FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

You assume posters have no genuine interest and are only out to get FF/FG. That's very cynical, but your opinion based on your feels, which is your business. It doesn't take away from the comments made.

We have had times over the years were the public and opposition are foolish to be asking questions or raising issues. Laughed off as ignorant, such as has been happening on this issue. If you blindly trust FF/FG good for you.
On the right to data, that's believed to have been breached on this matter. If nobody piped up or questioned things we'd be in a sorry state altogether.

Again, in your opinion, based on your feels. It goes against the laws of probability to assume everyone with an issue is doing so cynically only to score points. People are decent and have empathy.

You highlighted everything in my post, except the reason for the government's actions.

You didn't even challenge that point which shows up that you have no interest in the issue, only in scoring points.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And some, like Collins, don't like it one little bit.

As long as its fair
I saw a whole twitter thread last night or Sunday calling Simon Harris a weasel and tagging him in it
I think they were trying to make a hash tag weasel trend or something
Thats just childish IMO
There are bad aspects too
But generally the good outweighs the bad

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

As long as its fair
I saw a whole twitter thread last night or Sunday calling Simon Harris a weasel and tagging him in it
I think they were trying to make a hash tag weasel trend or something
Thats just childish IMO
There are bad aspects too
But generally the good outweighs the bad

Again, Collins set out to imply (by not mentioning the 'good') that there was a 'repulsive' campaign of fake news and lies going on.

Both power swap parties have not found a way to deal with the fact that they can no longer silence or control.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

You assume posters have no genuine interest and are only out to get FF/FG.

oh jesus this is absolutely classic

if anyone presumed that about posters, perhaps the posters should ask themselves why.

starting with the quoted poster

full time partisan any-angle critic of govt, and i do mean full time

the likes of which have political discourse *wrecked* on boards

and getting away with it

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

oh jesus this is absolutely classic

if anyone presumed that about posters, perhaps the posters should ask themselves why.

starting with the quoted poster

full time partisan any-angle critic of govt, and i do mean full time

the likes of which have political discourse *wrecked* on boards

and getting away with it

The 'government' do a lot more(at least we hope so) than what gets discussed here, which is a government thread, where you might expect to find criticism of some of the things the government does.

Just a wild guess why it might not be the rosy back clapping environment you were expecting.

yeah ive read it all before francie, thanks

theres valid, worthwhile analysis of a govt, which is necessary

this isnt that and your making the case for the first won't turn the hatchet job nonsense from the famous five into it

the amount of moaning out of same when there's any reciprocal approach on the sf thread shows up the commitment to robust and open criticism alright

its the pretence that rankles. who do ye think ye are kidding at all.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah ive read it all before francie, thanks

theres valid, worthwhile analysis of a govt, which is necessary

this isnt that and your making the case for the first won't turn the hatchet job nonsense from the famous five into it

the amount of moaning out of same when there's any reciprocal approach on the sf thread shows up the commitment to robust and open criticism alright

its the pretence that rankles. who do ye think ye are kidding at all.

This is just more of Collin's denigration coz I don't like what is being said.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, Collins set out to imply (by not mentioning the 'good') that there was a 'repulsive' campaign of fake news and lies going on.

Both power swap parties have not found a way to deal with the fact that they can no longer silence or control.

I think that was debated a few pages back
He said some
I dont think there's none
Theres no requirement for any to get this sorted.

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

I think that was debated a few pages back
He said some
I dont think there's none
Theres no requirement for any to get this sorted.

He said it was 'a repulsive campaign' and made no mention of the serious and well intentioned conversation happening on social media. A conversation that will be heard, I might add.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said it was 'a repulsive campaign' and made no mention of the serious and well intentioned conversation happening on social media. A conversation that will be heard, I might add.

Well, there hasn't be a serious point made against the government legislation on this thread by either yourself, Bowie or McMurphy, so if people want well-intentioned conversation, I would advise them to go elsewhere.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, there hasn't be a serious point made against the government legislation on this thread by either yourself, Bowie or McMurphy, so if people want well-intentioned conversation, I would advise them to go elsewhere.

In your opinion. Which doesn't stand for much for right minded people

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, there hasn't be a serious point made against the government legislation on this thread by either yourself, Bowie or McMurphy, so if people want well-intentioned conversation, I would advise them to go elsewhere.

What a surprise opinion that is from you blanch. Shocked.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You highlighted everything in my post, except the reason for the government's actions.

You didn't even challenge that point which shows up that you have no interest in the issue, only in scoring points.

I have already given my opinion as to why they rushed it and would not accept any discussion on amendments. You can believe them. I do not believe FF/FG do anything, anything, merely because they feel they are obliged to.
You've been dismissing my previous posts on this and you've posted same numerous times. Just because I won't repeatedly dance to your tune doesn't mean I don't hear the music.

Now, seeing as you have your 'discussion' hat on, can you tell me what you based this on?

blanch152 wrote: »

Not surprised to see that poster going after O'Gorman.

With quotes please.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

oh jesus this is absolutely classic

if anyone presumed that about posters, perhaps the posters should ask themselves why.

starting with the quoted poster

full time partisan any-angle critic of govt, and i do mean full time

the likes of which have political discourse *wrecked* on boards

and getting away with it

Do you think you're helping or adding?
Some of us discuss the topics of the day, people like yourself roll in to stir.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, there hasn't be a serious point made against the government legislation on this thread by either yourself, Bowie or McMurphy, so if people want well-intentioned conversation, I would advise them to go elsewhere.

I'm sure there's a host of people reading this thread who will give more credence to the musings of the local far right idiot-bigot than to a poster on boards who thinks it's appropriate to refer to others as "special needs" - on a website for anonymous pseudonyms, blanchy.

Basically I couldn't give a sh1t "what you advise" chief.

James Brown

Repeatedly spinning yarns with no supporting quotes and throwing insults all the while accusing people of not wanting to genuinely debate. Classic.
As I said, folk need only look at who is trying to discuss topics of public interest and who is diverting with insults and attacks.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said it was 'a repulsive campaign' and made no mention of the serious and well intentioned conversation happening on social media. A conversation that will be heard, I might add.

Repulsive by some though wasn't it,I could be wrong,I'll re read the email

Yes he said 'There is a repulsive online campaign where some very nasty people are exploiting this situation '

You're interpreting that as referring to the campaign in general
I'm not
To me it reads as a seperate campaign he disapproves of
One that contains nastiness
Maybe that weasel one I saw the other night directed at Harris

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

Repulsive by some though wasn't it,I could be wrong,I'll re read the email

Yes he said 'There is a repulsive online campaign where some very nasty people are exploiting this situation '

You're interpreting that as referring to the campaign in general
I'm not
To me it reads as a seperate campaign he disapproves of
One that contains nastiness
Maybe that weasel one I saw the other night directed at Harris

You would have a point had he referred to what was being posted online by educated and expert voices. He didn't, he handwaved away any issues by referring to a repulsive campaign.

smurgen

Some colourful FG characters down here in Cork.

Married couple donned wigs and disguises as part of €400,000 fraud from banks, court hears
Former solicitors Keith Flynn and Lyndsey Clarke have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud.

https://www.thejournal.ie/former-solicitors-fraud-cork-court-5246406-Oct2020/

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You would have a point had he referred to what was being posted online by educated and expert voices. He didn't, he handwaved away any issues by referring to a repulsive campaign.

I don’t think that's fair, his statement in the email was in direct conversation with someone who knew what he was talking about and who he meets in the Dail or talks to on the phone and no doubt on this topic lately
There's a world of difference between that scenario and discussing a topic in an audience not privy to a one on one
In the latter you would be making it perfectly clear who you are talking about if it was what you thought were a group of party trolls for example which he does
In the former,you'd not expect to
I can see how easy it is to make your case though but mine is just as valid

I've no problem with your view and I definitely know your opinion on it
Mines just different

Ha Long Bay

smurgen wrote: »

Some colourful FG characters down here in Cork.

Married couple donned wigs and disguises as part of €400,000 fraud from banks, court hears
Former solicitors Keith Flynn and Lyndsey Clarke have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud.

https://www.thejournal.ie/former-solicitors-fraud-cork-court-5246406-Oct2020/

FrancieBrady

Eamonn McCann's take,

The government are trying to persuade us that they really weren’t trying to seal the mother and baby homes records at all, and that the public anger is due to a communication blunder by the FF-FG-Green Government.
They want us to believe that they were just protecting the files from destruction and that people are being misinformed on the internet.
They say the sealing of the records is actually unavoidable due to the Commisions of Investigation Act 2004, which apparently requires that the records would be destroyed by October 30th if the bill was not passed.
But there is no legal requirement for either the archives to be destroyed if the bill failed to pass - nor for the records to be sealed to avoid this supposedly necessary destruction.
A decision was taken by this government to seal these records and an emergency manufactured to justify it.
If they really didn’t want to seal the records, why did they refuse to accept any opposition amendments to the bill that would have removed the 30 year seal?
The idea that they couldn’t delay this bill is also nonsense.
The government had previously granted numerous extensions for the commission for interim reports since it first began its work in Feb 2015, yet the sixth report was not published since then and the process was allowed to be dragged out close to the deadline in order to create an urgency to fast track the legislation through the Dáil without pre-legislative scrutiny, voted against by the government majority on the business committee of the Dáil.
When the survivors of the Mother & Baby Homes met with Katherine Zappone in the past, there was widespread agreement that the there should be no secrecy around the report, the overwhelming majority also wanted to have their names on their records.
There was also widespread agreement that they did not want anything to do with Túsla, the organisation linked to the Garda Maurice McCabe smearing scandal and about with the Charleton report was scathing.
Don't fall for their innocent nonsense that mistakes were made and it was a miscommunication and the legislation was only about protecting the files. It’s rubbish.
It was calculated to have minimal Dáil scrutiny (blocked by the Gov majority on the business committee) to have those records put into the control of Túsla away from the survivors to protect the legacy of past Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil TDs who allowed the horrible abuse of women and children by the church and religious orders to take place in this country for decades.

smurgen

john4321 wrote: »

Nahhhh. Can do better ☺️

https://twitter.com/Trickstersworld/status/1321201690184503300?s=19

Ha Long Bay

smurgen wrote: »

Nahhhh. Can do better ☺️

https://twitter.com/Trickstersworld/status/1321201690184503300?s=19

"Ms Clarke is a former Fine Gael candidate who put her name forward for the party in the Cork North West Ward in the 2014 Cork City Council local elections. She received just over 300 votes"

Keep scraping.

Cluedo Monopoly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Eamonn McCann's take,

There seems to me a massive distrust of TUSLA. Worrying in itself.

I have no doubt FFG are continually trying to protect their legacy with these abuse scandals.

Nobotty

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

I have no doubt FFG are continually trying to protect their legacy with these abuse scandals.

Well if they are,don't hire them to protect yours because if there was a textbook arse to be made of it they're doing it
This 'protecting the legacy' is a new one on me
Maybe I dont get out much

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

This 'protecting the legacy' is a new one on me

Have you not bought the buke?

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

Well if they are,don't hire them to protect yours because if there was a textbook arse to be made of it they're doing it
This 'protecting the legacy' is a new one on me
Maybe I dont get out much

Many of us have been discussing it for days. You first suggested it might be mere incompetence now you seem to be suggesting the idea of a cover up is a new one.
The legacy relates to generational baby selling and abuse both aided and ignored.

Nobotty

Bowie wrote: »

Many of us have been discussing it for days. You first suggested it might be mere incompetence now you seem to be suggesting the idea of a cover up is a new one.
The legacy relates to generational baby selling and abuse both aided and ignored.

First I heard the 'protect the legacy' idea was here is what I said
I think its one of the more unrealistic accusations I've heard
Think about it
Theres an enormous amount of writing on the subject independent of the tribunal testimonies
Theres reporting of the testimonies
If hiding the testimonies off for 30 years is motivated by some notion that it protects legacies, its up there with thinking putting a sun umbrella out in the middle of a field in the rain will keep the whole field dry
Its a stupid notion
They're not doing that
Theyre just showing a monumental lack of thought
In the process they've self harmed themselves
No need for whoever is inventing soundbites like 'protecting legacies' to make things any more complicated than what they are
They messed up,Its a trend
No thought went into it IMO

Cluedo Monopoly

The Dr Maeve O'Rourke interview.

https://twitter.com/maeveorourke/status/1321196442141315075?s=19