Minister for Agriculture attends 81-person golf event in breach of health guidelines

Jump_In_Jack

maestroamado wrote: »

Enda Kenny played golf, expressed his unhappiness with dinner arrangement and went home for dinner.
Can we please ask him to lead our country and get rid of the other eejits until we can organize an election.
The fact that Kenny flagged it makes the whole thing worst in my opinion...

If Enda did see the problem And fair play to him if he was one of the few that did, I’m wondering why he didn’t round up all the FG people and tell them in no uncertain terms to go home.
I’m sure Jerry Buttimer would have listened to Enda.

FrancieBrady

Von Der Leyden requesting 'further clarifications'.

Big Phil still fudging it?

Multipass

magic_murph wrote: »

Don't cod yourself - people are in this together in the sense that the majority of people are wearing mask (don't get me started on those absolute fools that protested at the weekend - gob****es every last one of them)
but there are very few that are 100% acting as advised.

My main issues is cancel culture and the call for resignation as soon as any type of against the grain / controversy comes about. As a country this attitude is sending us in the wrong direction.

This isn’t cancel culture - this is mainstream politics in most civilised countries. Politicians caught breaking rules generally step down in disgrace. Ireland is unique in our politicians ability to cling on brazenly with weak apologies and mature recollection etc. Do you think any other country would have tolerated a leader claiming he didn’t have a bank account. People are sick of this, I’m sick of this. It goes beyond this event, I want full accountability for every person who puts themselves forward to represent others.

McMurphy

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If Enda did see the problem And fair play to him if he was one of the few that did, I’m wondering why he didn’t round up all the FG people and tell them in no uncertain terms to go home.
I’m sure Jerry Buttimer would have listened to Enda.

Enda probably told the man with two pints in his hands to go and tell the rest of them to toddle along back home.

Uriel.

McMurphy wrote: »

You were yakking on about whose jobs it was to police things..... What does AGS do, I'm pretty sure they weren't in attendance to perform balloon modelling pre dinner.

Again what does that have to do with MM or LV..?

Multipass

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

In case some of these are reading this thread. You haven’t been forgotten about.

The people at the end of table 10 really lucked out didn’t they

McMurphy

Uriel. wrote: »

Who gives a ****. It isn't MM or LV's job to police events or watch over individual movements.

McMurphy wrote: »

Weren't members of AGS and a supreme judge also in attendance?

Do you see where this is headed, yeah?

Uriel. wrote: »

So what?

McMurphy wrote: »

You were yakking on about whose jobs it was to police things..... What does AGS do, I'm pretty sure they weren't in attendance to perform balloon modelling pre dinner.

Uriel. wrote: »

Again what does that have to do with MM or LV..?

You said it wasn't their job to police things - I never said it was - we do however have a police force in the state who's job actually is to police things.

The get together broke regulations that had been in place for weeks, Leo and Michaél may or may not have known about the get together, I'm sure indisputable evidence will emerge either way on this. However, you correctly point out, even if they did is not their job to police things.

Thankfully they have public servants to do these things on their behalf.

joseywhales

McMurphy wrote: »

You said it wasn't their job to police things - I never said it was - we do however have a police force in the state who's job actually is to police things.

The get together broke regulations that had been in place for weeks, Leo and Michaél may or may not have known about the get together, I'm sure indisputable evidence will emerge either way on this. However, you correctly point out, even if they did is not their job to police things.

Thankfully they have public servants to do these things on their behalf.

So the Garda and the judge should be reprimanded then but neither are under the remit of LV or MM, I think both of you guys agree even though the discussion appears adversarial for some reason.

McMurphy

joseywhales wrote: »

So the Garda and the judge should be reprimanded then but neither are under the remit of LV or MM, I think both of you guys agree even though the discussion appears adversarial for some reason.

If proven Michaél/Leo were well aware of the planned event going ahead despite being in breach of regulations, it isn't their job to police it and prevent it from happening, it is the job of AGS whom also have appear to have been in attendance.

Neither will be able to wash their hands of it if it emerges without doubt they were aware and did nothing including notifying AGS. That's why Calleary had to go, others too.

joseywhales

Calleary had to go because he was in the cabinet that made the rules and he personally broke the rules. In this hypothetical situation that say Leo knew about the event he would be in some kind of trouble but he is not as culpable as someone who actually attended. He might also have been aware of the event but not the numbers or arrangements or who the other attendees were. However those who were there could see with their own eyes what the situation was. I don't think it is the same thing at all.

McMurphy

joseywhales wrote: »

Calleary had to go because he was in the cabinet that made the rules and he personally broke the rules. In this hypothetical situation that say Leo knew about the event he would be in some kind of trouble but he is not as culpable as someone who actually attended. He might also have been aware of the event but not the numbers or arrangements or who the other attendees were. However those who were there could see with their own eyes what the situation was. I don't think it is the same thing at all.

I mentioned Michaeál (Taoiseach) and Leo (Tánaiste), yet you opt to mention Leo only, despite him only being second in command. Michael irrelevant is he?

I guess we can see what side of the unholy alliance you bat for Josey.

Hawthorn Tree

MM was a mess on the radio this morning. But his wording suggests he knows more.

https://www.thejournal.ie/government-apology-phil-hogan-golfgate-5184187-Aug2020/

However, the Taoiseach explained that it was crucial that the EU Commissioner provided full clarity about his movements leading up to the dinner.

“I think it’s important that he comprehensively and fully comes out and allows himself to be interviewed to give people exactly the sequence of events on what transpired,” he said.

“The public needs absolute assurances that the restrictions that were imposed in Kildare were not breached.

seamus

Field east wrote: »

So what if MM , L V or anyone else who got an invite or knew about the event anyway and even intended going. They would have generally assumed that the hotel / event organizers would have behaved in a Covid compliant way. The problem arose VERY LATE TOWARDSTHE END.

Assuming that the hotel were compliant, is not good enough.

If one thing has been clear throughout this, it's that everyone has a responsibility to ensure that THEY personally are compliant, and if they are not happy with a situation, to remove themselves from it. To not assume that compliance is someone else's problem.

It's not good enough to say, "My employer said they were compliant", "The hotel said they were compliant", "the shop said they were compliant", "my mammy said we were being compliant".

If someone organises a 50-person house party, it is not just their fault when fifty people turn up; all fifty of those people are equally in breach and equally at fault.

Likewise everyone who turned up at that dinner and said, "It's grand, the hotel said they were compliant", is at fault. This is a pandemic. Responsibility for your safety cannot be delegated to someone else.

magic_murph wrote: »

My main issues is cancel culture and the call for resignation as soon as any type of against the grain / controversy comes about. As a country this attitude is sending us in the wrong direction.

This is not "cancel culture". This is a country that is sick to the back teeth of corruption, cronyism and cute hoorism. The same kind of corrupt "I'll do what I want" crap that made Barry Cowen think he could drive without a licence and evade a Garda checkpoint. The same kind of arrogant cute hoor crap that made Phil Hogan think, "Tis grand, none of the quarantine rules apply to me, and I'm allowed to use my phone while driving because I'll be grand".

And the same kind of stuff that led 81 people to attend a golf dinner thinking, "The compliance rules don't really apply to us, we're all important people."

Irish people are sick of it, the party leaderships have clearly realised this, but it seems to be taking some time for career politicians to accept it.

^^^ I think this goes to the heart of it. It’s not just about the latest example of arrogant disregard by those in a position of power or influence (or even those that believe they have influence) of various rules, regulations and conventions about behaviour, on the basis that they don’t apply to them. Albeit that thisis a serious example.

For me, nearly everything of any importance in life relies on relationships between people - personal, business, political, thou name it. Trust is built upon relationships - which take time to build, but seconds to destroy. You might get over the first issue that battered that relationship, but it is never the same again. What I think has happened here is that this is the straw that (probably) has broken the camel’s back. The continued demonstrations of elitism, cronyism, (insert the name of your favourite ism, here) added to the complete bulls1t “explanations”, dragged out of those involved, and the “dog ate my homework” excuses, have finally meant that the silent majority has had way too much.

The trust and any meaningful relationship with (at least) this bunch of politicians and hangers on has been broken, never to be the same again. If steps aren’t taken to take a new path, we’re all in for a very rough ride. FFS, would the leaders act like leaders, from now on

jacool

Supreme Court judge Seamus Woulfe apologised “unreservedly” for attending the event.

In a statement released last week, Woulfe said he was of the impression that the organisers of the event had made sure that the dinner would be in compliance with the regulations. He said any breach of the regulations by him was unintended. He said that he regrets his attendance at the dinner.

“I attended based on that understanding, that it would be within the guidelines, but do apologise for any unintentional breach of any of the new guidelines on my part. I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health, and have been at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March. That I ended up in a situation where breaches may have occurred, is of great regret to me, and for which I am sorry. I unreservedly apologise”.

Can these people, in these high positions, not count?
"where breaches may have occurred"
The rule of 50 being changes to 6, they might not have been aware of even if they were "at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March". I presume everyone had to look at the legend to see what table they were at, and might have been able to surmise that with 10 tables and 8 people at each table, there might be, well, more than 50 people in attendance.
No one has admitted they did anything wrong, just that they thought someone else was making sure everything was in order - not their fault, see.
" I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health" - except when you did though, yeah?

Doctor Jimbob

Excuses, apologies, and "ah sure he's a good (insert county) man" aren't going to cut it anymore. It's one thing to sweep aside this arrogant nonsense in normal times, but to throw out the same old tired lines after completely disregarding the regulations they themselves created and expect the rest of us to follow is quite frankly infuriating.

kippy

Field east wrote: »

We must not lose sight of the fact that golfing/ golf outings, from my understanding, was one of the outdoor activities that was very much recommended as a fairly safe activity re the Covid virus by most medical experts , the government and Bord Fáilte.
So ,with a slight stretch of the imagination, one would assume that the orgainsers would have the necessary Covid related arrangements in place re social distancing, hand washing, etc in place AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO ENQUIRE into the arrangements made for the event.
One could easily assume that there might be some arrangement made afterwards for the provision of tea/ soup /sandwiches afterwards but done in a way that was Covid copmpliant. There were plenty of presidents for the presentation of prizes done ‘ remotely’ - eg school carts presented in car parks etc.
So there was really no reason for ANYONE - including MM - to suggest that the event should not have taken place. The same for the attendees - UP TO A CERTAIN POINT AND WHICH WAS LATE IN THE DAY.
I speculate that the attendees were walked into an unintended ‘ trap ‘
late in the day, when the event was coming to its climax and THAT DIVIDE WAS PULLED BACK. Only Brian Hayes came out re thinking about leaving at that point.
Before you tear the above to shreds you might first have a listen to Dr Sam McGourty - Sunday Brendan o Connor show sheer he tries to rationalize the psychological side of what happened.
We are all experts in hindsight.

The golf event itself was fine (ie playing golf outdoors) - this has been going on nationwide for a number of months and there are a number of rule changes in place to reduce covid risks.
What wasnt right was the social event/dinner afterwards. You can blame the organisers or you can blame the attendees. I'd blame both. Everyone there had a decision to make once they were there.
This is probably why some of the restrictions are the way they are (pubs closed) - because if people have the choice, invariably a number will make the wrong one.
There are two specific events involved here - one a game of golf and two a indoor meal for 81 people.


On a higher level, this event has laid bare the interactions that take place within the highest levels of Irish society/power and highlight some of the issues with our country.

Sir Oxman

jacool wrote: »

Supreme Court judge Seamus Woulfe apologised “unreservedly” for attending the event.

In a statement released last week, Woulfe said he was of the impression that the organisers of the event had made sure that the dinner would be in compliance with the regulations. He said any breach of the regulations by him was unintended. He said that he regrets his attendance at the dinner.

“I attended based on that understanding, that it would be within the guidelines, but do apologise for any unintentional breach of any of the new guidelines on my part. I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health, and have been at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March. That I ended up in a situation where breaches may have occurred, is of great regret to me, and for which I am sorry. I unreservedly apologise”.

Can these people, in these high positions, not count?
"where breaches may have occurred"
The rule of 50 being changes to 6, they might not have been aware of even if they were "at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March". I presume everyone had to look at the legend to see what table they were at, and might have been able to surmise that with 10 tables and 8 people at each table, there might be, well, more than 50 people in attendance.
No one has admitted they did anything wrong, just that they thought someone else was making sure everything was in order - not their fault, see.
" I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health" - except when you did though, yeah?

Yeah, his position is even more untenable than Hogans IMO
Hogan's is post-dinner self-inflicted as in he clearly lied to his country and his employer at the beginning, middle and we've yet to see the end.


The superme court justice should not be fraternising with politicians.

Nevermind the absolutely outstanding stupidness of his position with offloading the blame and not using his er, judgment in assessing the situation.
I don't know about anyone else, but i'm sick of hearing ads every 15 minutes from the govt telling us everyone must take their own responsibility to ensure the safety of themselves and others.
If a guy in his position can't parse that well there's no hope.

DeanAustin

jacool wrote: »

Supreme Court judge Seamus Woulfe apologised “unreservedly” for attending the event.

In a statement released last week, Woulfe said he was of the impression that the organisers of the event had made sure that the dinner would be in compliance with the regulations. He said any breach of the regulations by him was unintended. He said that he regrets his attendance at the dinner.

“I attended based on that understanding, that it would be within the guidelines, but do apologise for any unintentional breach of any of the new guidelines on my part. I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health, and have been at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March. That I ended up in a situation where breaches may have occurred, is of great regret to me, and for which I am sorry. I unreservedly apologise”.

Can these people, in these high positions, not count?
"where breaches may have occurred"
The rule of 50 being changes to 6, they might not have been aware of even if they were "at pains to follow rules and guidelines since their introduction in March". I presume everyone had to look at the legend to see what table they were at, and might have been able to surmise that with 10 tables and 8 people at each table, there might be, well, more than 50 people in attendance.
No one has admitted they did anything wrong, just that they thought someone else was making sure everything was in order - not their fault, see.
" I would never disregard governmental or health authorities advice regarding public health" - except when you did though, yeah?

This is a load of bollox from him.

Enda Kenny refused to attend when he saw the set up. If anyone there was in any doubt that guidelines were being broken, surely they heard Kenny wasn't attending and why. For them to then not ask the question about their own attendance means they either decided the rules didn't apply to them or they are very stupid people.

I can't believe that intelligent people like Hogan and Woulfe are trotting this nonsense out.

joseywhales

McMurphy wrote: »

I mentioned Michaeál (Taoiseach) and Leo (Tánaiste), yet you opt to mention Leo only, despite him only being second in command. Michael irrelevant is he?

I guess we can see what side of the unholy alliance you bat for Josey.

What is the relevance of your assumption of my political allegiance to the truth?
So this makes leo as culpable as dara calleary then as you suggested?

Because I only mentioned leo and not Micheal. That is clearly illogical.

Nice deflection.

I'll make it easier for you, I do not believe that MM or LV are as culpable as calleary which you have suggested because neither were in public attendance and as of now we do not know if they were in full knowledge of the details of the event and whether it was compliant with restrictions.

Why do you believe that they are just as culpable as calleary?
"That's why calleary had to go" I believe you said.

lucernarian

Field east wrote: »

We must not lose sight of the fact that golfing/ golf outings, from my understanding, was one of the outdoor activities that was very much recommended as a fairly safe activity re the Covid virus by most medical experts , the government and Bord Fáilte.
So ,with a slight stretch of the imagination, one would assume that the orgainsers would have the necessary Covid related arrangements in place re social distancing, hand washing, etc in place AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO ENQUIRE into the arrangements made for the event.
One could easily assume that there might be some arrangement made afterwards for the provision of tea/ soup /sandwiches afterwards but done in a way that was Covid copmpliant. There were plenty of presidents for the presentation of prizes done ‘ remotely’ - eg school carts presented in car parks etc.
So there was really no reason for ANYONE - including MM - to suggest that the event should not have taken place. The same for the attendees - UP TO A CERTAIN POINT AND WHICH WAS LATE IN THE DAY.
I speculate that the attendees were walked into an unintended ‘ trap ‘
late in the day, when the event was coming to its climax and THAT DIVIDE WAS PULLED BACK. Only Brian Hayes came out re thinking about leaving at that point.
Before you tear the above to shreds you might first have a listen to Dr Sam McGourty - Sunday Brendan o Connor show sheer he tries to rationalize the psychological side of what happened.
We are all experts in hindsight.

The remarks from Enda Kenny who had attended the golfing tournament and refused to go to the meal and speeches after, suggests that it's not all "none of them didn't see it coming". I don't think calling it a "trap" does the attendees' stupidity justice.

maestroamado

Gerry Hatrick wrote: »

You know things are bad when Enda Kenny is the intelligent one in the room.

Enda with all his faults has veing our best leader in recent times in my opinion...

McMurphy

joseywhales wrote: »

What is the relevance of your assumption of my political allegiance to the truth?
So this makes leo as culpable as dara calleary then as you suggested?

Because I only mentioned leo and not Micheal. That is clearly illogical.

Nice deflection.

Relax Josey, it was tonhue in cheek fcs.

I'll make it easier for you, I do not believe that MM or LV are as culpable as calleary which you have suggested because neither were in public attendance and as of now we do not know if they were in full knowledge of the details of the event and whether it was compliant with restrictions.

Why do you believe that they are just as culpable as calleary?
"That's why calleary had to go" I believe you said.

I already stated an "IF" in the post, I said IF irrefutable evidence comes to light that either Martin or Varadkar were in full knowledge of the event due to, and then going ahead despite knowing full well that it violated regulations, they drew up, and did not even attempt to prevent/stop it, then they need to be held to account also.

The buck doesn't stop with them?

Hawthorn Tree

seamus wrote: »

Assuming that the hotel were compliant, is not good enough.

If one thing has been clear throughout this, it's that everyone has a responsibility to ensure that THEY personally are compliant, and if they are not happy with a situation, to remove themselves from it. To not assume that compliance is someone else's problem.

It's not good enough to say, "My employer said they were compliant", "The hotel said they were compliant", "the shop said they were compliant", "my mammy said we were being compliant".

If someone organises a 50-person house party, it is not just their fault when fifty people turn up; all fifty of those people are equally in breach and equally at fault.

Likewise everyone who turned up at that dinner and said, "It's grand, the hotel said they were compliant", is at fault. This is a pandemic. Responsibility for your safety cannot be delegated to someone else.

This is not "cancel culture". This is a country that is sick to the back teeth of corruption, cronyism and cute hoorism. The same kind of corrupt "I'll do what I want" crap that made Barry Cowen think he could drive without a licence and evade a Garda checkpoint. The same kind of arrogant cute hoor crap that made Phil Hogan think, "Tis grand, none of the quarantine rules apply to me, and I'm allowed to use my phone while driving because I'll be grand".

And the same kind of stuff that led 81 people to attend a golf dinner thinking, "The compliance rules don't really apply to us, we're all important people."

Irish people are sick of it, the party leaderships have clearly realised this, but it seems to be taking some time for career politicians to accept it.

Great post.

The hotel were somehow still were operating under the old rules for events (max 50 including staff) where there should be separate entrances and toilet facilities. They failed utterly under the old rules.

The new rules stated that no events could take place except weddings. The 81 people completely ignored the new restrictions. The entire event was in breach of the restrictions whether there were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 people.

blackwhite

maestroamado wrote: »

Enda Kenny played golf, expressed his unhappiness with dinner arrangement and went home for dinner.
Can we please ask him to lead our country and get rid of the other eejits until we can organize an election.
The fact that Kenny flagged it makes the whole thing worst in my opinion...

Kenny and Hogan are, or were at least, supposedly close allies. Hard to believe that Hogan wasn’t aware of Kenny’s reason for skipping the dinner - which puts the lie to his claims that he wasn’t aware it would breach the regulations.

joseywhales

McMurphy wrote: »

Relax Josey, it was tonhue in cheek fcs.





I already stated an "IF" in the post, I said IF irrefutable evidence comes to light that either Martin or Varadkar were in full knowledge of the event due to, and then going ahead despite knowing full well that it violated regulations, they drew up, and did not even attempt to prevent/stop it, then they need to be held to account also.

The buck doesn't stop with them?

I prefer your now more detailed condition, before I believe you stated that they would be responsible if they were well aware of the event. I am pointing out that knowing of the event and being aware that it would break restrictions are two different things, those that attended but did not leave, have no such defense.

In fact the reason that I choose to focus on leo before was because the Taoiseach did have at least some knowledge of the event, given that he sponsored a prize for it. I did not want to have to debate that this does not mean he had full and detailed knowledge in vain. Since you argued for both, it was easier to defend Leo.

I am not so ridiculous to suggest that they did not know of the event even, I will go further than you and suggest that they must have been aware(they are too experienced not too). I will give them the benefit of doubt though, that they gave the benefit of doubt to organizers. Until there is evidence that they knew that restrictions would be broken, there is no foul here. And how would they survive politically if they spent their time constantly micro managing every event of supposedly senior and thus responsible politicians?

McMurphy

joseywhales wrote: »

I prefer your now more detailed condition, before I believe you stated that they would be responsible if they were well aware of the event. I am pointing out that knowing of the event and being aware that it would break restrictions are two different things, those that attended but did not leave, have no such defense.

In fact the reason that I choose to focus on leo before was because the Taoiseach did have at least some knowledge of the event, given that he sponsored a prize for it. I did not want to have to debate that this does not mean he had full and detailed knowledge in vain. Since you argued for both, it was easier to defend Leo.

I am not so ridiculous to suggest that they did not know of the event even, I will go further than you and suggest that they must have been aware(they are too experienced not too). I will give them the benefit of doubt though, that they gave the benefit of doubt to organizers. Until there is evidence that they knew that restrictions would be broken, there is no foul here. And how would they survive politically if they spent their time constantly micro managing every event of supposedly senior and thus responsible politicians?

It's not "more detailed" - you obviously didn't read the original posts you replied to.

McMurphy wrote: »

If proven Michaél/Leo were well aware of the planned event going ahead despite being in breach of regulations, it isn't their job to police it and prevent it from happening, it is the job of AGS whom also have appear to have been in attendance.

Neither will be able to wash their hands of it if it emerges without doubt they were aware and did nothing including notifying AGS. That's why Calleary had to go, others too.

McMurphy wrote: »

You said it wasn't their job to police things - I never said it was - we do however have a police force in the state who's job actually is to police things.

The get together broke regulations that had been in place for weeks, Leo and Michaél may or may not have known about the get together, I'm sure indisputable evidence will emerge either way on this. However, you correctly point out, even if they did is not their job to police things.

Thankfully they have public servants to do these things on their behalf.

joseywhales

Ok, if your definition of "aware of" and "known about" includes having details of numbers at the event, how they would be seated and whether they came from counties under temporary restriction, then I agree with you.

I personally believe that "in full knowledge of" is a more detailed understanding than "aware of"

stockshares

Noel Grealish refuses to resign. The arrogance in this is unbelievable.
https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1297877710874849280?s=19

ChikiChiki

Liveline is a tough listen. People in real distress. One woman on now who lost her father on Wednesday morning from Covid.