FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3 - Threadbanned User List in OP

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801522#Comment_117801522

They mentioned what rules would be changed later in the year and nothing about parties of 50 people.

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801540#Comment_117801540

Would you claim the same if it was writing pro FFG stories?

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801544#Comment_117801544

How would they know what rules would be changed "later in the year" when the government hadnt even drafted the new regulations yet back in May? Can you please explain with a bit more detail because I am stumped here as to what the implication is?

Thanks

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801522#Comment_117801522

The manager prepared to break the rules? Very interesting.

The digging goes on and the look is not good. Has there been a 'circling of wagons' again to protect members of FG and Labour?

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801570#Comment_117801570

Well did you miss this part of the article:

MacCann told Maxa that “the government across the road from us here” had told the hotel that it could host non-resident guests for outdoor dining from 7 June. He went on to outline his understanding of the regulations. 

“Now there are also limitations on all this: no parties greater than six people; we must ensure two-metre distancing between parties; each guest must ensure a one-metre distance between each guest. And we have to comply with an endless list of protocols and controls over the potential spread of the virus,” he said. 

MacCann admitted to breaking government guidelines and Covid-19 legislation by hosting a noncompliant wedding.

“We're allowed weddings of up to six guests. So for example, today we have a wedding for.. I've broken the rules… There are eight guests at it,” he said. 

MacCann, speaking about the difficulties faced by the five-star hotel during level-five lockdown, also said it was hosting people working for government at the time: “We've got a group who are involved in some essential work for the government departments. They're staying with us.”

dudley72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801556#Comment_117801556

The same, but why would they setup a website to be pro anything? rage sells at the moment as you can see.

It's also 100% irrelevant, might as well have interviewed the guy 2 years ago with the regulations changing.

We are now into the usual of "circling the wagons" etc when people know the story is dead :-)

You might as well ring Gemma and ask her for comment, will get about the same level as that website has

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801590#Comment_117801590

Sorry, I said I read the article so simply quoting it back to me is a bit pointless and not answering the question.

This interview took place on 8 May and the relevant regulation was updated 2 months later on 5 July by Statutory Instrument 329/2021.

So can you set out, in your own words, how a discussion of a hospitality workers interpretation of regulations and gossip about Summer reopening at the start of May has relevance in relation to regulations that came out 2 months later? I'm genuinely stumped here so please do spell it out to me.

Thanks

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801596#Comment_117801596

How in the world could you claim the 'story was dead'?

PAC inquiry upcoming and Foreign Affairs forced to reveal their correspondence and summoning Coveney to account. Questions being asked about FOI requests being denied and the integrity of the separation of powers?

For something 'dead' it seems to be very much up and walking around.

skimpydoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801614#Comment_117801614

If it was updated later how come FI repeatedly asked it to be clarified and got no answer? Also why was the AG dragged into it if everything was above board and kosher?

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801648#Comment_117801648

I'm a bit confused what you are asking here. The public health regulations are continuously being updated. Regulation 8 was updated on 5 July allowing organised events outdoors of up to 200 people in any venue, and up to 500 in certain specified larger venues. Prior to 5 July this certainly wasn't allowed, which is why the individual being interviewed 2 months earlier would have been stating such.

He clearly couldn't have based his comments in May on changes to the regulation in July that did not exist at the time of comment.

It's just not making sense to me, sorry. Maybe you need to explain it to me like I'm 5.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801680#Comment_117801680

The allegations here are that the rules were broken and the AG amended after to protect Varadkar and whoever else was there.

This article is significant because the transcript shows a manager prepared to overlook the rules in May.

dudley72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801626#Comment_117801626

Yes that is why the latest media "source" is the link above :-)

This is the latest story which has no proof. Once the story is dead and everyone else has moved on this is the desperate attempt to drag it back.....

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801719#Comment_117801719

Can you point out specifically what "rules were broken" and what the AG "amended" after the fact?

Thanks

McMurphy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801485#Comment_117801485

"I would imagine, like most people, where guidelines surrounding legislation are silent you look to the legislation itself and rely on that to form your viewpoint."

Leo (Tánaiste) had to ask the Merrion if the soirée was being compliant with regulations (he signed off on), the Merrion hotel assured him it was, bearing in mind Failte Ireland were looking for clarification on the definitions before they updated their guidelines, Leo still only thought he "probably didn't break regulations (he signed off on)" more than two weeks after he attended the event, the whole hospitality sector weren't aware, but the one hotel that was aware, just happened to be a hotel that held a party for an ex govt minister who was given what looks like a crony appointment by FG, the serving Tánaiste (who happens to be FG leader) at least one TD, and a few others named, but 40+ more so far unnamed

The odds on all those unlikely "coincidences", being "coincidence" bubba? Simply Incalculable I would say.

I have to echo Francie's thoughts, this could end up damaging the AG office irreparably, and would also ask if Leo (who obviously wasn't on top of his brief) has any notion what he started with this one?

It's the little things as they say.

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801797#Comment_117801797

You have been confusing regulations and guidelines across all your posts, which I will assume are simple typos/mistakes rather than not knowing the difference between the two, however it does make it somewhat difficult to understand the point being made. They are two very different documents.

I don't think Varadkar ever made any comment about "probably" being within the regulations, that was with reference to the guidelines.

My understanding of what he said is that he rang the hotel to ensure the event was going to be within Regulation 8, which had been updated by Statutory Instrument 329/2021 in early July (i.e. that it is fully outdoors, max of 200 people etc). Not that he rang them to ask what the regulation was, that is just a silly interpretation.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801766#Comment_117801766

I said the 'allegation' is....

Remains to be seen as this story develops if the allegation has any foundation, but a Merrion manager prepared to break the rules thrown into the pot, stirs it, would you not think?

dudley72

So both threads now going with this link to a made up website. All because Paddy thought he had a smoking gun. This is hilarious. As pointed out on the other website whoever wrote the article is an idiot and Paddy is a bigger one for sharing it.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801887#Comment_117801887

'Made up'?

There is actual film footage of the manager making these comments. Actor? 😁

Shebean

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117800590#Comment_117800590

You seem to be intent on being a wind up.

It's recorded fact that Failte Ireland and the hospitality industry and it's representatives along with the Tanaiste, were unaware of the alleged regulations the AG came out to clarify.

Asking you why you refuse to acknowledge these verifiable and verified facts is not accusing you of anything except maybe wilful and convenient ignorance. I'm assuming you know the difference between a question and a claim.

Until the Attorney General Paul Gallagher clarified this week that outdoor events attended by up to 200 people were permitted within the Covid-19 regulations, industry representatives such as the Restaurant Association of Ireland were unaware that was the case. In addition, the guidelines published by Fáilte Ireland did not include those details.

The Taoiseach said: “While the event did not breach regulations, the Government accepts that further clarity and consistency on guidelines was required”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/f%C3%A1ilte-ireland-sought-clarity-on-outdoor-events-in-june-1.4643219

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/government-td-apologises-for-attorney-generals-intervention-on-covid-rules-40721864.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/covid-guidelines-at-time-of-zappone-event-lacked-clarity-taoiseach-1.4642040

I'll take it you're simply on the wind up.

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801859#Comment_117801859

Sorry, but how can there possibly be an allegation of the AG changing the rules at the start of August, when the rules in question were published and available online since 5 July? Who is alleging that? Because they need a good dose of common sense because they currently believe in the AG engaging in a bit of time travel.

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117801942#Comment_117801942

Here you are again alleging that FI were unaware of Statutory Instrument 329, published on 5 July. After it has been well and truly confirmed they were aware of it and indeed engaging with the Department of Tourism in relation to it. Bizarre.

Shebean

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802069#Comment_117802069

I'm not alleging it. I'm telling you, with proof, that FI weren't aware of what the AG came out to 'clarify'. Because you refuse to read the links I provided or believe Failte Ireland or industry representatives or the Tanaiste, is on you. Do you believe climate change is a thing?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802039#Comment_117802039

Here's two allegations for a start.

https://remonews.com/ireland/senator-fianna-fail-says-it-was-shameful-that-the-attorney-general-was-used-for-political-cover-for-the-merrion-hotel-party/

P.S. Not sure of your angle here, but can I ask, are you comfortable with the AG's involvement here from a separation of powers perspective?

Same question to other posters if they would like to tell us their positions.

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802100#Comment_117802100

Are you on a wind up? Your links prove that FI were very much aware of the new regulations, which is entirely the reason they were engaging with the Department of Tourism during July. That's not in doubt and all the articles you are linking to are confirming this to be the case.

You'd swear these were secret regulations or something the way some of you are going on.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802039#Comment_117802039

Let's also not forget that not only does the AG not have the power to change the law, nobody has the power to retroactively change the law.

I refuse to believe that people are so ignorant that they don't understand this, so instead the only logical conclusion is that they're desperately throwing out completely nonsensical claims to try and keep this thing alive.

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802114#Comment_117802114

Sorry, but that is completely different to what you are claiming. You alleged that the AG changed the rules after the fact. A complete impossibility given the regulations were published on 5 July, several weeks earlier, and have not changed.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802146#Comment_117802146

If the rule says 'Thou shalt not kill'. And I kill somebody and the AG says, what that rule meant was 'Thou shalt not kill except in these circumstances.....' then I wouldn't be pussyfooting around with semantics.

But semantic point accepted begrudgingly.

Can you give us your opinion here:

P.S. Not sure of your angle here, but can I ask, are you comfortable with the AG's involvement here from a separation of powers perspective?

Same question to other posters if they would like to tell us their positions.

Bubbaclaus

There seems to be big confusion here from a few posters with respect to Statutory Instrument 329 2021, and specifically Regulation 8 contained within. For the interest of ending the confusion, I am sharing this below.

What appears to be lost by some is that this instrument was published on 5 July, and was not updated or edited in any way following the event at the Merrion. Also, not only did the AG not change this after the fact, he also cannot change it.

Also, prior to 5 July, this new regulation did not exist yet, so if someone was interviewed on, say, 8 May about restrictions, then they obviously would not be aware of it yet (given the fact it didn't exist yet).

Finally, this restriction was in the public domain and published, with media coverage, on 5 July. A secret regulation it was not.

Hopefully this puts a lot of issues to bed, as a lot of the comments I have read seem to not realise any of this.

Regulation 8

(1A) A person may organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location where -

(a) the person takes all reasonable steps to ensure 

that -

(i) the event takes place entirely outdoors, 

and

(ii) the number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event -

(I) does not exceed 500 where the event is held, or to be held, in a relevant venue, or

(II) does not exceed 200 where the  event is held, or to be held, other  than in a relevant venue,

Bubbaclaus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117802197#Comment_117802197

I literally cannot believe what I am reading here. All the articles being linked to are confirming that FI were aware of the new regulations. Literally says they were linking in with the Department of Tourism on them. To claim otherwise is just baffling to me? As well as that, Random Joe on the street could have told you about the new regulations (indoor dining reopened thanks to them so it was kind of a big deal at the time), so to suggesta body like FI missed them for some reason is just unbelievable in any case.

I also don't believe Failte Ireland would ever have Public Health regulations on their website? That sounds a bit excessive. I had a Google there now and dont see any section where they would ever have them there.

seamus

@FrancieBrady wrote:

are you comfortable with the AG's involvement here from a separation of powers perspective?

Well you tell me: https://www.attorneygeneral.ie/ag/agfunction.html

The Attorney General is legal adviser to the Government

Is it unusual for the AG to make a public statement about a specific matter like this? Sure. Is it outside of the remit of his office? Absolutely not. The Government sought legal advice from their legal adviser, and that advice was published.