FintanMcluskey wrote: » This is the exact opposite of whats actually happening.
easypazz wrote: » Cool rant.
JoeA3 wrote: » I thought Dan O’Brien on with Ivan Yates tonight was excellent. Very scary, but excellent. He got his very clear message across in a clear calm manner, he didn’t engage in any point scoring, just told it how it is. Very very sobering. He asked - which event in the early part of the last century did more damage? The Spanish flu? Or the Great Depression a decade later? I wish to God that there were more voices like O’Brien’s in Leo’s ear. It was interesting to hear Ivan also say that he feels like a lone voice out there among his media colleagues. He is completely shut down and vilified by most of his own media peers when he challenges the status quo. Meanwhile over on RTE’s Prime Time, FG had sent in some nobody from their backbenches. Utterly pointless, they may as well have sent in an empty suit. Nothing to say other than spout rehearsed cliches. It’s absolutely infuriating. And nobody on RTE challenges it. They can sing for their licence fee
lawrencesummers wrote: » It says a lot about people when that are praising Ivan Yeates. People have short memories.
Stark wrote: » Afraid so. If only they were as enthusiastic about catching criminals.
prunudo wrote: » So because he's a former businessman, who lost his businesses during the banking crisis, he's not allowed voice a critical view on the current handling of the situation. Maybe he knows first hand the financial ruin that many people are facing whether they know it now or not.
lawrencesummers wrote: » Yeates has never been in financial ruin. His failed business was a victim of over expansion, bad management and the financial downturn. He left many employees in the lurch and circumvented the laws of the land by declaring bankruptcy in the UK. Through all of this he has been able to live high on the hog with a state pension north of 70k. He is a hypocrite and an ignorant bluffer of a presenter.
lord quackinton wrote: » two things 1. ivan yates did nothing illegal in his uk option 2. no company or individual owes anyone else a living. i know this especially is confusing for unions and public sector employees to grasp.
FintanMcluskey wrote: » We handed total control of our movement to a doctor who covered up a scandal that left young kids without mothers. Ill give Ivan a listen
Numerous Ministers pressed for restrictions on those over 70 to be eased. Dr Holohan said it was up to Government to make decisions, with Ministers privately acknowledging they may have to diverge from medical advice at some point.
lawrencesummers wrote: » Two things. I never said he did anything illegal. And companies do owe people, the owe them to fulfill the terms of their contract. I’m neither a union or a public sector worker, so take your attempt of making this a public vs private debate elsewhere.
lawrencesummers wrote: » Two things. I never said he did anything illegal.
easypazz wrote: » So what is your grievance with him then regarding UK bankruptcy, if he has done nothing wrong?
lawrencesummers wrote: » He’s cherry picking what parts of the rules suit him, happily taking a ridiculous pension paid for by the people of the country, but not willing to accept the laws of the country that pay him.
easypazz wrote: » It is noticeable how there are fewer members of the "its not a lockdown" political party posting on here each passing day. Most people realise now that this is a crock of sh1t and have had enough of these measures. The tide is turning fast.
rusty the athlete wrote: » I suppose the ridiculous house arrest of fit and healthy over 70s has to be rescinded this afternoon as most fit and healthy over 70s I know have been treating the measure with the contempt it deserves by totally ignoring it. The only beneficiaries will be those that blindly followed the advice of so called "experts" and who can now repair some of the psychological and physical damage they have needlessly done to themselves over the last five weeks.