blanch152 wrote: » Isn’t it just sad that someone was saving up that picture just to produce in an internet debate among anonymous posters? Or maybe something else stranger?
McMurphy wrote: » Blanch still struggling with how the internet works I see. "Saving up" - keep up more like it, the photo came from this very thread on boards.ie.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101516387&postcount=1 :pac:
blanch152 wrote: » Not sure that improves things, bookmarking a post from 2016 to use again in 2020 is still at least a little strange.
Nobotty wrote: » I'd say,and now I'm out in a limb here,but you would all miss each other if the internet broke Presumably grown adults and the most childish postings in creation I'll disappear off now in case I'm accused of trying to censor this There's nothing but boring sniping
Yurt! wrote: » A head scratcher this one. A post critical of the goofy and partisan online behaviour by YFG, was met my a post from one of the B.O.Ts asking if the person had seen a picture of a young Enda Kenny (?). Someone posts one with no commentary and now there's some odd pearl clutching going on. I'll need this one explained to me.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Think you're reading into this a bit too much, dude. Might be in danger of taking this website a bit too seriously for your own good. Suggest you cool the jets, and chill out. :cool:
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Lot of amateur ‘sages’ and potential ‘Aosdana’ members throwing their homespun doggerel around in here. Should be up in McAleers in Dungannon enjoying themselves.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Should be up in McAleers in Dungannon enjoying themselves.
Nobotty wrote: » Pup from the very start was to be taxed where peoples earnings were taxed anyway It won't be taxed if annual pay is under the tax limits If I remember right,if you got pup for 2 months and went back to work, you're taxed as normal and pup is counted If you earned more than the pup normally, you won't pay more tax because you earned less In that case you could say your pup isn't taxed
Deleted User wrote: » Same goes for unemployment benefit. It’s included in your annual income.
BluePlanet wrote: » Pearse Doherty weighing in on this.https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1310540721414385665?s=19
titan18 wrote: » Aren't non compete clauses legally dubious anyway, and Irish courts have ruled in favour of employees when employers challenged them
BluePlanet wrote: » Is that going to be the excuse/rationalization? Well the law isn't very sound on that so there's nothing we can do. It's not like FG were in a law making position for the past decade, right?
titan18 wrote: » Tbf, if you're for worker rights (I'm assuming you're a SF supporter here btw so apologies if not), you should be against non compete clauses. Non compete clauses just stop people moving between jobs if they get a better off. There's one in my contract, and I'm not high up. I'd ignore it tbh if I got a better offer from a company in the same industry.
Nobotty wrote: » I read it as an ethics law Ie its there to prevent recent legislators from using their inside track to get ahead of others on government decisions On that basis though Brian hayes couldn't have become a banking assoc rep. Mind you it says person,not industry association which is probably both of their outs
blanch152 wrote: » Just had a look at the Lobbying Register. IAIM don't appear to have engaged in any lobbying in either 2018, 2019 or 2020. Their last record for lobbying is from the last quarter of 2017, when the person lobbied was Michael D'Arcy.https://www.lobbying.ie/return/23729/irish-association-of-investment-managers So how long is sufficient time?
tobsey wrote: » 12 months is the law. The fact that D'Arcy himself was the last one lobbied doesn't make it any better for himself. I think he has to resign and wait until the 12 months is up. Did he continue as a junior minister after the election like the real ministers? Or did he finish up when the Dail broke before the election?