FF/FG/Green Next Government

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

I think that you will find that this government has enough of a majority not to be a bit concerned about the fencesitters of S.F. Soc Dems and in particular RISE

Fence sitting by asking questions, doing the oppositions job?
She needs to address the public. They can't be elected and then ignore the people they represent. SD, SF represent all of us, as do government.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Is this the gobbledygook Leo was talking about......?

Talking about banks charging interest during covid break and if government can persuade them to lower it or cease the practice.
If you've no interest that 's cula bula bren.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Talking about banks charging interest during covid break and if government can persuade them to lower it or cease the practice.
If you've no interest that 's cula bula bren.

That’s what I am talking about Bee, aren’t there talks in the coming week including the Tánaiste to try to get a resolution on this.

Wouldn’t it be good idea to wait and see how that pans out ?

Just wondering?

1st dalkey dalkey

With all these new ministers, juniors and super juniors, with all their antics and showboating, I just want to now one thing;

Can the local serve me a cold pint of guinness at an outdoor table without having to buy a steak and chips?

Brendan Bendar

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

With all these new ministers, juniors and super juniors, with all their antics and showboating, I just want to now one thing;

Can the local serve me a cold pint of guinness at an outdoor table without having to buy a steak and chips?

The phone is your friend, a chara.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

That’s what I am talking about Bee, aren’t there talks in the coming week including the Tánaiste to try to get a resolution on this.

Wouldn’t it be good idea to wait and see how that pans out ?

Just wondering?

You're suggesting we don't discuss anything until after its resolved? Will you close your account or just stop logging in?

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Of course I’m not accusing anyone of anything, I’m merely stating the facts.

And of course there is an inquiry into reportage now and other stuff which has been out in the public realm.

There is interest in how this ‘information’ came to light and whether it is valid or not.

In my opinion Cowen should have been removed by MM, I posted that, of course that’s conveniently ignored.

I think it would do some folk some good to let the law take its course rather than trying to flog an issue for political flak.

Let’s see all this pan out and try not break the law trying to pull people down.

What about Humphreys and the Department of Agriculture?

Water John

a discussion is fine, but why wait for a trial and verdict when you can have a lynching today.

BTW in answer to wether your local can serve you a pint outdoors without food.
Son says to father; 'Can I drive the car'
Father to son, 'No and no are the answers to both of your questions.'

James Brown

Water John wrote: »

a discussion is fine, but why wait for a trial and verdict when you can have a lynching today.

BTW in answer to wether your local can serve you a pint outdoors without food.
Son says to father; 'Can I drive the car'
Father to son, 'No and no are the answers to both of your questions.'

Its assuming people are not interested in the facts and just want damage.
If people are deserving, we want them in office. If they are not or acted irresponsibly, we want to know.
Humphreys has actions to answer for.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Its assuming people are not interested in the facts and just want damage.
If people are deserving, we want them in office. If they are not or acted irresponsibly, we want to know.
Humphreys has actions to answer for.

Who decides who is deserving and who decides who acted irresponsibly!

Let the law take its course, a chara, lynching is outlawed in these here parts, as far as I know.

dundalkfc10

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

With all these new ministers, juniors and super juniors, with all their antics and showboating, I just want to now one thing;

Can the local serve me a cold pint of guinness at an outdoor table without having to buy a steak and chips?

Yes loads of places are doing it

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Who decides who is deserving and who decides who acted irresponsibly!

Let the law take its course, a chara, lynching is outlawed in these here parts, as far as I know.

I do. You do. So do the public.
If Cowen did the u-turn he'll not be charged the incident was already dealt with by law.
We know what Humphreys did, we don't know why. I want to know why.
Not sure where the law comes into it.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

I do. You do. So do the public.
If Cowen did the u-turn he'll not be charged the incident was already dealt with by law.
We know what Humphreys did, we don't know why. I want to know why.
Not sure where the law comes into it.

Where did the u turn stuff spring from.?

Who put the ‘allegation’ into the public domain?.

Was it done legally?

Why is Mr Cowen taking legal action?

That’s where the law comes in, amigo

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Who decides who is deserving and who decides who acted irresponsibly!

Let the law take its course, a chara, lynching is outlawed in these here parts, as far as I know.

Surely the actions of a Minister or TD are Dail matters, and open to question.

Brian Cowen (thats Brian not Barry) feck'd up royally, and rightfully should have been removed from his post if he had not of resigned. But he broke no law.
I could give other examples where TD's and minister had to resign due to negligence, bad decisions or simply not keeping to the standards expected from those who hold public office, and in almost every case they never broke any law.

So to suggest that this is a purely legal matter is being totally disingenuous. Barry Cowen had the opportunity for full public disclosure, and if there is nothing further to be discovered then he has no reason to have any further concerns. Let the TD's and newspaper search away for imaginary skeletons hidden in imaginary closets.

If however he hasn't disclosed the full truth and concealed information that might be pertinent to questions asked in the Dail , do you honestly think that he should be in public office?

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Where did the u turn stuff spring from.?

Who put the ‘allegation’ into the public domain?.

Was it done legally?

Why is Mr Cowen taking legal action?

That’s where the law comes in, amigo

If he did it where it came from won't save him from being labeled a liar.
The Garda likely leaked it. I hope if it's the case someone is charged.
Adds to the idea the story was sat on at the time. Otherwise the story was leaked to the press but the press missed it until the other week. Likely released for maximum damage which is unfortunate and poor behavior IMO.
Humphreys letter is an issue of credibility and trust.

LawBoy2018

https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/1282306556340600838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1282306556340600838%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fvbulletin%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2058092031page%3D339

The next few weeks may define Stephen Donnelly's stint as health minister imo. If he fumbles the bag re the US tourist situation and there's a second surge, his head will be the first to roll. Leo is licking his lips as we speak...

LawBoy2018

Norma Foley also had an absolute train wreck of an interview with Hugh O'Connell yesterday. Could she be any more backwards?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/flat-out-busy-foley-hasnt-time-for-tricky-questions-39360578.html

titan18

Really seems we've gone a bit backwards since the new government took over. I'm still hearing way more from Varadkar than Martin

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

If he did it where it came from won't save him from being labeled a liar.
The Garda likely leaked it. I hope if it's the case someone is charged.
Adds to the idea the story was sat on at the time. Otherwise the story was leaked to the press but the press missed it until the other week. Likely released for maximum damage which is unfortunate and poor behavior IMO.
Humphreys letter is an issue of credibility and trust.

Mr Cowen has explicitly denied the u turn stuff, and taken legal action to “clear his name”.

If he is proved wrong it’s gonzo.

If he’s proven right it’s gonzo for whoever the allegation came from.

It’s simple as that.

Maybe those whose interest is ‘keeping the fire lit’ might take note.?

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Mr Cowen has explicitly denied the u turn stuff, and taken legal action to “clear his name”.

If he is proved wrong it’s gonzo.

If he’s proven right it’s gonzo for whoever the allegation came from.

It’s simple as that.

Maybe those whose interest is ‘keeping the fire lit’ might take note.?

You seem reluctant to discuss Humphrys and that letter.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem reluctant to discuss Humphrys and that letter.

You seem very anxious to bring it front and centre.

I don’t know anything about it, a chara, I have read nothing from established sources about it.

I have not seen any information on the background and history from impartial trusted sources which would give me confidence discussing the matter.

That could be the reason, a chara.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You seem very anxious to bring it front and centre.

I don’t know anything about it, a chara, I have read nothing from established sources about it.

I have not seen any information on the background and history from impartial trusted sources which would give me confidence discussing the matter.

That could be the reason, a chara.

What's an 'established source'?

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You seem very anxious to bring it front and centre.

I don’t know anything about it, a chara, I have read nothing from established sources about it.

I have not seen any information on the background and history from impartial trusted sources which would give me confidence discussing the matter.

That could be the reason, a chara.

The Sunday Times an established enough source?

Feb 2020
Article on Humphreys delivering letter to dept of Ag which then dropped case
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heather-humphreys-intervened-in-dropped-animal-cruelty-case-gptwjpxkp

5th July 2020
Article on protected disclosure:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/official-blows-whistle-on-animal-cruelty-case-dropped-after-heather-humphreys-letter-5dlzb6h6g

12th July 2020
Article on letter containing implied threat:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9?fbclid=IwAR0ddu1_1uyJiaKMHs1GPQ3YRn_tggLACYPW0p_0kczc8-eOFHTGaYaXdFk

Articles on Wright's previous convictions:
2008
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-irish-times/20080312/281638185909682?fbclid=IwAR3fUq37hkcTnOZ-Pm0zRjEO9kkXJMXLt-kFHRK6mLOP60YhwDtEw0UUw04

2010
https://www.anglocelt.ie/2010/02/24/banned-from-farming-for-life/?fbclid=IwAR1AbbuV-wwqtApywGpNsmmhl9CrELIckp52Q9ltyIDr8m3PDU6ElhTF2To

2017

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/court-hears-of-horror-animal-welfare-scene-at-border-farm-35414671.html?fbclid=IwAR1sKBW41nRIVpMVmtq4kONmh3CthkShY9FN686AnybuBH60HaXqS2Qo_gk


Minister Humphreys does not deny delivering the letter. Why was Minister Humpherys involving herself in the prosecution of a farmer for animal cruelty when that farmer had previously been banned for life by a court of law?

Thoughts BB? The background is all there laid out for you.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Sunday Times an established enough source?

Feb 2020
Article on Humphreys delivering letter to dept of Ag which then dropped case
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heather-humphreys-intervened-in-dropped-animal-cruelty-case-gptwjpxkp

5th July 2020
Article on protected disclosure:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/official-blows-whistle-on-animal-cruelty-case-dropped-after-heather-humphreys-letter-5dlzb6h6g

12th July 2020
Article on letter containing implied threat:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9?fbclid=IwAR0ddu1_1uyJiaKMHs1GPQ3YRn_tggLACYPW0p_0kczc8-eOFHTGaYaXdFk

Articles on Wright's previous convictions:
2008
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-irish-times/20080312/281638185909682?fbclid=IwAR3fUq37hkcTnOZ-Pm0zRjEO9kkXJMXLt-kFHRK6mLOP60YhwDtEw0UUw04

2010
https://www.anglocelt.ie/2010/02/24/banned-from-farming-for-life/?fbclid=IwAR1AbbuV-wwqtApywGpNsmmhl9CrELIckp52Q9ltyIDr8m3PDU6ElhTF2To

2017

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/court-hears-of-horror-animal-welfare-scene-at-border-farm-35414671.html?fbclid=IwAR1sKBW41nRIVpMVmtq4kONmh3CthkShY9FN686AnybuBH60HaXqS2Qo_gk


Minister Humphreys does not deny delivering the letter. Why was Minister Humpherys involving herself in the prosecution of a farmer for animal cruelty when that farmer had previously been banned for life by a court of law?

Thoughts BB? The background is all there laid out for you.

A lot of these lads ‘ ‘ in the relevant three first articles...uhmm.

After that the inserts were irrelevant, just stuff we knew already.

Hmmm shows that the ‘sources’ are not confident enough to accuse directly.

Not too much thought required there, a chara.

:P

Podge_irl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Minister Humphreys does not deny delivering the letter. Why was Minister Humpherys involving herself in the prosecution of a farmer for animal cruelty when that farmer had previously been banned for life by a court of law?

Thoughts BB? The background is all there laid out for you.

Is it not plausible it was just a TD forwarding a letter that had nothing to do with her on to a relevant department?

Her spokesman said yesterday: “The minister was not in a position, nor was it her role, to investigate or substantiate those concerns. For this reason, the letter was given to the Department of Agriculture. Any subsequent action taken by the Department of Agriculture is entirely a matter for that department.”

Its obviously possible it was something nefarious and I find it weird she isn't making a public statment of defence (outside of the her spokesperson's quote above). But correspondence is moved around depts constantly.

Bishop of hope

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Sunday Times an established enough source?

Feb 2020
Article on Humphreys delivering letter to dept of Ag which then dropped case
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heather-humphreys-intervened-in-dropped-animal-cruelty-case-gptwjpxkp

5th July 2020
Article on protected disclosure:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/official-blows-whistle-on-animal-cruelty-case-dropped-after-heather-humphreys-letter-5dlzb6h6g

12th July 2020
Article on letter containing implied threat:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9?fbclid=IwAR0ddu1_1uyJiaKMHs1GPQ3YRn_tggLACYPW0p_0kczc8-eOFHTGaYaXdFk

Articles on Wright's previous convictions:
2008
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/the-irish-times/20080312/281638185909682?fbclid=IwAR3fUq37hkcTnOZ-Pm0zRjEO9kkXJMXLt-kFHRK6mLOP60YhwDtEw0UUw04

2010
https://www.anglocelt.ie/2010/02/24/banned-from-farming-for-life/?fbclid=IwAR1AbbuV-wwqtApywGpNsmmhl9CrELIckp52Q9ltyIDr8m3PDU6ElhTF2To

2017

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/court-hears-of-horror-animal-welfare-scene-at-border-farm-35414671.html?fbclid=IwAR1sKBW41nRIVpMVmtq4kONmh3CthkShY9FN686AnybuBH60HaXqS2Qo_gk


Minister Humphreys does not deny delivering the letter. Why was Minister Humpherys involving herself in the prosecution of a farmer for animal cruelty when that farmer had previously been banned for life by a court of law?

Thoughts BB? The background is all there laid out for you.

I don't know if you read the thread earlier, but I posted links from last February about the case.
It states that Humphreys delivered a letter given to her by a third party to the depot of agriculture.
Not her letter and as she had no remit with the letter she passed it on to the depot of agriculture.

Now there's been a disclosure about the letter by a whistleblower.
Whether that's about Humphreys part in this or because of the reasons the dept dropped the charges I don't know, but there has been feck all political follow up on it so I imagine it's not as bad as its made out on Humphreys part as she only delivered someone elses letter.
She has never denied that. But maybe the dept behaved suspiciously?

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

A lot of these lads ‘ ‘ in the relevant three first articles...uhmm.

After that the inserts were irrelevant, just stuff we knew already.

Hmmm shows that the ‘sources’ are not confident enough to accuse directly.

Not too much thought required there, a chara.

:P

That's a cop out Brendan and you know it.

A govt minister has admitted delivering a letter written by a third party to the Dept of Ag on behalf of a man with 3 convictions for animal cruelty and who was banned for life from farming.

The 4th prosecution against this man was subsequently dropped.

In a protected disclosure one of those involved in the prosecution within the Dept of Ag has stated the letter contained an implied threat to make public information the Dept of Ag does not want released.

I can understand if you feel this is not something you want to try and put a positive spin on and defend the Minister involved and/or the Dept of Ag but do stop trying to dismiss it as of no consequence.

The_Conductor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In a protected disclosure one of those involved in the prosecution within the Dept of Ag has stated the letter contained an implied threat to make public information the Dept of Ag does not want released.

I can understand if you feel this is not something you want to try and put a positive spin on and defend the Minister involved and/or the Dept of Ag but do stop trying to dismiss it as of no consequence.

I do not agree with the threat of blackmail- ever. God only knows what information HH held over Department officers that forced them to back down. This saga has at very least it shown that the protected disclosures process is robust- and sufficiently trusted by civil servants that they feel they can speak up and draw attention to abuse of situations in the manner that is implied in the whole saga.

Its not how you'd want Ag to pursue cases- however, obviously someone felt sufficiently strongly that at very least it was morally wrong for the individual to get away with this- and that a protected disclosure was their final port of call (presumably they exhausted the other options at their disposal).

Politicians should not be making representations on behalf of lowlifes and scum. It doesn't matter that they are constituents of HH (or anyone else)- making representations implies that you are defending the actions (or inactions) of the person on whose behalf you are making the representations- and are willing to stand over them and defend them, should your representation/character witness (whatever) be called into question. Representations should not be offered or agreed to lightly- and there should be consequences associated with offering/making representations.

Personally I think that it would be fair and reasonable to spell out the precise misdeeds of the individual concerned- and as the Minister was willing to make a representation on behalf of the person- HH should be forced to stand up, and on the record, wholly retract her representation and publicly announce her abhorrence of the deeds of the farmer.

While I'd much rather the Department officer had chosen other channels to draw attention to what happened- it is good to know they felt that the protected disclosures mechanism was sufficiently robust to protect them.

One unintended consequence of this saga- may be an airing of further dirty laundry by other civil servants (not necessarily Ag), who feel that their valid concerns about some shocking cases they encounter in daily work have not attracted sufficient response from their Departments. Time will tell.

Bishop of hope

The house next door has parcels, delivered to our house regularly because they're only there on weekends.
I deliver them then when they are home, I don't write to them or send them anything personally,
Does that make me responsible for what the get in the post?

The_Conductor

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The house next door has parcels, delivered to our house regularly because they're only there on weekends.
I deliver them then when they are home, I don't write to them or send them anything personally,
Does that make me responsible for what the get in the post?

Technically, you could be held responsible for them, to one extent or another, yes.