Congrats to Luke "Ming" Flannagan getting elected as mayor of Roscommon...

Okay,
Fair play to Ming etc.


This has always bugged me however, so any answers appreciated.

1.
Do the mayors of our various town/city councils get paid any extra?
2.
If not, do they have any "running costs" associated with the role? (Car/driver/Secretary etc)
3.
What is the role/function of the Mayor?

We need a lot of things in this country that we don't have.

I'm not the biggest fan of someone having a bigger platform merely because they have an academic qualification in a particular field. But nor am I a fan of everyone having the same sized platform regardless of what their formal qualifications are merely because they have a view on something. "You're just a doctor, you only learn things off" isn't particularly helpful. "You're not a doctor" often is.

Hence, neither "I have a degree in X" nor "I'm from the area" are ultimate measures of whether a view is worth listening to or not. I'm a massive fan of everyone bringing something to the table of discussion. However, some people bring more than others. And sometimes the capacity of the table is limited, as it is in a TV panel discussion.

As you've probably noticed, I'm not much of a fan of ad hominem arguments and "you're just a doctor, you only learn things off" is rather ad hominem. Certainly an attempt to play the man (or woman[1]) and not the ball.

The fact of the matter is that an academic qualification is a defined, society recognised measure of a certain amount of knowledge (or measure of exams passed and standards met to the satisfaction of other academics if you want to be precise about it). There are plenty of academics who are plain scared of the world outside the college gates. Nowhere near all, mind you, but they exist. Academic qualification tied to practical experience is an excellent mix and not all academics have that. That's a potential chink in the wall of expertise. It exists. But the idea that every person's contribution to a discussion is equal in a "one man, one view" sort of way is laughable.

Now, as for the specific examples where qualified or ostensibly qualified people were just rubbish at their jobs, that's true in those cases. Not necessarily all that relevant of a greater evil where qualified people are not worthy to be listened to though. There's frequently a lack of peer review in many of these things, or a situation where the people designated as checks/balances fail to do their duty (and that certainly applies to any of the political appointments mentioned on this thread).

Bottom line is that if you have a recognised qualification, your voice has a greater weight in your subject of expertise or sort-of-expertise than that of someone who doesn't. That's the society we've built. We could abandon that society but that's not even the thin end of the wedge towards an idiocracy, it's the thick end, figuratively and double-figuratively. And I'm worried enough that we're already living in an pseudo-idiocracy that I'm damned if we're going to make it official.


[1] I like Monty Python

sink wrote: »

The point jmayo, Elevator and Barname that you're all missing is that in virtually all cases of professional malpractice or mistakes it is a fellow peer who uncovers such. Doctors who commit wrongs are found out by other doctors. Scientist who are mistaken are corrected by fellow scientists.

Actually AFAIK the Irish Medical council or Irish association of obstetricians/gynecologists ?? did a supposed investigation and found he was fineallowing him to continue.
It was the whistleblowing of a nurse (someone of less weighty opinion according to some) who pursued it with HSE (who actually did a good job in counteracting the hospital and others) and then a British doctor investigated and exposed his methods as severly flawed.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's not looking down on anyone. It's realising that someone who has gone to university to study geography and works in an area where that expertise is required has a more informed opinion on the effects of bog cutting than someone who just cuts said bog.

So because a few experts cocked up, any expert opinion on any issue should be dismissed?

What's your alternative? Allow people with no training (ie non-experts) become doctors because some with training have messed up?

Ah come on now you are being facetious.

It just means non experts have a right to challenge expert opinion.
According to the attitudes of some around here they should just shut up and do as their betters dictate.

jmayo wrote: »

Actually AFAIK the Irish Medical council or Irish association of obstetricians/gynecologists ?? did a supposed investigation and found he was fineallowing him to continue.
It was the whistleblowing of a nurse (someone of less weighty opinion according to some) who pursued it with HSE (who actually did a good job in counteracting the hospital and others) and then a British doctor investigated and exposed his methods as severly flawed.

Why did they require a doctor to carry out a full investigation if the nurses opinion was just as valid? I'm not arguing that a layman's opinion is entirely worthless or incorrect just that it holds little weight.

There are many accusations thrown around by laymen on a daily basis against professionals; some of them are valid and some of them are complete fabrications. However in all cases it requires the investigations of a professional well studied in the field to determine the accusations validity.

dynamick wrote: »

I found it frightening to see Ming claim last night that a bog could grow 40% in a few years. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on TV by a long shot. I don't care how many medical cards Ming has sorted out or how stoned he can get or how pointy he can train his beard.

That the people of Roscommon could pick such a hectoring gobdaw to represent them is beyond embarrassing.

Who needs knowledge like when you have a shovel?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2396128

BTW his figures appear to have originated with a government/state body ?

Why do you think he is embarrassing and a gobdaw ?
Is it because you have issues with his appearance or becuase he would fight for what he and his neighbours believe against the wishes of you or some people you admire ?

There have been far more embarrassing politicans picked by other constituencies including those of urban Dublin city.
What constituencies did ray burke, liam lawlor, bertie ahern, willie o'dea, charlie haughey represent ?
All primarily urban.
And yes other rural constitiuencies have voted in people like the flynns, jackie healy rae, jack neddy o'keefe, micahel lowry who I would deem not fit to lace the shoes of Ming.

And Ming has done far less, if any damage at all, to the body politic of this country.

You appear to have serious issues with his appearance ?
Personally I would rather an honest man looking like a tramp than a liar and thief in charvet shirts wearing makeup all at my expense.

Have you ever listened to him speak on issues like planning ?
You may not agree with the man, but at least you have to admit he often stands up against the popular and easier line.

BTW I have respected the guy from the day I heard him talk on radio about the travesty that was planning and development during the construction bubble and this comes from a guy that knew him from college days when I thought he was a one trick pony only interested in legalising drugs.

It has been noticable of late how many debates are degenerating into a battle between rural and urban.

Can't wait to see how many of the urban environmentalists will be pro environment when they want to remove water from the Shannon system to feed the wastage of the capital ?

To other posters (Sink, T.W.H Byron, OscarBaavo), have I ever said expert opinion should be ignored ?
What I have said is that you just can't try and tell people shut up, becuase you are not an expert and thus don't have the right to an opinion on this and that is IMHO what some posters are affectively saying.

The reason some of us highlighted the issues with doctors/banks etc is to highlight that expert opinion does often need to be challenged because it can be wrong and is not infallible as some would have one think.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

The issue is simple. He put out a statement, quoting from some govt sponsored report, that Bog X grew by 40% over Y number of years and the scientist didn't dispute it or correct it. She just sat there looking faintly bemused. Surely it should have been very simple to debunk his statement?

If I remember correctly she replied with the 1mm(?) per year growth of bogs.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

If I remember correctly she replied with the 1mm(?) per year growth of bogs.

Edited my post above after looking at RTE Player. She had no idea what his figures meant as they came at her out of the blue. Personally I think he was quoting figures relating to flora & fauna/biodiversity.