MORE Red Tape

dashboard_hula

Why do you think everyone who disagrees with you is a member of the Green Party?

*puzzled.

Lenny Lovett

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Is your international business headshop related?

No. Paper.

AlekSmart

Lenny,any bets as to who was first in the queue for the invention of the century...The Dettol Automatic Liquid Soap Dispenser.....No more Dangerous Germs on YOUR Liquid Soap Dispenser....electrify it !!.......every time I watch that TV ad I thumb through my copy of the Nuclear Fallout book....when the siren sounds,get under the kitchen table. :eek:

K-9

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No. Paper.

Think of it this way, where the Greens in power between 02 and 07? i.e. when the decision was made NOT to exempt schools from water charges.

Now, you could go on what some man said on Liveline or check the truth out for yourself. Otherwise it is like conversing with a Tea Party activist.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

What? You want to try and cover it up now? Nice. Why not justify the reasons for charging the kids for their water if you feel you can. Ore even the other silly rule that the kids can't take their own water to school instead of trying to kill the debate?

I certainly wouldn't want to deny you rope! I like your claim that there's some kind of "rule" that prevents children taking their own water to school - first, it's obviously not the case, since we pack my daughter off to school every day with her own water, and nearly every other child brings in their own water bottle. Second, it wouldn't even make the kind of sense you want from it anyway had it been true, since the school would save itself money by allowing children to bring in water.

Would it have been worth your while, perhaps, checking whether there was such a rule before fulminating about it? It wouldn't have made up for thinking that Environmental Health inspectors had to come from the Department of the Environment, because that's pretty hilarious all by itself, but it would at least have been something.

amused,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

K-9 wrote: »

Think of it this way, where the Greens in power between 02 and 07? i.e. when the decision was made NOT to exempt schools from water charges.

Now, you could go on what some man said on Liveline or check the truth out for yourself. Otherwise it is like conversing with a Tea Party activist.

It's irrelevant because perception is what will count to the vast majority of voters. And when every parent in the country has to cough up the guts of a hundred euro to pay for their little precious to have a glass of water in school who will be the first party they will think of? I spoke to a National School teacher this afternoon and she says her school in Wexford will be requesting much more than €100 per kid as they have to install water harvesting kit and associated equipment as well as pay for water.

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't want to deny you rope! I like your claim that there's some kind of "rule" that prevents children taking their own water to school - first, it's obviously not the case, since we pack my daughter off to school every day with her own water, and nearly every other child brings in their own water bottle. Second, it wouldn't even make the kind of sense you want from it anyway had it been true, since the school would save itself money by allowing children to bring in water.

Would it have been worth your while, perhaps, checking whether there was such a rule before fulminating about it? It wouldn't have made up for thinking that Environmental Health inspectors had to come from the Department of the Environment, because that's pretty hilarious all by itself, but it would at least have been something.

amused,
Scofflaw

I'm only going on what the parents were saying on the radio today. I'm sure you can listen back on the RTE player. It makes no odds to me. I'm just amused at the silliness of the ongoing gaffes and wonder what great pearls of wisdom the great party will give us next.

Triangle

Back on topic......

I agree with the op, the idea was probably brought about by a well wisher, but the fact is it stops good actions (some) and brings about an aura of nepotism ( I.e. It can fester a society of big cats getting 'deals' with meals on wheels while the local farmer gets shut out.

The red tape in this country is a joke, like the time I tried to pay my wides overdue m50 toll, only to find out the data protection act prohibited me (seemingly.........)

red tape can be suffocating without a bit of common sense.

Wertz

It's not just Ireland either.

http://www.britsafe.org/News-Article/10-09-27/Health_and_safety_cake_madness_sparks_a_bake_off_from_the_British_Safety_Council.aspx?ID=90691335-ce70-4616-877d-5225a52a256e

I blame our recently acquired culture of looking for someone elkse to blame/sue when anything happens to themselves or a loved one. When you're dealing with a state run system, they must protect themselves from the threat of litigation...arguably it's higher up the health and safety agenda than the actual protection of life, since the fiscal loss across many such cases is more easily picked up on than the couple of hospital admissions for the misadventure such "dodgy" food items (or whatever) cause...

Remember thatr old adage: No good deed goes unpunished.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It's irrelevant because perception is what will count to the vast majority of voters. And when every parent in the country has to cough up the guts of a hundred euro to pay for their little precious to have a glass of water in school who will be the first party they will think of? I spoke to a National School teacher this afternoon and she says her school in Wexford will be requesting much more than €100 per kid as they have to install water harvesting kit and associated equipment as well as pay for water.

Sadly, I don't doubt you're a fair guide to what ill-informed people are thinking.

Wertz wrote:

I blame our recently acquired culture of looking for someone elkse to blame/sue when anything happens to themselves or a loved one. When you're dealing with a state run system, they must protect themselves from the threat of litigation...arguably it's higher up the health and safety agenda than the actual protection of life, since the fiscal loss across many such cases is more easily picked up on than the couple of hospital admissions for the misadventure such "dodgy" food items (or whatever) cause...

Remember thatr old adage: No good deed goes unpunished.

Indeed - and the threat of litigation or the cowardice of administrative rule-setters in the face of complaint is usually behind what people claim as 'political correctness' (where it's not mere media hype or the ramblings of the ignorant). The more heavily geared towards accountants and administrators any organisation becomes, the more petty rules are written to avoid legal action or (heaven forfend!) people actually coming into their offices to complain.

The case Lenny mentions of a child not being allowed to bring their own water bottle to school is a good case in point. There is no government rule in place that causes such a decree - instead, the chain of events is more likely to have been a complaint by a parent to the effect that their little one got something from sharing some other little one's bottle, followed by an over-reaction by the school to eliminate any possibility of being sued.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sadly, I don't doubt you're a fair guide to what ill-informed people are thinking.

You can belittle me all you like but what I said is true.

K-9

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You can belittle me all you like but what I said is true.

Unfortunately, yes.

FF have thrived on it for years.

Callan57

Can't understand how the human race made it to 2010 at all ... with unwashed veg & untreated water our good old cave ancestor must have had the constitution of a woolly mammoth and not a solpadeine to be had unless he submitted to an inquisition from his local chemist.

I don't feel well ... think I'm suffering from poisoned by carrott syndrome. Does the HSE provide councelling I wonder?

K-9

Callan57 wrote: »

Can't understand how the human race made it to 2010 at all ... with unwashed veg & untreated water our good old cave ancestor must have had the constitution of a woolly mammoth and not a solpadeine to be had unless he submitted to an inquisition from his local chemist.

I don't feel well ... think I'm suffering from poisoned by carrott syndrome. Does the HSE provide councelling I wonder?

We got by without flu jabs as well, doesn't mean they are useful.

The human race will always survive, certain sections of it are more at risk though.

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You can belittle me all you like but what I said is true.

I didn't disagree. You've demonstrated that your various views on the Greens have mostly been founded on incorrect assumptions (such as that Environmental Health officers are from the Dept of the Environment) and have neither been informed by relatively easily available facts (that water charges were agreed by the previous government, which contained no Greens, that there is no government regulation preventing a child bringing their own water to school), nor have changed when those facts have been presented to you. You've consistently valued your existing convictions over facts - you want to blame someone for these things, you've chosen the Greens, because your view of them is that they're the kind of people who would do these things, and you've stuck resolutely to that convenient linkage.

All of this has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt on this single thread, which started with an incorrect assumption by you - instead of changing your views when presented with the correct facts, you resorted to ridicule ("oh, right, carrots are really dangerous") and ad hominems based on your existing prejudices ("anyone who disagrees with me is a Greenie, and their opinion is therefore worthless"). You followed that by trotting out several more incorrect assumptions, again based on your existing beliefs rather than facts, and had to do exactly the same thing all over again when the correct facts were presented to you. It's hardly a case of me belittling you - you've done that to yourself.

However, conversations both online and offline support the view that your position is extremely common, exactly as you claimed. Alas, that really doesn't make such a position any more correct or worthwhile, I'm afraid. Exactly the same mindset allows people to vote for Fianna Fáil despite the havoc that invariably attends their management of the Irish economy - they believe that Fianna Fáil will manage the country well, and they simply ignore any evidence that the reverse is the case rather than change their beliefs.

Common sense, as they say, is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen. You are, as you said yourself, a great believer in common sense.

regards,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

Conversations both online and offline support the view that your position is extremely common, exactly as you claimed. That really doesn't make your position any more correct or worthwhile, I'm afraid. Exactly the same mindset allows people to vote for Fianna Fáil despite the havoc that invariably attends their management of the Irish economy.

And they (FF) are only in power because they were helped in there and are being kept there by The Greens who could take them out immediately but won't...

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

And they (FF) are only in power because they were helped in there and are being kept there by The Greens who could take them out immediately but won't...

QED.

conclusively,
Scofflaw

WeeBushy

I would just like to point out that food poisoning and the incidence of food borne outbreaks from fresh produce is an increasingly growing problem. Just because you've never heard of a case, Lenny, doesn't mean they do exist. It is a real concern.


I can cite a lot of studies if you would like, but they are readily available if you search.

Lenny Lovett

WeeBushy wrote: »

I would just like to point out that food poisoning and the incidence of food borne outbreaks from fresh produce is an increasingly growing problem. Just because you've never heard of a case, Lenny, doesn't mean they do exist. It is a real concern.


I can cite a lot of studies if you would like, but they are readily available if you search.

Maybe so. I am going on the word of a Health Inspector. He seems to think it's not an issue particularly in vegetables and fruit. But, sure, what would a Health Inspector know?:rolleyes: Lies, damn lies and statistics....

Riskymove

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You can belittle me all you like but what I said is true.

yes....all true.....oh except for the opening premise that John Gormley was the reason why meals on wheels couldn't accept the food......oh...and the next part where you said that the Greens were the reason why schools had to pay........the rest was true.....oh...apart from when you said the Greens were banning the kids from bringing their own bottle to school...


....yes...so excluding all those statements....what you said was true..

Lenny Lovett

Riskymove wrote: »

yes....all true.....oh except for the opening premise that John Gormley was the reason why meals on wheels couldn't accept the food......oh...and the next part where you said that the Greens were the reason why schools had to pay........the rest was true.....oh...apart from when you said the Greens were banning the kids from bringing their own bottle to school...


....yes...so excluding all those statements....what you said was true..

Maybe you could be a bit more accurate rather than to misquote me:
1. I said the Dept of Environment instead of the HSE - a mistake which I corrected. I never said "John Gormley was the reason".
2. The Green Party are the ones pushing for water charges.
3. Please quote exactly where I said "Greens were banning the kids from bringing their own bottle to school..."

WeeBushy

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Maybe so. I am going on the word of a Health Inspector. He seems to think it's not an issue particularly in vegetables and fruit. But, sure, what would a Health Inspector know?:rolleyes: Lies, damn lies and statistics....

Well its a health inspector vs. peer reviewed scientific papers. I know where I would put my money.

There's not much more that can be said until I get into college. I can access papers there and I'll put them up here for you to show you.

Riskymove

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Maybe you could be a bit more accurate rather than to misquote me:

Pot to Kettle: 'you are black'!!

anyway I though you were looking to be belittled some more

1. I said the Dept of Environment instead of the HSE - a mistake which I corrected. I never said "John Gormley was the reason".

yes but you added

Take a bow Mr Gormley

2. The Green Party are the ones pushing for water charges.

as I have already told you the Greens want a domestic water charge, this has nothing to do with schools paying water charges which is required under EU laws

you are ignoring this to suit your prejudices

also you are taking the usual line that anyone who actually knows the facts must be a 'green supporter' and must be for stopping veg going to charity or kids paying for water

its this ignorance and prejudice that is causing the reaction to you rather than the points you are trying to make

3. Please quote exactly where I said "Greens were banning the kids from bringing their own bottle to school..."

you implied this was down to Greens bringing in the charges and the rules...indeed you at least admitted

It's irrelevant because perception is what will count to the vast majority of voters

so you know it has nothing to do with Greens but are still implying they are pushing it and responsible for the charges to kids

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

2. The Green Party are the ones pushing for water charges.

In fact, the introduction of water charges - both domestic and for schools - was agreed by the Irish government as part of the Water Services Framework Directive. Since the Directive came out in 2000, the governments involved were the first FF/PD government and the Rainbow Government. The Directive includes a 2010 deadline for introducing pricing policies, and a 2012 deadline for implementing them (see here).

The Green Party simply happen to be the people holding the relevant Ministry at the time these deadlines fall due. However, the introduction of water charges via a European Directive was in the pipeline as far back as the Rainbow Government - and the abolition of domestic water rates in 1997 should probably be seen in that context, as a vote-getting measure that the government in question knew would be temporary, because they had already negotiated water pricing, and knew that some other government would have to to re-introduce them.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... the introduction of water charges ... was in the pipeline ...

I like the phrasing.

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, the introduction of water charges - both domestic and for schools - was agreed by the Irish government as part of the Water Services Framework Directive. Since the Directive came out in 2000, the governments involved were the first FF/PD government and the Rainbow Government. The Directive includes a 2010 deadline for introducing pricing policies, and a 2012 deadline for implementing them (see here).

The Green Party simply happen to be the people holding the relevant Ministry at the time these deadlines fall due. However, the introduction of water charges via a European Directive was in the pipeline as far back as the Rainbow Government - and the abolition of domestic water rates in 1997 should probably be seen in that context, as a vote-getting measure that the government in question knew would be temporary, because they had already negotiated water pricing, and knew that some other government would have to to re-introduce them.

regards,
Scofflaw

Fair enough and thanks for that.

Do you agree with the policy of charging for school kids to have water at school and for that water to be restricted to 500ml in the morning and 500ml in the afternoon as is the new policy at some schools? Do you believe that schools should have to pay for water? I certainly don't. I have stated before that I believe households and business should pay for water but it should only be charged for on a pay by use basis ie metered. Schools and hospitals should be exempt. I doubt prisoners will have to pay for water so why should children at school. Our factory has it's own well and has no council/public water pipes to the premises but yet we are still expected to pay the full whack. Is that reasonable? I don't believe it is.

Riskymove

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Do you agree with the policy of charging for school kids to have water at school and for that water to be restricted to 500ml in the morning and 500ml in the afternoon as is the new policy at some schools?

no ...but

Do you believe that schools should have to pay for water? I certainly don't.

yes I do...they should be encouraged to conserve water resources like everyone else.

that does not mean that children, i.e. parents should pay

Schools and hospitals should be exempt.

they have been for some time but cannot be any more

I doubt prisoners will have to pay for water so why should children at school.

children shouldn't have to, the schools (i.e. the state) should

WeeBushy

Here you go, Lenny. It is a real concern. The current measures are there for a reason.

Changes in food consumption have brought to light unrecognized microbial foodborne hazards. Fresh fruit and vegetable consumption, for example, has increased nearly 50% from 1970 to 1994. Fresh produce is susceptible to contamination during growth, harvest, and distribution. The surface of plants and fruits may be contaminated by human or animal feces. Pathogens on the surface of produce (e.g., melons) can contaminate the inner surface during cutting and multiply if the fruit is held at room temperature. In the United States from 1990 to 1997, increased consumption of fresh produce may have contributed to a series of foodborne outbreaks associated with foods such as sliced cantaloupe, green onions, unpasteurized cider, fresh squeezed orange juice, lettuce, raspberries, alfalfa sprouts, sliced tomatoes, and frozen strawberries.

An increasing, though still limited, proportion of reported foodborne outbreaks are being traced to fresh produce. A series of outbreaks recently investigated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has linked a variety of pathogens to fresh fruits and vegetables harvested in the United States and elsewhere (Table 2).

I could quote the whole paper, its a particularly accessible and informative one. I suggest reading it in whole. The recommendation of HAACP, in the 'key to prevention', is particularly prescient I feel.

Lenny Lovett

Well the good farmers of County Wexford better watch their sliced cantaloupes, melons and the oranges that they grow for their fresh orange juice then.

WeeBushy

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well the good farmers of County Wexford better watch their sliced cantaloupes, melons and the oranges that they grow for their fresh orange juice then.

I'm disappointed with your flippant response. I went to the effort to provide evidence which you obviously didn't read properly, and all you can come back with is that. Pity.

They are examples of how fresh produce can and are contaminated. I like the way you just ignored all the rest of it and picked out examples that aren't grown in this country, even though the same principles apply.