Following on from
this thread
Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed
ineedeuro wrote: » No the company didn't adhere to regulations. So the company is at fault. The government should never have got involved.
Badly fukt wrote: » The regulator didn't regulate, that's the responsibility of the govt
highgiant1985 wrote: » This is what I thought to when I heard about it. Why isn't it the supplier/builder being chased on this instead of it being a Government issue. Note: I'm just looking to understand the issue better so someone please educate me if I'm wrong.
Shebean wrote: » Isn't the mica issue that the people are not being made whole by the builders so they are taking it up with government? Not the governments fault, but it is the governments responsibility to ensure redress. That's why we have regulations and consumer affairs and the like.
Cluedo Monopoly wrote: » You have a naive memory of the referendum. The rhetoric at the time was that FG would reform the Seanad if the referendum was lost. Enda made sure it was lost by taking charge of it himself. A protest vote in many ways. Straight away Enda promised to reform it and we all knew he was talking nonsense. He initiated the Manning report and then shelved it. Typical FFG tactics. Nobody voted to keep it in it's current form.https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20341515.html 8 years later...zero reform. New Politics....Same Old Politics.
Deleted User wrote: » What are you on about? The vote was to keep or abolish the Seanad. There wasn’t a third option, ie to reform the Seanad, which I believe would have been the preferred result.
The Taoiseach was only interested in a “box-ticking” exercise, rather than exploring ways of widening the electorate and powers of the Seanad at the cross-party gathering, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said. Mr Kenny avoided any discussion of key elements of a reform package put together by Senator Maurice Manning such as expanding the vote in Seanad elections to all citizens of the Republic and the North as well as Irish passport holders world-wide. “This was just a box-ticking exercise. The Government has not taken a view on the recommendations of the working party they set up. It is very disappointing. It turns out the Government has not even discussed the Manning report. “They clearly want any substantive reform kicked-off until the next government, they did not want to talk about anything of significance. We need to bring in direct election for the Seanad, but it is now very unlikely there will be any reforms before the next election,” Mr Martin said. Mr Kenny told opposition leaders that the Dáil was set to hold a debate on Seanad reform in September.The Taoiseach suffered a humiliating blow in October 2013 when voters decided in a knife-edge result to retain the upper house after Mr Kenny let a strong poll lead for abolition slip away.The Taoiseach admitted that voters had given him a “wallop” as he pledged to accept the result and seek reform of the Seanad.
Pro-Seanad campaigners countered that it was an important piece of the democratic landscape and needed reform
Cluedo Monopoly wrote: » There have been 14 reports on overhauling the Seanad over the past 80 years but one after another has simply gathered dust. Thats how FFG work.The people voted to reform the Seanad because they don't trust politicians but FFG like things exactly how they are (e.g. 11 Taoiseach appointments for favourites).
Fann Linn wrote: » In fairness we had the chance to get rid of the Seanad but too many were swayed by the great and the good.
Bass Reeves wrote: » You made a reference about what a pensioner should do. That the hard case. On the mica thread a few posters referenced that lads chasing walls had a Cassiddy price and another block supplier price as it seems you chase these blocks with a hammer and cold chisel. Therefore there was info out there. Most of this was during the same time period during the 90's and noughties. Its is only since Priory Hall that regulation has really tightened up and increased in cost
timmyntc wrote: » So several thousand cases make bad law too? You seem to be constantly insinuating its the homeowners fault for "cheaping out" and buying defective blocks - do you have even a shred of proof of this, or is it just a scenario you have invented to support your bias?
Calhoun wrote: » Let's not forget that the excuse given allot of times for the price point of allow of houses in Ireland is because of the regulations they need to adhere to, regulations that are supposed to prefect home owners. When this happens and you then fail to hold the builders to account the buck does stop with the government. I would love to see them go after the builders to recoup cost but I doubt it would happen.
RandomViewer wrote: » Looks like we are going to have to pay for lab tests on everything we buy from now on, we can no longer assume that anything is fit for purpose and regulations are just nice words written on a spec sheet that have no purpose in reality, All those pieces of consumer law passed over the years could just as easily be the assorted works of Enid Blyton going by the views of the frap room
FrancieBrady wrote: » Blocks for my house were ordered direct from supplier 'Wrights'. They said they conformed to specs for the product. I had no other choice but to trust that regulations were being adhered to.
RandomViewer wrote: » Blocks are bought directly from the Manufacturer, seems to be an effort here to distract from that,
ineedeuro wrote: » I don't care who is up playing to the crowd, SF/FG/FF/Green I couldn't care less. It is still the same answer, this is not a government issue
ineedeuro wrote: » It should be Homeowner to builder Builder to builder supplier Supplier to manufacturer That is the route these people should be following. At no stage should they be marching on the government. Plus I repeat again it shouldn't matter who is in government.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What are you telling us for...should you not be onto FG/FF/Greens about this, they have already admitted liability for this by introducing a redress scheme in the first place. Jeez Louise!
FrancieBrady wrote: » For those taking a swipe at SF for bandwagoning on the mica issue...I give you FG. https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1404784615873781764
ineedeuro wrote: » They are going to lose more voters if they just continue to bend over for every whim people come up with,.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Because they are concerned about the most recent polls, are weak generally, and thinking about the next election. Again, this issue has nothing to do with Government or the taxpayer. These people should be taking this up with their builders/suppliers via existing legal avenues.
Bass Reeves wrote: » Life is never fair hard cases make bad law. How many of these people with these houses choose the cheapest building price or builder. If going direct labour did they choose cheapest block and concrete provider. Like I said I was warned off a block& conc supplier. I used a few after for to build AJ's they were away sifter block. Never no issues with them and many people used them but they were a softer block
timmyntc wrote: » Agree on the bolded - however requiring homeowners who through no fault of their own now have a house thats crumbling, to pay up to fix it is madness. Most people cannot afford it - what are they to do? Sell? Who would buy it? The houses are unsellable, no bank will lend against them, the mortgage still needs paid. People would be more than happy with wall replacement or rebuild to existing standard - however the current scheme makes it difficult to impossible to achieve that, not to mention the costing. There should be exceptions made to allow rebuilds to the existing spec of the house, it would save costs but also be fairest. What is not fair or just is expecting pensioners to just go homeless because they can neither sell nor afford to fix a house that shouldnt need fixing in the first place.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a0aa2a861444ffb2f04cd77e7bcd86df.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
