How do FG/FF stop SF at the next election?

satguy

Can I add that the job of the Garda Commissioner is an easy job,, with only 3 things to do.

Keep your mouth shut..
Keep out of the way..
Collect your cheque every month..

is_that_so

satguy wrote: »

Can I add that the job of the Garda Commissioner is an easy job,, with only 3 things to do.

Keep your mouth shut..
Keep out of the way..
Collect your cheque every month..

And that's all children from this edition of Bing! See you soon.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

The solution to reduce building costs is not to reduce standards.

Instead:

(1) reduce the cost of land

(2) reduce the cost of finance - property developers pay 5-6% on senior debt, and much more on mezzanine debt

(3) reduce risk, and so reduce developer's margins

To do all that you have to

(1) Implement the 47-year old Kenny Report or change the Constitution. Problem is farmers and other land-owners will be furious about this.

(2) Reducing the cost of finance is inextricably linked to increasing the ability of banks and vulture funds to repossess housing

(3) Reducing the risk can be achieved by allowing funds to bulk buy property in advance thus giving developers certainty about sales. This has started to happen in the Irish market.

All three of those measures are opposed by virtually all political parties.

Idbatterim

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Lowering standards is a very slippery slope. It's like suggesting returning to bed sit. Often the people who need social housing will also struggle with their heating bills. Your suggesting making them higher forever or at least until we do a cost retrofit

Banning bedside was absolute idiocy!

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How to stop them?

Alternatively, the law and order party could live up to it's name.

Am I the only one shocked that the Taoiseach of this country is tolerating an illegal organisation to operate in this country with impunity?

He believes that the IRA still exists and that it's leader (Mary Lou) has the power to disband them.

The Special Criminal Court has the power to charge and find guilty on the word of a senior Garda. And our most senior Garda says there is intelligence to support the view that the Army Council is still operating.

Arrest them and put them in jail...i.e. Do your job.

Problem solved.

The special criminal court requires evidence backed cases, not just the word of a senior based garda.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/not-guilty-verdict-in-ira-trial-after-garda%25C3%25AD-refused-to-release-secret-material-1.4105999%3fmode=amp

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The special criminal court requires evidence backed cases, not just the word of a senior based garda.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/not-guilty-verdict-in-ira-trial-after-garda%25C3%25AD-refused-to-release-secret-material-1.4105999%3fmode=amp

The word of a Garda is enough if the court is presented with the material from which he forms his/her view.

If he/she will not present that material then of course there will be no conviction.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The word of a Garda is enough if the court is presented with the material from which he forms his/her view.

If he/she will not present that material then of course there will be no conviction.

So evidence is needed, not just the word of the garda, thanks.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So evidence is needed, not just the word of the garda, thanks.

No, not 'evidence', the 'intelligence' from which he/she forms his view. There is a difference.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, not 'evidence', the 'intelligence' from which he/she forms his view. There is a difference.

How so?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, not 'evidence', the 'intelligence' from which he/she forms his view. There is a difference.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The special criminal court requires evidence backed cases, not just the word of a senior based garda.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/not-guilty-verdict-in-ira-trial-after-garda%25C3%25AD-refused-to-release-secret-material-1.4105999%3fmode=amp

The article says "evidence", not "intelligence". Perhaps you could explain the difference from a legal point of view?

McMurphy

satguy wrote: »

If Leo keeps on about this invisable army council that he says runs SF.

We can keep on about their very visable Boss, I for one remember when they told him if he spent 183 days in Portugal, they would let his off with 63 million that he owed in tax.

See Here

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/denis-o-brien-saves-63m-in-tax-stratagem-1.343993

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we need roofs and walls. The cost of building has to be lowered. One of the most expensive parts is the A2 energy certification.

It's a luxury we can't afford when we have people dying on the streets and multi generations living under one roof.

Classic FF/ FG gut our housing building program by LA's over the last 40 years, then claim we can't afford decent houses because the market which they told us to trust is making massive profits. We most certainly can afford it

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

How so?

The Garda's view as the 'appropriate expert' is evidence itself.

See the legislation.

71B.— (1) In proceedings under this Part the opinion of—

(a) any member of the Garda Síochána, or

(b) any former member of the Garda Síochána,

who appears to the Court to possess the appropriate expertise (in this section referred to as the ‘ appropriate expert’ ) shall, subject to section 74B, be admissible in evidence in relation to the issue as to the existence of a particular criminal organisation.

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

Banning bedside was absolute idiocy!

Would you fancy your whole home being a single room?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Garda's view as the 'appropriate expert' is evidence itself.

See the legislation.

That's totally different and you know it.
The garda or expert is and can be considered as such, but his opinion must be based on the evidence in any given trial he or she is testifying in.
They must provide evidence to back up their claim, the article I quoted proves this.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Garda's view as the 'appropriate expert' is evidence itself.

See the legislation.

That is evidence as to the existence of the illegal organisation, not as to an individual's membership of such.

Idbatterim

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would you fancy your whole home being a single room?

Over the alternative being the street? As it has become for msny ... yes ... where do you draw the line? What’s up next to ban ? Apartments because they are only a stop gap to owning a house here ?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That's totally different and you know it.
The garda or expert is and can be considered as such, but his opinion must be based on the evidence in any given trial he or she is testifying in.
They must provide evidence to back up their claim, the article I quoted proves this.

IF he/she presents the documentation on which he forms his/her view. When this legislation was amended it was hailed as game changing because the burden of proof was reduced from previous burdens.
The 'evidence' is the Garda's opinion of the intelligence...not the intelligence itself.
That is the difference.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

IF he/she presents the documentation on which he forms his/her view. When this legislation was amended it was hailed as game changing because the burden of proof was reduced from previous burdens.
The 'evidence' is the Garda's opinion of the intelligence...not the intelligence itself.
That is the difference.

Again not so, the evidence must be provided to the court so as the court can decide on the validity of it as to evidential value.

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would you fancy your whole home being a single room?

I lived in a one-roomed flat with a wife and child at one time. While it was over 30 years ago, it was all we could do at the time. Nowadays, the entitlement culture expects a lot more.

facehugger99

The biggest threat to SF may be a new party forming and offering the electorate even more shiny baubles without the terrorist baggage.

The new generation of millennial-voters have demonstrated they'd give a first-preference to anyone who promises them a cheap gaff. They have no loyalty to SF.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

IF he/she presents the documentation on which he forms his/her view. When this legislation was amended it was hailed as game changing because the burden of proof was reduced from previous burdens.
The 'evidence' is the Garda's opinion of the intelligence...not the intelligence itself.
That is the difference.

So there is evidence presented, let's just leave it at that before the next rabbit hole opens up.

blanch152

facehugger99 wrote: »

The biggest threat to SF may be a new party forming and offering the electorate even more shiny baubles without the terrorist baggage.

The new generation of millennial-voters have demonstrated they'd give a first-preference to anyone who promises them a cheap gaff. They have no loyalty to SF.

There doesn't even need to be a new party. Should the Soc Dems absorb Labour they will have 12 seats. If they stay in opposition to a FF/FG/Green government, they are most likely to be Sinn Fein's biggest rivals.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Again not so, the evidence must be provided to the court so as the court can decide on the validity of it as to evidential value.

Completely wrong...read the legislation and the commentary around it when it was introduced. The amendment increased the special powers.

IngazZagni

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we need roofs and walls. The cost of building has to be lowered. One of the most expensive parts is the A2 energy certification.

It's a luxury we can't afford when we have people dying on the streets and multi generations living under one roof.

Do you expect the Green Party to accept such a measure if they are part of Government? It would be seen as the Government not giving a damn about the environment. Your last sentence is just tabloid sensationalism.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Completely wrong...read the legislation and the commentary around it when it was introduced. The amendment increased the special powers.

Read the article and the judgement I quoted.
The judgement was based on the fact that no evidence was supplied and said that such evidence had been supplied in all previous cases.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Read the article and the judgement I quoted.
The judgement was based on the fact that no evidence was supplied and said that such evidence had been supplied in all previous cases.

I have already explained the difference between 'intelligence documentation' and 'evidence'. The journalist is using the wrong term.

Again the section of the act which makes it clear what will be 'treated as evidence'.

71B.— (1) In proceedings under this Part the opinion of—

(a) any member of the Garda Síochána, or

(b) any former member of the Garda Síochána,

who appears to the Court to possess the appropriate expertise (in this section referred to as the ‘ appropriate expert’ ) shall, subject to section 74B, be admissible in evidence in relation to the issue as to the existence of a particular criminal organisation.

piplip87

1) Get people building houses again. The left have this thing about big nasty developers. Some of it justified but we need to give them breaks and cut the costs of building. They are the ones best placed to increase supply.

2) Spread jobs around more evenly. It's great that all these job announcements are happening but mostly in Dublin. Look at the commuter belt. Many people are travelling over two hours to get into Dublin for work. Start offering tax breaks for companies to set up outside of Dublin. The talent is there but are spending 4 or 5 hours travelling to Dublin every day.

3) Again encourage companies to roll out work from home schemes, I was in a job for two years that could easily be done from home. Yet there was no movement on it at all.

You could even get money from these companies, set up co working spaces throughout the country and let people work from their nearest one to maintain the social aspect. I know of a group of homeworkers who have set up in the second living room of one of their houses. There's 3 of them all for different companies but they still have the social aspect. This will then mean these employees will have time with family. I have done the big commute and time with family is what is missed more than anything.

4) Sort out the health service. This will be hard but we need a big ignorant health minister who will cut out the waste. One idea I would have is primary care centres that can offer day treatments to save people.going to Dublin for a two hour treatment administered by a nurse. This will then free up space and staff in hospitals. Have less hospitals but have bigger, better more spread out specialist hospitals.

5) Reduce the tax burden on people.

6) Cut the welfare bill. There is no need for jobseekers to be on jobseekers for more than 12 months after that cut it and give them vouchers. Separate permanent jobseekers from those who cannot work and those who lost a job but place every training opportunity to allow those to upskill and get back to work. This may not win over many SF voters though.

7) Improve public transport before bringing in any Green party taxes on Carbon. If your working in Sandyford and living in Cavan/North Meath you have no option but to drive. Have again there's is no reason 7 or 8 half full busses need to go to the city centre especially when they pass park and rides along the way that could cut time off the journey.

Start looking after those who do get up early in the morning or those who work at night, including careers and those with disabilities. Allow developers do what they did from the mid 90s until the crash, it may be unpopular at first but when houses are built it will be soon forgotten about

v638sg7k1a92bx

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That's not the point really.
If a bit of cronyism is OK with you to ignore bang away.
Our health and housing crisis has cause untold hardships and probably caused multiple deaths.
FG and Co haven't done enough to inspire confidence in their ability to manage either.
It's their fault that people have turned against and voted against them.
The DOBs and the like aren't affected by any of this, the ordinary tax paying voters are, that's why there is a rise in SF support, not because everyone has suddenly turned republican or murderous

Because people want to blame the government for all of life’s problems and when you consider where the country was to where we are now the Government has done a good job from an overall economic perspective. The snowflake millennial generation who are so used to instant gratification would have been teenagers back in 2008 so they can’t relate to this.

mikep

I reckon let SF cobble together a "left alliance", sit back and watch the meltdown..

The forest of magic money trees will soon be revealed as a mirage thus preventing the fulfillment of their promises, people who voted SF for the first time as a protest will soon switch back..