Tánaiste Moany Burton: IW protesters 'seem to have extremely expensive phones'

Mrs Garth Brooks

https://m.facebook.com/RevolutionIreland/photos/a.148461985206139.40836.116110171774654/825401434178854/?type=1&source=46

Some funny pictures here

mada999

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Along the lines of what the great Malcolm Tucker once said, find an expert that tells you what you want to hear.

The far-left are always at this. You would often see the left alliance find some mad-cap "economist" (that may have done a little Economics in college) pedal stuff that sounds good for them.

well i'd rather some of the parties hire someone who actually wants to help the people of the country rather than helping themselves to their public's cash..

Really find it difficult to hear people giving out about the protesters and how they are trying to stand up for something they believe in.. Sure maybe they will lose but sure you may as well make some kind of stand!?

I'm from a working class family but I'm probably categorised as middle class now and I will be protesting in some way.

To be honest, I'm all for some kind of authority being set up to regulate the water supply for the reasons of conservation and to make it safe to drink for ALL citizens of this country.

But looking at the company that was set up, it looks more like it was set up to give jobs to the boyos and pay them lots of cash rather than the reasons I stated above (I think this is why most people are protesting). Why are a good few of their employees getting 100k with cars, what are they actually doing ?! It seems like the perfect job for some ex ministers who may see it as a back up plan for when they lose their seats in the next elections and they can get a nice job on the board.

Banjo String

efb wrote: »

Like they voted in the North for household charges

I'm sorry, what's this now?

What was voted by who?

efb

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm sorry, what's this now?

What was voted by who?

SF

efb

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sam-smyth-sfs-policy-is-hypocrisy-on-both-sides-of-border-26853402.html

Banjo String

efb wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sam-smyth-sfs-policy-is-hypocrisy-on-both-sides-of-border-26853402.html

That doesn't make your post clear tbh.

You do realise that there is no household charge in the north? Granted there are domestic rates, but I'd gladly swap with them (and what they get for their money) with, oh let's say our property tax, bin charges, health care, school book fee, motor tax, and vat rate. (USC is for another days arguing tbh)

But that's all besides the point anyway.

When did SF 'vote' for them?

Looks like I've been wrongly assuming they have been there (domestic rstes) long before SF even got a sniff of Govt in the north, (junior partners in a coalition at that)

foggy_lad

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're highly ignorant for 1: assuming they are jobless, and 2: assuming that if they were, that protesting/looking-for-work are mutually exclusive.

Didn't yer wan on the radio say she was jobless! and spending your day or most of it on different protests is not allowed if you are genuinely seeking and available for employment.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

that kind of comment from a minister detracts from the issue.
people irrespective of their income, are entitled to protest in a proper manner.

or is ireland not a free country any more?

All I have seen of the water protesters is scumbag cnuts who will apparently abuse ordinary decent working men and women as well as hurl the most disgusting abuse at the Gardai who are there to keep the peace. I think it is high time the batons and shields came out and these scumbag protesters get the same treatment Maggie Thatcher gave the poll tax protesters!

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Yes let's just assume every single of them is an unemployable trouble maker. Let's also ignore the possibility that people are protesting on their day off, or work part time. We'll just go ahead and assume that anyone who protests against anything ever is a scumbag lowlife.

OK But I would prefer to think that most people with jobs would be at their work instead of trying to prevent others from doing their jobs.

Streetwalker wrote: »

SF are defo getting my vote next time around. Had it with the labour clowns.

Not if Gerry Kneecappin Adams or Mad Dog Martin Bomber McGlinchey put their Kalashnikov to my head

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Still picking potatoes? This is gold.

Golden Wonders?

Summer wind wrote: »

Who paid for Joan's phone?

Ivor Calelley?

Gatling wrote: »

And don't forget

Air max runners

Track suits

And going by the protest videos dodgy knock off sunglasses too

Caps

And there cases of Dutch gold

There is probably a stash of balaclavas buried in some shed belonging to one or more of the protest organisers.

In Lonesome Dove

efb wrote: »

She does have a valid point. It's not Can't Pay for a lot of people it's Won't Pay

Because anyone with half a brain will see that it's going to lead to more unemployment. More business's shutting and closing and their solution is jobs bridge where it's being exploited. There's been so much muck for a long time about unemployed people with ignorant assumptions that they are all lazy scum who do nothing but smoke and drink all day and hump to get some babies to ride the social welfare train.

Idbatterim

Who are these "rich" you keep referring to?

a posters response was "business owners", well I would say to that poster, go down the the Companies Registration Office tomorrow and register a business and all of a sudden, youll be swimming in money and living the high life :rolleyes:

As I mentioned previously, I work a smallish family business, we do quite a bit of b2b, some of the owners of the others businesses I am friends with, some are just getting by and two have decided to call it a day. Others would actually earn more working for someone else, but have obviously invested a lot of time, effort etc into the business and have an attachment to it, also it may have other non financial perks... Business owners being described across the board as "rich" about as ignorant as me saying every public servant is rich!

Rich in my mind, would be a net worth in the millions, this has been discussed on a similar thread on boards recently... The problem is, a lot of Irish people would probably define rich as anyone better off than them! There are two threads in the economics forum, posted recently. The "rich" to be given a pay rise, again yes the rich earning over E32.800 (or 26,600 ish net) may get a 1% lopped off the marginal rate, well its off the wall at 52%, 51%,50% all the way down to 40% if not less at that joke of an amount!

The governments definition of rich must be over E32,800, it would have to be if they feel that you can afford that level of tax. You can earn 250-300,000 in other EU countries and pay less than our marginal rate!!!

mikeym

The rich are getting richer and the working class are getting fleeced.

Id love to see Mrs.Burton go on the dole for the year.

efb

In Lonesome Dove wrote: »

Because anyone with half a brain will see that it's going to lead to more unemployment. More business's shutting and closing and their solution is jobs bridge where it's being exploited. There's been so much muck for a long time about unemployed people with ignorant assumptions that they are all lazy scum who do nothing but smoke and drink all day and hump to get some babies to ride the social welfare train.

How will water charges lead to unemployment?

Smidge

Oh Joan..
You really let your slip show there today with those comments!

I know it suits peoples own agendas and prejudices to spout the same old drivel that all of the people in these protests are dole scrounging, dutch gold drinking scum(don't you tire of the same ole tripe you spout on here lads?).

They are not and that's starting to rattle a lot of folks.
Even good old Joan.
I would say an awful lot of the people who are protesting/disagree with IW and water charges voted Labour the last time round.
And now Joan has told these people exactly what she thinks of them. Which is the same as a lot of posters on here do.

Labour? You represent Labour Joan?
No wonder with comments and an attitude like this that your party is well and truly scuppered.
Badly done Joan

Idbatterim

in defence of Burton and I detest Labour, how many days have they been in office? well over a thousand... How long could your tolerance last when you have to deal with reality and there isnt a magic money tree, before you lose patience from the ignorant crap they must have to deal with around the clock, from people who wouldnt have a grasp of even the most basic economics...

Labour have bent over backwards to protect those who are most likely to protest over the water charges and look at the thanks she gets for it :rolleyes:

Gatling

foggy_lad wrote: »

Didn't yer wan on the radio say she was jobless! and spending your day or most of it on different protests is not allowed if you are genuinely seeking and available for employment.

All I have seen of the water protesters is scumbag cnuts who will apparently abuse ordinary decent working men and women as well as hurl the most disgusting abuse at the Gardai who are there to keep the peace. I think it is high time the batons and shields came out and these scumbag protesters get the same treatment Maggie Thatcher gave the poll tax protesters!

OK But I would prefer to think that most people with jobs would be at their work instead of trying to prevent others from doing their jobs.

Not if Gerry Kneecappin Adams or Mad Dog Martin Bomber McGlinchey put their Kalashnikov to my head

Golden Wonders?

Ivor Calelley?

There is probably a stash of balaclavas buried in some shed belonging to one or more of the protest organisers.

I'd bet on Ak 47s and some c4 too

Smidge

Idbatterim wrote: »

in defence of Burton and I detest Labour, how many days have they been in office? well over a thousand... How long could your tolerance last when you have to deal with reality and there isnt a magic money tree, before you lose patience from the ignorant crap they must have to deal with around the clock, from people who wouldnt have a grasp of even the most basic economics...

Labour have bent over backwards to protect those who are most likely to protest over the water charges and look at the thanks she gets for it :rolleyes:

Methinks you protest too much.
You claim not to be a supporter and then post the above?

:rolleyes: yourself, I'm not buying it

Banjo String

Some change we've seen since FF.

We've had an environment minister, responsible for introducing a property tax and household charge, who refused to pay his own service charge on his Portuguese penthouse. (apparently because he was unhappy with the service lol)

A minister, named in stubbs gazette for unpaid debts, mere months after Enda Kenny himself declared Ireland would not have the name defaulters stamped on its head.

The whole gsoc bugging/whistleblower /Callinan resignations debacle.

The justice ministers resignation (because he felt his position was untenable), this man was a fcuking lawyer FFS.

Gilmore's resignation, because of labours almost complete wipe out in the local elections, because they abandoned every promise and principle the labour party stand for.

Kenny/McNulty.

Hilary Quinlan stating that "sure every party looks after their own" after being rejected by his constituents, then hired as a ministerial driver and then appointed to the board of directors to Irish Water.

Then today's brain far where Joan let the mask slip. The leader of the labour party, basically giving out that protesters weren't peasantry looking enough with their fancy shmancy phones.

If it wasn't such a fcuking mess it'd be funny tbh.

In Lonesome Dove

efb wrote: »

How will water charges lead to unemployment?

Are you for real asking this?

Everybody is different with circumstances and with different financial situations but there are many people who are just about getting by and that's after changing bits and pieces around eg instead of shopping in Dunnes or SuperValu, a grocery shop is done in Aldi or Lidl. Perhaps dropping things from their household budget such as a car and the expenses to go with that and cycling instead. Maybe dropping a Sky package. Going out socialising rarely. These are just a few examples. This is a new bill coming in. Take a bill at an estimate of 600 euro a year. That would be 300 euro every 6 months. 150 euro every 3 months. 50 euro every month. So 12.50 euro a week should be put aside. That 12.50 could be spent maybe on a lunch in their local eating establishment. Business's especially small and medium ones are definitely going to suffer like cafes, shops, hotels, cinema.

delw

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But if any of these protestors are on jobseekers allowance then they are breaking the rules of their payment which says they must be actively seeking work and proving so. By protesting all day this is not really the case.

So there may actually be grounds for cuts.

Maybe they are checking jobs.ie regularly on their expensive internet capable phones

Idbatterim

Smidge, I work in the family business, you think l would vote for the labour tax sucking parasites?!

RobertKK

People will pay for expensive mobile phones but will complain about paying for something that is more vital for life.

Shakespeare's Sister

Smidge wrote: »

Methinks you protest too much.
You claim not to be a supporter and then post the above?

:rolleyes: yourself, I'm not buying it

Not sure what's wrong with what they said - perfectly logical IMO.

I do find on these debates, anyone who puts forward a point of view that considers looking at things from ministers' perspectives... they get shouted down, and the auld "You must support them" accusation.

It makes sense that she'd lose patience and lash out - acknowledging that, doesn't mean agreeing with her.

mada999

RobertKK wrote: »

People will pay for expensive mobile phones but will complain about paying for something that is more vital for life.

wish you would read my comment above..suppose you read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear

steddyeddy

An ability to afford a certain object does not mean would not have a problem with paying something they deem immoral.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

People will pay for expensive mobile phones but will complain about paying for something that is more vital for life.

Smartphones aren't that expensive. My last smartphone cost me €69 and looked far more expensive than it was. A mobile is an essential item these days and can be used for far more than simply making calls. Someone with a smartphone could find it useful for applying for jobs, for all we know many of the protestors could be sending off their CV.

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

Smartphones aren't that expensive. My last smartphone cost me €69 and looked far more expensive than it was. A mobile is an essential item these days

No it isn't. Water is essential. Phones, mobile or landline, are not essential.

Deleted User wrote:

and can be used for far more than simply making calls. Someone with a smartphone could find it useful for applying for jobs, for all we know many of the protestors could be sending off their CV.

If their writing a CV on their phone maybe that's why they can't get a job.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't. Water is essential. Phones, mobile or landline, are not essential.

A phone is essential, without it getting a job is almost impossible. And those in a job need one do as to be contactable. Don't think many employers would look to kindly on an employee that they couldn't contact.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If their writing a CV on their phone maybe that's why they can't get a job.

Yeah cause that's what I said. Nice way to twist words to suit your agenda if looking down in anyone unfortunate enough not to have a job

efb

Deleted User wrote: »

Smartphones aren't that expensive. My last smartphone cost me €69 and looked far more expensive than it was. A mobile is an essential item these days and can be used for far more than simply making calls. Someone with a smartphone could find it useful for applying for jobs, for all we know many of the protestors could be sending off their CV.

More essential than water??? €69 then how much s month...

Smidge

Idbatterim wrote: »

her assertion is 100% correct... No money this, no money that, while using the latest I phones or galaxy. The levels and benefits here are simply too high for those who have never contributed, have no mortgage, child care costs, work related expenses etc...

They can stick their protesting up their backside, couples on middle incomes,(say 50k each, are paying E271 per week at the marginal rate of tax alone i.e. the expected charge for a family of four and getting nothing in return!



expect this is sarcasm, but yes you are absolutely correct about there being no shortage of money to spend on alcohol, the bookies etc and other such essentials, that the dole is intended for. I think one of the issues here is, those on welfare do feel shafted, as they have no basis of comparison, well take a look what benefits are "doled" out in other EU counties, might change your perspective!

Its about time this charge came in or maybe they should increase the marginal rate on the "rich" earning over E32,800 (coming out with E26,613 and living the high life)...

Idbatterim wrote: »

there should be no welfare increases, except for the genuinely vulnerable if there is a case for them, throw the rest into job creation, lowering taxes to spur growth, repay debt and infrastructure, win / win for everyone except those who dont want to work and while they are at it, reduce it down to virtually nothing for long term unemployed (once they know this will happen in advance, they are far less likely to f**k around)...

I see.
So its not her politics you agree with.
Just her sentiments in what she said today.

joe swanson

Shes 100% right. Professional protesters/whingebags who have no problem picking up there paycheck from the state for doing sweet fa. I cant afford an iPad and I actually work for a living to pay their dole it seems.