Who thinks all these candidates are a joke

KELTICKNIGHTT

Who thinks all these candidates are a joke.
Maybe the referendum 2011 Ireland is more important.
link: http://www.referendum2011.ie/

Manach

This is a link to a morning Ireland excerpt, with the referendum chair answering questions on the Judges' pay. link

anymore

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Who thinks all these candidates are a joke.
Maybe the referendum 2011 Ireland is more important.
link: http://www.referendum2011.ie/

It has become a complete farce :eek:

phog

Usually, at this stage in an election campaign I'd have my mind made up on who was getting my votes, this time around all I know is who wont be getting a vote but very much undecided on who will be getting my top preferences.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Manach wrote: »

This is a link to a morning Ireland excerpt, with the referendum chair answering questions on the Judges' pay. link

the judges might take a hit in pay but who knows

KELTICKNIGHTT

phog wrote: »

Usually, at this stage in an election campaign I'd have my mind made up on who was getting my votes, this time around all I know is who wont be getting a vote but very much undecided on who will be getting my top preferences.

Same here,know who I'm voting for and who I'm not,but the selection of candidates where poor ,has to be better way to pick candidates

foggy_lad

None of tham are a joke because they are freely exercising their right to get nominated and stand for election.

It would be a joke if people were to ignore issues they are aware of about candidates and vote for them because they are the fianna fail or labour or IRA candidate or other information which sometimes gets ignored.

It is a joke if people dont walk into the polling station properly educated about all the candidates.

Ernest

I don't think they are a joke - apart from Dana of course (and, perhaps, that bullet-headed "independent" guy who used to be on the FF National Executive).

anymore

Lets put this in perspective. Six of these jokers are competing for the € 1.75 million that they would earn over the 7 years of the Presidency plus the stately home and team of domestic and office staff, car and driver, plus enormous pension plus the huge prestige of being first citizen of a nation.
It will include being feted and fawned over wherever they go. And really it comes with relatively little responsibility.
So it isnt actually that funny. Afterall we are picking uo the bill.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Ernest wrote: »

I don't think they are a joke - apart from Dana of course (and, perhaps, that bullet-headed "independent" guy who used to be on the FF National Executive).

and marty ,or should me call him saint martin now

KELTICKNIGHTT

Should there be a better process for which candidates are allow as candidates
like if they have criminality background,
maybe set higher standards for candidates going for president

maygitchell

Where is the atari jaguar option on the ballot paper?

JohnMc1

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

the judges might take a hit in pay but who knows

They should. They are the reason [especially those Court of Appeals Judges] the Country is in the near lawless state that it's in. Slaps on the wrists for murder then the Court of Appeal [someone should tell those knobs that just because they file for an appeal doesn't mean it has to be granted]

If the unemployed on Jobseekers are going to be getting another cut this December then these clowns should take a cut too.

KELTICKNIGHTT

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They should. They are the reason [especially those Court of Appeals Judges] the Country is in the near lawless state that it's in. Slaps on the wrists for murder then the Court of Appeal [someone should tell those knobs that just because they file for an appeal doesn't mean it has to be granted]

If the unemployed on Jobseekers are going to be getting another cut this December then these clowns should take a cut too.

all state td's minister and officials ,would it be fair in saying that these people are highest paid in Europe or world ,if everyone from president up down to councilors got 20 to 30 percent pay cut ,would save a lot

archer22

anymore wrote: »

Lets put this in perspective. Six of these jokers are competing for the € 1.75 million that they would earn over the 7 years of the Presidency plus the stately home and team of domestic and office staff, car and driver, plus enormous pension plus the huge prestige of being first citizen of a nation.
It will include being feted and fawned over wherever they go. And really it comes with relatively little responsibility.
So it isnt actually that funny. Afterall we are picking uo the bill.

Very true,I dont see any of them matching McGuinness on the pay issue.In fact they all look like they want to run away when the question is asked.

KELTICKNIGHTT

archer22 wrote: »

Very true,I dont see any of them matching McGuinness on the pay issue.In fact they all look like they want to run away when the question is asked.

we don't care about mcguinness , there's plenty of threads there if you want too post about a ex-terrorist which if standards where raised ,he couldn't run

archer22

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

we don't care about mcguinness , there's plenty of threads there if you want too post about a ex-terrorist which if standards where raised ,he couldn't run

And who might this "we" be?.That would not be YOU by any chance!!.YOU raised the topic of the election but you dont want to hear about one candidate.In that case dont bring up the subject in the first place.

KELTICKNIGHTT

archer22 wrote: »

And who might this "we" be?.That would not be YOU by any chance!!.YOU raised the topic of the election but you dont want to hear about one candidate.In that case dont bring up the subject in the first place.

thread is
who thinks all these candidates are a joke
did i ask if Mc Guinness was a joke yes or no ?
there is Sean Gallagher thread
norris thread
gay mitchell thread
Dana thread
mary davis thread

lots of marty mc guinness threads
this threads is about candidates in general ,the process to select them ,should there be changes to have higher standards with candidates

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They should. They are the reason [especially those Court of Appeals Judges] the Country is in the near lawless state that it's in. Slaps on the wrists for murder then the Court of Appeal [someone should tell those knobs that just because they file for an appeal doesn't mean it has to be granted]

Sigh. This is the reason we should not be putting the Judge's pay to referendum. Most people have a woeful knowledge of the legal system in this country and even less of a notion on why allowing the legislature to control pay of the judiciary is bonkers.

If the unemployed on Jobseekers are going to be getting another cut this December then these clowns should take a cut too.

Why? Judges play a vital role in the country and you think that just because you get a few less quid in your free handout money every week that a judge should be penalised as well?

JohnMc1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sigh. This is the reason we should not be putting the Judge's pay to referendum. Most people have a woeful knowledge of the legal system in this country and even less of a notion on why allowing the legislature to control pay of the judiciary is bonkers.

Apparently the judges don't have a clue either.

Why? Judges play a vital role in the country and you think that just because you get a few less quid in your free handout money every week that a judge should be penalised as well?

These judges are the reason this Country is messed up crime wise. And I never stated I was on Jobseekers so keep your generalizations to yourself.

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Apparently the judges don't have a clue either.

That makes less than no sense.

These judges are the reason this Country is messed up crime wise. And I never stated I was on Jobseekers so keep your generalizations to yourself.

You, as in one; not you, as in you.

How are Judges at all having any effect on crime in this country? Could you expand on these empty thoughts more than one sentence?

JohnMc1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That makes less than no sense.

Why am I not surprised you didn't get it. :rolleyes:

You, as in one; not you, as in you.

Backpedalling?

How are Judges at all having any effect on crime in this country? Could you expand on these empty thoughts more than one sentence?

When they're reducing murderers sentences [like what just happened] they give the population a message that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. As I stated previously just because they file for appeal does not mean they should get it. I know that's above your level but even you should get it this time.

foggy_lad

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sigh. This is the reason we should not be putting the Judge's pay to referendum. Most people have a woeful knowledge of the legal system in this country and even less of a notion on why allowing the legislature to control pay of the judiciary is bonkers.



Why? Judges play a vital role in the country and you think that just because you get a few less quid in your free handout money every week that a judge should be penalised as well?

Judges are so far out of touch with the present and the reality of crime that their pay should be set back at least 100 years.

How many convictions without real punishment should anti-social thugs and petty criminals have before they can be finally jailed and the community and our society protected?

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Why am I not surprised you didn't get it. :rolleyes:

I didn't get it, because it makes no sense. You think Judges don't have a clue about the legal system in this country?

Backpedalling?

Clarifying. You are going to honestly tell me now that you didn't know that the word "you" can be either singular or plural? FFS.

When they're reducing murderers sentences [like what just happened] they give the population a message that they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

What just happened?
All murders attract a life sentence, the average length of the actual time served has little or nothing to do with a Judge.

If you're discussing the reduction of a sentence of murder to manslaughter (or whatever) you must realise that they carry different mens rea and rightfully ought to be distinguished.

As I stated previously just because they file for appeal does not mean they should get it. I know that's above your level but even you should get it this time.

Not everyone does get an appeal certificate, however it is your right to appeal conviction or sentence and your right to apply for a certificate (within 3 days of conviction).
There is also an element of discretion being removed from the Judge vis-a-vis the Court of Criminal Justice Act 1924; providing that leave should be granted where the court is satisfied that a question of law is involved, where the conduct of the trial was unsatisfactory or where there appear to be other significant grounds of appeal.

In an appeal of conviction it can then do 4 things:

1. Affirm the conviction
2. Quash the conviction with no further Order
3. Quash the conviction and Order a retrial of the same offence
4. Quash the conviction and substitute a verdict of guilty of another offence.

In an appeal of sentence it can quash the sentence and impose another sentence or order as appropriate. It does not have the ability to impose a lesser sentence in cases of murder.

That up to your level yet, or would you like me to present case law as well?

FreudianSlippers

foggy_lad wrote: »

Judges are so far out of touch with the present and the reality of crime that their pay should be set back at least 100 years.

How many convictions without real punishment should anti-social thugs and petty criminals have before they can be finally jailed and the community and our society protected?

Again I fail to see what that has to do with the Judge. They are convicting and imposing sentences within the law.

If you think the legislation isn't tough enough, that's a matter for the legislature. This is pretty much basic government for dummies kind of stuff!

JohnMc1

foggy_lad wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sigh. This is the reason we should not be putting the Judge's pay to referendum. Most people have a woeful knowledge of the legal system in this country and even less of a notion on why allowing the legislature to control pay of the judiciary is bonkers.



Why? Judges play a vital role in the country and you think that just because you get a few less quid in your free handout money every week that a judge should be penalised as well?

Judges are so far out of touch with the present and the reality of crime that their pay should be set back at least 100 years.

How many convictions without real punishment should anti-social thugs and petty criminals have before they can be finally jailed and the community and our society protected?

Thank you. Someone who gets it.

FreudianSlippers

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thank you. Someone who gets it.

It's manifestly incorrect; that is an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary.

effluent

A question two those who think there is a poor choice of candidates.

I don't think there's a poor choice of candidates, many of the candiates are well known for their acheivments (MMG, DN, GM, MD). I think it's a joke how the likes of mary davis and sean gallagher got in with no problems, while norris just got it on the last day.

machale08

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

Who thinks all these candidates are a joke.

Soo true...check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klsyghW7FrQ