smurgen wrote: » Ignorantia juris non excusat. It's interesting to read over some of the stuff he had a hand in now with hindsight. Read this knowing what we now know. It makes some of the shakey advice provided in the past look even more suspect.https://electronicintifada.net/content/did-irish-minister-distort-truth-over-israels-settlement-imports/30626
Bowie wrote: » He helped the government navigate the legalities of social distancing rules ffs.. Some top judge, didn't know he was going to a piss up dinner. Did he think it was just him going?
The controversy over Wednesday’s golf dinner in Galway was only the second major political controversy of the week. Though it was forgotten on Friday amid the outrage about the golf dinner, there was a significant and highly revealing row between the Taoiseach and Tánaiste at the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that included a pointed warning from Leo Varadkar that the future of the Government is in jeopardy. It was only 10 minutes before the Cabinet meeting was due to start when it became apparent to his colleagues that Varadkar was not happy. Word buzzed around Fine Gael Ministers that there was a problem; texts and Whatsapp messages flew. Some weren’t sure that the Cabinet meeting would go ahead at all. The problem-solvers – Fine Gael’s Simon Coveney and Paschal Donohoe – attempted emergency outreach to their Fianna Fail colleagues. What was the problem? But the Fianna Fáilers didn’t know either. The Cabinet meeting, with some members in attendance in Government Buildings and others (including Varadkar) joining remotely, began soon after 1pm. On the agenda were the latest recommendations from the National Public Health Emergency Team (Nphet), advising the tightening of restrictions in response to the resurgence of the virus in recent days. In truth, the public health experts were extremely alarmed, and had mooted a return to a total lockdown if the trend in infections continued. But the politicians were united that this was impossible, for social and economic reasons. Varadkar wanted this thrashed out at a Cabinet subcommittee rather than – as some Fine Gaelers saw it – being bounced into hasty decisions at the full Cabinet. He soon made his displeasure clear. “If we keep doing business like this,” he said, “we won’t be doing business for long.”At first, some of the people around the table or tuning in weren’t sure they had heard right. Was the Tánaiste really talking about the potential end of the coalition Government – after seven weeks? It was perhaps the most shocking moment of the coalition’s life so far.“Jeez that was rocky,” was one Minister’s assessment afterwards. Others were more direct. The word used by five different people, either present or briefed afterwards, was “****show”. “Actually, it was worse than was reported,” said another senior figure a few days afterwards. According to Fianna Fáil and some senior officials, Varadkar was being petulant and unreasonable, making his dramatic intervention in a way that he knew would soon become public knowledge. All the more so because it was – several senior sources have confirmed – his chief of staff, Brian Murphy, who suggested the Cabinet meeting in place of the subcommittee meeting. The criticism of Varadkar was loud and sharp and not confined to Fianna Fáil; Fine Gael Ministers and senior officials were also privately critical. “Industrial scale petulance”, was the acerbic comment of one official. Others wondered if this was personality or political strategy. Varadkar rarely makes interventions without thinking them through. He would certainly have been aware this would be leaked. Politics is a mixture of public drama and private dealing, and nobody is a more careful student of the interplay between the two than Varadkar.
Acosta wrote: » When you see small beaches in recent weeks packed with people running around half naked, tripping over each other with no social distancing whatsoever, all the hullabaloo around funerals seems a bit silly to me.
smurgen wrote: » Just getting back on this. Seamus Woulfe saying he wasn't aware of the separation of powers or he wouldn't have attended. Also wasn't aware of the dinner even though it was on the invite or he wouldn't have attended. This is the legal advice FG has touted as almost God like. It has impacted the policies of the government. Is it fair to say now that FG as a party have been undermined? This is basic stuff.https://twitter.com/bergormanlowry/status/1296929799596847104?s=19
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I will admit I’m an extremely intelligent man, dude. FG does tend to attract people of above average intelligence.
christy c wrote: » I think we should not be bring up someone who died serving the state to score points. If that means not bringing up Storey so be it.
McMurphy wrote: » I happen to agree - but as Francie already has said, it's not Garda Horkan being discussed, it's the mourner's at his funeral, likewise the Storey funeral mourners. The virus doesn't care or know who is who at which funeral, there's only one crowd trying to score points of mourners at a funeral, I understand you're not at it yourself personally, and to be fair you seem to recognise the hypocrisy at play. The fact does remain though, Storey's funeral, like Garda Horkans attracted a large number of mourners, some of which from each funeral could be seen breaking the social distancing guidelines at the time. You cannot call one out without calling out the other.
smurgen wrote: » So now the way that Seamus Woulfe who has been advising FG on items such as the occupied territories bill and the ban on eviction has show a complete lack of judgement in relation to laws he helped draft is it fair to say that this legal advice they rely on so heavily is no longer reliable?
Bowie wrote: » And there you go on a shinner rant...all to deflect from the golf piss up. This national story is of less interest to you seemingly.
Bowie wrote: » I have a good friend who's a Sargent. I've no family in SF or friends. It doesnt change the fact the storey funeral is being used to deflect. Now its fair comment to use it to call out the covid breaches regarding distancing. Beyond that its getting into disrespect of the family. You are making one untouchable while allowing the other. Thats hypocrisy.
christy c wrote: » I know, and that would be nice for his family to read?
christy c wrote: » No, I have family in the Gardai have respect for the good ones which Colm definitely seems to have been one of, and dont like seeing his name being brought up to score points. Your waffle about crossing my fingers aside, I despise SF for their brain dead approach to the apple tax and burying their head in the sand approach to the pension timebomb as you said. But also their nonsensical Corporate tax polices, wanting to slash the tax base to leave it very dependent on high income individuals, etc. If they came up with semi coherent economic policies they could be worth a shot.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The criticism is of Colm Horkan's funeral not Colm Horkan himself.
Bowie wrote: » He was speaking on the funeral held by SF to deflect from the golf piss up. Your felliw travelers do this a lot, yet won't mention the Garda funeral which was the exact same event and had the same issues regarding Covid. Both should have been handled differently IMO. You are giving the raising of Storey's a pass and being critical of Horkan's being used as comparison to show hypocrisy. Thats you playing favourites. I would expect the lockdown counties had similar check points we had during the early days were Garda at checkpoints would ask were you were going and why. Maybe there were none and these lockdowns were a note in the parish newsletter. The Garda escorting these individuals and those present were complicit in breaking the rules. Thats my take away. If he showed there were check points you'd be questioning what constitutes a 'real' checkpoint etc. Its distraction like raising the storey funeral.
christy c wrote: » I am not concerned for a Garda? Really pathetic. He was brought up in response to a post about the IRA FFS.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And I would say the same about your concern for a Garda. I think you are more concerned about an unanswerable accusation of double standards/hypocrisy than anything else tbh.
McMurphy wrote: » Christy I must say, for a lad who only votes for fg as the best of a bad lot, and see the biggest problems about Sinn Féin being "apple tax and pension age"** you're putting a fierce piece of effort into this funeral malarkey, and wanting people to not mention one funeral over the other. **I think you cross your fingers behind your back when you type out those words.
christy c wrote: » You replied to a poster who was making a (stupid IMO) dig at SF and IRa by playing dumb and bringing up the Garda. It was clearly an IRA dig so absolutely no need to bring him up. What did you not understand about the checkpoints? It was said that politicians got through checkpoints because they were going to a golf event. I just said that FG came out bad enough out of this without making stuff up.
christy c wrote: » I'm sure you are very concerned about me.
christy c wrote: » SF's brainfart as you like to call them was all over the news and caused problems with the other parties in the North, nothing to do with Fg. It is disrespectful to the dead Garda to drag his name up, despite the social distancing problems at his funeral. I never suggested the virus cares about who's funeral it was.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I want you to stop for your own sake. It makes you look like a non-neutral?
christy c wrote: » Haha, I am trying to censor discussion. Why do you want me to stop if it won't work anyhow?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Quite simply, you are trying to block parts of a discussion you don't like and find difficult. Please stop as that is censorship of a kind and it won't work anyhow.
christy c wrote: » I read you implying that I am not politcally neutral as having an ulterior motive. Can you explain to me what I am doing? Bowie was saying I am trying to save FGs blushes, what's your theory? BTW there are plenty of threads criticising FG for the Clifden scumbaggery where I have not defended them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who implied 'ulterior motives'? It's abundantly clear what you are doing.
christy c wrote: » We were through this yesterday, the checkpoints was your imagination.
