Have the govt done it this time!

dbnavan

There are several crisises in the country which are a result of bad govt management at the moment, Hospitals, schools, housing etc. But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

Surely anyone outside the state must be laughing at bertie and his troops, another political gaff! Surely this is the final nail in their coffin.

lostexpectation

someone did point out how bertie has been evading the heat on most of these issues

I was hearing yesteday about these grumbling back benchers, I so often here of labour rebels in the UK and RINOS in the US but I would have no clue who are the FF rebels?

The ones with individual minds rather the the cranks and country bumpkins?

anyone? I mean does FF not even have a black caucus ??

does politics.ie have this info?

MrPudding

dbnavan wrote:

But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

In fairness, the government did not quash the judgement, the judiciary did. The government were in court fighting for it not to be quashed.

I am not defending them. Their arguement for not doing something when they knew there was a problem seems to be that it would have been politicl suicide. Well, I don't care. They are supposed to be protecting the people of this nation not their own jobs. If they had any pride in the work they are supposed to be doing they would do things for the good of the people and not the party.

MrP

Dirk Gently

You'll have to do better than that if you want to get yourselves into government dbnavan.

While I agree it is bad government on the issues you mentioned, how would a FG government do any better? If FG had that decision sprung on them like FF/PD had it sprung on them, would FG react quicker and better to close the loophole.( or does FG have every loophole covered that could possibly arise)

If you want Bertie out (which I also do) you have to convince people of a better alternative. It's not good enough to say Bertie and Harney are useless, you have to convince people that FG/LAB would handle Hospitals, schools, housing and the occasional law loophole better than the current Government. I'm not convinced they would but would love to be convinced otherwise. It's not good enough to say get them out because they're bad. You have to convince people to put you in rather than put them out.

lostexpectation

10 years is the reason as I keep saying... this is the ten year syndrome reason enough

silverharp

clown bag wrote:

If you want Bertie out (which I also do) you have to convince people of a better alternative. It's not good enough to say Bertie and Harney are useless, you have to convince people that FG/LAB would handle Hospitals, schools, housing and the occasional law loophole better than the current Government. I'm not convinced they would but would love to be convinced otherwise. It's not good enough to say get them out because they're bad. You have to convince people to put you in rather than put them out.

I'm of the view that there is no answer to this, the system as we have it guarantees the status quo, all special interests groups from the civil service to the health service all have their fiefdoms, and the ability of gov to manage change is hampered assuming thay have logical policies to start with. Since the sheeple seem to buy into this, it doesn't matter which group of pigs are at the trough.

dbnavan

dbnavan wrote:

But now they are quashing judgements on convicted self confessed child abusers because of a stupid loophole in the law.

If by 'they' you mean the Government, then your post is factually incorrect.

If by 'they' you mean the judiciary, then I presume you should rephrase the thread title.

trippy30

I wish we had a better opposition but I dont think we do.

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional) and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Fundamentally when it comes to government, I dont care who it is, as long as they are competent.

You can of course argue the toss on whether the current govt is or is not and sometimes I too think they are not.

But lately I honesty think the opposition is more scary, I dont see them being progressive enough, I dont see them as particualrly compentent and I dont see them as responsible or constructive.
Lately the oppositions tactic has been to use fear as a weapon to scare people to win over the electorate.

Politics in my mind is about being responsible not creating, manufacturing chaos or calling for 'heads' until its justified.

If it works fine (in terms of the electorate), but at what cost to society. Personally I dont find that ethical, instead I find it desperate and I stop sympathising for them at that point.

trippy30

trippy30 wrote:

I wish we had a better opposition but I dont think we do.

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional) and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Fundamentally when it comes to government, I dont care who it is, as long as they are competent.

You can of course argue the toss on whether the current govt is or is not and sometimes I too think they are not.

But lately I honesty think the opposition is more scary, I dont see them being progressive enough, I dont see them as particualrly compentent and I dont see them as responsible or constructive.
Lately the oppositions tactic has been to use fear as a weapon to scare people to win over the electorate.

Politics in my mind is about being responsible not creating, manufacturing chaos or calling for 'heads' until its justified.

If it works fine (in terms of the electorate), but at what cost to society. Personally I dont find that ethical, instead I find it desperate and I stop sympathising for them at that point.

I agree

Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich

The_Minister

trippy30 wrote:

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so. Not to mention the man is religious.
Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

Bertie is pretty religious too. On Ash Wednesday he was the only one in the Dail wearing ashes on his forehead (that I could see)

samb

I am no fan of the present Government and would prefer, slightly, the opposition but I would agree that all this outrage is misplaced.

The law as it was was stupid and I think we should be thankful that our constitution recognises everyone's right to fair defence. The reason Mr A was released in the first place was because he was charged with the wrong offences. He should have been charged with regular rape, abuse etc..nobody seems to be pointing the finger at those who are really to blame..the Gardai and the DPP. They should investigate and charge people with what the are guilty off instead of taking the easy option.

Time Magazine

trippy30 wrote:

Anybody recall FG recently, with the tagging of offenders idea (it was unconstitutional)

No it wasn't. That's just bull.

and the AE stuff was frankly impractical.

What's impractical about ensuring that people go to the GP before A+E so that A+E can be prepared prior to their arrival?

To be honest I loathe Betie, but in truth Enda is worse. Im really worried that he is very dim and dangerously so.

Coming from Mr Unconstitutional? Something is only ever deemed unconsitutional if

• The Supreme Court dismiss a Bill when asked to investigate its constitutionality by the President, according to Article 26 of the Constitution.
• The High Court/Supreme Court rule it to be unconstitutional when a case is brought to them.

The man is not dim. He's actually extremely bright. He genuinely knows the country inside out, and is keen on most all issues. He's boring, by all means the man is dull, but to suggest he's dim is way off the mark. If you want to see a politician who's dim in the actual sense of the word, I would refer you to Mary Coughlan, Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher, Willie O'Dea, Dick Roche, Noel Dempsey, John O'Donoghue, and, of course, Patrick Bartholomew Ahern.

Not to mention the man is religious. Not a problem in itself, but when I think of that I think of George Bush and wonder.

As opposed to every single taoiseach we've ever had? And ever president we've had? And every president of the US ever? And a good 70% of the population who are religious?

Get over it. A lack of belief in God does not make you any more competent a politician.

trippy30

Angry Banana wrote:

No it wasn't. That's just bull.

Well perhaps you can explain why many have said it is.
Here is a link to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties view on the matter

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/09/story2891.asp

They said

“We have also stated that using electronic tagging as a condition of bail would not stand the legal or constitutional test,”

Angry Banana wrote:

What's impractical about ensuring that people go to the GP before A+E so that A+E can be prepared prior to their arrival?

That bits fine, it was the drunk tanks I was referring to in his speech. I understand other parties have said that also. I think it was Harney – correct me if I’m wrong.

Angry Banana wrote:

He's actually extremely bright. He genuinely knows the country inside out, and is keen on most all issues. He's boring, by all means the man is dull, but to suggest he's dim is way off the mark.

I realise that you and I have a personal opinion, that’s fine if you think that. Personally speaking I have not found him good on issues that are shall we say... more complex in nature. Dim might be a bit unfair, you might be right. However in contrast to other leaders he isn’t as sharp and clued in, he cannot speak off the cuff without sounding like a ‘plank’ to be honest. He good when he is reading from something scripted though.

Angry Banana wrote:

If you want to see a politician who's dim in the actual sense of the word, I would refer you to Mary Coughlan, Pat 'The Cope' Gallagher, Willie O'Dea, Dick Roche, Noel Dempsey, John O'Donoghue, and, of course, Patrick Bartholomew Ahern.

I’m not disputing there are others at all. Agree with you on a lot of them. My own exp of Dick Roche would lead me to conclude he is one of the worst. But I have now doubt there are more. (slaps all round)

Angry Banana wrote:

As opposed to every single taoiseach we've ever had? And ever president we've had? And every president of the US ever? And a good 70% of the population who are religious?

I’m not, and as such see religion as a liability to be honest. It’s my own personal take on it. I don’t believe in politics and religion should mix. Frequently I see evidence of that in Ireland, US and the UK. Can you honestly conclude that religion has helped Bush or Blair?

Religion as I see it is a barrier to being objective and fair. There are many in Ireland who are not religious also.
I know we are not a majority, but I hope you can understand my point in this and why I feel this way.

Angry Banana wrote:

Get over it. A lack of belief in God does not make you any more competent a politician.

See previous reponse to quote and below
History would demonstrate that in many ways religion has been a barrier to advancement in science and human evolution. Held us back from being more progressive and challenging institutional beliefs.
Its also oppressive to those it rejects.
For instance if we listen to recent to what the Pope said - all gays are pretty much evil. His words were ‘intrinsically evil’
Now I don’t accept that, most people in Ireland wouldn’t, but you can see how damaging it can be. Just look at how it targets minorities for instance.

Never underestimate or dismiss how much the RC church , Islam and other religions oppress people or how it leads to conflict. I come from NI, I rejected religion at an early age, if I didn’t I think I in many ways would be part of the problem, along with the cultural conditioning to reinforce discrimination that goes along with it.

Now if you believe in religion honestly and completely, in effect you buy into that on a level. You buy into discrimination in a way. Few religions truly respect and encourage others to be treated as equal. despite what we all would like to think.
I understand people will accept religion to a degree but I still think its not good. I recognise I’m in a minority in that way of thinking and politics has always been based on the majority thinking that it’s a good think cos it makes you moral or responsible, but Im not convinced on that.

Back to topic

On the issue of equality I cannot understand Labour saying they will go into coalition with FG, given FG said some of the following things.

Bill Tormey wanting specific immigrants to tested for diseases.
Michael Noonan saying he wanted to ban hoodies
Then FG leader Enda said they have their right to express their view.
I find it confusing as to what we will get when they go into power. I’m assuming they will this election.

But it is bizarre to be honest.

In effect it seems FG, a right of centre party and a left of centre Labour are going to work together. How that will work – who knows? I haven’t seen this being examined enough.
Either there will be a compromise of what they represent and stand for, or it will fall apart. But we don’t know who is going to compromise yet. Id be left of centre, but knowing FG I honestly I would not vote Labour.

I’m not happy with the coalition and I hate goverment. Basically Im between a rock and a hard place.

lostexpectation

trippy30 wrote:

Well perhaps you can explain why many have said it is.
Here is a link to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties view on the matter

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/05/09/story2891.asp

They said

“We have also stated that using electronic tagging as a condition of bail would not stand the legal or constitutional test,”

ah but FF/PD will be as likely to bring in tagging as FG are, you hardly expect any politician to take any notice of what the ICCL says do you?

Cork

trippy30 wrote:

Bill Tormey wanting specific immigrants to tested for diseases.
Michael Noonan saying he wanted to ban hoodies
Then FG leader Enda said they have their right to express their view.
I find it confusing as to what we will get when they go into power. I’m assuming they will this election.

But it is bizarre to be honest.

Its politics. Some may believe hoodies should be banned. He might have got a few votes out of it.

The opposition last week were a joke. Courts are entitled to interpet the laws that politicians make.

Bertie and Michael McDowell gave a reasoned respose not the knee jerk rantings displayed by the opposition.

trippy30

lostexpectation wrote:

trippy30 wrote:

ah but FF/PD will be as likely to bring in tagging as FG are, you hardly expect any politician to take any notice of what the ICCL says do you?

Well if the govt do, they are off their heads too.
This is the sort of thing that sounds good to the public but can be resolved in less 'dramatic' practical way.

oscarBravo

samb wrote:

The reason Mr A was released in the first place was because he was charged with the wrong offences. He should have been charged with regular rape, abuse etc..nobody seems to be pointing the finger at those who are really to blame..the Gardai and the DPP. They should investigate and charge people with what the are guilty off instead of taking the easy option.

The problem with that approach - a problem which the new legislation has unfortunately but inevitably introduced - is that it requires cross-examination of the victim. For all its flaws, the old law allowed prosecution of child rapists without further traumatising the child by forcing her/him to testify and be cross-examined in court.

I'm not arguing that the old law should have been kept - if it was broken, it needed to be fixed - merely that it's simplistic to argue that the Gardaí and the DPP should have pursued a certain course of action when there was a more victim-friendly approach available to them.

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

I don't know, MR A could still get out couldn't he, the supreme court could sttick with its premise.

I'd be very annoyed at Joe Duffy if he led me (and his victims(mother) (one of which said there was on his show)) to believe that O Rouke could have possibly gotten out early, but a article in the times yesterday calrified that this was never the case


expediancy!

I always wonder why people aren't prosecuted for every particular crime they commit rather the then more important charges, and when peopel plead guilty the trial is les detailed, sounds like justice could be missed in there, even if it speeds up the law process.

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

I don't know, MR A could still get out couldn't he, the supreme court could sttick with its premise.

Given that it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Government's appeal, and issued an arrest warrant for Mr A - I doubt it.

is_that_so

oscarBravo wrote:

T

On one level, I'm a little puzzled by the angst that still seems to prevail - Mr A's perverted ass is back in jail, and it seems likely that Messrs. B et al will remain inside also, so the net effect of last week's judgement on existing victims seems to be minimal.

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

Dirk Gently

is_that_so wrote:

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

I don’t necessarily agree with that. Maybe if you're talking individually, yes we are moany cnuts and like nothing better than a moan in the pub about how sh!t the government is but it doesn't translate into a communal voice. As a nation of people we are hopeless at venting anger in a positive way which actually affects government decisions.

Fair enough the frenchies will strike at the drop of a hat but at least they give a sh!t and form mass movements to strike and march to illustrate their anger. (and it works) Irish people are at the opposite end of the scale as we do nothing except moan to our mates in the pub and do nothing to put the government under pressure. We have the government we deserve because we allow them to do what they do. I’m pretty sure Bertie could do away with corporate tax all together, raise paye tax and bring in water charges and lump a 1000 euro a year carbon tax on motorists overnight and there would barley be a whimper from the Irish public as a collective force. Sure people would be righteously pissed off but would be more likely to vent their anger over an over priced pint than with feet on the ground.

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

I don’t necessarily agree with that. Maybe if you're talking individually, yes we are moany cnuts and like nothing better than a moan in the pub about how sh!t the government is but it doesn't translate into a communal voice. As a nation of people we are hopeless at venting anger in a positive way which actually affects government decisions.

Fair enough the frenchies will strike at the drop of a hat but at least they give a sh!t and form mass movements to strike and march to illustrate their anger. (and it works) Irish people are at the opposite end of the scale as we do nothing except moan to our mates in the pub and do nothing to put the government under pressure. We have the government we deserve because we allow them to do what they do. I’m pretty sure Bertie could do away with corporate tax all together, raise paye tax and bring in water charges and lump a 1000 euro a year carbon tax on motorists overnight and there would barley be a whimper from the Irish public as a collective force. Sure people would be righteously pissed off but would be more likely to vent their anger over an over priced pint than with feet on the ground.

well the french still have the union structures to organise mass opposition we don't. fecking weakly unions

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

Given that it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Government's appeal, and issued an arrest warrant for Mr A - I doubt it.

well its only a another appeal isn't it? and when final ruling comes he could still get out early?

Cork

is_that_so wrote:

Well it gives us something to rant about. We are an angry little people and we like to be outraged. One of our less pleasant traits IMHO.

Many were lead by the nose by an opportunist opposition and media.

At work yesterday - I tols a woman that a march on the Dail was pretty pointless. She looked at me with disbelief.

They are many gullable people out there that are lead by cheap radio talk shows are 3rd rate Tds.

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

A quality sadly lacking in the opposition.

lostexpectation

Cork wrote:

Many were lead by the nose by an opportunist opposition and media.

At work yesterday - I tols a woman that a march on the Dail was pretty pointless. She looked at me with disbelief.

They are many gullable people out there that are lead by cheap radio talk shows are 3rd rate Tds.

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

he might have showed reason and knowledge then most Ill give him that but he quite clearly lied about who knew what when and where the responsibilty layed.

trippy30

lostexpectation wrote:

well the french still have the union structures to organise mass opposition we don't. fecking weakly unions

Im glad we don’t. Anybody imagine what that can do to a country from an international competitiveness footing. The French have the reputation, but Im sure there are consequences as a result.

For instance its also one of the many things large multinationals consider before investment (Stability).

If unions have too much sway, its not good for the country, or for our pockets, so there def needs a balance to be struck.
Its one area I think Labour will be useless on (challenging them) - I just cannot see how they will do it. They are so 'in' with them on that level. FF are not much better.
So it really is up to FG or PDs to do it.

For all the rest of us who are not lucky enough to be part of a union its maddening to see them to have the power and the authority they do over our politicians anyway.

I honestly cant see how unions in Ireland are having a raw deal. Compared to those of us who work in the private sector or the charity sector for instance.
Thoose are the areas that the government should nuture more.

Everytime I see a union complaining about something I struggle to hold an objective view on it I must admit. I have little time for their protests.

As for the demo/protest - whether it makes a difference (we will see).

Its best judged on what happens afterwards.
I do think the recent demos have struck a nerve with people - but rather than being entirely political I see the recent one as being issue based.

Its not whining about more money, resources etc.

So I do think it was a good idea.

cast_iron

Cork wrote:

At all times - McDowell showed reason.

I agree - McDowell did indeed show reason. One would think he himself orsered the release of Mr A the way some people have being talking/writing. Like him or loathe him, he was right in what he said all along. It is precisely this that irritates his enemies so much.

Cork wrote:

A quality sadly lacking in the opposition.

This is exactly the problem. Take the OP for example, which was factually incorrect for a start. This lack of clarity and complaining for the sake of complaining has done them no favours at all.

Maybe somebody can point out exactly what the scandalous thing the Govt has done in this "scandal". Perhaps a lack of foresight, but very little else.

ateam

The opposition have a duty to oppose, but Fine Gael and Labour are acting opportunistically and trying to score political points with this issue. After all, if it was so obvious as emphasised by the opposition, why didn't they point it out before the Supreme Court decision.

Michael Mcdowell has acted with speed and integrity, exactly the qualities we need in a minister and the qualities the opposition lacks.

lostexpectation

Ok apart from unions or even protest aside how do you suppose people are supposed to show there anger at issues?? dont tell me via their local politician, politicians arn't people.

lostexpectation

cast_iron wrote:

I agree - McDowell did indeed show reason. One would think he himself orsered the release of Mr A the way some people have being talking/writing. Like him or loathe him, he was right in what he said all along. It is precisely this that irritates his enemies so much.



This is exactly the problem. Take the OP for example, which was factually incorrect for a start. This lack of clarity and complaining for the sake of complaining has done them no favours at all.

Maybe somebody can point out exactly what the scandalous thing the Govt has done in this "scandal". Perhaps a lack of foresight, but very little else.

the AG and DPP and the MOJ knew about this case and didn't prepare for the worsts its simple as that.

is_that_so

lostexpectation wrote:

Ok apart from unions or even protest aside how do you suppose people are supposed to show there anger at issues?? dont tell me via their local politician, politicians arn't people.

Nothing wrong with protest but squawking on Joe Duffy or Gerry Ryan is not protest. There has been an excess of hysteria this week.

lostexpectation

is_that_so wrote:

Nothing wrong with protest but squawking on Joe Duffy or Gerry Ryan is not protest. There has been an excess of hysteria this week.

im not a housewife so I didn't suggest didn't recommend that either. But I do think Joe Duffy is one the most powerful men in the country.

Time Magazine

trippy30 wrote:

Well perhaps you can explain why many have said it is.
Here is a link to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties view on the matter

The ICCL obviously have an interest in suggesting this would not work. They are, as their name suggests, a civil liberties body who would be against such measures on principle. We're all civil libetarians in the modern world really, but whose liberty? Personally I would have no problem being electronically tagged while on bail.

As for the unconstitutionality aspect, they state that "that 24-hour monitoring is an invasion of privacy" and say it would be against the Constitution (without citing an Article, mind). The fact of the matter is there would not be 24-hour monitoring. That's ridiculous. There probably would be no monitoring, save perhaps a single check a day to make sure they haven't skipped the country. The monitoring would be most effectively used only in the case of suspicion. That's why I wouldn't mind being tagged, it would provide irrefutable evidence of my innocence and a also provide irrefutable evidence of others' guilt. Simple.

The link you provided also tells quite an interesting story. "n the past two years, 11,000 serious crimes were committed by people on bail, including 43 homicides, 500 assaults and 750 drug offences.[/QUOTE]Let's leave drug offences out of that, because they could be anything from supply to possession. But 43 homicides is one a fortnight; 500 assaults is five a week. Incidentally, the ICCL fail to mention this only includes conviction rates.

That bits fine, it was the drunk tanks I was referring to in his speech. I understand other parties have said that also. I think it was Harney – correct me if I’m wrong.

I'm not sure if you mean Harney wants drunk tanks or she said it was foolish. The drunk tank thing is a bit dodgy, but on grounds different to what the media say. There would, of course, be someone supervising the drunk tank to make sure nobody dies while there. But from the softy perspective that I have, I can see a death coming from that and that isn't good. But I imagine that the 25% of weekend/evening calls being alcohol related also causes deaths indirectly. I'm not sure on the data so I'm not going to assert that. If such data could be suggested, then the drunk tanks may be the least worst option. At the very least, imposing a fine on drunks is a good idea.

I realise that you and I have a personal opinion, that’s fine if you think that. Personally speaking I have not found him good on issues that are shall we say... more complex in nature. Dim might be a bit unfair, you might be right. However in contrast to other leaders he isn’t as sharp and clued in, he cannot speak off the cuff without sounding like a ‘plank’ to be honest. He good when he is reading from something scripted though.

In relation to the other leaders: he's smarter than Bertie; he's far friendlier and down to earth than Pat Rabbitte; he's not as rude or obnoxious as Deputy Sargeant. Regarding the off the cuff thing, he's boring, but anytime I've seen him rounded (and that includes an absolute stinger of a question about the US Military funding Trinity College) he's pulled it off very well. Finally it's not a matter of having something scripted. The guy's not the best without something to back up his point, he's got (what I see) good opinions on most topics but he needs his sheet of figures to back him up. I don't know whether it's a psychological thing or whether he just doesn't want to lie about statistics or what not, but his manner on television interviews shouldn't dictate how well he'd run the country. Notice how much better he is on radio when he's got his facts right. It's the same with him in person, as a former non-believer (;)) he is quite inspiring and so on in real life.

I’m not, and as such see religion as a liability to be honest.

That's highly prejudicial and offensive. Kenny is Catholic. Catholosism dictates kindness and charity. Yes, the Bible says that homo It’s

I don’t believe in politics and religion should mix. Frequently I see evidence of that in Ireland, US and the UK. Can you honestly conclude that religion has helped Bush or Blair?

Blair's social policy is deeply rooted in his charitable religion. To compare the politics of George Bush to Enda Kenny using religion is begging for ridicule. They're both white with blue eyes as well, shock horror.

What about Bill Clinton?

Religion as I see it is a barrier to being objective and fair.

Ridiculous. Only if you use religion as a barrier to fairness. The kindest, fairest people I know are all firm believers in God. Hell, (excuse the pun), the belief in ultimate retribution will spur people to act with kindness.

There are many in Ireland who are not religious also. I know we are not a majority, but I hope you can understand my point in this and why I feel this way.

This doesn't belong on the Politics forum, but the reason there is such a ground-swell against religion is a ridiculous afterburn of the abuse scandals. The Church today provides a completely irreplaceable service in Irish society and has done for a couple of centuries. The cheapest child-care facilities in the country are non-profit, non-denominational Presbyterian centres; St. Vincent de Paul; the entire national school level operates in a meaningful way at the charity of the Church; countless Church-gate collections for organisation such as the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association; Aware; Accord; Trocaire... the list goes on.

History would demonstrate that in many ways religion has been a barrier to advancement in science and human evolution. Held us back from being more progressive and challenging institutional beliefs.

Evolution eh? . There are two issues at hand here. You don't want to hear the first. The second is that yes, the Crusades were terrible and so were the theories of W. E. Lecky. But that has no bearance on the competence of any reasonable politician.

Its also oppressive to those it rejects.

Name an organisation in the Western World that has a history of more than a millenium that has not been oppressive to its opponents at some point in its history. Come on.

For instance if we listen to recent to what the Pope said - all gays are pretty much evil. His words were ‘intrinsically evil’

You're anti-Church blinkers are oppressive, a barrier to advancement of investigation and so on. Read the Bible. Acts of a homosexual nature are considered sinful, "hateful[ly]" so. Yet the Bible also goes on to call people to show love to all people regardless of their acts. Turn the other cheek, offer a thief your other coat while he's at it, forgive and love thy neighbour - even if he tries to assassinate you. The Church all but accept that homosexual feelings are natural but state that acting out on it is wrong. There's no problem there.

Now I don’t accept that, most people in Ireland wouldn’t, but you can see how damaging it can be. Just look at how it targets minorities for instance.

The Church targets minorities? You better back that up fairly quickly and link that back to how it impinges on Enda Kenny's credibility fairly lively. I could have sworn that tomorrow my Church is holding an International mass to openly welcome minorities and furthermore meet with those of other faiths to see how they can help them settle in the community. Such damaging people.

Never underestimate or dismiss how much the RC church , Islam and other religions oppress people or how it leads to conflict.

Comparing the oppression of the Church to Islam is hilarious.

I come from NI, I rejected religion at an early age, if I didn’t I think I in many ways would be part of the problem, along with the cultural conditioning to reinforce discrimination that goes along with it.

Do you really think that the problems in the North are religious, that the average punter in a Celtic jersey really gosh darn hates those Proddies because of a failure to discern the totality of transubstantiation? Please. Much like you're (more academically) masquing, people use religion to segment. If people in the North actually behaved as they should according to dirty religion the first thing that would happen is a cessation of violence.

Now if you believe in religion honestly and completely, in effect you buy into that on a level. You buy into discrimination in a way. Few religions truly respect and encourage others to be treated as equal. despite what we all would like to think.

Right, let's get back on topic, Enda Kenny's religion. Please show how his belief in calls for the living of life in the service of others and so on will make him discriminate and fail to treat others equally? Tenuous link, perchance?

...

Time Magazine

....

I understand people will accept religion to a degree but I still think its not good. I recognise I’m in a minority in that way of thinking and politics has always been based on the majority thinking that it’s a good think cos it makes you moral or responsible, but Im not convinced on that.

Maybe you should look into the Educate Together national school in Kilcock and see how non-religion is a more discriminatory force than religion.

On the issue of equality I cannot understand Labour saying they will go into coalition with FG, given FG said some of the following things.

Bill Tormey wanting specific immigrants to tested for diseases.

Point taken. He has and will be over-ruled on that.

Michael Noonan saying he wanted to ban hoodies

No he didn't. That's bull, yet again. He wanted to ban the use of hood (that is hood up, no problem with 'down' hoodies) in retail units. That's stupid, it should be up to the individual store, but a reasonable suggestion that shops should ban the use of hoods in their shops. I often see signs saying 'Please remove your helmet' and so on, it's the same thing.

Then FG leader Enda said they have their right to express their view.

Would you rather he 'discriminate' and say they're not allowed? That's their view. It's not a mandatory FG deal-breaker in coalition talks to test for diseases. Any small thing, and that includes drunk tanks, but perhaps not A+E screening, is up for debate. It's how negotiation works. No problem there.

I find it confusing as to what we will get when they go into power. I’m assuming they will this election.

It will be a government with stricter rules on criminals, stricter controls on govt spending, more generous social spending (due to happen anyway with completion of NDP?) and less pandering to SF. I know you're from the North so you can view that either way, but that's what will happen.

In effect it seems FG, a right of centre party and a left of centre Labour are going to work together. How that will work – who knows? I haven’t seen this being examined enough.

They were in government not a decade ago. The mix, in my opinion worked well. I'm probably a little to the left of FG, but as an economics whore appreciate the importance of right-wing wealth creation. FG are put in charge of criminals, making money; Labour are put in charge of treating society's ills and spending money. (Kinda!)

Either there will be a compromise of what they represent and stand for, or it will fall apart. But we don’t know who is going to compromise yet. Id be left of centre, but knowing FG I honestly I would not vote Labour.

For a lefty, FG+Lab > FF+PD's.

Dirk Gently

lostexpectation wrote:

Ok apart from unions or even protest aside how do you suppose people are supposed to show there anger at issues?? dont tell me via their local politician, politicians arn't people.

That’s the problem alright. At what point is it ok to protest in the face of upsetting lurking multinationals or business leaders.

Protests + strong unions = no investment by multinationals = no growth.

some people reckon you should never protest at risk of offending the investors but that’s just surrendering your rights and the country’s sovereignty to the multi-nationals. It would help if there was a Europe wide strong emphasis on workers rights and fair taxation but when one country protests for higher wage demands or more corporate tax on their own, the investment just goes to another country which is less known for standing up for their rights.

Answer seems to be writing a letter to your local politician and see no action. Do anything more, such as organize a protest or strike and your jeopardising the country’s prosperity.
You gotta love free market capitalism. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don’t.

is_that_so

lostexpectation wrote:

im not a housewife so I didn't suggest didn't recommend that either. But I do think Joe Duffy is one the most powerful men in the country.

Regrettably this is true. But with power comes responsibility.

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

well its only a another appeal isn't it? and when final ruling comes he could still get out early?

What final ruling, and by whom?

The Supreme Court initially decided that the 1935 Act was unconstitutional. This is part of the Supreme Court's function, and its sole prerogative.

On the basis of that Supreme Court ruling, Mr A applied to the High Court to have his continuing detention ruled unlawful. The High Court agreed, and ordered him released.

The State appealed his release to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the State's arguments, and overturned the High Court's decision. This is also the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court. There is no higher court in this land, so unless Mr A plans to appeal his case to the European Court of Human Rights, he will serve out his sentence.

Unless I'm missing something?

Time Magazine

The ECtHR can't over-rule a Supreme Court decision, they can only find against it.

Not officially enforcable. There are guys serving time (hi John Gilligan) who the ECtHR would like to release.

trippy30

Thanks for responding Angry Banana - you have explained some of FG intentions. But there are still some concerns I have...

Angry Banana wrote:

The ICCL obviously have an interest in suggesting this would not work. They are, as their name suggests, a civil liberties body who would be against such measures on principle.

The ICCL is well respected; can you honestly say FG really thought this through?
Then why on earth did my local FG reps on local radio pretty much acknowledge it as rhetoric then along with the A+E stuff.

Angry Banana wrote:

At the very least, imposing a fine on drunks is a good idea.

How that will be managed, and whether that is fair does beg the question. Someone could be on a night out and randomly attacked for instance.

Angry Banana wrote:

That's highly prejudicial and offensive. Kenny is Catholic. Catholicism dictates kindness and charity. Yes, the Bible says that homo It’s

Catholicism does not dictate kindness and charity - in truth people do - they make the conscious choice to. Irrespective of whether they believe or not in religion. Its the degree of his faith that concerns me to be honest, for the 70% that define RC faith here in Ireland, 45% are practicing. Of those I he is in the conservative end of that spectrum.
Correct me if Im wrong.

Angry Banana wrote:

To compare the politics of George Bush to Enda Kenny using religion is begging for ridicule. They're both white with blue eyes as well, shock horror.

I wasn’t saying they are exactly the same, I was saying that it makes me wonder how much he might be.
For instance - what about issues of abortion, gay rights, embryo research - I would be interested to see where he stands on that.
In light of what I perceive to be his lack of ability to question, examine and think for himself. Yes I’m very worried.

Angry Banana wrote:

What about Bill Clinton?

He is intelligent which compensates, and rocks!

Angry Banana wrote:

The kindest, fairest people I know are all firm believers in God. Hell, (excuse the pun), the belief in ultimate retribution will spur people to act with kindness.

When someone uses religion to tell me how good they are, I feel sorry for them, and wonder why they really need to. The fear of the 'stick' as it were to encourage people to be kind, is small comparision to someone who does an act out of geniune love and compassion for another. Now thats real love.
How about people being humane and kind first- not defining (branding) it through religion.

Angry Banana wrote:

The Church today provides a completely irreplaceable service in Irish society and has done for a couple of centuries. The cheapest child-care facilities in the country are non-profit, non-denominational Presbyterian centres; St. Vincent de Paul; the entire national school level operates in a meaningful way at the charity of the Church; countless Church-gate collections for organisation such as the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association; Aware; Accord; Trocaire... the list goes on.

Not disputing some of the work of the RC has been good and benefited others and other churches. However to argue that it is irreplaceable is wrong. There is the dark side to consider. Look to the Commission to Inquire in Child Abuse, The Ferns Report (which I might add FG said nothing on from what I can remember on) and further inquiries expected. Look at other charities which do not fall under the umbrella of religion. They do the work just as well. Look at research at what makes the charity sector great, Salmon et al., 2003 and you will find church is not essential to providing cheap, high care services to those vulnerable or in need. Concerned motivated people who care are the underbelly of society and charities are what really matter.

Angry Banana wrote:

Name an organisation in the Western World that has a history of more than a millenium that has not been oppressive to its opponents at some point in its history. Come on.

I dont like or subscribe to institutions really for that reason and more.

Angry Banana wrote:

You're anti-Church blinkers are oppressive, a barrier to advancement of investigation and so on. Read the Bible. Acts of a homosexual nature are considered sinful, "hateful[ly]" so. Yet the Bible also goes on to call people to show love to all people regardless of their acts. Turn the other cheek, offer a thief your other coat while he's at it, forgive and love thy neighbour - even if he tries to assassinate you. The Church all but accept that homosexual feelings are natural but state that acting out on it is wrong. There's no problem there.

Ah well all I can say is some of us have moved on. Religion needs to be challenged and questioned more so for its relevancy today. Ive read the bible, and you do have to wonder why is it we need this in this day in age.

Angry Banana wrote:

The Church targets minorities? You better back that up fairly quickly and link that back to how it impinges on Enda Kenny's credibility fairly lively.

I never linked it together like that.
Take Enda out of the equation on this and hear me out.
On the RC Church front
Do you not remember when they did it to single mothers until it became publicly unpopular.
Today its still discriminates against gay people. For instance a gay person can be fired for being gay and teaching in one of its schools.
There is much more but I wont go into it.

Angry Banana wrote:

I could have sworn that tomorrow my Church is holding an International mass to openly welcome minorities and furthermore meet with those of other faiths to see how they can help them settle in the community. Such damaging people.

That’s great good to see it get it right. In one Church I know (in a rural area) a little while ago as there was a prayer to save 'us' from the masses that were descending into Ireland. It was attended by school children. It did not get into the press unfortunately.

Angry Banana wrote:

Comparing the oppression of the Church to Islam is hilarious.

I wasn’t comparing them (what made you think that)

Angry Banana wrote:

Do you really think that the problems in the North are religious, that the average punter in a Celtic jersey really gosh darn hates those Proddies because of a failure to discern the totality of transubstantiation? Please. Much like you're (more academically) masquing, people use religion to segment. If people in the North actually behaved as they should according to dirty religion the first thing that would happen is a cessation of violence.

That’s not what I implied, your take on what I said is skewed and shows no understanding of how religion has become the method in which people are discriminated against. Education and social housing is determined on that basis in the North. In truth is should not be pandered to as much. For a child growing up question their faith, there is no much option or alternative there. So yes it is oppressive and in comes cases much worse but I wont go into that now. My own experience of it cannot be ignored.

Angry Banana wrote:

Right, let's get back on topic, Enda Kenny's religion. Please show how his belief in calls for the living of life in the service of others and so on will make him discriminate and fail to treat others equally? Tenuous link, perchance?

FG policy on Gay, Lesbian couples is not equality for one. Under the Good Friday Agreement it really should be on par with it.

Again I want to reiterate I am worried what Enda may well represent. Someones faith if deeply held does have influence on policy and method of govt it cannot be ignored, dismissed etc.

I hope you understand where Im coming from here.

I would point out that I see FG more right of center than PD's. So I see the poss new govt as shift to the right in some ways. Its so hard to tell.

Lastly can you PM on the Educate Together national school in Kilcock I would like to find out what happened there. I would appreaciate that

Time Magazine

trippy30 wrote:

The ICCL is well respected; can you honestly say FG really thought this through?

Yes. Some of the top legal minds in the country are FG to the bone; there is as good a legal advice team in FG HQ as there is anywhere in the State. Now obviously it might be unconstitutional, I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I can't see it being considered as much.

Then why on earth did my local FG reps on local radio pretty much acknowledge it as rhetoric then along with the A+E stuff.

I can't speak for your local rep. Maybe we hear different things.

How that will be managed, and whether that is fair does beg the question. Someone could be on a night out and randomly attacked for instance.

The drunk tank is of course not for people assaulted while drunk, give some credit! The majority of alcohol-related admissions are simply people who've had too much and are falling over themselves. Of course if there's evidence their drink has been spiked or whatever they wouldn't be fined, but people who skull back ten pints without the ability to hold them and require a bed for their troubles should pay for it imo.

Catholicism does not dictate kindness and charity

Really?

Matthew 19:21 wrote:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Irrespective of whether they believe or not in religion. Its the degree of his faith that concerns me to be honest, for the 70% that define RC faith here in Ireland, 45% are practicing. Of those I he is in the conservative end of that spectrum.
Correct me if Im wrong.

Firstly, more than 70% are RC. And he's not really on the conservative end. If you want the conservative end I suggest you search on some pre-Vatican II churches - he's relatively conservative but no more so than your average FG'er and certainly not conservative enough to scare off former DL man Rabbitte.

abortion

He's against it.

gay rights

He wants civil unions. Their relationships should be recognised by the State but they should not be given the same adoption rights as traditional family unit. Yet.

embryo research

I'm not certain, but I'd say he'd give it reserved support.

In light of what I perceive to be his lack of ability to question, examine and think for himself. Yes I’m very worried.

He's smarter than both myself and yourself (from what I exact [and that's not meant to be an insult]). He's very capable of thinking for himself.

He is intelligent which compensates, and rocks!

He's also quite conservative religiously. And EK is intelligent, to suggest he's not is wrong.

When someone uses religion to tell me how good they are, I feel sorry for them, and wonder why they really need to. The fear of the 'stick' as it were to encourage people to be kind, is small comparision to someone who does an act out of geniune love and compassion for another. Now thats real love.

I'd agree; I was simply re-enforcing my point.

How about people being humane and kind first- not defining (branding) it through religion.

As I said, re-enforcement. I never suggested people would be kind only because of religion, I said it's simply further reason to be so.

Not disputing some of the work of the RC has been good and benefited others and other churches. However to argue that it is irreplaceable is wrong.

Not even the State could afford the national school infrastructure, nevermind anyone else. By all admissions the Church are now themselves cash-strapped and the schools should become the responsibility of the State - but they did provided one hell of an investment in the last century that the State couldn't have affored.

There is the dark side to consider. Look to the Commission to Inquire in Child Abuse

Which the Church have apologised for and are now doing everything they can afford to compensate. Diarmiud Martin, for example, never harmed a child but is paying millions to compensate them for others. What more do you want them to do?

The Ferns Report (which I might add FG said nothing on from what I can remember on) and further inquiries expected.

FG did comment on it.

...

Time Magazine

...

Look at other charities which do not fall under the umbrella of religion. They do the work just as well.

That argument is empty. I say the Church are providing an incredible service to the State, and you say others are also. I never said the Church run the country.

Look at research at what makes the charity sector great, Salmon et al., 2003 and you will find church is not essential to providing cheap, high care services to those vulnerable or in need.

No, but they still do it. And please provide a more specific reference for that report.

Concerned motivated people who care are the underbelly of society and charities are what really matter.

And 45% (your statistic) are re-enforced and openly called upon to care because of the big mean Church.

Ah well all I can say is some of us have moved on. Religion needs to be challenged and questioned more so for its relevancy today. Ive read the bible, and you do have to wonder why is it we need this in this day in age.

I'd suggest you poke into the Christianity forum to see if religion is not questioned enough. Unfortunately either religion is completely irrelevant or perrenially supreme. Its relevance today is of little consequence, the State should not be run by the Church but it should not ignore it either - if the ICCL had over a million people donating and attending its meetings weekly and tens of thousands attending daily, should it be ignored by the State?

Do you not remember when they did it to single mothers until it became publicly unpopular.

No, remind me.

Today its still discriminates against gay people. For instance a gay person can be fired for being gay and teaching in one of its schools.

Absolutely unfounded unless you provide hard evidence to the contrary. This is fundamentally against several laws and that is unconstitutional. It's also probably spung from Adrian Kennedy et al (2006) seeing as the Church do not hate gay people for God's sake.

There is much more but I wont go into it.

I'd like you to.

That’s great good to see it get it right. In one Church I know (in a rural area) a little while ago as there was a prayer to save 'us' from the masses that were descending into Ireland. It was attended by school children. It did not get into the press unfortunately.

I find that hard to believe. The Church are one of the most welcoming organisations to immigrants, if purely for selfish reasons - they're less hostile to the Church than Irish people.

I wasn’t comparing them (what made you think that)

You said "Never underestimate or dismiss how much the RC church , Islam and other religions ...". You bunched them all as one. It's kind of like the inverse of unius est exclusio alterius.

That’s not what I implied, your take on what I said is skewed and shows no understanding of how religion has become the method in which people are discriminated against.

That's not religion's fault; that's people's fault.

Education and social housing is determined on that basis in the North.

And that's the North's administration's fault. That does not affect whether or God exists and thus should be believed in the slightest.

In truth is should not be pandered to as much. For a child growing up question their faith, there is no much option or alternative there.

No child is forced to attend anything, save by their parents, which bears no effect on whether Jesus is/was God.

So yes it is oppressive and in comes cases much worse but I wont go into that now. My own experience of it cannot be ignored.

Is it oppressive of the primary school system to teach kids Irish? I mean there's no alternative? That's not oppression.

FG policy on Gay, Lesbian couples is not equality for one.

What exactly is not equal about it? Should a disabled sixty year old be allowed to adopt the State's children? Of course not, it's not in the best interests of the child. Similarly there are studies being investigated in Britain about the effects of gay adoption. Ireland, and this is pretty much all-party policy, is waiting to see the results. Would you rather we rush forward and run the risk of not raising kids as well as we could have?

Under the Good Friday Agreement it really should be on par with it.

The Belfast Agreement has no effect on whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt in the interim period while waiting for positive confirmation on its advantages.

Again I want to reiterate I am worried what Enda may well represent. Someones faith if deeply held does have influence on policy and method of govt it cannot be ignored, dismissed etc.

You know well the obvious response that if he brings in any policy that is faith-based the people can oust him and that there is absolutely no evidence of his tenure in the Dail (no fadas on this keyboard) (and he is there longer than anyone else) or in Office that he's a Christian nut. I personally would fear someone failing to use the churches' charity to its full potential. And yes, this is happening. Let me give you a case in point from my area. A local TD, Catherine Murphy, recently objected to the Maynooth Community Church building a non-profit creche on the basis of their religious affiliations. Now, afaik, it's tough to indoctrinate babies and toddlers. That is discrimination. I'd personally far rather see local parents have the opportunity to avail of an excellent service and choose to pull out if they see anything they object to than having the service flat out refused because nobody's thinking of the chldren. It's a pity that doesn't make it into the media, but as I said above, that doesn't sit as well in the stomach of the afterburn that the big mean Church opposing a secular creche.

I would point out that I see FG more right of center than PD's.

They're not. If you want me to provide policy proof I will, if you want me to provide empirical studies conducted by Political Science departments I will.

So I see the poss new govt as shift to the right in some ways. Its so hard to tell.

Yes in some ways it will be to the right, justice, governmental administration and the North will shift to the right. But education, social welfare, environmental policy will shift to the left.

Lastly can you PM on the Educate Together national school in Kilcock I would like to find out what happened there. I would appreaciate that

Not too much, basically the principal had to resign over technicalities. Moral of the story is that at least sometimes, much like with Catherine Murphy, the politics of religion is not what the public automatically assume it to be.

samb

Today its still discriminates against gay people. For instance a gay person can be fired for being gay and teaching in one of its schools.

Absolutely unfounded unless you provide hard evidence to the contrary. This is fundamentally against several laws and that is unconstitutional. It's also probably spung from Adrian Kennedy et al (2006) seeing as the Church do not hate gay people for God's sake.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA21Y1998S37.html

Although I'm don't know of any cases involving gay people

Time Magazine

Yes, there can be discrimination on some grounds, such as the RC church discriminating against Muslims in terms of employment.

Anything about sexual preference?

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

That’s the problem alright. At what point is it ok to protest in the face of upsetting lurking multinationals or business leaders.

Protests + strong unions = no investment by multinationals = no growth.

alot of people seem to think this yet im reading backseatdriver who figures that the latest poll showed clearly that people were more concerned about quality of life issues, health,ed,housing then the economy so maybe there has been too much 'growth'.

lostexpectation

Angry Banana wrote:

....

Maybe you should look into the Educate Together national school in Kilcock and see how non-religion is a more discriminatory force than religion.

whats this about?

samb

Angry Banana wrote:

Yes, there can be discrimination on some grounds, such as the RC church discriminating against Muslims in terms of employment.

Anything about sexual preference?

37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution

They can therefore argue that anything in conflict with the beliefs of the organisation undermines the ethos of the organisation. being an athiest or openly gay teacher can therefore be a valid reason to be sacked.

As I have said, I don't know how the courts are ruling on it. my personal interpretation would certainly allow for the sacking of openly gay people or athiests from a catholic school because they could definetely undermine the religious ethos...and fair play to them:D .

Anyone know of cases

ArthurDent

samb wrote:

As I have said, I don't know how the courts are ruling on it. my personal interpretation would certainly allow for the sacking of openly gay people or athiests from a catholic school because they could definetely undermine the religious ethos...and fair play to them:D .

Anyone know of cases

Not being sacked for being openly gay, but there was a very celebrated case in Wexford in the 80's where a teacher was sacked because she was unmarried, having an a ffair with a married man and had a child by him. IIRC the sacking was upheld on the basis of the above leigislation.

dbnavan

As the person who started this thread I cant believe how fast it has gone completely off topic

gilroyb

Angry Banana wrote:

What exactly is not equal about it? Should a disabled sixty year old be allowed to adopt the State's children? Of course not, it's not in the best interests of the child. Similarly there are studies being investigated in Britain about the effects of gay adoption. Ireland, and this is pretty much all-party policy, is waiting to see the results. Would you rather we rush forward and run the risk of not raising kids as well as we could have?

homosexual = disabled sixty year old? You really think that's the comparison?

Political opinions are transfered down through generations, homosexuality is not. If ones sexuality came from your parents opinions, everyone would be hetrosexual. If the government is going to let Sinn Fein supporters* (who can pass on their political deviance) have children, why not homosexual parents, who cannot pass on their deviance?.

Every child deserves a loving family with two parents. Ideally, those two parents would be one male, one female. As with all political decisions however, the reason for the discussion is that what's ideal isn't possible. From the point of view of the child, two parent loving families are prefered to other set ups, but gay adoption offers significant improvements for the conditions that some children live in at the moment.

Angry Banana wrote:

They're not. If you want me to provide policy proof I will, if you want me to provide empirical studies conducted by Political Science departments I will.

I agree, but I would appreciate any empirical analysis on this you may have.



* Just to make clear, I was simply making a point, I don't really think Sinn Fein supporters should be banned from having children.

Dirk Gently

dbnavan wrote:

As the person who started this thread I cant believe how fast it has gone completely off topic

Perhaps if you came back sooner you might have been able to stir it in the direction of government bashing. Unfortunately the people on this thread gave a measured and reasoned response to the court case which didn't result in everyone calling for Enda and pet rabbit to intervene and save us all from the evil mc Dowell(who was also victim of the independant legal ruling due to attacks him for something which was out of his control). The government haven't gone and done it this time, however the opposition have gone and done it again. This country suffers more from a weak opposition than it does from arogant government. Give us a choice.

Your initial post was a non-runner. I'm sure it was politically motivated seen as you are a member of FG. It was an opportunist attack without substance.
Had the high court case have happened while FG/LAB where in power and not FF/PD can you guarantee your lot would have reacted any quicker. I am by no means a fan of mc Dowell but he was hysterically demonised unfairly by the opposition on this issue.

If FG release a statement saying that they have every possible future loophole which might arise from ancient texts been challenged covered and that if FG where in power there is no chance of an injustice ever happening then I might be willing to listen. (Or I might just attack you for talking out of your arse)

If you want to start a government bashing thread please do so, but be sure to mention reasons why the alternative parties would do a better job instead of just pointing out this governments failures. Make sure to point out to us what makes FG/LAB superior on certain policies over this government.

p.s. could dbnavan either start a public debate or else pm me some reasons why I should vote for a FG/LAB coalition. I too want FF/PD out of power but am not willing to vote for someone who does not make an effort to define how they are different to the present government. All I can see from FG is opportunist attacks and a lot of reactionary hot air proposals designed to attract apathetic voters who might just swing you enough votes to partake in a future coalition.

I'm actually annoyed with you for forcing me to defend a government I dispise but as a reasoned person I can't jump on your bandwagon. Give me substance not hot air.

lostexpectation

I think the PD have definitly been screwed/finished off by this yes, I guess it might come down to in the election is what FG/LAB can promise (because those promises are BS ) but what they have delievered where they had the abilty/power to do so in the country in the last few years...