FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Whether the legislation was passed or not has nothing to do with the announcement made.

Chancer.

Announcement couldn’t have been made without the legislation.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Announcement couldn’t have been made without the legislation.

Explain with back up.

blanch152

Floppybits wrote: »

You are not right. You have never ever been right. All you do is insult people or agree with the insults that are thrown out by other people. When you are asked direct questions like to do to show the proof where the minister was being abused on here and you have not once responded to that question. Yet you come on all high and mighty saying you are right. You are nothing but a troll at this stage.

Wait a minute, i never said the minister was being abused.

You need to read my posts more carefully.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Explain with back up.

Clear from all of my posts, no need to add anything

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Clear from all of my posts, no need to add anything

So no back up, just an invitation to read the defensiveness you have come out with in every single case of this government messing up not to mention the previous government's mess ups.

No thanks.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So no back up, just an invitation to read the defensiveness you have come out with in every single case of this government messing up not to mention the previous government's mess ups.

No thanks.

Short version.

Without legislation, Commission would have destroyed information and database. Until legislation transferring information within the context of the 2004 Act, no consideration could be given to the GDPR and other aspects of disclosure. GDPR rights are not unrestricted, other issues will need consideration.

I know that might be too difficult for some, but all I have said, and all the government has done is consistent with that narrative.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

I know that might be too difficult for some, but all I have said, and all the government has done is consistent with that narrative.

And there you go again insulting posters who do not agree with you. You just can't help yourself.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Short version.

Without legislation, Commission would have destroyed information and database. Until legislation transferring information within the context of the 2004 Act, no consideration could be given to the GDPR and other aspects of disclosure. GDPR rights are not unrestricted, other issues will need consideration.

I know that might be too difficult for some, but all I have said, and all the government has done is consistent with that narrative.

Utter nonsense. From one of those who stood up to the lies about this.

The Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 has been superseded by the GDPR and the Data Protection Act of 2018. Its provisions providing for secrecy cannot be applied by any emanation of the state where they conflict with either Article 15 rights of access or Article 18 rights of the data subject to restrict any proposed processing.

In addition, the proposal to ‘seal’ the archive of documents to be presented to the Minister for 30 years is simply impermissible under EU law. Even where national legislation allows for restrictions on data subjects’ rights, those restrictions must be tightly limited and necessary for an overriding purpose of national importance.

https://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2020/10/20/mother-and-baby-home-commission-records-an-eu-law-perspective/

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Utter nonsense. From one of those who stood up to the lies about this.




https://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/2020/10/20/mother-and-baby-home-commission-records-an-eu-law-perspective/

Nonsense, even Michael D. saw the nonsense in that, otherwise he would have referred it to the Supreme Court.

My narrative fits the facts and the events and those that dealt with the issue but not the warblings of ditch-hurlers. I can live with that.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute, i never said the minister was being abused.

You need to read my posts more carefully.

Bish lied said I'd a campaign against O'Gorman. You said you weren't surprised coming from me. You refuse to explain on what you base that.
Then you accused Cairns of insulting him because she was critical of the 'sickening' comments.
Not forgetting insulting every person questioned or had issue with the government vote, 'empty vessels' 'stupid' 'intellectually challenged'.

Brendan Bendar

This ‘refusal to explain’ on this issue doesn’t seem to bother people?


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/when-was-the-money-returned-sinn-fein-refusing-to-answer-questions-about-30000-grant-party-was-given-in-error-39680217.html

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This ‘refusal to explain’ on this issue doesn’t seem to bother people?

It absolutely does Brenner, there's a few of them been asked a few times now to try and explain the accusations that another poster had launched some kind of "campaign" against a minister, and that the campaign might have been based on some fairly flimsy "homophobic" accusations.

Bowie wrote: »

Bish lied said I'd a campaign against O'Gorman. You said you weren't surprised coming from me. You refuse to explain on what you base that.
Then you accused Cairns of insulting him because she was critical of the 'sickening' comments.
Not forgetting insulting every person questioned or had issue with the government vote, 'empty vessels' 'stupid' 'intellectually challenged'.

They've been asked numerous times now to explain the rationale behind their accusations and insinuations, but all I'm seeing is bluster and white noise from them and the likes of yourself.

The ironic thing is, the other day another poster came on here and implied it was the posters here who highlight the govt of confusion and chaos who "ruin the discussion" Not so, I'm afraid. The proof is in the pudding.

Your constant attempts to divert the topic isn't going to fly.

Talk later.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

It absolutely does Brenner, there's a few of them been asked a few times now to try and explain the accusations that another poster had launched some kind of "campaign" against a minister, and that the campaign might have been based on some fairly flimsy "homophobic" accusations.



They've been asked numerous times now to explain the rationale behind their accusations and insinuations, but all I'm seeing is bluster and white noise from them and the likes of yourself.

The ironic thing is, the other day another poster came on here and implied it was the posters here who highlight the govt of confusion and chaos who "ruin the discussion" Not so, I'm afraid. The proof is in the pudding.

Your constant attempts to divert the topic isn't going to fly.

Talk later.

So no big response or answer to Brendans question, no official word from HQ to work with yet so can't offer an opinion?

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Short version.

Without legislation, Commission would have destroyed information and database. Until legislation transferring information within the context of the 2004 Act, no consideration could be given to the GDPR and other aspects of disclosure. GDPR rights are not unrestricted, other issues will need consideration.

I know that might be too difficult for some, but all I have said, and all the government has done is consistent with that narrative.

When was the information going to be destroyed?

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

When was the information going to be destroyed?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/q-a-mother-and-baby-homes-commission-database-1.4389750%3fmode=amp

Have a, read a good explainer.

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/q-a-mother-and-baby-homes-commission-database-1.4389750%3fmode=amp

Have a, read a good explainer.

If you could pull out the relevant lines re time and dates of information destruction.

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

If you could pull out the relevant lines re time and dates of information destruction.

From RTÉ and the ministers quote.

"The Commission is due to submit its final report and stand dissolved in law on 30 October. This Bill needs to be passed and signed into law prior to its dissolution.

"Failure to act will result in an incomplete archive transferring and in the database being effectively destroyed and unavailable for information and tracing."


Tbh I don't know if yesterday's decisions were based on the fact that the legislation had been passed or if it could have or would have happened anyway, so that bit is still confusing and hasn't been addressed that I know of.

Fann Linn

In fairness to O Gorman he's apologised just now on Morning Ireland for not engaging with survivor groups.

It would be a bit too much to ask MM, Chambers and Collins to do likewise instead of slurring those same people.

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

It absolutely does Brenner, there's a few of them been asked a few times now to try and explain the accusations that another poster had launched some kind of "campaign" against a minister, and that the campaign might have been based on some fairly flimsy "homophobic" accusations.



They've been asked numerous times now to explain the rationale behind their accusations and insinuations, but all I'm seeing is bluster and white noise from them and the likes of yourself.

The ironic thing is, the other day another poster came on here and implied it was the posters here who highlight the govt of confusion and chaos who "ruin the discussion" Not so, I'm afraid. The proof is in the pudding.

Your constant attempts to divert the topic isn't going to fly.

Talk later.

It’s very strange ‘logic’ Randall that folk who would seem extremely ‘upset’ and ‘concerned’ about a particular issue involving political parties,would have no ‘concern’ about other issues involving ‘disclosure’.

It’s like the lad complaining to the Guards and getting ‘charged up’ about ‘fly tipping’ whilst indulging in the practice himself.

It’s very difficult for folk to carry any weight of discussion under those kind of parameters.

Most genuine folk I’m sure would understand that concept, RP.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So no big response or answer to Brendans question, no official word from HQ to work with yet so can't offer an opinion?

Bish, no offence auld hand, but that kind of auld shyte tactic doesn't fly with the likes of me. I'm not making specific claims about what Bitter Brendan is trying to deflect to, and so am hardly obliged to "give him a response" on the drivel he's wanting to thread to swerve to.

Yourself and others on the other hand have made fairly far from "innocuous" claims on whether specific posters might be "waging a campaign" against certain Ministers because of "their sexuality" - ie, were engaging in a completely scummy and low attempt to insinuate their was some kind of "homophobic" angle going on.

I gave you an out yesterday, proving that despite "what you remembered clearly" didn't actually happen at all as the poster has never typed out the names on this site for the lifetime of their account.

I suggested you should consider typing out an apology, and as of yet I see nothing from yourself and your bedfellow, either offering that apology, or offering an explanation as to how and why you thought it appropriate to make the homophobic accusations.

Don't be trying the auld "you won't answer Brendan" to the continuous shyte Brendan keeps trying to deflect to on me sir, it won't fly I'm afraid.

Up the yard with that auld shyte bishop.

Brendan Bendar

Very insulting stuff being pumped in my direction.

Not very mannerly or proper.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Bish, no offence auld hand, but that kind of auld shyte tactic doesn't fly with the likes of me. I'm not making specific claims about what Bitter Brendan is trying to deflect to, and so am hardly obliged to "give him a response" on the drivel he's wanting to thread to swerve to.

Yourself and others on the other hand have made fairly far from "innocuous" claims on whether specific posters might be "waging a campaign" against certain Ministers because of "their sexuality" - ie, were engaging in a completely scummy and low attempt to insinuate their was some kind of "homophobic" angle going on.

I gave you an out yesterday, proving that despite "what you remembered clearly" didn't actually happen at all as the poster has never typed out the names on this site for the lifetime of their account.

I suggested you should consider typing out an apology, and as of yet I see nothing from yourself and your bedfellow, either offering that apology, or offering an explanation as to how and why you thought it appropriate to make the homophobic accusations.

Don't be trying the auld "you won't answer Brendan" to the continuous shyte Brendan keeps trying to deflect to on me sir, it won't fly I'm afraid.

Up the yard with that auld shyte bishop.

I typed in your name and Rodders, Roderick and O'Gorman in the search function there, I got no data response and that was tother day only.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I typed in your name and Rodders, Roderick and O'Gorman in the search function there, I got no data response and that was tother day only.

That's probably because I never posted anything about him either.

It's ok to be wrong.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

That's probably because I never posted anything about him either.

It's ok to be wrong.

OK, did you not post a link to the search function and your search on Bowie ré rodders Roderick ó Gorman?
I May be wrong as I'm acting on memory here as before.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK, did you not post a link to the search function and your search on Bowie ré rodders Roderick ó Gorman?
I May be wrong as I'm acting on memory here as before.

The only time I mentioned the man's name on this site was when I demonstrated how the other poster did not.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Roderic&forum=&user=846310&date_from=&date_to=

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

The only time I mentioned the man's name on this site was when I demonstrated how the other poster did not.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Roderic&forum=&user=846310&date_from=&date_to=

Fair play, you got it. Didn't come up for me. Proves my memory isn't too bad as yet anyway.

Any response to Brendan post yet ré the 30000 pounds that SF received erroneously that was very slow in getting back.?

Brendan Bendar

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Fair play, you got it. Didn't come up for me. Proves my memory isn't too bad as yet anyway.

Any response to Brendan post yet ré the 30000 pounds that SF received erroneously that was very slow in getting back.?

https://twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1321586801132392449



Very keen to gloss over this stuff, Bish.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Bish lied said I'd a campaign against O'Gorman. You said you weren't surprised coming from me. You refuse to explain on what you base that.
Then you accused Cairns of insulting him because she was critical of the 'sickening' comments.
Not forgetting insulting every person questioned or had issue with the government vote, 'empty vessels' 'stupid' 'intellectually challenged'.

You know well why I wouldn't be surprised at you campaigning against O'Gorman. You have started a number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory-based campaigns against several public figures for no clear reason. Adding O'Gorman to the list would be based on form.

I will stick with the empty vessels comment. Those making the most noise on this on these threads were engaged in simple and simplistic sloganising which showed a lack of understanding of the complex interactions at play between various pieces of legislation and competing rights and obligations.

For example, I never said that people would not be entitled to their own personal information, just that the issues obtaining it were complex and that the legislation was necessary. And events have followed that path, despite the same empty vessels claiming u-turns for the direction we were already on. All that the government have apologised for is for not communicating more clearly what they are at and consulting with relevant groups, because that is all they failed to do.

There never was any cover-up despite some posters on here going off on one about the Greens covering up FF and FG dirty deeds. Dialling in the outrage might be advisable the next time.

blanch152

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SuzyJourno/status/1321586801132392449



Very keen to gloss over this stuff, Bish.

You do know that Shinners are above dealing with Twitter dumps? you would never see one post or comment on a Twitter link.

FrancieBrady

Contrary to what you were saying blanch - O'Gorman now acknowledges that the legislation was inadequate.

Had it been written properly this would not have arisen. So you were wrong when you said 'the government had no choice', they did, they had the 'choice at anytime to withdraw the legislation and write it 'properly. i.e. it was bad legislation.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40072598.html