Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Options
1…168169171173174…336

Comments

  • Options
    #5102
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    Yeah, seems like a big oversight but fair enough it can happen. However none of the opposition can use that excuse

    If the opposition are guilty of something that is fine. This is the government thread. The 'buck' stops with the government. But I bet they didn't think that somebody who voted for them as the 'best of a bad lot' would be trenchantly defending them by trying to deflect on their behalf.


  • Options
    #5103
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If the opposition are guilty of something that is fine. This is the government thread. The 'buck' stops with the government. But I bet they didn't think that somebody who voted for them as the 'best of a bad lot' would be trenchantly defending them by trying to deflect on their behalf.

    I know what thread it is. And I have said it was a huge mistake.

    I took issue with your statement and have made a revised one based on our discussion. Do you agree with the wording below:

    "I 'welcomed' the decision to open up. BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice. I was completely unaware that the government were going against advice and data despite it making national headlines".

    If you accept we can move on.


  • Options
    #5104
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    christy c wrote: »
    I know what thread it is. And I have said it was a huge mistake.

    I took issue with your statement and have made a revised one based on our discussion. Do you agree with the wording below:

    "I 'welcomed' the decision to open up. BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice. I was completely unaware that the government were going against advice and data despite it making national headlines".

    If you accept we can move on.

    What data did government produce that meant NPHET's level 5 was ignored? Leo said they had to consider the bigger picture. So what was the bigger picture? What metrics did he use?


  • Options
    #5105
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    smurgen wrote: »
    What data did government produce that meant NPHET's level 5 was ignored? Leo said they had to consider the bigger picture. So what was the bigger picture? What metrics did he use?

    Don't know. Whatever they did or didn't use was a mistake


  • Options
    #5106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smurgen wrote: »
    Maryanne84. Restrictions are useless lol.

    Bloody Hell. I’ve read it all now! I’m a Covid denier?? Really. Proof, please.

    Restrictions will only work when people follow the advice/guidelines. Like Stay at home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5107
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Bloody Hell. I’ve read it all now! I’m a Covid denier?? Really. Proof, please.

    Restrictions will only work when people follow the advice/guidelines. Like Stay at home.

    You are 'like' a covid denier in your defence of the government Maryanne. Not the same thing as saying you are a Covid denier.

    You have the same passion and fervency as any 'denier' in blaming anyone but those responsible for taking and implementing decisions.


  • Options
    #5108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You are 'like' a covid denier in your defence of the government Maryanne. Not the same thing as saying you are a Covid denier.

    You have the same passion and fervency as any 'denier' in blaming anyone but those responsible for taking and implementing decisions.

    Don’t make excuses for their nonsense. Being passionate about people exercising personal responsibility isn’t in any way, shape or form the same as a Covid denier.


  • Options
    #5109
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    I know what thread it is. And I have said it was a huge mistake.

    I took issue with your statement and have made a revised one based on our discussion. Do you agree with the wording below:

    "I 'welcomed' the decision to open up. BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice. I was completely unaware that the government were going against advice and data despite it making national headlines".

    If you accept we can move on.

    No christy...not sure why you are being so dense on this.

    I thought the government had made a 'balanced decision'. They hadn't, they made a hugely mistaken one and they are being held to account for that.

    I, the people, the opposition etc are not the ones ultimately responsible...the buck does not stop with me, the people, or the opposition, it stops with those tasked/elected to make a 'balanced' decision. They got it tragically wrong, it wasn't a 'balanced' decision at all, and people are dying as a result.


  • Options
    #5110
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Don’t make excuses for their nonsense. Being passionate about people exercising personal responsibility isn’t in any way, shape or form the same as a Covid denier.

    Refusing to accept any responsibility for your party and the government they are in is a passionate 'denial' similar to that of a Covid denier, who also passionately refuses to ignore reality.


  • Options
    #5111
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Don’t make excuses for their nonsense. Being passionate about people exercising personal responsibility isn’t in any way, shape or form the same as a Covid denier.

    So are you against covid restrictions yes or no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5112
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    On top of the government I would put blame on the media pumping out opinion pieces in the guise of news. The rhetoric is dangerous and unhelpful in an emergency situation.

    https://twitter.com/SunTimesIreland/status/1348203001660497923?s=19


  • Options
    #5113
    Cluedo Monopoly
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Don’t make excuses for their nonsense. Being passionate about people exercising personal responsibility isn’t in any way, shape or form the same as a Covid denier.

    You are never 'passionate about personal responsibility' when it comes to FFG politicians and wrongdoings (e.g. Alan Farrell, Dara Murphy, Michelle Mulherin, Phil Hogan, Dara Calleary, Maria Bailey, Leo the Leak, Barry Cowen etc)

    Those particular blinkers are on good and tight! :D

    Are you a corruption denier too?

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Options
    #5114
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    No christy...not sure why you are being so dense on this.

    I thought the government had made a 'balanced decision'. They hadn't, they made a hugely mistaken one and they are being held to account for that.

    I, the people, the opposition etc are not the ones ultimately responsible...the buck does not stop with me, the people, or the opposition, it stops with those tasked/elected to make a 'balanced' decision. They got it tragically wrong, it wasn't a 'balanced' decision at all, and people are dying as a result.

    I am not the one being dense, you completely missed the fact that the easing of restrictions was going against advise, despite it being national news.

    That decision by the government was wrong, and people were aware that it was not the recommended action.


  • Options
    #5115
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    I am not the one being dense, you completely missed the fact that the easing of restrictions was going against advise, despite it being national news.

    That decision by the government was wrong, and people were aware that it was not the recommended action.

    Not sure which bit of 'I thought the government had made a balanced decision' you don't understand christy.

    When it emerged they had ignored specific and clear warnings I changed my mind and I linked you to a post from the time where I was saying it.


  • Options
    #5116
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Not sure which bit of 'I thought the government had made a balanced decision' you don't understand christy.

    How was it balanced if ignoring expert advice? As I said, it was plain as day that this is what they were doing.


  • Options
    #5117
    Wesekn.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Wesekn.


    is_that_so wrote: »
    They were told by NPHET on the Thursday that Level 3 was fine, on Saturday that Level 4 was being considered and that morphed into a Level 5 by Sunday. That's not good communication at all.

    Holohan came back and threw the toys out of the pram

    I remember reading it here


  • Options
    #5118
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    How was it balanced if ignoring expert advice? As I said, it was plain as day that this is what they were doing.

    Go find Leo's explanation of that. They balance the risk.
    I was unaware that the data contained projected figures of over a 1000 cases a day by Christmas.

    They got that wrong...i.e. you have to ask WHAT balanced their decision to ignore those projections.

    If you say it is 'balanced' you have to demonstrate how you balanced it. Hence Kelly's request for the 'data' they based it on.


  • Options
    #5119
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Go find Leo's explanation of that. They balance the risk.
    I was unaware that the data contained projected figures of over a 1000 cases a day by Christmas.

    What were you aware of? Were you aware of the Government ignoring advice as per the article I linked?


  • Options
    #5120
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    What were you aware of? Were you aware of the Government ignoring advice as per the article I linked?

    Why are you interrogating me christy?

    You agree the decision was wrong. But you are trying to stop anyone saying that. Weird defence.


  • Options
    #5121
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Why are you interrogating me christy?

    You agree the decision was wrong. But you are trying to stop anyone saying that. Weird defence.

    I'm asking you questions because you made a statement below that is complete rubbish. The government did ignore the advice, and that was abundantly clear at the time.

    "Everybody sane (I include myself in that) 'welcomed' the decision to open up. BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5122
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    I'm asking you questions because you made a statement below that is complete rubbish. The government did ignore the advice, and that was abundantly clear at the time.

    "Everybody sane (I include myself in that) 'welcomed' the decision to open up. BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice."

    And it turned out they ignored projections that turned out to be spot on, almost to the day - over 1000 cases per day by Christmas day.

    What is it you fecking want here christy???

    I wasn't aware of the data those projections were based on at the time nor was Alan Kelly and I presume the rest of the opposition parties.

    Please read what is being said. FFS it's a joke the way you divert into this interrogative nonsense.


  • Options
    #5123
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And it turned out they ignored projections that turned out to be spot on, almost to the day - over 1000 cases per day by Christmas day.

    What is it you fecking want here christy???

    I wasn't aware of the data those projections were based on at the time nor was Alan Kelly and I presume the rest of the opposition parties.

    Please read what is being said. FFS it's a joke the way you divert into this interrogative nonsense.

    It was as clear as day that advice was being ignored, the advice wasn't given for the sake of it. It would stand to reason that things would get worse if recommendations were not followed. You, the government, or the opposition parties cannot hide behind that.


  • Options
    #5124
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,668 ✭✭✭golfball37


    Minister O Gorman is irate that someone leaked the mother and baby home report to the media. The leak could only have come from cabinet ultimately.

    How did he vote on the confidence motion about a current member leaking confidential information again?


  • Options
    #5125
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    christy c wrote: »
    It was as clear as day that advice was being ignored, the advice wasn't given for the sake of it. It would stand to reason that things would get worse if recommendations were not followed. You, the government, or the opposition parties cannot hide behind that.

    It was clear as day the government were taking a 'balanced' decision. How were projections of 1200 per day around Christmas balanced christy?

    Exactly they weren't in fact 'balanced', they were ignored. And people are dying and paying a high price for that. That is the criticism.
    You can waffle on as much as you want...that is my last word with you on it.


  • Options
    #5126
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I wonder has the penny dropped with Roderick that if you want to stop leaking of documents you should not be involved in circling the wagons to avoid sanctioning a minister who confesses to leaking documents.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/roderic-ogorman-angered-mother-and-baby-home-report-5321335-Jan2021/?utm_source=twitter_short


  • Options
    #5127
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It was clear as day the government were taking a 'balanced' decision. How were projections of 1200 per day around Christmas balanced christy?

    Exactly they weren't in fact 'balanced', they were ignored. And people are dying and paying a high price for that. That is the criticism.
    You can waffle on as much as you want...that is my last word with you on it.

    You're the one waffling I'm afraid Francie. It was clear that advice was being ignored, yet you, the opposition, me, etc. welcomed it. We can't just turn around now and say "BUT it was based on the government not ignoring the data or the advice". The government ignoring advice ws staring us in the face.


  • Options
    #5128
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    So political sources who in the space of a few weeks went from respecting survivors so much we have to seal the records have now anonymously leaked the mother and baby homes report to the Sunday Independent. Jesus wept what a government.


  • Options
    #5129
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,257 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    smurgen wrote: »
    So political sources who in the space of a few weeks went from respecting survivors so much we have to seal the records have now anonymously leaked the mother and baby homes report to the Sunday Independent. Jesus wept what a government.

    If the people can't have personal responsibility and read these leaked documents, what do you expect?


  • Options
    #5130
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Sorry, don't buy that at all.

    A true "all-island" approach would see the same policies adopted North and South. However, Sinn Fein simultaneously oppose whatever the Irish government want and whatever the DUP want, just from a position of opposition for opposition's sake. A truly cynical approach to people dying - but not unfamiliar to Sinn Fein.

    The "all-island" approach proposed by Sinn Fein is purely for political purposes, to create an illusion of a unitary political unit. It is cynical, it is opportunistic, and it does nothing to save lives, only sow further division.

    Anyone who is not a SF supporter can see this clearly.

    By 'a true' you mean different. You are creating your 'all island' approach which is fine. But you are running away from your initial comment. You now seem to acknowledge their approach differs from your idea of how it should be. Not that they are contradicting themselves.

    I don't care if it is cynically created or to score points, its a good idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5131
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I wonder has the penny dropped with Roderick that if you want to stop leaking of documents you should not be involved in circling the wagons to avoid sanctioning a minister who confesses to leaking documents.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/roderic-ogorman-angered-mother-and-baby-home-report-5321335-Jan2021/?utm_source=twitter_short

    Its ridiculous. This government has no credibility.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement