Bishop of hope wrote: » Or, you can hitch yourself to any old anti govt piss talk. Gemma and yourself would get on I'd say. If we'd had level five with exceptions yiz would have been on here harping about the levels plus or minus fractions You made it quite plain you wanted level five, now you want to make an issue with level five and make exceptions, because someone else decided to go with campaigning for exceptions. The band wagon rolls on, wheeeew wheeeew.
Bowie wrote: » Cool. That's the talk alright. You can want to follow what's the best health advice and still comment on issues as they arise. People are complex. Getting back to the pub thing. I was on board with whatever the advice was from them who know best, yet curious as to why distanced boozing was worse than distant boozing with chicken wings. Human nature Bish. In short saying 'clothes aren't essential' while supporting the availability of booze is worthy of comment IMO, level 5 or no. It's the type of thing lads like this.. ..either don't understand or pretend not to because it suits their political biases. You can see by the silly little generalities with no real basis in thought.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Everything the Government or the perceived elite do = automatically bad, incompetent, potentially criminal in the eyes of Bowie and the lads. Alternative = loony left-wing pie-in-the-sky stuff, SF, pipe dream utopia fantasies, bit of 'fúck the system' about it all. It's student union politics level stuff. Most folks grow out of it.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Clothes are essential, Damo was wrong in that. Did you not push for level five earlier than it came and now its here you want to debate it? Really?
Bowie wrote: » Why are you always complaining or giving out about people passing comment on topic, in the correct thread? If you're not diverting you're questioning the poster's intent or telling lies. Why is stopping these discussions so important to you? These are fair questions on government actions/statements. Damo said clothes weren't essential. It's open to debate and what's the harm? You can get booze, but not a coat. Fair query. I made similar about schools and pubs and was accused of questioning NPHET or thinking I knew better. I think the paranoia has set in since partnering with FF.
Bishop of hope wrote: » Tbf lads, what do yiz want. I was against the strict lockdown, still am, I think its too much. But some of yiz were on the Govts back for weeks for not adhering to the medical advice, yet yiz are still giving out about that when they impose it. Level 5 is pretty clear as to what's essential and what isn't, yiz got your wish but still blah blah blah etc, it's not right.
Bowie wrote: » I'd expect the 'advisors' are more about personal PR than policy, not that they are doing great work there either.
Nobotty wrote: » Another stupid episode caused by advisors sitting on their holes not doing their job It is important to cut down loitering in shops yes But just allow click and collect for clothes and returns Most drapers have a 48hr decontamination clothes racks for tried on clothes which would also do for the click and collect returns Sorted
JohnnyFlash wrote: » So would you close off-licences and open clothes shops? Wanna see what the alternative suggestions are here. What’s going on in NI btw?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not coming out with nonsense would be reasonable. Being able to buy as much alcohol as you want but not clothes or a book isn't fair on any one.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » What’s reasonable and fair?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Johnny...Damien English on behalf of the government made 'the big deal' here by not being reasonable and fair.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » The issue is if you let one clothes shop open then you let them all open. And then other retailers will ask why they can’t open. You can’t have hundreds of people inside in Penny’s in Henry Street. It’s tough on people but we’re in the middle of a pandemic and the next few weeks are critical. I don’t believe anyone is in danger of running out of clothes. More attempts to create a big deal out of something that isn’t a big deal. Fake outrage.
Bishop of hope wrote: » I'd agree ré clothes, perhaps even a couple of hours a day. Maybe I'm odd, but I like new socks and underwear fairly regularly myself. I can easily walk into a hardware shop beside me and get thick working socks and work clothes, but I don't need or like thick socks personally and I don't need snickers type clothing either. There's no doubt that many mothers also get a, lot of stuff for their children on children's allowance day for instance and with active kids it is hard to keep play clothes for them. I know many use penny's for instance, and buy cheap stuff regularly for that. A bit of sense perhaps.
Deleted User wrote: » Some of us prepared for lockdown by buying in whatever we might need for the 6 weeks, knowing that movement would be restricted. Just takes a bit of planning. As the boy Roy said “fail to prepare, prepare to fail”. Or were the government supposed to do that preparation for us?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Would you be willing to be told what is 'essential' in your grocery basket?
McMurphy wrote: » Sean Conlan
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Jonathan Dowdall and Pearse McAuley were still in SF when they were arrested.
Muahahaha wrote: » Speaking of which former solicitor and FG local election candidate Lyndsey Clarke just got convicted of large scale bank fraud and running a fake identity factory. The scam she was running involved paying homeless people for their PPS numbers and then using their identities to get bank loans totaling some 400,000 euro. Lyndsey is heading to prison next month. I wonder will she put this photo up on her cell wall to remind her of the good times #notanormalparty
RandomViewer wrote: » Will this open the floodgate of all the FG councillors investigated by SIPO
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
