Have we forgotten about justice?

Liam Byrne

Callelly got a MASSIVE payout despite bringing the Dáil into disrepute and forging receipts.

No sign of the Mahon Tribunal 2 years on, while Ahern gets his pensions too!

Rats like Lowry still in the Dáil

Do we not deserve justice? Do people even care anymore?

Hannibal

Justice in this country would be another long tribunal to assess Ahern and Lowry etc..

To be fair to Ahern he's not the only one on crazy money, Harney, John Bruton and McDowell would be far far less deserving of any type of pension than Ahern is

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Forgotten about? This country never knew it.

barney4001

Is anyone going to be charged with money laundering???,maybe to many of them to charged:mad:

raymon

Callely is a peace commissioner. Got compensation from the courts and a huge pension.

This man will never see justice. I have no faith in our dpp. None

barney4001

raymon wrote: »

Callely is a peace commissioner. Got compensation from the courts and a huge pension.

This man will never see justice. I have no faith in our dpp. None

yeaha peace commisioner but only for his piece:D:mad:

later12

Justice: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

The problem with the above, of course, is that baying mobs do not really want justice as the time-consuming, bothersome, intricate chore of interpreting and applying the law as it stands.

They want tabloid language, they want RATS to be CAGED, they want the minister responsible to VOW for a RAP, they want finger wagging meanderings of do-you-know-what-happens-to-corrupted-men-in-Saudi-Arabia?, they want instant justice, big brother style (the Channel 4 type, none of that Orwellian garbage - for books too, are much too tedious).

It is called pop justice. I am not in favour of it. The law has to be applied as it stands, by those whom we have appointed to apply that legislation with impartiality. I am not sure qhat the OP would have us do with Callelly. Although I suspect it would involve a significant dose of pop justice.

raymon

later10 wrote: »

Justice: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

The problem with the above, of course, is that baying mobs do not really want justice as the time-consuming, bothersome, intricate chore of interpreting and applying the law as it stands.

They want tabloid language, they want RATS to be CAGED, they want the minister responsible to VOW for a RAP, they want finger wagging meanderings of do-you-know-what-happens-to-corrupted-men-in-Saudi-Arabia?, they want instant justice, big brother style (the Channel 4 type, none of that Orwellian garbage - for books too, are much too tedious).

It is called pop justice. I am not in favour of it. The law has to be applied as it stands, by those whom we have appointed to apply that legislation with impartiality. I am not sure qhat the OP would have us do with Callelly. Although I suspect it would involve a significant dose of pop justice.

Pop justice??? Tabloid language ? ????? What do you mean ?????

He simply deserves to be put on trial for forgery ,

later12

raymon wrote: »

Pop justice??? Tabloid language ? ????? What do you mean ?????

He simply deserves to be put on trial for forgery ,

As far as I am aware, although admittedly I am not a keen tabloid reader, SPOC have sent on a file which is currently with the DPP.

I am far more cofident with the DPP making a balanced decision on that file than any boards.ie thread or a liveline poll, or what have you. It is a little thing called fair procedure.

raymon

Ahhhhh , that's where we disagree. I do not believe the dpp is unbiased.

I believe that the dpp will decide Callely has no case to answer.

The dpp decided Willie had no case to answer too.

cavedave

later10

I am far more cofident with the DPP making a balanced decision on that file than any boards.ie thread or a liveline poll, or what have you.

What evidence would prove you were wrong?

Manach

It might be argued that the time to trial, when based against other historical normals such as Victorian England, is too long. Due to the evidence rules & procedures that have evolved over time the cost of bringing to trail in time/expense negates all but the most clear cut of cases.

Yahew

later10 wrote: »

As far as I am aware, although admittedly I am not a keen tabloid reader, SPOC have sent on a file which is currently with the DPP.

I am far more cofident with the DPP making a balanced decision on that file than any boards.ie thread or a liveline poll, or what have you. It is a little thing called fair procedure.

A black Tory MP was jailed for taking 11K from the Taxpayer. Here is what wikipedia says about Calley

On 30 May 2010, it was revealed under a Freedom of Information Act request, that Callely had claimed expenses totalling €81,015 since 2007 for overnight and travel expenses to a house in County Cork.[9] Callely said that following the loss of his Dáil seat in 2007, he took up residence in Cork. After his nomination to the Seanad, Callely informed Oireachtas officials in December 2007 that his "current principal residence" was Kilcrohane, Bantry in County Cork, which is 370 km from Leinster House.[9]
The Irish Independent reported that he was still politically active in Dublin, ran a constituency office on the northside of Dublin and attended Fianna Fáil meetings locally.[10] On 1 June 2010, the Taoiseach Brian Cowen requested a written explanation from Callely about his expense claims.[11] Speaking in the Seanad on 2 June 2010, Callely insisted that he had fully complied with regulations.[12] He said that he had always made it clear that he had a residence in west Cork, as well as a home in Clontarf and a constituency office in Dublin North Central.[12] He resigned the Fianna Fáil party whip on 5 June 2010.[13] He claimed a €140 "overnight" allowance on hundreds of occasions when attending the Seanad — even though he stayed in his Dublin home on the nights in question.[14]


In July 2010, the Oireachtas Select Committee on Members' Interests investigated Callely's travel expenses. It found that he had breached a section of the 2001 Standards in Public Office Act, by misrepresenting his normal place of residence for the purpose of claiming allowances. As a result, he was suspended from the Seanad for 20 days without pay.[15]

Very few facts there are in dispute, and the finding of facts by the slect commitee means that we could say this, and not be accused of libel. He fiddled his expense.

By justice we mean justice. He lied on forms, he stole money, he definitely fiddled expense. He did this to more than 10K. So that should be a jail term.

What justice would be is Jail time. The "mob" is baying for jail time, because members of the "mob" are in jail for less. And I think I can say I talk for the mob when I suggest that due process be followed, and given that the facts are hardly in doubt, that justice be expedited, that a fast court case take place, and this man be jailed.

That would be justice.

steddyeddy

There is no we in this. I havent forgotten justice and the guilty who are in power or connected to power in this country dont care wheter we have forgotten or not there is no accountablity.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Its fair enough to argue that justice must be served legitimately to Callelly and others. However I don't think that will ever happen, and these chancers will end up living out their lives in luxury as happened with a certain former Taoiseach.

later12

cavedave wrote: »

What evidence would prove you were wrong?

An independent analysis of legal proficiency among those appointed to the DPPs office in comparison with the legal proficiency of those who contribute to self-selective radio text polls, cross checked with a statistical breakdown of files with the DPP over a set time period relating to behaviour in public office which went to court compared with those that did not, taking into account any mitigating circumstances such as the efficiency of standards and ethics legislation in this regard.

later12

Yahew wrote: »

A black Tory MP was jailed for taking 11K from the Taxpayer. Here is what wikipedia says about Calley



Very few facts there are in dispute, and the finding of facts by the slect commitee means that we could say this, and not be accused of libel. He fiddled his expense.

By justice we mean justice. He lied on forms, he stole money, he definitely fiddled expense. He did this to more than 10K. So that should be a jail term.

What justice would be is Jail time. The "mob" is baying for jail time, because members of the "mob" are in jail for less. And I think I can say I talk for the mob when I suggest that due process be followed, and given that the facts are hardly in doubt, that justice be expedited, that a fast court case take place, and this man be jailed.

That would be justice.

Well up to a few minutes ago, at least, wikipedia also stated that Callely was found dead on Wednesday last.

Anyway, I am not disputing the allegations, nor am I defending Callely. I am simply making the point that as far as I know, a file is still with the DPP. And lets see what the DPP says before the blood baying begins.

Yahew

later10 wrote: »

An independent analysis of legal proficiency among those appointed to the DPPs office in comparison with the legal proficiency of those who contribute to self-selective radio text polls, cross checked with a statistical breakdown of files with the DPP over a set time period relating to behaviour in public office which went to court compared with those that did not, taking into account any mitigating circumstances such as the efficiency of standards and ethics legislation in this regard.

This tortuous text is hard to disassemble, possibly deliberately, or you are not bright enough to speak clearly. Nobody would suggest that the average guy in the DPP is of the same legal understanding as someone on the radio or here, although why we would need a "cross checked with a statistical breakdown of files with the DPP over a set time period relating to behaviour in public office which went to court compared with those that did not" is between you and your demons, and possibly you logic teacher - as it is meaningless gibberish.

Not sure what kind of logic this is either : "taking into account any mitigating circumstances such as the efficiency of standards and ethics legislation in this regard" unless you dont understand what mitigating circumstances are.

What we are talking about here, is the very lack of fficiency of standards and ethics legislation in regard to politicians, however theft is theft. False declarations are false declarations. Continual lies are continual lies. And so on.

Its a cut and dried case, he was found guilty by his peers in the senate already. Now it needs another more formal judging by juries - who would be, by the way, as well versed as we are - and their decision is not in doubt.

cavedave

later10

What evidence would prove you were wrong?
An independent analysis of legal proficiency among those appointed to the DPPs office in comparison with the legal proficiency of those who contribute to self-selective radio text polls, cross checked with a statistical breakdown of files with the DPP over a set time period relating to behaviour in public office which went to court compared with those that did not, taking into account any mitigating circumstances such as the efficiency of standards and ethics legislation in this regard.

On a related issue what is an acceptable Fale Positive rate for the DPP, and false negative. Jaynes suggested justice should have a fp rate of 1 in 10,000.

Does the DPP publish these statistics for different types of crimes? There are statistics on the number of reported burglarie, rapes and murders to convictions but I have not seen these for white collar crime. In the US police forces give statistics on their rates of searches that find nothing.

I am pretty sure Joe Duffy does not publish statistics on how often his show gets something wrong.

steddyeddy

later10 wrote: »

Justice: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

The problem with the above, of course, is that baying mobs do not really want justice as the time-consuming, bothersome, intricate chore of interpreting and applying the law as it stands.

They want tabloid language, they want RATS to be CAGED, they want the minister responsible to VOW for a RAP, they want finger wagging meanderings of do-you-know-what-happens-to-corrupted-men-in-Saudi-Arabia?, they want instant justice, big brother style (the Channel 4 type, none of that Orwellian garbage - for books too, are much too tedious).

It is called pop justice. I am not in favour of it. The law has to be applied as it stands, by those whom we have appointed to apply that legislation with impartiality. I am not sure qhat the OP would have us do with Callelly. Although I suspect it would involve a significant dose of pop justice.

I agree but in many cases its simply not being applied as it stands and in the absence of this justice it is perfectly understandable that people will have a desire for justice. Further more implementation of rougher justice would serve to remind those in power to enforce their own justice rather than wait on the mob to enforce it.

later12

Yahew wrote: »

This tortuous text is hard to disassemble, possibly deliberately, or you are not bright enough to speak clearly.

I can think of a third possibility....

Nobody would suggest that the average guy in the DPP is of the same legal understanding as someone on the radio or here, although why we would need a "cross checked with a statistical breakdown of files with the DPP over a set time period relating to behaviour in public office which went to court compared with those that did not"

Quite simple, Yahew.

By introducing parallell data, i.e. a quantitative study of the SPOC files that went to court over those that did not, one would potentially have a greater insight into how files pertaining to ethics in office were treated by the DPP. But one would have to take into account...

Not sure what kind of logic this is either : "taking into account any mitigating circumstances such as the efficiency of standards and ethics legislation in this regard" unless you dont understand what mitigating circumstances are.

The mitigating circumstances I am talking about is a qualitative assessment of the current legislation - analysing the breadth of its scope in relation to ethics in office. If it is not very efficient, this could explain the low number of files forwarded by the DPP, for example.

later12

cavedave wrote: »

I am pretty sure Joe Duffy does not publish statistics on how often his show gets something wrong.

Well now, that is a surprise.

Yahew

later10 wrote: »

I can think of a third possibility....
Quite simple, Yahew.

By introducing parallell data, i.e. a quantitative study of the SPOC files that went to court over those that did not, one would potentially have a greater insight into how files pertaining to ethics in office were treated by the DPP. But one would have to take into account...
The mitigating circumstances I am talking about is a qualitative assessment of the current legislation - analysing the breadth of its scope in relation to ethics in office. If it is not very efficient, this could explain the low number of files forwarded by the DPP, for example.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of Calley, or the efficiency or otherwise of the DPP in this case. The case we are actually talking about.

Try not to patronise me. I have a degree in Physics from one of London's foremost universities. I can spot a bull****ter when I see one. Nothing you are bringing up here is of any relevance whatsoever to the particular case in hand, you are engaging in mere statistical tautologies - there are mitigating circumstances for the DPP in this case of white collar crime because there are mitigating circumstance for the DPP in general in white collar crime. And anyway we dont know the stats for white collar crime.

We don't care: to explain the situation as remedially as possible:

Calley claimed 80K for a house which he wasn't living in, facts accepted by the Senate committee which investigated him. This would be a crime, and it would be easy to prove one way or the other. Time to actually pursue the case is now - with people, jurors, who would be,you know part of your mob.

later12

Yahew wrote: »

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of Calley

No, it doesnt. I think you should give the thread a quick re-read, and particularly my response to the poster who asked the relevant question. There you go.

Try not to patronise me. I have a degree in Physics from one of London's foremost universities. I can spot a bull****ter when I see one.

Yawwwwwn

there are mitigating circumstances for the DPP in this case of white collar crime because there are mitigating circumstance for the DPP in general in white collar crime. And anyway we dont know the stats for white collar crime.

I am not talking about this case, I am talking about a parallell assessment of the legislation as it stands to reflect upon whether it is appropriate and extensive enough to stand the judicial process, or whether the legislation in this respect is inefficient.

You seem to think I am specifically referring to the callely case - I really do advise that you re-read the thread now, Yahew.

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

The problem with the above, of course, is that baying mobs do not really want justice as the time-consuming, bothersome, intricate chore of interpreting and applying the law as it stands.

Condescending claptrap, writing off a valid personal opinion having seen the facts as "baying mob".

later10 wrote: »

They want tabloid language....

Again, I have no idea who you're meant to be pontificating to. I never read tabloids and never will.

later10 wrote: »

It is called pop justice. I am not in favour of it. The law has to be applied as it stands, by those whom we have appointed to apply that legislation with impartiality. I am not sure qhat the OP would have us do with Callelly.

The problem is that those given the task of making the laws in the interests of the people of this country don't change the laws when they are exposed.

Not to mention the fact that :

1) Ahern openly admitted corruption. Nepotism is corruption.
2) Callely defrauded the state via invoices from a closed company (and that was on top of defrauding the state out of the travel expenses from "home", having stated on his website that he lived in Dublin)

If you or I did that, we'd be jailed. And - ideally - rightly so. Unfortunately when one person gets off with it, it's no longer "right" that other people don't.

The same goes for people who made bad investments and took out loans that they couldn't afford.....THEY should - ideally - have to foot THEIR bill, but when others get off (and worse, the ordinary person has to foot OTHERS bills, or foot the bill for the likes of Callely & Ahern, OF COURSE they're entitled to complain.

To quote yourself : "Simple as".

This country is a cesspit.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you or I did that, we'd be jailed. And - ideally - rightly so.

I do not really understand why you are so sure that Callely will not be in court, or found guilty.

However, I would not be quite so sure that we would be jailed, necessarily. Men have raped women and not been jailed in this country.

To quote yourself : "Simple as".

I dont know when I said that, doesnt sound like me.

steddyeddy

later10 wrote: »

I do not really understand why you are so sure that Callely will not be in court, or found guilty.

However, I would not be quite so sure that we would be jailed, necessarily. Men have raped women and not been jailed in this country.


I dont know when I said that, doesnt sound like me.

I dont get the point your trying to make. Are you saying the current implimentation of our laws is or isnt acceptable?

later12

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont get the point your trying to make. Are you saying the current implimentation of our laws is or isnt acceptable?

No - I am saying that I do not see any evidence to support the proposition that there is a problem with the DPP.

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

I do not really understand why you are so sure that Callely will not be in court, or found guilty.

He managed to take US to court, FFS! And he obviously knows well what he can get away with if he's a "peace commissioner" and knows the letter - if not the spirit - of the law.

Answer me this : has the rule with the arseways phrasing been changed yet to simply state "where you live" ? Has the law been changed to fire TDs who bring the house into direpute ? Has the law been changed to ensure that people get ONE pension when they reach 65, like normal decent people ?

No, because doing that would kill their massive nest-eggs.

It shows that there is no urge by the self-serving ****s in the Dáil to fix things that might stop them conning us out of a few quid.

Con-man Callely may, of course, get caught yet via his fraudulent phone invoices, but I doubt it. And even if he did he'll STILL get his pensions.

However, I would not be quite so sure that we would be jailed, necessarily. Men have raped women and not been jailed in this country.

I wouldn't necessarily jail him, but I would get back our money that he stole and renege on the con-man's pension.

I dont know when I said that, doesnt sound like me.

Apologies - on the phone so it may have misquoted, confusing me.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

He managed to take US to court, FFS!

That is immaterial. There is nothing in that preventing the DPP from pressing charges.

And he obviously knows well what he can get away with if he's a "peace commissioner"

Being a peace commissioner means little, it is an honourary position. It does not necessarily infer any legal knowledge - not that there is anything wrong with knowing the letter of the law. Like any pursuit of knowledge, it is to be wholly encouraged. Perhaps Ivor Callely might take something positive from it.

Has the law been changed to ensure that people get ONE pension when they reach 65, like normal decent people ?

What do you mean normal decent people? Does a person who received more than one pension not qualify as normal and decent? I should think that if I paid into two or three pensions I should expect to earn two or three pensions.

raymon

Later10 ..

I don't read tabloids and definitely don't listen to Joe duffy , in any case your remarks come across as condescending

It is my opinion that the dpp will let Callely on his merry way .

By the way I am not a mob or radio poll either

steddyeddy

later10 wrote: »

That is immaterial. There is nothing in that preventing the DPP from pressing charges.
Being a peace commissioner means little, it is an honourary position. It does not necessarily infer any legal knowledge - not that there is anything wrong with knowing the letter of the law. Like any pursuit of knowledge, it is to be wholly encouraged. Perhaps Ivor Callely might take something positive from it.
What do you mean normal decent people? Does a person who received more than one pension not qualify as normal and decent? I should think that if I paid into two or three pensions I should expect to earn two or three pensions.

So the dpp isnt doing his job?

later12

steddyeddy wrote: »

So the dpp isnt doing his job?

Go back and read the context of the post in response to Liam Byrne. The fact that Ivor Callely won a case against the state in respect of his Seanad suspension has no implication that I am aware of for the DPP taking a case against Callely.

I have no reason to believe that the DPP is not doing his job. He has a file on Callely, we will just have to wait and see what happens to that file.

steddyeddy

later10 wrote: »

Read the context of the post. The fact that Ivor Callely won a case against the state in respect of his Seanad suspension has no implication that I am aware of for the DPP taking a case against Callely.

I have no reason to believe that the DPP is not doing his job. He has a file on Callely, we will just have to wait and see what happens to that file.

Hes not pressing charges when a man broke the law either hes not doing his job or hes extremely slow about it.

later12

raymon wrote: »

It is my opinion that the dpp will let Callely on his merry way .

If he does, then there may be a reason for it. The DPP does not send every case before him to court, it depends on the legal opinion of his office as to whether or not a crime has been demonstrably committed with regard to the relevant legislation.

First of all we do not know the outcome of the decision of the office of the DPP. Secondly, we would not necessarily be aware of why the DPP felt that the case could not reasonably proceed.

It is not unthinkable that the DPP does actually consider the law, you know.

later12

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hes not pressing charges when a man broke the law either hes not doing his job or hes extremely slow about it.

No decision has been announced. The file has been with the DPP for about a month, I do not think that is an excessively long time.

steddyeddy

later10 wrote: »

No decision has been announced. The file has been with the DPP for about a month, I do not think that is an excessively long time.

Do you think Ivor broke the law?

later12

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you think Ivor broke the law?

I have no idea. All I know is that he may have contrevened the 1995 Ethics legislation, but I am neither a legal expert nor do I have any awareness of the full story beyond what has been reported in the media.

I do not know if the law has been broken, but certainly if what the media are saying is true, Callaly has done something wrong.

raymon

later10 wrote: »

I have no idea. All I know is that he may have contrevened the 1995 Ethics legislation, but I am neither a legal expert nor do I have any awareness of the full story beyond what has been reported in the media.

I do not know if the law has been broken, but certainly if what the media are saying is true, Callely has done something wrong.

I actually agree with you here , you are no legal expert , neither am I .

However in this case it is clear that a forgery has been made . I'm not saying that Callely is guilty of forgery and fraud. A court of law should determine this.

But it is my opinion that the case will not make it to court.

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

That is immaterial. There is nothing in that preventing the DPP from pressing charges.

It is not "immaterial". If he can take us to court and win it means that he'll stop at nothing to defraud the state and while there is nothing PREVENTING the DPP from looking for justice, it would discourage them.

later10 wrote: »

Being a peace commissioner means little, it is an honourary position. It does not necessarily infer any legal knowledge - not that there is anything wrong with knowing the letter of the law. Like any pursuit of knowledge, it is to be wholly encouraged. Perhaps Ivor Callely might take something positive from it.

So a PC doesn't need to know the law when he witnesses stuff.....fair enough.....I stand corrected. Although given some of the fiction that Callely has signed his name to, if I saw his name on a marraige cert I wouldn't believe the couple were married.

Whether or not he "takes something positive" from it is irrelevant, so I have no idea what you're trying to imply here, or why.

later10 wrote: »

What do you mean normal decent people?

People who don't defraud the state. I would have thought that was pretty obvious given the whole thread that I started to discuss justice?

Does a person who received more than one pension not qualify as normal and decent? I should think that if I paid into two or three pensions I should expect to earn two or three pensions.

For someone who earlier objected to the "mob" you're doing a great impression of completely missing the point and becoming a Joe Duffy contributor based on that leap!

Normal decent people (a) don't defraud the state and (b) don't get their pensions until they are 65. I said nothing more than that, and yet you dived in head-first to manufacture an indignant "response".

Please stop resorting to misrepresentation.

later10

later10 wrote: »

Go back and read the context of the post in response to Liam Byrne.

context? what's that

PatsytheNazi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Callelly got a MASSIVE payout despite bringing the Dáil into disrepute and forging receipts.

No sign of the Mahon Tribunal 2 years on, while Ahern gets his pensions too!

Rats like Lowry still in the Dáil

Do we not deserve justice? Do people even care anymore?

Snotty Fianna Fail otherwise known as Fine Gael are in power - wagging the Labour tail as usual. Knowing the history of FG/Lab coalitions - do you seriously expect anything different

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I think a major part of the problem is that Irish people don't care if their politicians are corrupt. Look at who Tipperary's most popular TD is.

Liam Byrne

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Snotty Fianna Fail otherwise known as Fine Gael are in power - wagging the Labour tail as usual. Knowing the history of FG/Lab coalitions - do you seriously expect anything different

Well if enough people challenged the status quo, we might get somewhere.

As I said, FG are an improvement on FF, but that doesn't mean that we should simply sigh in relief and not challenge their level of commitment to improving standards.....and if they refuse to, we kick them out on their ear......Biggins' party should be up and running in time to offer an acceptable challenge them next time out and if he'll have me I could be there with him!

PatsytheNazi

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I think a major part of the problem is that Irish people don't care if their politicians are corrupt. Look at who Tipperary's most popular TD is.

Exactly, the " so long as he somehow looks after me" and the admiration for the "cute hoor" etc It's deeply ingrained in far too many in Irish society. Just think of Haughey, the Flynns in Mayo, Sean Doherty in Rosscomon, Burke, Lawlor etc

Liam Byrne

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I think a major part of the problem is that Irish people don't care if their politicians are corrupt. Look at who Tipperary's most popular TD is.

True, and some Limerick and Cork folk don't seem to care what their "representatives" get up to either....

PatsytheNazi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well if enough people challenged the status quo, we might get somewhere.

As I said, FG are an improvement on FF, but that doesn't mean that we should simply sigh in relief and not challenge their level of commitment to improving standards.....and if they refuse to, we kick them out on their ear......Biggins' party should be up and running in time to offer an acceptable challenge them next time out and if he'll have me I could be there with him!

Ok FG are an improvement on FF, but slight, so slight that in 4 years time we'll hardly be able to notice the difference. Less corrupt but nevertheless Yes men to the bankers and 'captains of industry' such as Sir Tony, Denis O'B etc.

Who would you hope would come along to challenge the status quo ? Genuine question.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It is not "immaterial". If he can take us to court and win it means that he'll stop at nothing to defraud the state

Pretty strange logic at work there. Taking the state to court and winning is not an example of fraud. It is simply of Callely asserting his legal rights - you know - justice.

Of course, it is not pop justice, but that is a different thing altogether.

1850 715 815

and while there is nothing PREVENTING the DPP from looking for justice, it would discourage them.

Why?? Why on Earth should a separate court case, and quite irrelevant to the DPP, discourage the DPP from going further?

For someone who earlier objected to the "mob" you're doing a great impression of completely missing the point and becoming a Joe Duffy contributor based on that leap!

Normal decent people (a) don't defraud the state and (b) don't get their pensions until they are 65. I said nothing more than that, and yet you dived in head-first to manufacture an indignant "response".

No, no, I am asking you to explain this statement, which suggests that the law should be changed so that pensioners only receive one pension, and further the implication that those who currently receive more than one pension are neither normal nor decent

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Has the law been changed to ensure that people get ONE pension when they reach 65, like normal decent people ?

Explain?

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

Pretty strange logic at work there. Taking the state to court and winning is not an example of fraud. It is simply of Callely asserting his legal rights - you know - justice.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Going to court to DEFEND his fraudulent activities, instead of acting like an honourable man and admitting a fair cop.

later10 wrote: »

Why?? Why on Earth should a separate court case, and quite irrelevant to the DPP, discourage the DPP from going further?

Because of the way he successfully sued us first time around. But of course, you twisted the reference to the court case and threw in your "pop justice" bull**** so I doubt you even wanted to see the point.

No, no, I am asking you to explain this statement, which suggests that the law should be changed so that pensioners only receive one pension, and further the implication that those who currently receive more than one pension are neither normal nor decent


Explain?

Explain first why you chose to embolden certain words in order to put a slant on what I posted? If you try it again I'll report your posts.

My original post clearly states when they're 65 and by not giving that equal prominence you're being quite deliberately argumentative and obnoxious.

Re-read the post as written and then ask any question that you want. But lay off the misrepresentation and spin.

In relation to the ONE element, normal people pay into those for years, not for 5 years after which they get it even though they're fired, and they certainly don't get multiple pensions for the same time worked!

A normal pension after 5 years would be worthless. So try comparing like with like - asking about ordinary people who pay in all their lives is a ridiculous comparison.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Going to court to DEFEND his fraudulent activities, instead of acting like an honourable man and admitting a fair cop.

Ivor Callely did not go to court to defend his "fraudulant activities" - he went to the High Court to challenge the legality of the Seanad Committee's suspension of his membership of the House.

It was the suspension that was challenged, and not the activities from which the suspension derived. So again I will ask you:

Why on Earth should a separate court case, and one quite irrelevant as far as the DPP might be concerned, discourage the DPP from going further with his own file?

Explain first why you chose to embolden certain words in order to put a slant on what I posted? If you try it again I'll report your posts.

To find out what exactly you mean by the reference to normal decent people, all bolding is my own, but you clearly said:

Originally Posted by Liam Byrne
Has the law been changed to ensure that people get ONE pension when they reach 65, like normal decent people ?

In relation to the ONE element, normal people pay into those for years, not for 5 years after which they get it even though they're fired

Not at all. If I work with a company and I have been paying into my pension, this still stands whether I have been paying for 5 years or for 50.

So will you now explain?

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

To find out what exactly you mean by the reference to normal decent people, all bolding is my own, but you clearly said:

Yes, I clearly said that bit, where the until they're 65 was within the sentence, and not dismissed by misdirection. You bolded other parts of it and conveniently skewed the whole context of the statement in order to imply that I had said something objectionable.

later10 wrote: »

Not at all. If I work with a company and I have been paying into my pension, this still stands whether I have been paying for 5 years or for 50.

Bull.

If you get a job aged 40 (e.g. a senator) and you are fired at 45, you do not (a) get the pension when you leave or (b) get a pension as if you were - as you previously indicated - "paying in all your life".....a "normal" person would have to pay in until they were 65, and would only get it then; if they stopped before they were 65, the pension fund would be decimated. They also wouldn't get it until they were 65.

So there's 20 years extra of a pension there, for starters, and this for 2 ethically barren con-men who brought the whole Dáil into disrepute.

Anyway, you've managed to turn this into a debate on pensions, which are just ONE aspect of the injustices, so I'm not going to entertain this angle anymore.

Callely did NOTHING for this country, tried to defraud it, and is going to be paid a fortune for the rest of his life out of our pockets. Ahern bolloxed up the economy, writing off warnings with suicide comments, and he will get likewise (and that's without even referring to his dodgy finances)

You can be happy with that if you like, or you can write off valid complaints with your condescending and incorrect references to tabloids and pop and the like, but less of the sneering at those of us who have a valid objection to it.