Decentralisation

RicardoSmith

true wrote:

Who are employing them and paying their wages?

Have a guess... :rolleyes:

pete

true wrote:

No, **** off yourself Pete.

Zing! ya sure got me there, buddy.

i was responding to your ridiculous 'question' (troll?), not telling you personally to **** off.

true

pete wrote:

Zing! ya sure got me there, buddy.

i was responding to your ridiculous 'question' (troll?), not telling you personally to **** off.

What "question ( troll ? )" ? First you ask me have I not read any of this thread, then you insult me by telling me to **** off, now you tell me my question was ridiculous and possibly a troll ?

I asked you a simple question : your inability to answer it speaks volumes about you , and about your mercenary motives.

Its a shame we employ you.

pete

true wrote:

What "question ( troll ? )" ? First you ask me have I not read any of this thread, then you insult me by telling me to **** off, now you tell me my question was ridiculous and possibly a troll ?

I asked you a simple question : your inability to answer it speaks volumes about you , and about your mercenary motives.

Its a shame we employ you.

ok now i'm telling you to **** off

pete

true wrote:

Its a shame we employ you.

Wait a minute - you're Brian Cowen?

That explains a lot.

true

You cannot blackmail any more money out of us, the people who pay your wages. Just remember that.

pete

true wrote:

You cannot blackmail any more money out of us, the people who pay your wages. Just remember that.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Not. A. Single. Clue.

Go back and read the thread. I'm not about to rehash everything for some late night troll.

true

pete wrote:

Wait a minute - you're Brian Cowen?

That explains a lot.

Tell me you real name and number and I'll tell Brian that we've someone here who curses repeatedly at people with whom he disagrees. Not a very nice trait in a "civil" servant.

RicardoSmith

true wrote:

What "question ( troll ? )" ? First you ask me have I not read any of this thread, then you insult me by telling me to **** off, now you tell me my question was ridiculous and possibly a troll ?

I asked you a simple question : your inability to answer it speaks volumes about you , and about your mercenary motives.

Its a shame we employ you.

In fairness your comments are discordant with the thread. :cool:

true

RicardoSmith wrote:

In fairness your comments are discordant with the thread. :cool:

Just because I said :

"I know some civil servants in Dublin who would only love to relocate back to their native towns out of the expensive and traffic induced hell they call Dublin , but they have not the opportunity to yet. There are lots of towns and cities in rural Ireland who would like the jobs."

Saying that gives people on this thread the right to attack me, tell me to **** off etc. What a charming bunch of "civil" servants. No wonder you have such a poor reputation.

pete

true wrote:

Tell me you real name and number and I'll tell Brian that we've someone here who curses repeatedly at people with whom he disagrees. Not a very nice trait in a "civil" servant.

I only swear at people who insult me outside office hours.

Incidentally, just who is "whinging" for more money? Who is doing this "blackmailing"?

pete

true wrote:

Just because I said :

"I know some civil servants in Dublin who would only love to relocate back to their native towns out of the expensive and traffic induced hell they call Dublin , but they have not the opportunity to yet. There are lots of towns and cities in rural Ireland who would like the jobs."

Saying that gives people on this thread the right to attack me, tell me to **** off etc. What a charming bunch of "civil" servants. No wonder you have such a poor reputation.

No, I think you'll find the problem started with your "whingers" insult.

true

pete wrote:

No, I think you'll find the problem started with your "whingers" insult.

No. Just before this said / your post comprised of :


Have you actually read any of this thread?

jesus.

My sentence that contained the word "whingers" was a question, not an insult.

RicardoSmith

Oh the irony of complaining about the cost of tax, civil service wages, and the efficency of the civil service when decentralisation can only increase taxes and make the service less efficient.

true wrote:

My sentence that contained the word "whingers" was a question, not an insult.

It was implied. If thats not what you intended then you should be more particular about how you post.

pete

true wrote:

No. Just before this said / your post comprised of :


Have you actually read any of this thread?

jesus.

My sentence that contained the word "whingers" was a question, not an insult.

So the inclusion of the word "jesus" to signify my incredulity at your statement gives you the right to infer that my colleagues and I are "whingers"?

You may or may not have noticed that I asked you (post 642) who was doing this whinging and blackmailing in an attempt to get the thread back on topic.

true

pete wrote:

I only swear at people who insult me outside office hours.

Oh yeah. All I said was :

I know some civil servants in Dublin who would only love to relocate back to their native towns out of the expensive and traffic induced hell they call Dublin , but they have not the opportunity to yet. There are lots of towns and cities in rural Ireland who would like the jobs."

You replied :

Have you actually read any of this thread?

jesus.


I replied : I sure have. Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?

To which you reply : oh **** off
etc etc

By cursing like that, you are the one that has insulted a lot more than I have, a chara.

pete

true wrote:

Oh yeah. All I said was :

I know some civil servants in Dublin who would only love to relocate back to their native towns out of the expensive and traffic induced hell they call Dublin , but they have not the opportunity to yet. There are lots of towns and cities in rural Ireland who would like the jobs."

You replied :

Have you actually read any of this thread?

jesus.


I replied : I sure have. Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?

To which you reply : oh **** off
etc etc

By cursing like that, you are the one that has insulted a lot more than I have, a chara.

yeah, and it takes one to know one etc etc.

how old are you? 12?

Might I refer you to posts 642 & 646.

I await your response. (actually, I don't. Some of us have work in the morning)

edit: incidentally, the whole discussion is irrelevant. other than a handful of departments from the two "early movers" lists, decentralisation is dead in the water.

true

RicardoSmith wrote:

Oh the irony of complaining about the cost of tax, civil service wages, and the efficency of the civil service when decentralisation can only increase taxes and make the service less efficient..

Your bosses, and the people who pay them, make those strategic decisions.
( to decentralise or not etc ). It is not your job to do so.
In many peoples eyes, it will take some doing to make the service less efficient
Its bad enough as it is. Ah well, maybe stress free traffic conditions, no pollution and lower housing cost will be to you satisfaction in Ballymalack. Lets hope so.

RicardoSmith wrote:

It was implied. If thats not what you intended then you should be more particular about how you post.

I said "Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?" Is is a question , not a statement. You have not answered it yet. What is implied ? By not answering the question you are indeed one of these whingers.

true

pete wrote:

yeah, and it takes one to know one etc etc.

childish whinger.

pete

true wrote:

Your bosses, and the people who pay them, make those strategic decisions.
( to decentralise or not etc ). It is not your job to do so.
In many peoples eyes, it will take some doing to make the service less efficient
Its bad enough as it is. Ah well, maybe stress free traffic conditions, no pollution and lower housing cost will be to you satisfaction in Ballymalack. Lets hope so.



I said "Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?" Is is a question , not a statement. You have not answered it yet. What is implied ? By not answering the question you are indeed one of these whingers.

Hey true, I checked your public profile:

Replying to Thread Decentralisation @ 01:08

So I wait 9 whole minutes to see what you'e going to say and this is the best you can do? I should have gone to bed.

I said "Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?" Is is a question , not a statement. You have not answered it yet. What is implied ? By not answering the question you are indeed one of these whingers.

If you can't see where your making the implication you're either being completely disingenuous or you are a fool.

sceptre

Erm, hello.

I don't know if any of you remember this but this forum is dedicated to polite discussion of political issues and all that palaver. Reading your erm, discussion above it appears that you may indeed have forgotten about the politeness aspect of what we like to do around here. Hence, take a holiday. Pete, a week. True, a fortnight (the extra week's for managing to include an insult in every single post I can read on the page below the reply screen). Odds are good that neither of you will like this particularly much, either for the ban at all or for the length. Help forum, feedback forum or PM to me will get you a brief discussion on that.

edit: actually, after the final dig above make that two for pete as well. I'll leave this here for a day or so and then recycle all the rubbish out as the discussion's been interesting at times and may continue that way.

lost_lad

Ok screw the above reminds of being in the office way to much. Useless pointless bickering for points on a scoreboard that no one is keeping tally off!!

I am a civil servant who is affected by the move. What bugs the sh!t out of me is that i'm expected to put my life on hold while they decide if it will happen or not. I'm due to go to drogheda in 2007/8/20. I'm expected to sit on my arse (which i actually have been doing for 6 months now but thats a diff story i think ) but my life on hold in the slim chance that Decentralisation may or may not happen. If i want to know whats happening i have to read the papers because even are bosses do not have a clue because even they are not being told.
Home ownership and settling down with my missus would be a nice thing to do in the short/medium term (she being sent to portlaoise - drogheda over subscribed massively so no chance of getting the same location) but what if i blow my first time buyers grant on drogehda or portlaoise or ballymafu*kit and end up in kerry or not moving at all because lets face it it could happen!!!

The incompetance which encompasses the civil service (not all but a hell of a lot) will be made worse. Why not one big fu*king office for each depatment in some of the main towns/citys around the country? Will save taxpayers money in the long term, cut down on training expenses, postage back and forth between diff offices, will also make promotion ten times easier because you know where you can be sent ( up a floor or down a floor) not 200 miles away!!

Decentralistion is enough of an issue to warrant a vote of no confidence in FF/PD gov.

Who benefits from this really?? A few more votes for FF or the land owners and property developers who keep the FF coffers lined?
Me thinks the latter...

lost_lad

pete wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0223/flynnp.html



That's not exactly true, is it?

If you want to be promoted i believe you have to agree to go where ever the job is going.

NewDubliner

true wrote:

Your bosses, and the people who pay them, make those strategic decisions.
( to decentralise or not etc ). It is not your job to do so.
I said "Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order

This is a forum about 'Politics', is it not appropriate to discuss the political decision that is the 'decentralisation scheme'?

Or, are you trying to strangle opposition to our government's equivalent to the Chinese 'cultural revolution'. where all IT staff are to be sent to the countryside & dissenters will be 're-educated'?

Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for money to move. I live in Dublin, my family lives in Dublin. Traffic is not a problem for me. It's a beautiful place to live. I enjoy the many amenities offered by living in a capital city.

I do not want to go, not for any money, not for any promotion.

The few I know who are content with the decision already live near the selected locations.

RicardoSmith

true wrote:

Your bosses, and the people who pay them, make those strategic decisions.
( to decentralise or not etc ). It is not your job to do so.
In many peoples eyes, it will take some doing to make the service less efficient
Its bad enough as it is. Ah well, maybe stress free traffic conditions, no pollution and lower housing cost will be to you satisfaction in Ballymalack. Lets hope so. .

Coming from the private sector into my current role I have to say the office I work in is as well organised if not better managed than any place I've ever worked in the private sector.

Like NewDubliner I'm from Dublin, all my family and friends are in Dublin, I don't want to live in the middle of nowhere, change house, schools, college all at major cost to myself sell, in order to gain nothing at all, since any time saved commuting, will be negated by all the commuting I'll have to do up and down to Dublin and in travelling longer distances down the country for services and facilities that are beside me in Dublin.

Regardless of makes the decisions, if a decision is made that is just plain stupid, and will end up costing more money, then people (we're all tax payers) should ask hard questions about how their tax is flittered away, in political games that achieve little other than political point scoring.

true wrote:

I said "Why, are you one of the whingers that just wants more money in order to relocate?" Is is a question , not a statement. You have not answered it yet. What is implied ? By not answering the question you are indeed one of these whingers.

Your question is offensive, because it implies that if you want to be reinbursed for considerable out of pocket expenses, you're a whinger. Thats just unjust. Besides for the majority of people who simply don't want to move, relocation expenses isn't the issue, as even a glance of the issues and opinions (even in this thread) would tell you (if you'd read them). Anyone that wants relocation expenses, must want to move in the first place.

Since I'm not in the Civil services, and I don't want to move, your question doesn't apply to me, at all. But I'm amused at how you can be judge and jury, when you have so little grasp of the facts, and such a simplistic view of the issues. You have me pigeon holed as a whinging incompetent civilservant, case closed, only because I posted in opposition to your comments. Wheres the justification for that?

the corpo

surprised at the decision to ban pete. the other chap, i can understand, but pete?

RicardoSmith

lost_lad wrote:

If you want to be promoted i believe you have to agree to go where ever the job is going.

Thats how it works in our office. Any new promotions are only given if you agree to signing a contract where you must agree to relocate. So if you do not want to relocate, you can't accept a promotion.

If you refuse it and subsequently your office doesn't relocate what then? Consider that promotions happen a lot slower in the civil service and you could be waiting for a couple of years for it.

RicardoSmith

the corpo wrote:

surprised at the decision to ban pete. the other chap, i can understand, but pete?

He was suckered into it, but sadly took the bait. Its an emotive and highly charged issue for those involved. Pity since hes invested considerable effort in his more considered posts thus far. :cool:

ishmael whale

allie_e17 wrote:

With the Goverment facing a big bill for the nursing home charges, would they not be better off abandoning the ludicrous political stroke that is Decentralisation and all the money it will cost?

A sensible suggestion, also contained in this SBP article.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=3099-qqqx=1.asp

“…. At €1 billion, we are talking of €1 out of every €10 that will be spent by the new Health Service Executive (HSE), though there are indications that the bill could be spread over a period of years. There is an argument - and a respectable one - that this is a one-off; that the exchequer returns may (yet again!) come to the rescue. Or indeed, that refunds/restitution are an ‘internal transfer'. This is sophistry. This policy/decision-making debacle will hit the funding and delivery of healthcare, as well as the government's wider fiscal strategy. Equally, the ‘opportunity-cost' (which could have been funded even by the interest on the €1 billion) is huge.

The ‘collateral' financial damage cannot easily be restricted to Health and Children. The pain will be felt right across the cabinet table or, more accurately, across the country. Is there anyone who really believes in the whole decentralisation debacle, which was economically indefensible and showed scant respect for any stakeholder in the civil society? There would be some symmetry if the government showed a little humility and absorbed the costs of the latest debacle by simply cancelling this ill-conceived exercise. …”

NewDubliner

RicardoSmith wrote:

If you refuse it and subsequently your office doesn't relocate what then? Consider that promotions happen a lot slower in the civil service and you could be waiting for a couple of years for it.

Maybe it's a test of commitment/loyalty to the government?

Then again, maybe someone who turns down promotion for the sake of their family life is just the kind of person we want making important decisions affecting the lives of others?