FF/FG/Green Next Government

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Not trying to dismiss it as of no consequence.

Just suggesting that that out of all these insinuations and ‘revelations’ nothing concrete has emerged.

Which would lead one to believe that there’s an agenda out there somewhere.

I prefer to wait and see before piling in with the boot up.

Saves a lot of red cards, a chara.

Brendan Bendar

The_Conductor wrote: »

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

Have you any evidence of anything like that happening reported by established sources?

Bishop of hope

The_Conductor wrote: »

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

So would you hold Humphreys responsible just based on the fact she delivered a 3rd party letter?

James Brown

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?

So the Minister will drop a letter off for you? That's very community spirited of her.
That's the best cop out dismissive answer I've read....since Bren saying he hadn't seen anything about it from established sources.

A Minister passed a letter that resulted in a man banned from keeping animals from being investigated for animal cruelty. Nothing to see here :rolleyes:

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

So the Minister will drop a letter off for you? That's very community spirited of her.
That's the best cop out dismissive answer I've read....since Bren saying he hadn't seen anything about it from established sources.

I admit it's a cop out, but what should she have done?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I admit it's a cop out, but what should she have done?

So you think she didn't know what it was about and was running an errand or she did know?

She intervened. She either knew and has questions to answer or she's a gilly will run errands using her ministerial office without question.

Bannasidhe

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So would you hold Humphreys responsible just based on the fact she delivered a 3rd party letter?

HH made the choice to become involved. She had the option to refuse to deliver the letter.
If she was foolish enough to agree to have her name linked to a letter containing an implied threat it shows a lack of judgement, whether she knew what the letter contained or not.
Also why was she getting involved in the first place?
This man was banned for life from farming 10 years ago. That is in the public domain.
HH made the decision to intervene in the prosecution of a convicted animal abuser. She had the option to refuse.

"Put it in the post" was an option.
"I don't wish to be seen supporting a convicted animal abuser when he's being prosecuted for the 4th time" was another option.
HH chose to have her name linked to a letter written in support of a convicted animal abuser.

Elmo

Time for The Greens to walk away?

Norma
Heather
Cowengate
Varadkar tripping over himself
And well Micheal....

Bishop of hope

Bannasidhe wrote: »

HH made the choice to become involved. She had the option to refuse to deliver the letter.
If she was foolish enough to agree to have her name linked to a letter containing an implied threat it shows a lack of judgement, whether she knew what the letter contained or not.
Also why was she getting involved in the first place?
This man was banned for life from farming 10 years ago. That is in the public domain.
HH made the decision to intervene in the prosecution of a convicted animal abuser. She had the option to refuse.

"Put it in the post" was an option.
"I don't wish to be seen supporting a convicted animal abuser when he's being prosecuted for the 4th time" was another option.
HH chose to have her name linked to a letter written in support of a convicted animal abuser.

There doesn't seem to be a big political push on it, that's all I'm saying.
This has been public knowledge since february 20th I think, that's when it appeared in the papers first.
OK the whistle-blower part is new, but we are nearly 5 months on since it broke first.
I just wonder why there isn't a big political Hoo Haa about it so far?

Bannasidhe

Bishop of hope wrote: »

There doesn't seem to be a big political push on it, that's all I'm saying.
This has been public knowledge since february 20th I think, that's when it appeared in the papers first.
OK the whistle-blower part is new, but we are nearly 5 months on since it broke first.
I just wonder why there isn't a big political Hoo Haa about it so far?

HH is being pushed to answer questions in the Dáil but so far is refusing.
I do know pressure is being put on the Opposition parties to demand answers.

Bishop of hope

Bannasidhe wrote: »

HH is being pushed to answer questions in the Dáil but so far is refusing.
I do know pressure is being put on the Opposition parties to demand answers.

OK, and I accept that she needs to clarify it.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

HH made the choice to become involved. She had the option to refuse to deliver the letter.
If she was foolish enough to agree to have her name linked to a letter containing an implied threat it shows a lack of judgement, whether she knew what the letter contained or not.
Also why was she getting involved in the first place?
This man was banned for life from farming 10 years ago. That is in the public domain.
HH made the decision to intervene in the prosecution of a convicted animal abuser. She had the option to refuse.

"Put it in the post" was an option.
"I don't wish to be seen supporting a convicted animal abuser when he's being prosecuted for the 4th time" was another option.
HH chose to have her name linked to a letter written in support of a convicted animal abuser.

How do you know the letter was in support , a chara.

How would she have known whether it contained an “implied threat”.

Did she see the letter contents before ‘delivery’

A lot of surmising and conjecture going on here with little hard facts.


Kind of tactics used by folk with an agenda.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

How do you know the letter was in support , a chara.

How would she have known whether it contained an “implied threat”.

Did she see the letter contents before ‘delivery’

A lot of surmising and conjecture going on here with little hard facts.


Kind of tactics used by folk with an agenda.

The man himself credits the letter for getting him off the hook.
She put herself in it.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

The man himself credits the letter for getting him off the hook.
She put herself in it.

Does anybody doing all this accusing know ‘why’ he credits the letter for that disclosure.

Personally I like to get the full facts before I start ‘accusing’ folk of anything and thereby avoid unpleasant consequences.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Does anybody doing all this accusing know ‘why’ he credits the letter for that disclosure.

Personally I like to get the full facts before I start ‘accusing’ folk of anything and thereby avoid unpleasant consequences.

Or we could discuss it?
What's she accused of that we don't know already? We want to know the full facts, kinda the point Bren. She seems happy to leave it as is, unanswered.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

HH made the choice to become involved. She had the option to refuse to deliver the letter.
If she was foolish enough to agree to have her name linked to a letter containing an implied threat it shows a lack of judgement, whether she knew what the letter contained or not.
Also why was she getting involved in the first place?
This man was banned for life from farming 10 years ago. That is in the public domain.
HH made the decision to intervene in the prosecution of a convicted animal abuser. She had the option to refuse.

"Put it in the post" was an option.
"I don't wish to be seen supporting a convicted animal abuser when he's being prosecuted for the 4th time" was another option.
HH chose to have her name linked to a letter written in support of a convicted animal abuser.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

How do you know the letter was in support , a chara.

How would she have known whether it contained an “implied threat”.

Did she see the letter contents before ‘delivery’

A lot of surmising and conjecture going on here with little hard facts.


Kind of tactics used by folk with an agenda.

Not bothering to read what people have written while implying they have an agenda looks a lot like having an agenda.

But ok - let's consider this possibility:

The then Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation delivered a letter given to her by an unnamed person on a topic unknown to her to Brendan Gleeson, the Sec-General of the Dept of Agriculture.

Why did the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation agree to deliver this letter?
It would appear to have been either foolish and/or naif considering there are now allegations that the letter contained an implied threat.

Foolish and/or naif are not good characteristics in a govt Minister.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not bothering to read what people have written while implying they have an agenda looks a lot like having an agenda.

But ok - let's consider this possibility:

The then Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation delivered a letter given to her by an unnamed person on a topic unknown to her to Brendan Gleeson, the Sec-General of the Dept of Agriculture.

Why did the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation agree to deliver this letter?
It would appear to have been either foolish and/or naif considering there are now allegations that the letter contained an implied threat.

Foolish and/or naif are not good characteristics in a govt Minister.

You are inferring incorrectly, a chara.

Again, all conjecture, all hearsay all guesswork.

Driven by those who seem to have an agenda to keep this alive.

Nothing wrong with that but I prefer to wait for the facts to be presented.

Considering “possibility’s “ is in the realm of the conspiracy theory arena.

Bishop of hope

Having a trawl around the papers, Cowen is in the mix again, but still no mention of Humphreys.

Brendan Bendar

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Having a trawl around the papers, Cowen is in the mix again, but still no mention of Humphreys.

Yes, Cowen has the Ombudsman in on his case, re the alleged records of what actually happened.

He must be very sure he is right otherwise he would let it die.

I’d be very surprised if the HH stuff got legs, looks like just a bunch of cone heads with a grudge or an agenda.

Then again, who knows?

Be nice to get the facts though rather than speculation and suggestion.

Bishop of hope

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes, Cowen has the Ombudsman in on his case, re the alleged records of what actually happened.

He must be very sure he is right otherwise he would let it die.

I’d be very surprised if the HH stuff got legs, looks like just a bunch of cone heads with a grudge or an agenda.

Then again, who knows?

Be nice to get the facts though rather than speculation and suggestion.

Yes, I noticed the banshee said that pressure was being put on the Opposition to get answers, not that they were going after this themselves.
Interesting thought there, who's putting on the pressure?

Brendan Bendar

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Yes, I noticed the banshee said that pressure was being put on the Opposition to get answers, not that they were going after this themselves.
Interesting thought there, who's putting on the pressure?

Hard to know who’s behind this stuff, looks like a lot of ‘old scores’ being settled, but no doubt it seems that there are numerous leaks emanating from ‘inside’ and the media would appear to be much more ‘active’ in this area than heretofore.

Then you have folk on social media platforms trying to keep all this stuff front and centre.

Nothing wrong with that but it would serve to elevate it to importance it doesn’t really merit amongst the platform users.

Looks like the HH kite isn’t going to fly........for a while yet anyway.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes, Cowen has the Ombudsman in on his case, re the alleged records of what actually happened.

He must be very sure he is right otherwise he would let it die.

I’d be very surprised if the HH stuff got legs, looks like just a bunch of cone heads with a grudge or an agenda.

Then again, who knows?

Be nice to get the facts though rather than speculation and suggestion.

Not how I would view things Brenner, Cowen knows the optics are bad and is franticly grasping for a life buoy..

What does some anonymous Garda in Kildare have to gain by writing a false report on Cowen, which the public never heard about for four years?

Think about it...... Cowens versions of events versus the anonymous Garda.

Cowen said that he only had 2 drinks prior to a match in Croke Park, made his way to the game, sat and watched the match - both halves including halftime, then left the match travelling to some eating house somewhere in Dublin where he had a light meal, then traversed through Dublin on All Ireland Sunday, battling Dublin traffic and was still over the limit?

His statement he released was carefully worded.

"I did not evade, or attempt to evade, a Garda. Such an act would constitute a serious criminal offence and I was not charged with such an offence."

Read between the lines, he didn't say that he didn't perform a U-turn at the checkpoint. Ummmm.

Now, barely a week into the job and FF and Cowen are basically taking on the Gardai and publicly implying they're lying.

Some set up I tell you.

The_Conductor

Hes not implying they're lying- he is stating, as fact, that the Pulse record is inaccurate.
It could be inaccurate for any of a number of different reasons- but top of the list would be clerical error- someone keyed in something- years ago- and its only become apparent in recent times.
He is also stating that if a Garda released the Pulse record, that it constitutes a criminal offense under the Garda Síochána Act.
However- its not just Gardaí who have access to Pulse records- and any of a number of other people could have released it- and unless they were a Member of An Garda Síochána- it does not constitute a criminal act.

It may be difficult to prove, or disprove- who did or didn't release the record- or indeed, how any inaccuracies in the record occurred- but it doesn't mean that there is some sort of a conspiracy against Mr. Cowen.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

Not how I would view things Brenner, Cowen knows the optics are bad and is franticly grasping for a life buoy..

What does some anonymous Garda in Kildare have to gain by writing a false report on Cowen, which the public never heard about for four years?

Think about it...... Cowens versions of events versus the anonymous Garda.

.

Who said it was a deliberately false account?
A Garda could be entering 20 or 30 of these at a time into the pulse system
Having to correct some is more common than you'd think and Cowen is not an eejit, he wants to stay in his job
Ergo making a song and dance about this versus walking into the Dail again hands up, suggests I'd expect that he has witnesses

McMurphy

Hes not implying they're lying- he is stating, as fact, that the Pulse record is inaccurate.

He's saying that he didn't try and evade or avoid the checkpoint, which when push comes to shove would be hard for the Gardai to prove.

However, if he did perform a U-turn at the checkpoint,. resulting in the Gardai having to pursue his vehicle, and after pursuing him, find Barry to be over the limit on a provisional license, if I was the Garda (certainly as an impartial Garda) I would be reluctant to change my report about turning away from the checkpoint, the pursuit and the breathalyser test, if that's what happened.

The guards have diddly squat to gain by lying.

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

Who said it was a deliberately false account?
A Garda could be entering 20 or 30 of these at a time into the pulse system
Having to correct some is more common than you'd think and Cowen is not an eejit, he wants to stay in his job
Ergo making a song and dance about this versus walking into the Dail again hands up, suggests I'd expect that he has witnesses

No one..........not even me.

This is another case of you inventing someone said something so you can argue that point which would be a point that was never made.

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

He's saying that he didn't try and evade or avoid the checkpoint, which when push comes to shove would be hard for the Gardai to prove.

However, if he did perform a U-turn at the checkpoint,. resulting in the Gardai having to pursue his vehicle, and after pursuing him, find Barry to be over the limit on a provisional license, if I was the Garda (certainly as an impartial Garda) I would be reluctant to change my report about turning away from the checkpoint, the pursuit and the breathalyser test, if that's what happened.

The guards have diddly squat to gain by lying.

No one is saying a garda is lying
That's new information to me, that the garda chased him, where are you getting that?

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

No one..........not even me.

This is another case of you inventing someone said something so you can argue that point which would be a point that was never made.

Well you are going wild on the speculation, between using the words lie and that the car was chased etc
That's all rubbish

McMurphy

Mortelaro wrote: »

No one is saying a garda is lying
That's new information to me, that the garda chased him, where are you getting that?

Yesterday's (and this morning's) newspapers.

The complaint comes after a Sunday Times article which alleges the Garda record of the incident in 2016 states that Mr Cowen “was pursued by gardaí after doing a U-turn as he approached a checkpoint

”.

Any chance you could withdraw the "rubbish" accusations?



Edited to paste a Google search, which you obviously didn't bother with.


https://www.google.ie/search?safe=off&sxsrf=ALeKk01hYU3HxHtMw4LBrY8SbxDJ0YFi6Q%3A1594628793129&source=hp&ei=uRoMX4eiBdaJ1fAPm_WliA8&q=garda+pursued+barry+cowen+after+turning+away+from+checkpoint&oq=garda+pursued+barry+cowen+after+turning+away+from+checkpoint&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIIxAnOgsIABCxAxCDARCRAjoFCAAQkQI6BQgAELEDOggIABCxAxCDAToCCC46CAgAELEDEJECOggILhCxAxCDAToHCAAQFBCHAjoCCAA6BAguEAo6BAgAEAo6BggAEBYQHjoFCCEQoAE6BQgAEM0COgQIIRAVOggIIRAWEB0QHjoHCCEQChCgAToECB4QClCZD1i7zwFggdIBaAlwAHgAgAF4iAGMK5IBBTU2LjEwmAEAoAEBsAEP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

Professor Moriarty

Just a quick peek at this thread. Yeah, nothing of substance being discussed, just the same few people bringing up the same irrelevancies over and over and over.