nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

PHIL HOGAN NEEDS TO RESIGN.

Mrcaramelchoc

I for one want him gone.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jojofizzio

titan18 wrote: »

But IHF said they sought department advice and said it advised all its members that “the status quo remains in terms of current operational procedures for hotels until further notice”, in line with the protocol agreed with the department, and that

“There is an established process in place for when changes are announced, whereby the Department of Tourism circulates updated guidelines which take account of the queries or points of clarification raised by organizations such as the IHF following the initial announcement. In relation to Tuesday’s announcement we sought clarification on a number of issues from the Department of Tourism.”

To me, it seems pretty farcical that Martin/Varadkar come out and say this stuff is in effect, but it's actually days later it comes into effect when the departments get around to actually changing and issuing the rules.

The regulations regarding 50 maximum in a room had been in place for weeks,so if they were going by the old guidelines,they were breached,never mind the new ones...

McMurphy

titan18 wrote: »

But IHF said they sought department advice and said it advised all its members that “the status quo remains in terms of current operational procedures for hotels until further notice”, in line with the protocol agreed with the department, and that

“There is an established process in place for when changes are announced, whereby the Department of Tourism circulates updated guidelines which take account of the queries or points of clarification raised by organizations such as the IHF following the initial announcement. In relation to Tuesday’s announcement we sought clarification on a number of issues from the Department of Tourism.”

To me, it seems pretty farcical that Martin/Varadkar come out and say this stuff is in effect, but it's actually days later it comes into effect when the departments get around to actually changing and issuing the rules.

They were in breach of the regulations before they were changed anyway, this has been covered on this thread already, it should have been cancelled in March by all accounts.

Besides, there's a clear distinction between guidelines and regulations, hence why AGS are investigating the Clifden event, and not investigating your man from the SDs.

is_that_so

Geuze wrote: »

I do not think Phil Hogan should resign, and I think the whole thing is exaggerated.

Why?

It seems that 60-70-100 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's okay.

But 60 people who are linked in some way can't sit down for a meal in the same room, with the exact same table configuration, as that would be defined as "an event".

Now, clearly, there are pubs/restaurants up and down the country with more than 50 people in a room, every day.

It's a bit odd that more than 50 are allowed in pubs/restaurants. Ok, the people won't all know each other, and will enter/leave at different times.

Yet if the same number sit down at the same tables, in the same room, and it's classified as "an event", then these people should resign?

That's an over-reaction, in my opinion.

It's actually the cute hoor approach of let's call it two events when it was really one that annoys people plus new guidelines that made it plain it was not allowed.

McMurphy

Geuze wrote: »

I do not think Phil Hogan should resign, and I think the whole thing is exaggerated.

Why?

It seems that 60-70-100 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's okay.

But 60 people who are linked in some way can't sit down for a meal in the same room, with the exact same table configuration, as that would be defined as "an event".

Now, clearly, there are pubs/restaurants up and down the country with more than 50 people in a room, every day.

It's a bit odd that more than 50 are allowed in pubs/restaurants. Ok, the people won't all know each other, and will enter/leave at different times.

Yet if the same number sit down at the same tables, in the same room, and it's classified as "an event", then these people should resign?

That's an over-reaction, in my opinion.

Tell that to all the cancelled weddings, and families forced to watch funerals on Facebook etc.

titan18

McMurphy wrote: »

Sudden? Michaél Martin was asked in interview if the changes to regulations were to be implemented at midnight, or immediately, and he answered fairly emphatically to the interviewer immediately.

That was the day before the lads decided to go ahead to Clifden and drink the face of themselves..

I repeat.

There's no comparison with government guidelines being ignored by an SD councillor and legislators riding roughshod over regulations.

But IHF said they sought department advice and said it advised all its members that “the status quo remains in terms of current operational procedures for hotels until further notice”, in line with the protocol agreed with the department, and that

“There is an established process in place for when changes are announced, whereby the Department of Tourism circulates updated guidelines which take account of the queries or points of clarification raised by organizations such as the IHF following the initial announcement. In relation to Tuesday’s announcement we sought clarification on a number of issues from the Department of Tourism.”

To me, it seems pretty farcical that Martin/Varadkar come out and say this stuff is in effect, but it's actually days later it comes into effect when the departments get around to actually changing and issuing the rules.

lawrencesummers

s1ippy wrote: »

Same day.

Also in Cliften. Post now deleted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaryCosg/status/1297623958116851722?s=20

Denis O'Brien also owns the nearby Ballynahinch Castle.

I hate this stupid billionaire cúntry, they should all be stripped of their wealth and it should be distributed to everyone who lost their jobs. Centuries after English oppression were still allowing ourselves be subjugated like this.

To all those of you who lost your jobs (my partner is included, and I had to switch career because mine would have put me in danger), why do we accept the sh!t that they make us eat??

I find it funny that people throw jibes at DOB, A successful businessman when elected officials are said to have personally profited.

To me the person who greases the wheels isn’t the Problem, Because if that’s what you have to do to succeed then that’s what you have to do, it’s that the wheels needed greasing in the first place Because the wheels are tasked with serving the public But serve their own interests, and then we re-elect them.

That re-election of terrible politicians is on us. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Atlantic Dawn

Geuze wrote: »

I do not think Phil Hogan should resign, and I think the whole thing is exaggerated.

Why?

It seems that 60-70-100 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's okay.

But 60 people who are linked in some way can't sit down for a meal in the same room, with the exact same table configuration, as that would be defined as "an event".

Now, clearly, there are pubs/restaurants up and down the country with more than 50 people in a room, every day.

It's a bit odd that more than 50 are allowed in pubs/restaurants. Ok, the people won't all know each other, and will enter/leave at different times.

Yet if the same number sit down at the same tables, in the same room, and it's classified as "an event", then these people should resign?

That's an over-reaction, in my opinion.

And his mobile phone use?
And his travel from locked down Kildare?

jojofizzio

expectationlost wrote: »

John Hannon was one heli-traveller https://www.facebook.com/abbeyglencastlehotel/posts/3186101311437422?comment_id=3186976501349903&__cft__[0]=AZWuZmxES4CXwjrjmkL6yH-DkYH81_-o1lW90BKx-fO5eh3r_EEzz5W9t7DLtfXGFeqEiDvp_C8UF_0lSxpUunJXVT2fMZ6ZZK6fI_vH49W9O9ce-WXsMNzDc0EObBboax7ZnxfjHx3NbTa7ehxbet76TBj3r2I34TASbSPivOHdMg&__tn__=R]-R

Single??travelling by chopper??anyone got this fella’s digits???

is_that_so

McMurphy wrote: »

Sudden? Michaél Martin was asked in interview if the changes to regulations were to be implemented at midnight, or immediately, and he answered fairly emphatically to the interviewer immediately.

That was the day before the lads decided to go ahead to Clifden and drink the face of themselves..

I repeat.

There's no comparison with government guidelines being ignored by an SD councillor and legislators riding roughshod over regulations.

Oh I'm not defending this at all and it should not have happened in the first place but the proposed changes were sprung on people and ill-thought out and explained.

Geuze

I do not think Phil Hogan should resign, and I think the whole thing is exaggerated.

Why?

It seems that 60-70-100 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's okay.

But 60 people who are linked in some way can't sit down for a meal in the same room, with the exact same table configuration, as that would be defined as "an event".

Now, clearly, there are pubs/restaurants up and down the country with more than 50 people in a room, every day.

It's a bit odd that more than 50 are allowed in pubs/restaurants. Ok, the people won't all know each other, and will enter/leave at different times.

Yet if the same number sit down at the same tables, in the same room, and it's classified as "an event", then these people should resign?

That's an over-reaction, in my opinion.

Loafing Oaf

stockshares wrote: »

As list of Phil's misdemeanours down the years
https://twitter.com/LindaOkaythen/status/1297656604834312192?s=19

And then there's telling a 70-year-old woman her partner had been "screwing her for years." Obviously not his most serious misdemeanour but perhaps the most revealing about his 'personality'...

jojofizzio

is_that_so wrote: »

Isn't this the problem and not just in this case, the announcement of sudden guideline changes?

Except the regulations that were in existence for weeks were breached,not just the ones that were introduced the previous day..

is_that_so

s1ippy wrote: »

Just makes you wonder while all this is going on, what the fuck else they've done in the interim that warrants scrutiny.

I'm particularly disappointed with the Gardaí. Special treatment for the elite while they trample all over the poor shows what they're good for. Bacon and cabbage.

I've been stopped in a bus lane - lots of finger wagging and let that be a lesson to you. This kind of thing happens all the time with Gardai.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Isn't this the problem and not just in this case, the announcement of sudden regulation changes?

Sudden? Michaél Martin was asked in interview if the changes to regulations were to be implemented at midnight, or immediately, and he answered fairly emphatically to the interviewer immediately.

That was the day before the lads decided to go ahead to Clifden and drink the face of themselves..

I repeat.

There's no comparison with government guidelines being ignored by an SD councillor and legislators riding roughshod over regulations.

titan18

McMurphy wrote: »

Guidelines are not in the same ballpark as regulations at all, foolish of your man, but not really comparable with legislators riding roughshod over the very regulations they set the day before, is it?

Did he self isolate on his return?

He says he got tested and self isolated until results came back negative. Of course, he's a politician, and we've plenty of historical evidence what they say and what they did can be different.

Also, Hogan didn't set the regulations, and I'd say it's a similarish situation. Calleary is different, tbh, I'm amazed people aren't calling for him to resign his seat completely rather than just the minister role.

caveat emptor

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Michael MArtin on Claire Byrne Radio 1 now

MM is coming across very well regarding the issue. Didn't think I'd say that.

expectationlost

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The unknown names at Donie Cassidys table, Bradys table and Brian Hayes table is probably where the answers lie.

John Hannon was one heli-traveller https://www.facebook.com/abbeyglencastlehotel/posts/3186101311437422?comment_id=3186976501349903&__cft__[0]=AZWuZmxES4CXwjrjmkL6yH-DkYH81_-o1lW90BKx-fO5eh3r_EEzz5W9t7DLtfXGFeqEiDvp_C8UF_0lSxpUunJXVT2fMZ6ZZK6fI_vH49W9O9ce-WXsMNzDc0EObBboax7ZnxfjHx3NbTa7ehxbet76TBj3r2I34TASbSPivOHdMg&__tn__=R]-R

s1ippy

Just makes you wonder while all this is going on, what the fuck else they've done in the interim that warrants scrutiny.

I'm particularly disappointed with the Gardaí. Special treatment for the elite while they trample all over the poor shows what they're good for. Bacon and cabbage.

is_that_so

stockshares wrote: »

As list of Phil's misdemeanours down the years
https://twitter.com/LindaOkaythen/status/1297656604834312192?s=19

Isn't the internet great for getting back at people you don't like?

[Deleted User]

Hawthorn Tree wrote: »

"And I welcome the fury"

Jaysus MM

Can you give a rundown on what he’s been asked and how he’s responded? I can’t listen in.

is_that_so

McMurphy wrote: »

Guidelines are not in the same ballpark as regulations at all, foolish of your man, but not really comparable with legislators riding roughshod over the very regulations they set the day before, is it?

Isn't this the problem and not just in this case, the announcement of sudden guideline changes?

Hawthorn Tree

"And I welcome the fury"

Jaysus MM

stockshares

As list of Phil's misdemeanours down the years
https://twitter.com/LindaOkaythen/status/1297656604834312192?s=19

lawrencesummers

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

You think there would be a country left after a few years?

And you think they'll let us throw them out?

Yes.

They have no choice.
We have had the same people in power for long enough. Time for change is long since last.

If you think we should keep having reinventions of FFG then resolve yourself to never complain about their actions. If you don’t vote for change then don’t cry when nothing changes.

McMurphy

titan18 wrote: »

I posted the link a few posts ago. They had a councillor travel to Spain despite the whole don't travel to foreign countries thing.

Guidelines are not in the same ballpark as regulations at all, foolish of your man, but not really comparable with legislators riding roughshod over the very regulations they set the day before, is it?

Did he self isolate on his return?

ChikiChiki

s1ippy wrote: »

Same day.

Also in Cliften. Post now deleted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaryCosg/status/1297623958116851722?s=20

Hmmm.

The unknown names at Donie Cassidys table, Bradys table and Brian Hayes table is probably where the answers lie.

Sir Oxman

s1ippy wrote: »

Same day.

Also in Cliften. Post now deleted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaryCosg/status/1297623958116851722?s=20

Hmmm.

LOL <-- I can only LOL at this stage.
Statement #7 incoming

is_that_so

DeanAustin wrote: »

Read on RTE last night that it is legal. The Gardai have some discretion on it.

Yeah it depends what mood they are in and the paperwork I guess!

DeanAustin

Ger Roe wrote: »

Hogan is/was FG. Just highlights the more worrying point - they are all the same!. None of the main parties are capable of delivering the change in political standards demanded by the electorate, SF included.

We are left with no choice or hope for the next general election.

That's not fair. Two people have resigned over it. Barry Cowen resigned over the license issue. That's accountability and a change from what went on in the past.

Hogan doesn't come under their control. They're pretty much powerless to remove him.

Beechwoodspark

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Sounds like it alright

He seems to be hinting to big Phil if he does an interview then all is good for him?