FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were told, as the article shows, that a balnced decision had been taken. Turns out they were lied to. Unless the government can show how those stark projections were 'balanced' and what was the 'calculated risk'.

Well they're either following the expert advice or not. And it was clear they were not, yet the majority of our politicians were fine with that.

[Deleted User]

christy c wrote: »

The opposition were aware the government were ignoring advice and blindly went along with it. Thats fine with you?

Gonna go with a new concept in irishpol,the government are responsible for government decisions

The opposition have no say in running the state....you grasp this concept,right??

Did they disclose the entirety of the info from.nephet to.the opposition

tomglsn

smurgen wrote: »

Established leaker that defended own leaking disgusted at leaking.

https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1348567737149349888?s=19

He has no shame whatsoever.

christy c wrote: »

Except i suspect there will be repeated attempts by SF zealots to remove blame from the the opposition, such as hand waving away of them being aware advice was being ignored.

I do agree with you though, this doesn't excuse the government.

They were told, as the article shows, that a balnced decision had been taken. Turns out they were lied to. Unless the government can show how those stark projections were 'balanced' and what was the 'calculated risk'.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mate,the opposition dont make the decisions....this mess is entirely of ffg making

How have you come to.conclusion that the opposition must shoulder some of the blame for government decisions??

They wouldnt allow shinners into government,so shinners must now,carry the can for government mistakes....are you high?

The opposition were aware the government were ignoring advice and blindly went along with it. Thats fine with you?

Established leaker that defended own leaking disgusted at leaking.

https://twitter.com/Elaine_Loughlin/status/1348567737149349888?s=19

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's the bottom line here. Let whatever blame fall on opposition fall where it may.

Except i suspect there will be repeated attempts by SF zealots to remove blame from the the opposition, such as hand waving away of them being aware advice was being ignored.

I do agree with you though, this doesn't excuse the government.

christy c wrote: »

What else could they do? A simple, "it is nice that society is opening up but we are concerned that advice is being ignored and have asked the government for more information".

Here is how the government couched it. It was a decision based on data presented by the experts NPHET and the HSE

He said the Government will aim to “strike the right balance” with the measures they announce.

“We are social animals, Mr McGrath said. "We enjoy interacting, having a chat, meeting people.
"But that is the very environment where the virus thrives, so there is a complex set of factors here that has to be taken into account,”

He added that the final decisions will be hammered out at Cabinet today.

The team also raised concerns around the resumption of religious services and warned of high rates of the virus across the border.

However, one senior Government source said: “Nphet see things solely through the prism of public health".

“We have to look at societal, economic, and other considerations," the source said. "It is no surprise Nphet are concerned about pubs and restaurants. We expected that. But they advise, and Government decides. Opening up is a risk, a calculated risk, but one worth taking.”

Looks to me and I am sure everybody else that they took a 'risk' with the public health 'calculated' on nothing but their own popularity.

That's the bottom line here. Let whatever blame fall on opposition fall where it may, it doesn't excuse.

smurgen wrote: »

The mandatory quarantine on arrival in a designated facility would have done wonders if it was enacted in May.

Yep, still have the problem of coming in through the back door in Belfast but no doubt it would have helped.

christy c wrote: »

What else could they do? A simple, "it is nice that society is opening up but we are concerned that advice is being ignored and have asked the government for more information".

The mandatory quarantine on arrival in a designated facility would have done wonders if it was enacted in May.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What else could they or we do? The weren't given access to this data.

Everybody 'wanted' society to open up christyc, seems to me the government cynically took a risk in order to be popular.

Yet YOU direct most of your ire towards those not ultimately responsible. As defensive as any FF FG Green government loyalists there are around here.

What else could they do? A simple, "it is nice that society is opening up but we are concerned that advice is being ignored and have asked the government for more information".

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thank God I got a 6 month supply in before Christmas! Now to make it last 6 months!

Unlike covid measure this is permanent not temporary.

christy c wrote: »

Haha, trust? Hopefully they will learn lessons as I said.

What else could they or we do? The weren't given access to this data.

Everybody 'wanted' society to open up christyc, seems to me the government cynically took a risk in order to be popular.

Yet YOU direct most of your ire towards those not ultimately responsible. As defensive as any FF FG Green government loyalists there are around here.

[Deleted User]

smurgen wrote: »

Minimum alcohol pricing kicks in today. I'm sure the personal responsibility die hards are disgusted at government for this hand holding.

Thank God I got a 6 month supply in before Christmas! Now to make it last 6 months!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Should this not be the question you are asking of the government on a government thread?

Anyone would think somebody who voted for the best of a bad lot was defending the government trenchantly here.

The opposition had to proceed on trust, like all of us. Turns out that trust was massively betrayed here as there seems to me to be no way you could have made a 'balanced decision' on the basis of these projections. I.E. You lied to the people and to the opposition.

Haha, trust? Hopefully they will learn lessons as I said.

McMurphy wrote: »

I'm struggling to grasp your logic here - you feel they are as culpable as the people who A - actually had the data/figures and chose not to share said data with opposition, and B - are the actual Govt, so the buck begins and stops with them anyway.

Are you actually serious here, stop it, I can't take you serious at all.

Don't worry, I haven't taken you serious for a long time either.

Yes the government will rightly be blamed, but our opposition welcoming it while it making national headlines that advice was being ignored is wrong too, but not to the same degree.

christy c wrote: »

Why did they blindly believe a balanced decision was made when the experts were ignored? Experts were not giving advice for the sake of it

Should this not be the question you are asking of the government on a government thread?

Anyone would think somebody who voted for the best of a bad lot was defending the government trenchantly here.

The opposition had to proceed on trust, like all of us. Turns out that trust was massively betrayed here as there seems to me to be no way you could have made a 'balanced decision' on the basis of these projections. I.E. You lied to the people and to the opposition.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be welcoming something when they are aware advice is being ignored.

I'm struggling to grasp your logic here - you feel they are as culpable as the people who A - actually had the data/figures and chose not to share said data with opposition, and B - are the actual Govt, so the buck begins and stops with them anyway.

Are you actually serious here, stop it, I can't take you serious at all.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like me, the opposition believed that a 'balanced decision' had been taken.

How did they balance these graphic projections though?

Why did they blindly believe a balanced decision was made when the experts were ignored? Experts were not giving advice for the sake of it

christy c wrote: »

Defence? I said the government will rightly get it in the neck.

Just pointing out that the opposition were aware advice was being ignored, yet welcomed the easing anyway. Some of the Sinn Fein zealots may struggle with that fact.

Like me, the opposition believed that a 'balanced decision' had been taken.

How did they balance these graphic projections though?

McMurphy wrote: »

So they should be blamed for not knowing about data they weren't shown, or privy to?

You wanna run that by me again please chief?

No, they shouldn't be welcoming something when they are aware advice is being ignored.

McMurphy

christy c wrote: »

Yes I did. If they didn't have access to the numbers then it was reckless to support easing. I mean it was national headlines that advice was being ignored.

So they should be blamed for not knowing about data they weren't shown, or privy to?

You wanna run how that works by me please chief?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's fabulous isn't it. Unbelievable the defence's that are being mounted here. Everybody else's fault but those with the responsibility and the control.

Defence? I said the government will rightly get it in the neck.

Just pointing out that the opposition were aware advice was being ignored, yet welcomed the easing anyway. Some of the Sinn Fein zealots may struggle with that fact.

McMurphy wrote: »

Christy did you even read the post you quoted?

It's fabulous isn't it.

Unbelievable the defence's that are being mounted here. Everybody else's fault but those with the responsibility and the control.

grayzer75

smurgen wrote: »

Minimum alcohol pricing kicks in today. I'm sure the personal responsibility die hards are disgusted at government for this hand holding.

We'll probably see a ramp up in cross border traffic at the weekend as a result.

McMurphy wrote: »

Christy did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes I did. If they didn't have access to the numbers then it was reckless to support easing. I mean it was national headlines that advice was being ignored.

Minimum alcohol pricing kicks in today. I'm sure the personal responsibility die hards are disgusted at government for this hand holding.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Remains to be seen of this data was available to all politicians. If Alan Kelly's complaint about not having access to the data /numbers is anything to go by they weren't. I was certainly not aware of these projections.

Christy did you even read the post you quoted?

christy c wrote: »

Well if that's the case, it was very reckless of Alan Kelly, Sinn Fein, etc. to welcome the easing when the knew advice was being ignored. Hope they learn some lessons from it.

The government will rightly get it in the neck for this.

blanch152

RandomViewer wrote: »

Shouldn't those who abused the facility be charged appropriately , say a grand and no passport for ten years? Lot of this sh#t is fairly straightforward you breach the 5k rule you arent insured so bye bye licence, without proper punishments there wont be compliance,
CAB, Revenue should have turned Keelings upside down last April, that would have stopped the shebeens and the housparties ,shown no matter how big you think you are you have to toe the line

Struggling to understand the bit in bold.

Which part of the Road Traffic Act allows for this?

Have you any idea of how complicated that Act is, and how often it is challenged in court?

If Revenue turned Keelings upside down last April, what food would you have eaten in May? Of all the things suggested on here, stopping essential workers from doing their job is probably one of the silliest.