FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn’t it just sad that someone was saving up that picture just to produce in an internet debate among anonymous posters?

Or maybe something else stranger?

The upset about it is sadder tbh. It's freely available on the internet ffs. 'Saving up'

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn’t it just sad that someone was saving up that picture just to produce in an internet debate among anonymous posters?

Or maybe something else stranger?

Blanch still struggling with how the internet works I see.

"Saving up" - keep up more like it, the photo came from this very website, from this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101516387&postcount=1

Parody. :pac:

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Blanch still struggling with how the internet works I see.

"Saving up" - keep up more like it, the photo came from this very thread on boards.ie.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101516387&postcount=1

:pac:

Not sure that improves things, bookmarking a post from 2016 to use again in 2020 is still at least a little strange.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Not sure that improves things, bookmarking a post from 2016 to use again in 2020 is still at least a little strange.

Keep digging blanch. Keep digging. Tell my relatives in Kalgoorlie I say hi.

Nobotty

I'd say,and now I'm out in a limb here,but you would all miss each other if the internet broke
Presumably grown adults and the most childish postings in creation
I'll disappear off now in case I'm accused of trying to censor this
There's nothing but boring sniping

Nobotty

Nobotty wrote: »

I'd say,and now I'm out in a limb here,but you would all miss each other if the internet broke
Presumably grown adults and the most childish postings in creation
I'll disappear off now in case I'm accused of trying to censor this
There's nothing but boring sniping

Have to agree with you. Even my pi**take over a 50odd year old photo brings out the worst in some people.

Yurt2

A head scratcher this one. A post critical of the goofy and partisan online behaviour by YFG, was met my a post from one of the B.O.Ts asking if the person had seen a picture of a young Enda Kenny (?). Someone posts one with no commentary and now there's some odd pearl clutching going on.

I'll need this one explained to me.

JohnnyFlash

Yurt! wrote: »

A head scratcher this one. A post critical of the goofy and partisan online behaviour by YFG, was met my a post from one of the B.O.Ts asking if the person had seen a picture of a young Enda Kenny (?). Someone posts one with no commentary and now there's some odd pearl clutching going on.

I'll need this one explained to me.

Think you're reading into this a bit too much, dude. Might be in danger of taking this website a bit too seriously for your own good. Suggest you cool the jets, and chill out. :cool:

JohnnyFlash

Nobotty wrote: »

I'd say,and now I'm out in a limb here,but you would all miss each other if the internet broke
Presumably grown adults and the most childish postings in creation
I'll disappear off now in case I'm accused of trying to censor this
There's nothing but boring sniping

The sniping is the best part, my friend. It wouldn't be the reasoned political discussions, nuanced perspectives, and level-headed debates. It's the political equivalent of a slogan scrawled on the wall of a pub shítter.

Yurt2

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Think you're reading into this a bit too much, dude. Might be in danger of taking this website a bit too seriously for your own good. Suggest you cool the jets, and chill out. :cool:

Johnny, My heart rate isn't moved a blip when posting. Some of the best entertainment during my commute on the train is watching you lot flap and descend into parodies of yourselves. A mild poke sets you off on another cycle of ridiculous diatribes. You're better than Angry Birds to pass the time.

You're B.O.T crew are a bunch of sad acts, agitation oozes from your posts. And you can post your sunglasses all you wish, nobody is fooled. Blanch is shook after someone posted a picture of a youthful Enda Kenny, as if someone stepped on an image of Kim il-sung. You're displaying evidence of being shook as well Johnny. Maybe put down the Huawei between holes eh? Golfing is meant to be a relaxing activity and you'll end up in the rough offline as well as online.

Brendan Bendar

Lot of amateur ‘sages’ and potential ‘Aosdana’ members throwing their homespun doggerel around in here.

Should be up in McAleers in Dungannon enjoying themselves.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lot of amateur ‘sages’ and potential ‘Aosdana’ members throwing their homespun doggerel around in here.

Should be up in McAleers in Dungannon enjoying themselves.

A lot of 'quotation marks' as well. Very concerning, and very strange indeed.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Should be up in McAleers in Dungannon enjoying themselves.

This would be the kind of thing a belligerent unionist would be saying. Keep making an exception of themun's slipping up on the old regs ignoring that everyone has ignored them at some point...from teenagers to seasoned 'indispensable' EU commissioners.

Gas man Brendi.

BluePlanet

Failed FG politician awarded a cushy number in the financial sector.

Former junior finance minister to head funds sector lobby group
Michael D’Arcy to resign Seanad seat for Irish Association of Investment Management post
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/former-junior-finance-minister-to-head-funds-sector-lobby-group-1.4365853?mode=amp

There is pretty cosy relationship between the status quo parties and Financial sector.
Saint Patrick needed to cast these snakes out.

McMurphy

I see Paschal made a bit of a plonker out of himself over the weekend when he said PUP needed to be taxed.

Was he deliberately telling fibs, or does he need to redo his homework?

https://twitter.com/RomanShortall/status/1309422423083802624?s=09

Nobotty

Pup from the very start was to be taxed where peoples earnings were taxed anyway
It won't be taxed if annual pay is under the tax limits
If I remember right,if you got pup for 2 months and went back to work, you're taxed as normal and pup is counted
If you earned more than the pup normally, you won't pay more tax because you earned less
In that case you could say your pup isn't taxed

Nobotty

Nobotty wrote: »

Pup from the very start was to be taxed where peoples earnings were taxed anyway
It won't be taxed if annual pay is under the tax limits
If I remember right,if you got pup for 2 months and went back to work, you're taxed as normal and pup is counted
If you earned more than the pup normally, you won't pay more tax because you earned less
In that case you could say your pup isn't taxed

Same goes for unemployment benefit. It’s included in your annual income.

tobsey

Deleted User wrote: »

Same goes for unemployment benefit. It’s included in your annual income.

And maternity benefit, and old age pension. Plenty of DSP payments are taxable.

BluePlanet

Pearse Doherty weighing in on this.

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1310540721414385665?s=19

titan18

BluePlanet wrote: »

Pearse Doherty weighing in on this.

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1310540721414385665?s=19

Aren't non compete clauses legally dubious anyway, and Irish courts have ruled in favour of employees when employers challenged them

BluePlanet

titan18 wrote: »

Aren't non compete clauses legally dubious anyway, and Irish courts have ruled in favour of employees when employers challenged them

Is that going to be the excuse/rationalization? Well the law isn't very sound on that so there's nothing we can do.

It's not like FG were in a law making position for the past decade, right?

titan18

BluePlanet wrote: »

Is that going to be the excuse/rationalization? Well the law isn't very sound on that so there's nothing we can do.

It's not like FG were in a law making position for the past decade, right?

Tbf, if you're for worker rights (I'm assuming you're a SF supporter here btw so apologies if not), you should be against non compete clauses.

Non compete clauses just stop people moving between jobs if they get a better off. There's one in my contract, and I'm not high up. I'd ignore it tbh if I got a better offer from a company in the same industry.

Nobotty

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf, if you're for worker rights (I'm assuming you're a SF supporter here btw so apologies if not), you should be against non compete clauses.

Non compete clauses just stop people moving between jobs if they get a better off. There's one in my contract, and I'm not high up. I'd ignore it tbh if I got a better offer from a company in the same industry.

I read it as an ethics law
Ie its there to prevent recent legislators from using their inside track to get ahead of others on government decisions
On that basis though Brian hayes couldn't have become a banking assoc rep.

Mind you it says person,not industry association which is probably both of their outs

blanch152

Nobotty wrote: »

I read it as an ethics law
Ie its there to prevent recent legislators from using their inside track to get ahead of others on government decisions
On that basis though Brian hayes couldn't have become a banking assoc rep.

Mind you it says person,not industry association which is probably both of their outs

Not necessarily, a company can be a person under certain company law provisions. There also may be a definition of person in the Lobbying Act, though I can't find one.

titan18

Nobotty wrote: »

I read it as an ethics law
Ie its there to prevent recent legislators from using their inside track to get ahead of others on government decisions
On that basis though Brian hayes couldn't have become a banking assoc rep.

Mind you it says person,not industry association which is probably both of their outs

The non compete clauses are there as basis of same though. Stopping a person knowing insider knowledge from moving to another company in same field. Like there was the Ryanair guy who went to EasyJet and Ryanair took him to court.

Ethically, sure, these sort of moves where someone from government moves into private sector is a bit dodgy but hard to draw the line, and it is infringing on workers rights if you do draw that line.

blanch152

BluePlanet wrote: »

Pearse Doherty weighing in on this.

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1310540721414385665?s=19

Just had a look at the Lobbying Register.

IAIM don't appear to have engaged in any lobbying in either 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Their last record for lobbying is from the last quarter of 2017, when the person lobbied was Michael D'Arcy.

https://www.lobbying.ie/return/23729/irish-association-of-investment-managers

So how long is sufficient time?

BluePlanet

"Workers Rights", oh like FG care about that stuff, see meat factories and those unfortunates doing the actual work.
It's just a handy ruse to try and provide cover for corruption.

Anyway, you can be as pedantic as you like, they've handed the Opposition another example to hang round their necks.
And rightly so.

tobsey

blanch152 wrote: »

Just had a look at the Lobbying Register.

IAIM don't appear to have engaged in any lobbying in either 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Their last record for lobbying is from the last quarter of 2017, when the person lobbied was Michael D'Arcy.

https://www.lobbying.ie/return/23729/irish-association-of-investment-managers

So how long is sufficient time?

12 months is the law. The fact that D'Arcy himself was the last one lobbied doesn't make it any better for himself. I think he has to resign and wait until the 12 months is up.

Did he continue as a junior minister after the election like the real ministers? Or did he finish up when the Dail broke before the election?

Brendan Bendar

tobsey wrote: »

12 months is the law. The fact that D'Arcy himself was the last one lobbied doesn't make it any better for himself. I think he has to resign and wait until the 12 months is up.

Did he continue as a junior minister after the election like the real ministers? Or did he finish up when the Dail broke before the election?

Nothing to see here, relevant authorities have given the imprimatur to the issue.

blanch152

tobsey wrote: »

12 months is the law. The fact that D'Arcy himself was the last one lobbied doesn't make it any better for himself. I think he has to resign and wait until the 12 months is up.

Did he continue as a junior minister after the election like the real ministers? Or did he finish up when the Dail broke before the election?

I think the point they are making is that they haven't been engaged in lobbying for the last three years, sure they are a registered lobbyist, but they haven't conducted any activity under the lobbying register for three years.

There must be a lot more to the organisation than lobbying.