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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I don't have any issue with it and I never mentioned it.

Good, so you accept the fact then that the Charleton Report exonerated Fitzgerald.

markodaly wrote: »

Good, so you accept the fact then that the Charleton Report exonerated Fitzgerald.

The Carleton report did not deal with why she resigned. From that tangle of her own making she cannot be exonerated...it is an historical FACT that she had to resign because the Dáil had been misled.

No amount of subsequent lying about it and depending on a word in a report that didn't deal with it will work Mark.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Carleton report did not deal with why she resigned. From that tangle of her own making she cannot be exonerated...it is an historical FACT that she had to resign because the Dáil had been misled.

No amount of subsequent lying about it and depending on a word in a report that didn't deal with it will work Mark.

Ah, the Donald Trump view of 'Alternative Facts' comes back.
I thought we were making progress from the last post.
So, basically the truth is whatever you make it, or whatever political angle you want to cast?

The Charleton Report exonerates Fitzgerald, but you refuse to accept that.
In other words, you are going all post-truth Trump on us, refusing to accept the basic facts as we know it.

You cant have it both ways.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, the Donald Trump view of 'Alternative Facts' comes back.
I thought we were making progress from the last post.
So, basically the truth is whatever you make it, or whatever political angle you want to cast?

The Charleton Report exonerates Fitzgerald, but you refuse to accept that.
In other words, you are going all post-truth Trump on us, refusing to accept the basic facts as we know it.

You cant have it both ways.

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

It's the aul ' Chewbacca defense

In a jury trial, a Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation.

Bowie wrote: »

It's the aul ' Chewbacca defense

I think you are right, that is why certain posters are proclaiming to accept the Charleton report but then argue against it findings by referring back to something that occurred before the report. It is a good name for that tactic.

Muahahaha

I think a few posters on here need to go back and read the terms of reference of the Charleton Report, its up on the tribunal website for all to see.

Then they need to come back and show us a link from the terms of reference where it says Judge Charleton was allowed to adjudicate on Francis Fitzgeralds performance in the Dail.

I await the links lads and in the mean time enjoy your fools errand

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think a few posters on here need to go back and read the terms of reference of the Charleton Report, its up on the tribunal website for all to see.

Then they need to come back and show us a link from the terms of reference where it says Judge Charleton was allowed to adjudicate on Francis Fitzgeralds performance in the Dail.

I await the links lads and in the mean time enjoy your fools errand

I don't think even FG would have the arrogance to go through with Frances, Mairead and Simon were pushed to the fore pronto after social media lit up and Ursula Von Der Leyen started getting messaged. Another fairly speedy Black and Tans row back from that one.

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you are right, that is why certain posters are proclaiming to accept the Charleton report but then argue against it findings by referring back to something that occurred before the report. It is a good name for that tactic.

No you misunderstood. I'm sure she did nothing criminal and would be likely exonerated if charged with shooting J.R., but 'exonerated' gives the false and wrong impression she did nothing wrong at all. She made a pigs ear of her job and a fool of LV. Its laid out in the link provided.
Its the refusal to acknowledge the fact she did wrong, thats the issue,.

Muahahaha

Bowie wrote: »

No you misunderstood. I'm sure she did nothing criminal and would be likely exonerated if charged with shooting J.R., but 'exonerated' gives the false and wrong impression she did nothing wrong at all. She made a pigs ear of her job and a fool of LV. Its laid out in the link provided.
Its the refusal to acknowledge the fact she did wrong, thats the issue,.

She definitely made a mug out of Leo by sending him into the Dail to tell lies. Leo is an even bigger mug for backing her. Simon Harris the same, he said that Francis was his "political mammy" :rolleyes:

Fitzgerald was the Minister of Justice who appointed Noirin o'Sullivan. Despite lots of commentators in the media and opposition politicans like Wallace and Daly pointing out that the Gardai needed a fresh break from the Callinan regime that o'Sullivan had been promoted through Fitzgerald still appointed oSullivan. Fitzgerald was adequately warned with big red flags waving all over but despite that she appointed oSullivan and hence hitched her wagon to o'Sullivans performance as Garda Commissioner, which we all know was dire. oSullivan also ran rings around Fitzgerald and made her look like an idiot on more than one occasion.

The leadership of AGS eventually got changed with Drew Harris but it should have happened directly after Callinan. Unfortunately Franics Fitzgerald is a bit of a slow learner, she couldnt even spot what every man and his dog had already spotted.

Thats not the kind of leadership or judgement that will be acceptable to Ursula von der Leyen. The last thing Ursula needs right now is more even Fine Gael incompetence weakening her own position. Shes had enough grief with Hogan so Calamity Fitzgerald will not be welcome in her cabinet.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign Mark?

The Charleton Report totally exonerated her.

Now, you accept those facts, like a normal rational person or you can go down the Donald Trump or Gemma o'Doherty route of dismissing facts and going down the road of 'alternative facts' like a conspiracy theorist.

markodaly wrote: »

The Charleton Report totally exonerated her.

Now, you accept those facts, like a normal rational person or you can go down the Donald Trump or Gemma o'Doherty route of dismissing facts and going down the road of 'alternative facts' like a conspiracy theorist.

Why did she resign Mark?...you were asked a simple question.

markodaly wrote: »

The Charleton Report totally exonerated her.

Now, you accept those facts, like a normal rational person or you can go down the Donald Trump or Gemma o'Doherty route of dismissing facts and going down the road of 'alternative facts' like a conspiracy theorist.

I asked you this a few days ago, and don't think you ever did answer it.

Where in the report does it exonerate her for misleading the Dail and her Taoiseach marko?

I read it, and it doesn't mention it, so if you could copy and paste from the report exactly what it says about that her misleading the Dail (considering that's why she had to resign) I'd be very obliged.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did she resign Mark?...you were asked a simple question.

The real question is whether she would have resigned if the findings of the Charleton Report were known at the time of her resignation.

blanch152 wrote: »

The real question is whether she would have resigned if the findings of the Charleton Report were known at the time of her resignation.

Wasn't this covered already?

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think a few posters on here need to go back and read the terms of reference of the Charleton Report, its up on the tribunal website for all to see.

Then they need to come back and show us a link from the terms of reference where it says Judge Charleton was allowed to adjudicate on Francis Fitzgeralds performance in the Dail.

I await the links lads and in the mean time enjoy your fools errand

The terms of reference didn't cover her actions in the Dail.

McMurphy wrote: »

Wasn't this covered already?

The terms of reference didn't cover her actions in the Dail.

Nope, that wasn’t the point I made.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, that wasn’t the point I made.

We know that, it also wasn't the question yourself and Mark were asked.

McMurphy wrote: »

We know that, it also wasn't the question yourself and Mark were asked.

If you knew my point wasn’t encompassed by your reply that it was covered already, why did you waste time saying it?

Quite confusing.

blanch152 wrote: »

The real question is whether she would have resigned if the findings of the Charleton Report were known at the time of her resignation.

Why did she resign though blanch?...this isn't 'What If...'

blanch152 wrote: »

If you knew my point wasn’t encompassed by your reply that it was covered already, why did you waste time saying it?

Quite confusing.

You keep answering a question that wasn't asked - it's so simple, you and mark keep going back to Frances Fitzgerald being exonerated by the charleton tribunal, and further to that keep asking if anyone disputes its findings.

In another attempt to further muddy the waters, you're now proclaiming that perhaps Frances never would have needed to resign had the Charleston tribunal have been heard before her resignation.

The fact that the terms of reference did not cover her actions in the Dail, so completely pointless as well as irrelevant even posting it.

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign to begin with Blanch, and did the Charleston tribunal exonerate her for misleading the Dail and Leo?

McMurphy wrote: »

Why did Frances Fitzgerald resign to begin with Blanch, and did the Charleston tribunal exonerate her for misleading the Dail and Leo?

It is long since time that the text 'exonerating' her for this specific offence (over which she resigned) was put up by mark and blanch.

IAmTheReign

Bowie wrote: »

The numbers went down because we are in a pandemic. Nothing Murphy or FG did. TBF posing with a shovel with your sleeves rolled up wasn't going to achieve much.

Homelessness peaked in October of last year and had been dropping before COVID was a factor, see here

Homelessness numbers did drop further once the pandemic hit but if these people were genuinely homeless how would a pandemic help their situation? It doesn't make sense that someone who was legitimately homeless 6 months ago is suddenly now in a position to be able to house themselves because of COVID.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is long since time that the text 'exonerating' her for this specific offence (over which she resigned) was put up by mark and blanch.

I've started sprouting a few silver hairs on the side of my head since.

Brendan Bendar

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Homelessness peaked in October of last year and had been dropping before COVID was a factor, see here

Homelessness numbers did drop further once the pandemic hit but if these people were genuinely homeless how would a pandemic help their situation? It doesn't make sense that someone who was legitimately homeless 6 months ago is suddenly now in a position to be able to house themselves because of COVID.

Never made sense Reign.

Yes there were genuine people, but I would be of the opinion that a good percentage ,as the former top man said, were gaming the system.

aided and abetted by the lefties and the bullhorn brigade.

IAmTheReign

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Never made sense Reign.

Yes there were genuine people, but I would be of the opinion that a good percentage ,as the former top man said, were gaming the system.

aided and abetted by the lefties and the bullhorn brigade.

Oh I totally agree. I would never suggest there aren't people struggling, I know some myself, and I am all for government support for those in genuine need.

I would say the current numbers from Focus are probably a much better reflection of those who are genuinely homeless.

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Homelessness peaked in October of last year and had been dropping before COVID was a factor, see here

Homelessness numbers did drop further once the pandemic hit but if these people were genuinely homeless how would a pandemic help their situation? It doesn't make sense that someone who was legitimately homeless 6 months ago is suddenly now in a position to be able to house themselves because of COVID.

Ah, a non-believer. FYI: your link only shows it dropping as Covid came in.

Family homelessness quadrupled in space of six years as crisis in housing spiralled
For the past year, the total number of homeless adults and children in the country has hovered around 10,000, more than three times the figure when the Department of Housing began standardising data collection in 2014.
Link

in part due to...

Number of homeless people drops below 10,000 amid Covid-19 measures
Charities say decrease expected due to anti-eviction measures and Airbnb lettings available

“We know that there are many individuals and families who were on the brink of homelessness who have been supported to remain in their home due to the moratorium on evictions for the duration of the crisis. Once the health crisis eases, we need to ensure that there are preventative supports in place to help these families and individuals stay out of homeless emergency accommodation.”

Similarly, Focus Ireland chief executive Pat Dennigan said the fall in the number had been “widely predicted” not just because of the anti-eviction measures but also the number of Airbnb lettings coming back onto the rental market.
Link

The charities welcomed the drop. That's their goal. They know it wasn't them, it was mostly due to Covid.

If you google, countries around the world are finding the same.

If you believe great numbers are faking, I'd contact your local political representative and complain.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is long since time that the text 'exonerating' her for this specific offence (over which she resigned) was put up by mark and blanch.

I'll go one better.

https://www.disclosuretribunal.ie/

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is long since time that the text 'exonerating' her for this specific offence (over which she resigned) was put up by mark and blanch.

She resigned for having LV mislead the dail and her generally shabby incompetence. There's no more to it.
She's only still in any job because 'we look after our own'.