McMurphy wrote: » What makes you think I'm happy about either? I just dont get the need to post in multiple threads about dole heads and wasters etc, and how the dole is too high here. I was one of the first to criticise Leo for promising to look after the man who got up early in the morning, and then giving the lad on the scratcher a bigger pay increase than most workers got. Incidentally - I'd be firmly in the camp of linking dole payments to what you have contributed over the years via taxes, the more you put in, the more you get out, and make it next to near impossible to make a career out of it. Dole should be like a form of income protection insurance.
McMurphy wrote: » I believe I have answered this already on the other thread, and don't see any point having the same toing and froing on different threads, so will park it here in this one.
blanch152 wrote: » You ran away from the other thread when you were called out on your inability to understand the difference between temporary and permanent. Nobody buys your failure to know the difference.
McMurphy wrote: » Price my back side, someone under the misconceptions that the likes of Apple Green or Circle K send fuel tankers to hauliers yards obviously doesn't know the difference in a bulls arse and a banjo and really shouldn't be getting into a discussion on something they know nothing of. How do I know you may wonder? And wonder you will.
atticu wrote: » So, you don’t believe that people make choices based on price. Do you understand the government tender process, or do you think that this process ignores price?
McMurphy wrote: » Hello again. I see you ignored the question where you made a complete clusterfcuk of what you deemed to be a contradiction and are now rewinding back on the questions. I have more important ways of spending my time - the belly button needs defluffed for example. Get up the yard please.
McMurphy wrote: » I can't understand Simon Harris at the minute, in one breath he is telling us that pubs may be shut indefinitely (until a vaccine can be found) In the next breath he's considering letting the kids return to school. Has some new data emerged that kids won't be spreading it coming back from schools, but pub goers are notorious for harbouring and spreading the virus amongst themselves and others? I'm not having a dig at Harris before the FG lads set the attack hounds on me, but I genuinely don't get the methodology here. If it's deemed safe for kids to return to school then great, that's one less problem for my wife and I to contend with (as both our jobs are carrying on regardless) but I honestly can't see how they will justify pubs and restaurants remaining closed. Discuss
atticu wrote: » I can’t teach you basic comprehension skills as I am not a teacher. You very clearly contradict your self. But, let’s not get involved with logic and reason. So I will leave you to your little fantasy world where you believe strange things. I fully expect you to try and convince me that the earth is flat next. Enjoy arguing with yourself.
blanch152 wrote: » I can pretty easily understand how you can impose social distancing in a Leaving Cert school situation but not in a pub in Temple Bar full of drunks. Surprised that you can’t.
McMurphy wrote: » Called out in your head - the poster that initially made the claim was acting the asshat and they got called out. You were letting the devil's buttermilk cloud your judgement again in the wee hours by the looks of things lol152
McMurphy wrote: » They can't get teenagers to adhere to social distancing guidelines as it is, I don't see how they're going to accomplish these in already stuffed classrooms. You don't have to defend everything they propose blanch, you know that don't you?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'm sure it isn't any different here to the rest of the country but the demographic who have sought to flout social distancing rules here are in the teenage range...those doing their Leaving Certs...traditionally deluded to think that they are immortal (i was one myself) Apart from that, it's the vagueness of these pronouncements that must rankle with anyone trying to run a business. 'Might' and indeterminate time frames are not what they need to hear. I have to say of all of them listening to Simon cannot be done anymore in this house. His nightly 'under siege Wartime Minister, 'look at me' filmed tweets are just cringe filled 'like mining' embarrassments at this stage. Some clear and precise information now that we are considering a return to normality would be good.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Are we returning to normality? anythign I have seen would suggest come May whatever this will be pushed out for another two weeks
aido79 wrote: » How can he give clear and precise information about considering a return to normality? Nobody in the world knows how to return to normality safely without a vaccine or way of treating covid19. Would you like him to be more like Donald Trump or something?
Mortelaro wrote: » You must have went to a rough school... Plenty floor space to move desks in the schools hereabouts Ignore instructions and its detention
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well if government don't seem to know and make vague pronouncements how would you expect me or anyone else for that matter to know? If they can only move forward in increments that is understandable, but they need to say that clearly. Dangling the notion that some sectors 'might' have to wait on a vaccine is help to no-one.
McMurphy wrote: » No I went to a fairly small school in rural Ireland, six in my class, 4 girls and 2 boys. I have a female friend who now teaches in that same school, numbers aren't much different nowadays think she said there's now 40 odd in the whole school. Secondary was a different story though, that involved taking a bus to the large town where there was 30 something of us in s class. Similar tale to where my kids now go, the school even had a sign displayed up until very recently informing residents of the locality that the school was full, and wasn't accepting new enrolments. There was even an appeal lodged with ABP to prevent a new housing dev, the main reason for the objection was the lack of space in the local school. So, I don't see how it's realistically possible to safely space the children apart, and enforce social distancing in an already jam packed school. I'm sure keeping the kids apart both in the classrooms the yard and the commute to and from is going to be an absolute cake walk for the teachers.
enricoh wrote: » I think fg would have been better off not going into government this time. They have gone for a massive spending policy with ff apparently. I think they would have been better off letting the others bankrupt the place again and the electorate would flock back to them next time round. Instead they are just another magic money tree party now as one journo put it yesterday.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody seems to have considered how these children will get to and from the schools...are they going to be supervised there and back? It's a recipe for disaster in my mind.
Shefwedfan wrote: » To be honest what do you expect Imagine they came out and said "well done lads its all looking well we will be back to normal in two weeks". I can bet you the roads/beechs/parks etc would be full of plonkers again Also if they say something and then two days later have to back out of it they would be hammered. Have you watched any of the announcements from UK or US? how do you think they compare?
Shefwedfan wrote: » So whats your plan?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I expect clarity...and where there cannot be any clarity, then say that..'we don't know yet, we will make an announcement when we know'. Why would I need to 'compare'? Is there nothing in this world you cannot assess on it's own merits? Is there always a 'look over there at themuns' default deflection?
