Is a politicians home fair game?

paddy147 · 07-09-2013 9:53pm

Am Chile wrote: »

Law enforcement my arse-a case of rich mans law and ordinary mans law- I dont see any law enforcement aimed at developers who owe million ir unpaid development fees-nor I do see any law enforcement aimed at the anglo bankers who frauded the state.

or "minsiters law".

Even wonder why and how fast the chap who broke into Alan Shatters house was done for it in court and locked up in jail??

Because it was a goverment minister...:rolleyes:

But if that was any other persons house...it would be many months or even years for it to go to court,and probably be suspended sentence.

michael999999 · 07-09-2013 9:57pm

paddy147 wrote: »

or "minsiters law".

Even wonder why and how fast the chap who broke into Alan Shatters house was done for it in court and locked up in jail??

Because it was a goverment minister...:rolleyes:

But if that was any other persons house...it would be many months or even years for it to go to court,and probably be suspended sentence.

you would be lucky to get the guards to call within 4 or 5 hours. Yever mind see court!

Andrewf20 · 07-09-2013 10:02pm

Im completely against it. I hear alot of people complaining about different parts of the current political landscape and how it negatively affects their lives (increased taxes etc). Some of this is perhaps justifed but I believe that there is much more complex reasons behind why certain decisions are made.

I actually do have reasonable faith in the current political situation even though I, like many, have to suffer financially with small tax hikes in a thousand different areas. In short, I can accept short term pain for long term gain. I just hope that those who picket outside TDs homes think seriously about it and also ask themselves if they have a better solution to the problems at hand.

I see it all the time in the politics in work, people complaining about something that looks plain wrong to them, but do so because they jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Im wondering if its the same deal here.

AudreyHepburn · 07-09-2013 10:04pm

Knob Longman wrote: »

But of course its ok for politicians to interfere and disrupt our private lives. :rolleyes:

When or where did I ever say that?

Please don't put words in my mouth. It insults your intelligence and mine.

Phoebas · 07-09-2013 10:04pm

paddy147 wrote: »

or "minsiters law".

Even wonder why and how fast the chap who broke into Alan Shatters house was done for it in court and locked up in jail??

Because it was a goverment minister...:rolleyes:

But if that was any other persons house...it would be many months or even years for it to go to court,and probably be suspended sentence.

Has that case been brought to court - I didn't think it had yet?

... and is it in any way related to this topic?

paddy147 · 07-09-2013 10:07pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Has that case been brought to court - I didn't think it had yet?

... and is it in any way related to this topic?

3 years in jail....with last 18 months suspended

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/burglar-gets-three-years-for-breakin-at-shatters-home-29364045.html

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:07pm

My name is URL wrote: »

No more than I'd want a gang of bailiffs and revenue collectors banging on my door for refusing to pay an unfair tax on my personal home.. upsetting the missus and the kids.

A. Pay your taxes.

B. Property tax is not unfair

07-09-2013 10:07pm

To answer OP's original question, it's NEVER right to confront people who are off duty. Everyone is entitled to a private life. These protests are just the dying rattles of a failed campaign by failed politicians.

tayto lover · 07-09-2013 10:10pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

A. Pay your taxes.

B. Property tax is not unfair

Enda said it was unfair and unjust.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:11pm

wexie wrote: »

To be honest I'd generally agree with you.

However with the bunch of leeches running this country what's morally or ethically right or acceptable seems to have become somewhat irrelevant.
Keeping that in mind I think everybody should feel free to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible within the bounds of the law.

What is immoral about our current government?

Now the last two governments were possibly immoral but the current one?

paddy147 · 07-09-2013 10:11pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

A. Pay your taxes.

B. Property tax is not unfair

Dennis O'Brien??:pac::eek::rolleyes:

tayto lover · 07-09-2013 10:14pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

What is immoral about our current government?

Now the last two governments were possibly immoral but the current one?

Still too many "shady" characters and double standards even with this crowd.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:28pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Still too many "shady" characters and double standards even with this crowd.

Even if you find some of them 'shady', they have been pretty ethical and moral in their governance. They've also done a good job thank God. Things are starting to look better thanks to enda et al.

We're no longer an international disgrace and are on track to leave our IMF programme next year.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:28pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Still too many "shady" characters and double standards even with this crowd.

Even if you find some of them 'shady', they have been pretty ethical and moral in their governance. They've also done a good job thank God. Things are starting to look better thanks to enda et al.

We're no longer an international disgrace and are on track to leave our IMF programme next year.

Femme_Fatale · 07-09-2013 10:29pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

What is immoral about our current government?

Now the last two governments were possibly immoral but the current one?

It's just mandatory to be anti government no matter what. Makes ya look kinda rebellious.

07-09-2013 10:31pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

Even if you find some of them 'shady', they have been pretty ethical and moral in their governance. They've also done a good job thank God. Things are starting to look better thanks to enda et al.

We're no longer an international disgrace and are on track to leave our IMF programme next year.

Ah, Jazus, you can't say things like that on here - you'll be slated! The truth doesn't go down too well with some.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:34pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's just mandatory to be anti government no matter what. Makes ya look kinda rebellious.

I agree with you femme fatale.

I know times are hard but that does not mean that the government are incompetent or immoral.

Also many unpopular policies are the right thing to do such as water charges and property taxes. I don't want to have to pay property tax but I know that it's right and I'm damn happy that we've got a government sorting out the awful mess we're in.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:41pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, Jazus, you can't say things like that on here - you'll be slated! The truth doesn't go down too well with some.

I know Maryanne84. There has to be some voice of reason and truth to counter the din of the know nothingers and freemen etc. who were no doubt fair weather Bertie believers when this country was run like a casino.

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 10:46pm

Knob Longman wrote: »

But of course its ok for politicians to interfere and disrupt our private lives. :rolleyes:

What on earth are you talking about?

Extreme right wing tea party alert!

ted1 · 07-09-2013 11:00pm

paddy147 wrote: »

or "minsiters law".

Even wonder why and how fast the chap who broke into Alan Shatters house was done for it in court and locked up in jail??

Because it was a goverment minister...:rolleyes:

But if that was any other persons house...it would be many months or even years for it to go to court,and probably be suspended sentence.

Because you have to protect the law makers. That is a fact that goes back to the cave men. Failing to protect the law makers is what leads to anarchy and dictatorship.

If we fail to protect them, then no one will step up to the plate and you'll be left with a dictator

KERSPLAT! · 07-09-2013 11:03pm

ted1 wrote: »

Because you have to protect the law makers. That is a fact that goes back to the cave men. Failing to protect the law makers is what leads to anarchy and dictatorship.

If we fail to protect them, then no one will step up to the plate and you'll be left with a dictator

Should we not all be protected in this way?

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 11:09pm

Breaking into the minister for justice's house is just moronic beyond belief for obvious reasons.

It is also a sign of a partisan executive and an uncorrupt society and justice system.

Try doing it in China and compare notes.

Phoebas · 07-09-2013 11:11pm

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Should we not all be protected in this way?

Some people (like the Minister for Justice) require special protection.

wexie · 07-09-2013 11:41pm

Phoebas wrote: »

It wasn't??

I'd hate to be on end of your personal abuse when you do mean it.

you [yoo; unstressed yoo, yuh] Show IPA pronoun, possessive your or yours, objective you, plural you; noun, plural yous.
pronoun
1.
the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case: You are the highest bidder. It is you who are to blame. We can't help you. This package came for you. Did she give you the book?
2.
one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see.
3.
(used in apposition with the subject of a sentence, sometimes repeated for emphasis following the subject): You children pay attention. You rascal, you!
4.
Informal. (used in place of the pronoun your before a gerund): There's no sense in you getting upset.
5.
Archaic.
a.
yourself; yourselves: Get you home. Make you ready.
b.
a plural form of the pronoun ye.
noun
6.
something or someone closely identified with or resembling the person addressed: Don't buy the bright red shirt—it just isn't you. It was like seeing another you.
7.
the nature or character of the person addressed: Try to discover the hidden you.
Origin:
before 900; Middle English; Old English ēow (dative, accusative of gē ye1 ); cognate with Old Frisian ju, Old Saxon iu, Dutch u, Old High German iu, eu

Might still have to change my opinion of you. (see, this time I'm referring to you).

Believe me, if I felt like insulting you (you again) you'd be in no doubts.

Phoebas · 07-09-2013 11:44pm

^^
*backs away slowly*

ezra_pound · 07-09-2013 11:57pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Like threatening to send the Revenue to your home for the LPT.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Who do you think should be sent to your house to follow up on uncollected tax? Your local parish priest? Get real!

ted1 · 07-09-2013 11:57pm

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Should we not all be protected in this way?

No, extra care should be given towards law makers and law enforcers.

_Kaiser_ · 08-09-2013 12:17am

ted1 wrote: »

No, extra care should be given towards law makers and law enforcers.

Riiight.. cause they're just "better" than the rest of us I suppose!

Despite:
- all the examples listed earlier in the thread by wexie
- Garda corruption (Penalty Points scandal, McBrearty scandal etc)
- Rezoning scandals
- Shatter abusing access to confidential records for political point scoring
etc etc
- Bertie Ahern
- The last government destroying the future of the country and retiring on full pensions and benefits
etc etc

Normally I'd fully agree that someone's home is off-limits, but we've already seen that protesting at their offices, at the Dail or through other "proper channels" is just ignored. If even 1 of these TDs goes to work on Monday thinking "maybe we need to rethink this..." then it'll have been worthwhile.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and turfing them out 3 years from now on full retirement isn't really gonna hurt is it? Not as much as the damage they can do in the next 3 years will hurt the country.

Annasopra · 08-09-2013 12:23am

Am Chile wrote: »

Do you have a link? if it was a cahwt group~it comes as a surprise to me~as most cahwt groups have steered clear of a picket tds home tactic.

https://m.facebook.com/wicklownohouseholdtax?id=153441651432242&_rdr

Phoebas · 08-09-2013 12:23am

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Riiight.. cause they're just "better" than the rest of us I suppose!

No - not because they're 'better' than anyone else. Because they require more protection. Its simple common sense that a Minister for Justice needs more protection that the average Joe.

Is a politicians home fair game?

Comments