncomfortable reading for some.

I'm not giving you or anyone else information so I can potentially be doxxed. You can accept my bona fides or reject it - it matters not a jot to me. I have worked mostly in the south and east.

Varadkar is free to do with his wages whatever he wants. He's paid to do a job and his money is his own.

Homebond offer a structural guarantee, so imo they should've paid to rectify the structural defects.

It should be obvious but any project where the client and the contractor know that the client has no financial stake or incentive to control cost, will lead to run away costs

Public servants are not responsible for this mess.

You shouldn't obviously mess with the mix design but when it was seen that the mix didn't have the rheology expected it should have raised a red flag at the plant. Ideally yes, you get everything right in advance but that clearly wasn't done here. I'm still at a loss as to how the blocks passed the crush test though

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What allegations? Not everyone is going to think the demands are reasonable and have every right to air them - even if they make uncomfortable reading for some.

I'm not giving you or anyone else information so I can potentially be doxxed. You can accept my bona fides or reject it - it matters not a jot to me. I have worked mostly in the south and east.

No one asked your identity so stop misrepresenting. After your digs about roads and accidents in Donegal, you then boasted about being a construction professional that gave technical advice during the Pyrite problems, then proceeded to make several incorrect technical claims, and blank cheque allegations about the victims of Mica. That's your bona fides to date. Also, you have already received a one week ban from the Muffler here for trolling comments and were placed on your last warning. So victims here have every right to ask you what your role was in the construction industry.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Varadkar is free to do with his wages whatever he wants. He's paid to do a job and his money is his own.

No one claimed any different, however as taxpayers pay his wages, we are perfectly entitled to ask how he can afford an 820k "first home" while questioning the houses owned by victims of Mica in Donegal. Houses that had the states full planning permission, and people paid their taxes on.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Homebond offer a structural guarantee, so imo they should've paid to rectify the structural defects.

So you think Homebond insurance should cover and guarantee and insure all manufacturers aggregates and all manufacturers off site production methods for them, and not their own insurers ? Yeah right. Again what role did you say you had in the construction industry ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It should be obvious but any project where the client and the contractor know that the client has no financial stake or incentive to control cost, will lead to run away costs

As you well know, no one has asked the state to cover runaway costs, but instead actual market construction costs.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Public servants are not responsible for this mess.

I'd like to see you prove that DCC, the department, the public service, and the state have no role or responsibility to play in ensuring safe structural materials are manufactured and used in the state, and the catastrophe that happens when they are not on a massive scale. Again the victims here are entitled to ask you what role you had in the construction industry, you brought it up.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You shouldn't obviously mess with the mix design but when it was seen that the mix didn't have the rheology expected it should have raised a red flag at the plant. Ideally yes, you get everything right in advance but that clearly wasn't done here.

Yet messing with the mix design and water cement ratio instead of testing the quarry for reactive mineral content, is exactly the discussion route you went down. Given your last few false technical claims about concrete mixes, and your refusal to state your construction role, you really should stay out of offering technical "advice" / pronouncements here. ( I also recall another Mod warning you already got about technical matters as well)

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm still at a loss as to how the blocks passed the crush test though

Who's tests, carried out by who, when and where, and what actual blocks were tested ?

1874

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I wonder what the protesters would make of this solution.
If your house has to be demolished you get to choose a replacement from one of say 12 types of timber frame house
3 types of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. Homes would be planning exempt and built to current standard. Basic finish would be the offer.

Mass production at this kind of scale would offer significant opportunity for efficiency to be achieved as well as getting people back in their homes quickly.

This seems like a reasonable solution,
If I had a block built house that failed, I'd be considering a replacement like this. I never even thought of wooden framed houses myself.

I intentionally steered clear of responding in this thread as I knew it could get very emotive.
Im concerned about the potential cost and who is actually responsible and who will have to pay. Im also concerned about what looks like a very demanding view 100% or nothing??


How did the substandard material get through the system?

Cee-Jay-Cee

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There's no need for that, and that's not what he said. He asked why taxpayers should fund the rebuilding of large houses. It's a legitimate concern.

There’s every need for that. He’s a two faced snide ****. If he has half the brains he was born with he’d know that a large house in Donegal still costs considerably less than a small modest house in Dublin. Would he rather we all lived in shanty shacks up here. He deserves every criticism he gets.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Varadkar is free to do with his wages whatever he wants. He's paid to do a job and his money is his own.

+ his partner bought the house that has now entered the conversation for some reason.

Swindled

1874 wrote: »

This seems like a reasonable solution,
If I had a block built house that failed, I'd be considering a replacement like this. I never even thought of wooden framed houses myself.

I intentionally steered clear of responding in this thread as I knew it could get very emotive.
Im concerned about the potential cost and who is actually responsible and who will have to pay. Im also concerned about what looks like a very demanding view 100% or nothing??


How did the substandard material get through the system?

1.Timber frame houses are faster to erect, but don't offer any significant cost saving over other methods.

2.Timber frame manufacturing has a very chequered history in Ireland, varying from properly made and genuinely certified to structural and fire risk junk. There's a lot less to go wrong in block laying, and it's a lot harder to cover up shoddy block workmanship (provided the blocks are good), than is to cover up shoddy timber framework.

Genuinely innovative trustworthy solutions can be considered, but victims would have to have absolute confidence in any such proposal, and that they get like for like as they are entitled to under the fundamental principle of restorative justice. Victims, as taxpayers, are also concerned about costs and who is responsible and who pays, but so far all we've heard is why we must accept everything and anything but we actually paid for.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

There’s every need for that. He’s a two faced snide ****. If he has half the brains he was born with he’d know that a large house in Donegal still costs considerably less than a small modest house in Dublin. Would he rather we all lived in shanty shacks up here. He deserves every criticism he gets.

A large house in Donegal costs more than a medium house in Donegal.

He is very intelligent and is trying to balance a budget at a time when we have the most debt per capita in Europe.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

A large house in Donegal costs more than a medium house in Donegal.

He is very intelligent and is trying to balance a budget at a time when we have the most debt per capita in Europe.

The size is irrelevant. The cost is what matters.

Varadkar has qualifications and clearly got good grades however don’t mistake that for intelligence of which he has very little.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

A large house in Donegal costs more than a medium house in Donegal.

He is very intelligent and is trying to balance a budget at a time when we have the most debt per capita in Europe.

Pity he didn't work out what constant construction scandals are costing, and will cost, the state and put in some measures in the future to prevent them instead of victim blaming and snide remarks about their houses. The manufacturer responsible is still suppling the same blocks to DCC for their houses being constructed now, from the exact same quarry source as we speak. Also no measure whatsoever has been put in place to prevent other quarries all over Ireland doing exactly the same thing that Cassidy's have done and are doing.

Swindled

Swindled wrote: »

... entitled to under the fundamental principle of restorative justice. Victims, as taxpayers, are also concerned about costs and who is responsible and who pays, but so far all we've heard is why we must have anything but we actually paid for.

You didn't pay the government for the houses therefore the government is not responsible to restore you to your condition prior to the issue .

The government and by extension all of us are offering to help you, not because we have to, but because it's the society that we all live in.

Being concerned about the cost and not wanting to pay more than what is necessary to solve the problem in a fair and equitable manner to all stakeholders which is everyone in Ireland is not as you frequently state 'victim blaming'.

1874

Swindled wrote: »

1.Timber frame houses are faster to erect, but don't offer any significant cost saving over other methods.

2.Timber frame manufacturing has a very chequered history in Ireland, varying from properly made and genuinely certified to structural and fire risk junk. There's a lot less to go wrong in block laying, and it's a lot harder to cover up shoddy block workmanship (provided the blocks are good), than is to cover up shoddy timber framework.

Genuinely innovative trustworthy solutions can be considered, but victims would have to have absolute confidence in any such proposal, and that they get like for like as they are entitled to under the fundamental principle of restorative justice. Victims, as taxpayers, are also concerned about costs and who is responsible and who pays, but so far all we've heard is why we must accept everything and anything but we actually paid for.

Well given the focus on quality, this surely seems an option and opportunity for wooden framed housing to shine, if the component parts are prefabricated in a factory setting, then surely it could be easier to certify they meet a set standard?
If I was in this situation and offered something like this I think Id leap at it.
I would never have even considered myself as liking wooden framed houses or the idea. Pyrites and now Mica, its frightening to think these things can get through the building process.
Poor quality everything is a race to large profits rapidly and no eye or concern to the consequences, we see it in apartment blocks (Priory Hall), pyrites, even schools which didnt have basic oversight in their construction and now Mica.
I dont know who is responsible, but I just dont see how it can be thought there ever will be absolute confidence in any proposal for all, some kind of remedial situation which gets someone in a safe home has to be the best option if a house is crumbling around the owner.


Is there any idea what the percentages of these homes are in estates? any I saw via what limited information I saw looked like one off builds.


Who is actually responsible? councils for lite planning oversight? who would normally test materials?

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

You didn't pay the government for the houses therefore the government is not responsible to restore you to your condition prior to the issue .

The government and by extension all of us are offering to help you, not because we have to, but because it's the society that we all live in.

Being concerned about the cost and not wanting to pay more than what is necessary to solve the problem in a fair and equitable manner to all stakeholders which is everyone in Ireland is not as you frequently state 'victim blaming'.

You've already made several allegations about the victims in this thread, no one claimed we payed the government for the house, another false claim.

We are taxpayers as well as victims and therefore, unlike you, we have every say in what we will accept and not accept, and nationwide 71% agree with 100% redress.

1874

1874 wrote: »

Who is actually responsible?

The quarry is responsible for selling the blocks. The problem is the cost of blocks make up a very small percentage of the cost of a house and the profit on the sale of the blocks even less again. Basically those actually responsible don't have the money to fix the problem so those affected need the taxpayers to step in.

1874

whatnow! wrote: »

The quarry is responsible for selling the blocks. The problem is the cost of blocks make up a very small percentage of the cost of a house and the profit on the sale of the blocks even less again. Basically those actually responsible don't have the money to fix the problem so those affected need the taxpayers to step in.

ok, but who authorises or test the blocks conform to a standard, or is there a standard?
Surely the block manufacturers insurance should be on the hook here for a significant amount and not just the taxpayer?

Swindled

1874 wrote: »

Well given the focus on quality, this surely seems an option and opportunity for wooden framed housing to shine, if the component parts are prefabricated in a factory setting, then surely it could be easier to certify they meet a set standard?
If I was in this situation and offered something like this I think Id leap at it.
I would never have even considered myself as liking wooden framed houses or the idea. Pyrites and now Mica, its frightening to think these things can get through the building process.
Poor quality everything is a race to large profits rapidly and no eye or concern to the consequences, we see it in apartment blocks (Priory Hall), pyrites, even schools which didnt have basic oversight in their construction and now Mica.
I dont know who is responsible, but I just dont see how it can be thought there ever will be absolute confidence in any proposal for all, some kind of remedial situation which gets someone in a safe home has to be the best option if a house is crumbling around the owner.


Is there any idea what the percentages of these homes are in estates? any I saw via what limited information I saw looked like one off builds.


Who is actually responsible? councils for lite planning oversight? who would normally test materials?

You are free to accept whatever you like, but what now experienced victims of the construction industry accept should be up to them and not dictated to by those who think we should have everything and anything but what we paid for. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The % of one off builds is the same as anywhere else in regional Ireland. In the towns the houses are in estates, and lots of estates are effected, outside the towns it's the usual rural housing you see anywhere else in Ireland. We are not some strange planet in outer space.

We are taxpayers too, we don't want taxpayers paying for this or for us to have to pay over the odds. The government, as per the other scandals in Ireland, should look to be recovering as much as possible form those responsible and those getting away with it.

MrMusician18

Swindled wrote: »

No one asked your identity so stop misrepresenting. After your digs about roads and accidents in Donegal, you then boasted about being a construction professional that gave technical advice during the Pyrite problems, then proceeded to make several incorrect technical claims, and blank cheque allegations about the victims of Mica. That's your bona fides to date. Also, you have already received a one week ban from the Muffler here for trolling comments and were placed on your last warning. So victims here have every right to ask you what your role was in the construction industry.




No one claimed any different, however as taxpayers pay his wages, we are perfectly entitled to ask how he can afford an 820k "first home" while questioning the houses owned by victims of Mica in Donegal. Houses that had the states full planning permission, and people paid their taxes on.



So you think Homebond insurance should cover and guarantee and insure all manufacturers aggregates and all manufacturers off site production methods for them, and not their own insurers ? Yeah right. Again what role did you say you had in the construction industry ?



As you well know, no one has asked the state to cover runaway costs, but instead actual market construction costs.



I'd like to see you prove that DCC, the department, the public service, and the state have no role or responsibility to play in ensuring safe structural materials are manufactured and used in the state, and the catastrophe that happens when they are not on a massive scale. Again the victims here are entitled to ask you what role you had in the construction industry, you brought it up.



Yet messing with the mix design and water cement ratio instead of testing the quarry for reactive mineral content, is exactly the discussion route you went down. Given your last few false technical claims about concrete mixes, and your refusal to state your construction role, you really should stay out of offering technical "advice" / pronouncements here. ( I also recall another Mod warning you already got about technical matters as well)



Who's tests, carried out by who, when and where, and what actual blocks were tested ?

I really don't see why you need to make this so personal. There is no one else hounding other posters to the same extent here that you are simply because they have a different opinion.

You keep adding that I've posted several technical inaccuracies. I haven't. Mica in concrete can be compensated for (at least to a point) by using extra cement. Mica causes workability problems because it creates water demand. In order to get a workable mix something had to be done and if water was added to the mix it would've reduced the strength of the blocks further. If you want to continue to use this line of attack on me I suggest you take it to PM because the ins and outs of mix design do not make for thrilling reading. I also haven't posted any technical "advice" either.

Yes it was my feeling that homebond should've covered the pyrite defects. The guarantee they provided was a structural one and the problems were structural. While I can't care to go into the details of how they got out of it, they did.

Yes taxpayers pay Varadkars wages, but after they are handed to him, what he does with it is his business.
Victims are entitled to ask any question they like of me, just as I'm entitled to address those in whatever way I like.

Tests are performed by the manufacturer generally. A certain percentage should be tested in order to conform to the standard.

As I said, there is no need to make this so personal.

Swindled

Swindled wrote: »

You've already made several allegations about the victims in this thread, no one claimed we payed the government for the house, another false claim.

We are taxpayers as well as victims and therefore, unlike you, we have every say in what we will accept and not accept, and nationwide 71% agree with 100% redress.

I've previously asked you to quote any post, mine or anyone elses, which blamed the victims for their predicament. Still waiting for one.


Of course you can decide to accept or refuse an offer but the offer that will be made is conditional on what the government can afford to offer as the rest of the country are not willing to pay more in tax or give up what little services they currently get.

The question can be asked in another way where the number of people that would agree with some cold caller on the phone would be well under 50% so wouldn't hang your hopes on the red c poll.