Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Would people support a protest specifically aimed at corruption and cronyism?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Eponymous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭Eponymous


    Not a hope.

    As has been touched upon here, there's too many Eirigi, SWP, Irish Republican Voice, types who'll jump on any protest bandwagon, that it becomes futile trying to have a legitimate protest about anything.

    Even back in 2009 when there was a massive Congress rally, Eirigi and SWP barged their way to the front of it and mingled among various Trade Union groupings so as to make it look like they were a legitimate part of the protest.

    As discontented as I may be, or may become, I want nothing whatsoever to do with these groups.

    When you look back on videos of yesterday (or as some of us did, tuned into it live on Ustream), you realise that all you have is a bunch of malcontents with very little in the way of proper organisation or actual solutions.

    My one concern arising from yesterday, is that the scummers have possibly touched upon a new tactic. About the same time as it all kicked off on Molesworth St., another group shut down O'Connell bridge with few Gardaí available to deal with that. With the Gardaí stretched thin, they could have an ability to cause severe disruption in several areas if timed properly. I'm just astounded that the gardaí feel that they have to be restrained. I doubt many would have had sympathy for the scummers on the bridge last night had the gardaí decided to give them a good seeing to with a combo of pepper spray and batons.

    Ask them to move once, if they refuse, attempt to move them physically. If they resist that, out with the spray.


  • #33
    Foxhound38
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭Foxhound38


    Eponymous wrote: »
    Not a hope.

    As has been touched upon here, there's too many Eirigi, SWP, Irish Republican Voice, types who'll jump on any protest bandwagon, that it becomes futile trying to have a legitimate protest about anything.

    Even back in 2009 when there was a massive Congress rally, Eirigi and SWP barged their way to the front of it and mingled among various Trade Union groupings so as to make it look like they were a legitimate part of the protest.

    As discontented as I may be, or may become, I want nothing whatsoever to do with these groups.

    When you look back on videos of yesterday (or as some of us did, tuned into it live on Ustream), you realise that all you have is a bunch of malcontents with very little in the way of proper organisation or actual solutions.

    My one concern arising from yesterday, is that the scummers have possibly touched upon a new tactic. About the same time as it all kicked off on Molesworth St., another group shut down O'Connell bridge with few Gardaí available to deal with that. With the Gardaí stretched thin, they could have an ability to cause severe disruption in several areas if timed properly. I'm just astounded that the gardaí feel that they have to be restrained. I doubt many would have had sympathy for the scummers on the bridge last night had the gardaí decided to give them a good seeing to with a combo of pepper spray and batons.

    Ask them to move once, if they refuse, attempt to move them physically. If they resist that, out with the spray.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEcJ3yKxR0


    From seeing the video of the scummers holding up traffic on the bridge, they were literally, *literally* asking for the batons to come out and that's no exhaggeration. They were actually daring them to do it. I'm not quite sure how the gardai kept their cool, but I'm glad they didn't give these idiots the satisfaction (as much as they sorely deserved it).


  • #34
    average hero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭average hero


    Ideally, yes I would (despite being considered right wing here, I'm probably considered centre in the US).

    There are a number of faults though. First of all, unfortunately in this country a lot of our protests are hijacked by far left groups such as socialists, Eirigi, and far left Republican groups as stated before. This lends itself to alienating politically centre-minded people. On a side note, I hate how these groups have our flag associated with them so much.

    With regards to corruption and cronyism, it's in our culture isn't it? A lot of people get jobs and opportunities here due to nepotism and the likes. Everyone 'pulls strings' as much as they can. I know people who hate the political cronyism that goes on yet they are always getting jobs from friends, or deals to save a few euro through 'cronyism'.

    Our culture celebrates the underdog, and also celebrates the 'sleeveen'. The guy who strikes it lucky by whatever means possible. A chancer, a character, whatever you want to call it - but the simple fact is that all of these things contribute to our culture of cronyism and corruption.

    Can you honestly say that if a large carrot was dangled in front of you if you were in a position of power that you wouldn't take it? Honestly, I would find it hard not to - and I suspect a lot of people here would as well.


  • #35
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    awec wrote: »
    Nope. Wouldn't be seen near a protest organised by these types.

    So you'll not be joining Eirigi anytime soon so?:D


  • #36
    Eponymous
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭Eponymous


    Foxhound38 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEcJ3yKxR0


    From seeing the video of the scummers holding up traffic on the bridge, they were literally, *literally* asking for the batons to come out and that's no exhaggeration. They were actually daring them to do it. I'm not quite sure how the gardai kept their cool, but I'm glad they didn't give these idiots the satisfaction (as much as they sorely deserved it).
    Can't see the video, but I'm guessing it's their usual M.O.

    The belief that "They can't touch us" and multi-angle recording thanks to smart-phones (the only thing smart about most of the protesters, tbh). As soon as a finger is laid on them it's like they were shot and selective video put on you-tube.

    The other factor here is that there aren't enough Gardaí there to deal with it, so they have no option but to be restrained. No coincidence however that later on, when they heard the riot squad had left Kildare Street, they dispersed and went back to the safety of Molesworth Street.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,113 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Hatrickpatrick, if you want to organise a successful protest/change you need to do a number of things. Namely get off your soapbox and engage with people instead of labeling anyone who disagree with you as government supporters, sheep etc. Thats how democracy works. Refusing to engage with your opponents is a characteristic of dictatorships.

    Two inform yourself on the realities of life and the compromise that people and politicians have to make and live with instead of living in your own black and white fantasy world.

    If you want democracy/protests to work for you have to be able to address people daily concerns in a meaningful fashion. Bringing Dublin city centre to standstill at rush hour without warning is the very opposite of this.


  • #38
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    I think your goal is still to broad. For a protest to have any real effect it needs to be both well organised and have a very clear and achievable goal in mind. That goal needs to be something the majority of people agree would be a good change and is simple enough that every tom dick and harry understands well what exactly they are protesting for.

    I don't know what specific change you could protest for that would tackle cronyism.

    You could go after a specific person and push for equerries into their wrong doings. I have a feeling that if just one of the higher ups in the whole anglo tapes debacle was brought to justice then the finger pointing would start and everything about all others involved would be out in the open very quickly. I think that's why there is no push being made in this area by the government, they know some of their own will get dragged through the mud if the allegations start so they leave it alone and let the guilty walk free. If people pushed hard enough tho for one person to be prosecuted tho I think it is achievable.

    That won't fix the bigger issue tho. It might scare some politicians into thinking twice about accepting a brown envelope but probably not many and not for long. People have short memories.

    To address the issue with cronyism we would need a very specific set of laws that very harshly punish anyone caught doing anything dodgy, loss of dail seat, loss of pension and any benefits associated with the job, a ban from ever holding a government seat again and possible jail time. That would be a good start. Laws like that will never get passed tho, because the people we need to pass the bill are the people the laws directly effect. No amount of protesting will force the government to consider a bill that effects themselves so harshly.

    So to answer the question you actually asked, yes I would support a protest against cronyism (as long as it wasn't hijacked by the usual crowd) but I would
    not attend because I would view it as a waste of time.


    Afterthought:
    There is something people could protest for that would give the people the power to force a law like the above to be introduced but it would still be very difficult to convince the Dail to consider passing it. We lost the ability to force a referendum about 50 years ago or so. We used to be able to do it by getting a list of 50,000 signatures supporting the proposal. I'm not sure how it happened but politicians at the time managed to have that removed from the constitution. If we could get that or something similar back it would mean that we could force changes on the government if enough people supported the cause. It would be difficult to get something like this reimplemented but I think it would be a lot easier than directly pushing for laws on political corruption straight off.


  • #39
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    My question to ye is this. Let's suppose we organized a protest movement which was very specifically not an anti austerity protest, nor a catch-all left wing protest, nor a freeman protest or any of the myriad of issues which tend to piggyback on these large movements (not saying they're invalid, but I must say I find the piggybacking objectionable as it destroys the credibility of all movements involved) and was marketed very strictly and clearly as an anti-corruption movement. March against cronyism, march for an equal society, march for fairness in the law and in the application of justice, march for new laws against political elitism, march for a proper chasing down of those who have slipped through the net, etc.

    Would people support such a movement? Would people who objected to today's protest for one reason or another support such a movement?


    Quite simply, no. Because such a protest is like the many that came before it, lacking in any clear focus and definition, and packed to the brim full of utopian idealism. We don't live in a utopian society, and you don't fell a tree merely by pruning the branches. That's effectively all these silly marches and protests and doing, is trying to fell a 100 year old oak tree with a leaf blower.

    Going after current government does nothing, because it's not just corruption in government that fuels our society, it's bloody well rampant in the private sector too, from the top down, to the bottom up. Protests against private enterprise are just as effective as protests against the public sector, also rife with corruption.

    The best way to tackle the problem is at the root, and a hell of a lot closer to home too - start with your own neighbours and friends, start even younger again to teach your children ethical standards of business practice, teach them that they don't HAVE to be corrupt, and there are ways to get what you want without stepping on a few heads to break a few eggs.

    Before anyone tells me this is better suited to politics, I'll be posting it there as well later on, but as the large thread about the lockout was here on AH I'd be interested to hear from the same crowd.


    What did the Politics forum ever do to you?

    When people aren't listening to you in one thread, the solution is NOT to start your own thread to air your views separately, the solution is not to cross post the same post across different fora (I believe that'd be against the rules of Boards.ie too if you read the charter, I hope you wouldn't be considering breaking the rules just to suit your own agenda? There's a word for that, which escapes me right now...)

    Mods, please don't merge the threads, the specific reason for splintering is that the other thread is too much of a myriad of issues at this stage (ironically, much like the protest itself) for there to be any real discussion.


    It's only real discussion if it takes place on your terms then and everybody else needs to listen to what you have to say, even if it is only the fifth or sixth time they've heard it? Eventually you're going to have to go back to the drawing board tbh, because trying to wedge in your opinions about Irish politics into every thread that has a sniff of politics about it is just tiresome, and at this stage - well past it's sell by date.

    Would appreciate if people would stay on topic and not fall into the same trap as in the other thread.


    Your vague, idealist, cloud cuckoo land, pie in the sky, rabble rousing philosophy just isn't going to work Patrick tbh, people have heard it all before, and it hasn't struck a chord with them, because rather than being afforded the luxury of your idealism, they're struggling with the minutae of the daily grind and trying to cope with far starker realities closer to home. They don't have time to be doing silly protest marches that achieve nothing when they're thinking about putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their heads. These are the practical realities you're missing out on, and if you target and help THOSE people to get what they need, they might be more amenable to listening to what you have to say then.

    Actions Patrick, not more rabble rousing speeches, when people see you making an effort to help them, they'll feel a lot more positive about wanting to help you.


  • #40
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Well the thing is, in this particular case I'm not actually complaining about overpayment in general (although that's certainly something to be discussed), it's more specifically (a) the fact that Enda personally intervened to breach the rules his cabinet had set and were supposed to be enforcing (No one should be allowed to bend such rules, either they all follow them or no one does in my view) and (b) the fact that the person for whom the rules were bent just happened to be an old friend of his.

    There are two issues there, firstly the fact that people in high places can choose to override or not be subject to the rules, and secondly the cronyism aspect (obvious conflict of interest in Enda intervening to help an old colleague get a pay rise, he should have stayed out of it given the conflict of interest and I would draft specific laws governing what to do in such cases).

    I regard both of these as good examples of the corruption endemic in Irish politics. Things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place because there should be iron clad legislation mandating serious consequences when and if they are found to have happened.
    Well this is how you have interpreted what happened. You may well be right but an alternative explanation is that Kenny wanted to retain one particular advisor and simply had to pay him more to entice him away from a private sector job.
    (If his motive was to see an extra few quid in this guys pocket, surely he would simply have let him take a job in the private sector?) There’s a bit of a difference between these two scenarios and we can only guess where the truth lies.

    At the more benign end of the scale I would say it was a sin on a par with a broken election promise. Many would disapprove but it’s a fair bit short of corruption.

    Even within this government there were far dodgier doings than that.


  • #41
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Probably the only dissenting voice in this thread, but I think it could work, if it had the right support (specifically, I think some professional journalists who have a past/present history investigating corruption, could contribute a lot to forming the groups aims/message), and if enough people could be brought on board.

    It would need to be planned very well, with a lot of behind-the-scenes work, and probably wider activity outside of protests, but I think it could be very valuable if done right; I'd certainly consider getting involved organizing, if it looked well managed (it's something that is very conspicuously missing in Ireland I think...).

    The fringe groups that tend to take over protests are a problem, but they are fringe groups in the end, and can probably be outvoiced/overpowered if enough numbers could participate in anti-corruption protests, to make them an insignificant (even if loud) minority.
    You could even try talking to these groups, to ask them to stay away, pointing out that they are harming the protest...


    To be honest, I really don't understand the negativity (even outright hostility in some posts) towards the idea in this thread; I actually don't think it seems far-fetched at all, but the general message in this thread seems to be a defeatist "corruption exists, there is nothing you can do about it, don't try" type message, which as an attitude is just a self-fulfilling-prophecy, as that may be exactly what stops a protest movement reaching a critical mass.

    You're not going to defeat corruption from the ground-up, working within your community, or by tackling isolated instances of corruption in the public/private sphere, because the Gresham's Dynamic ensures that those who are corrupt, will get a competitive edge over those who are not (the idea that "dishonest dealings in business tend to drive honest dealings out of the market" - this is one of the most useful things to know about all types of corruption, in my view).

    So, you need to tackle it right at the core: With laws and the proper enforcement of laws. Anything less will not overcome the wider 'culture' of fraud/corruption that the Gresham's dynamic creates.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    To be honest, I really don't understand the negativity (even outright hostility in some posts) towards the idea in this thread; I actually don't think it seems far-fetched at all, but the general message in this thread seems to be a defeatist "corruption exists, there is nothing you can do about it, don't try" type message, which as an attitude is just a self-fulfilling-prophecy, as that may be exactly what stops a protest movement reaching a critical mass.
    Oh I agree KB. Where my cynicism comes from is it seems that a large chunk of the Irish population actually like, or have a major blind spot towards and are more likely to vote for the guy or gal that is seen as a "rogue". History and the dail, including the present Dail are living examples of this. Time and time and time again it can be shown that the sure way to never mind get back into power, but to massively increase ones share of the vote was to be seen/charged with corruption.

    So, you need to tackle it right at the core: With laws and the proper enforcement of laws. Anything less will not overcome the wider 'culture' of fraud/corruption that the Gresham's dynamic creates.
    I agree 100%, though again I can't see turkeys voting for xmas and I can't see the Irish electorate stopping voting turkeys in in the first place.

    That is the sad part for me. Those misguided/dodgy/damned stupid collection of eejits the other day marching on the Dail ARE our opposition.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #43
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Oh I agree KB. Where my cynicism comes from is it seems that a large chunk of the Irish population actually like, or have a major blind spot towards and are more likely to vote for the guy or gal that is seen as a "rogue". History and the dail, including the present Dail are living examples of this. Time and time and time again it can be shown that the sure way to never mind get back into power, but to massively increase ones share of the vote was to be seen/charged with corruption.


    I agree 100%, though again I can't see turkeys voting for xmas and I can't see the Irish electorate stopping voting turkeys in in the first place.

    That is the sad part for me. Those misguided/dodgy/damned stupid collection of eejits the other day marching on the Dail ARE our opposition.
    I agree that there's certainly a wider acceptance of corruption within Ireland, and that is something that needs to be fought against as well; I think actually spreading awareness about the damage corruption is causing to the entire country, could be a big part of such a protest movement (even just educating about the Gresham's Dynamic, I think could be a very useful thing).

    If people could properly make the connection, that it is primarily unethical acts within finance/banking (and government, to an extent) that led to the economic crisis and austerity the country is facing today (not the "look to yourselves" nonsense you hear perpetuated), then people may be more motivated to make sure it doesn't happen again (by pushing for properly written up and enforced anti-fraud regulations and anti-corruption laws).

    A lot of people seem ready to excuse unethical acts and corruption, just because (in the former case) much of it isn't illegal (even though it should be), and in the latter case, because it has gone unprosecuted ("therefore it didn't actually happen/wasn't-illegal"), or because it has gone uninvestigated ("where is the evidence? there is none because it didn't happen").

    I also get the impression there is a lot of suppression of evidence as well, such as with Jonathan Sugarman, a whistleblower who was threatened with prison by financial regulators(!), if he exposed fraud, and also due to more anecdotal instances I've heard of in the past, of journalists being threatened with legal or other personally damaging action, if they exposed corruption/fraud (defamation/libel laws here, I believe are meant to cause a credible chilling-effect; nevermind that a lot of our media simply just doesn't do much investigative journalism anymore).

    That raises an additional issue for such a protest movement as well: If it started to become anywhere near effective, it (and its organizers) would likely start to be subject to intimidation/threats as well; still worth doing mind.


  • #44
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Hatrickpatrick, if you want to organise a successful protest/change you need to do a number of things. Namely get off your soapbox and engage with people instead of labeling anyone who disagree with you as government supporters, sheep etc. Thats how democracy works. Refusing to engage with your opponents is a characteristic of dictatorships.

    Sorry but when have I ever refused to engage with anyone? My OP makes it very clear that I welcome debate. Maybe you have me confused with someone else...?
    Two inform yourself on the realities of life and the compromise that people and politicians have to make and live with instead of living in your own black and white fantasy world.

    Translation: Corruption must be tolerated since it's somehow necessary to society? All I'm asking or is that people who are negaged in political wrongdoing be held accountable for it, how does that in any way clash with the reality of life?
    If you want democracy/protests to work for you have to be able to address people daily concerns in a meaningful fashion. Bringing Dublin city centre to standstill at rush hour without warning is the very opposite of this.

    Which is why I stated very clearly that the people who did so on Wednesday were scum. I don't and never will support that.

    Honestly wonder if you're confusing me with someone else?
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I also get the impression there is a lot of suppression of evidence as well, such as with Jonathan Sugarman, a whistleblower who was threatened with prison by financial regulators(!), if he exposed fraud, and also due to more anecdotal instances I've heard of in the past, of journalists being threatened with legal or other personally damaging action, if they exposed corruption/fraud (defamation/libel laws here, I believe are meant to cause a credible chilling-effect; nevermind that a lot of our media simply just doesn't do much investigative journalism anymore).

    That raises an additional issue for such a protest movement as well: If it started to become anywhere near effective, it (and its organizers) would likely start to be subject to intimidation/threats as well; still worth doing mind.

    Have you seen this?
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

    Summary, Irish Indo investigative journalist apparently fired for being too investigative of the Garda commissioner. One of the most sickening things I've read all week.


  • #45
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    Well this is how you have interpreted what happened. You may well be right but an alternative explanation is that Kenny wanted to retain one particular advisor and simply had to pay him more to entice him away from a private sector job.

    He broke his own rules. He agreed to a pay cap and then overruled it. That in and of itself is the kind of thing that shouldn't be allowed - those who makes the rules should be subject to them.


  • #46
    Lawrence1895
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,627 ✭✭✭Lawrence1895


    Isn't it up to each and every single person, how to behave at a protest? Just wondering...


  • #47
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Quite simply, no. Because such a protest is like the many that came before it, lacking in any clear focus and definition, and packed to the brim full of utopian idealism. We don't live in a utopian society, and you don't fell a tree merely by pruning the branches. That's effectively all these silly marches and protests and doing, is trying to fell a 100 year old oak tree with a leaf blower.

    I want to put people who break the law in prison. I want to make new laws to punish wrongdoing where there aren't already laws against is.
    Can you explain how any of this is unrealistic?!
    Going after current government does nothing, because it's not just corruption in government that fuels our society, it's bloody well rampant in the private sector too, from the top down, to the bottom up. Protests against private enterprise are just as effective as protests against the public sector, also rife with corruption.

    The private sector don't make the law. Corruption in the private sector is rampant as well but they aren't responsible for running the country and therefore aren't as important a target as the lawmakers themselves.
    The best way to tackle the problem is at the root, and a hell of a lot closer to home too - start with your own neighbours and friends, start even younger again to teach your children ethical standards of business practice, teach them that they don't HAVE to be corrupt, and there are ways to get what you want without stepping on a few heads to break a few eggs.

    Agreed, but that doesn't do anything to tackle the current political climate does it?
    What did the Politics forum ever do to you?

    Nothing at all, hence why I post there all the time and will be posting this debate there when it's finished here, as I said in my OP...
    When people aren't listening to you in one thread, the solution is NOT to start your own thread to air your views separately,

    The other thread was about the lockout, this thread is about starting a new protest group. The other thread was about an anti austerity protest, this one is anti corruption. I was accused of hijacking the other thread hence why I made my own.
    the solution is not to cross post the same post across different fora (I believe that'd be against the rules of Boards.ie too if you read the charter, I hope you wouldn't be considering breaking the rules just to suit your own agenda? There's a word for that, which escapes me right now...)

    It's against the rules to have a debate on Politics about something that's already been debated on AH? O_o
    It's only real discussion if it takes place on your terms then and everybody else needs to listen to what you have to say, even if it is only the fifth or sixth time they've heard it?

    I never said that, and I don't appreciate the condescension. The point of this thread is that I don't want an anti/pro austerity debate here since austerity and corruption are completely different issues.
    Eventually you're going to have to go back to the drawing board tbh, because trying to wedge in your opinions about Irish politics into every thread that has a sniff of politics about it is just tiresome, and at this stage - well past it's sell by date.

    So talking about a protest in a thread about protesting is tiresome? Just a minute ago you said I should have continued this debate in the other thread instead of making a new one, which is it?
    Your vague, idealist, cloud cuckoo land, pie in the sky, rabble rousing philosophy just isn't going to work Patrick tbh, people have heard it all before, and it hasn't struck a chord with them, because rather than being afforded the luxury of your idealism, they're struggling with the minutae of the daily grind and trying to cope with far starker realities closer to home.

    So something isn't worth protesting about unless it has a direct and immediate affect on your own life then?
    Can you explain, how is asking for anti corruption laws "vague", "idealist", "cloud cuckoo land", "pie in the sky", or "rabble rousing"? How is it any different to calling for new laws against gangland crime, or bullying, or sexual harassment?
    They don't have time to be doing silly protest marches that achieve nothing when they're thinking about putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their heads. These are the practical realities you're missing out on, and if you target and help THOSE people to get what they need, they might be more amenable to listening to what you have to say then.

    Why do you have to do both? That's not what this movement would be about. It's possible to care about your own life and care about wanting to live in a better society *at the same time*. You're acting as if once you have what you need, you couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Is this why there are so many "how bad do you really have it" questions directed at me and others who object to corruption? If I have everything I need I should just shut up and not care that others don't, or that I live in a horribly corrupt society? Question, during the civil rights movement up North would you have applied the same criteria to a protestant who fought for catholic civil rights? He shouldn't bother since his life is ok and that's all that matters? What about a white man joining the US 1950s civil rights movement? He should just shut up and concentrate on his own sh!t?

    Would be an unbelievably depressing world to live in if everyone lived by your apparent philosophy. Sort yourself out and once you're ok, that's all that matters. Eh, no thanks. I care about others too, and I care about the type of country I live in.
    Actions Patrick, not more rabble rousing speeches, when people see you making an effort to help them, they'll feel a lot more positive about wanting to help you.

    Actions, sure. So what actions can I take against government corruption apart from legitimate protesting or starting a new political party (which I fully intend to as soon as I'm finished college)? What are you advocating? Calling Joe to complain? Blockading the Dail, because that worked out well for everyone involved? writing letters to whipped TDs who are powerless to do anything unless the cabinet lets them?
    What are you suggesting instead of a legitimate protest movement?

    Do you regard this man as being as much of a waste of space as I am, since he achieved nothing and he himself wasn't being targeted, and what he did had nothing to do with everyday life?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFzeNAHEhU


  • #48
    wp_rathead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,114 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    SimonQuinlank wrote: »
    Would take the banning of the X Factor and Premiership football in this country for Irish people to actually protest it seems,not a trivial little thing like the government selling them and future generations down the river for the benefit of their cronies and the corporate elite.

    this attitude of "ah we the only ones doing anything- ye are all idiots" is fecking pathetic..


  • #49
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    The problem is that attempts at reform/revolution from the top down (which is what I think you're proposing) have historically proven to basically not work. Realistically you'd need to start from the bottom up which is very much a long term process that certainly won't happen overnight.


  • #50
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Have you seen this?
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/sep/17/irish-independent-ireland

    Summary, Irish Indo investigative journalist apparently fired for being too investigative of the Garda commissioner. One of the most sickening things I've read all week.
    I'd heard of it alright, though was have not kept up on the details; sickening indeed, though also something I'm not that surprised about (even if saying such is a bit trite I guess).


  • #51
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    P_1 wrote: »
    The problem is that attempts at reform/revolution from the top down (which is what I think you're proposing) have historically proven to basically not work. Realistically you'd need to start from the bottom up which is very much a long term process that certainly won't happen overnight.
    Not really - it's pretty easy to implement reform top-down just by putting in the right anti-corruption/anti-fraud laws, and bolstering regulations against future fraud (arguably that's the only way, as we have already seen business/finance can't be trusted to self-regulate).

    The main bottom-up work involved with that, is developing a strong enough political movement and political pressure, to make that happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I want to put people who break the law in prison. I want to make new laws to punish wrongdoing where there aren't already laws against is.

    Can you explain how any of this is unrealistic?!


    Because, as Wibbs already explained, it'd be like turkeys voting for Christmas. It's also not illegal if there are no laws against what they do, so who gets to decide what's wrongdoing and what's not? It's only morally questionable by your standards. Since everyone has different standards of morality and wrongdoing, you're going to find it incredibly difficult to agree a consensus that pleases everybody.

    The private sector don't make the law. Corruption in the private sector is rampant as well but they aren't responsible for running the country and therefore aren't as important a target as the lawmakers themselves.


    Patrick, government departments, government bodies, invite tenders from private companies all the time to do work for them. These private companies are often awarded contracts based on who they know, and the State getting value for money is often only a secondary concern.


    Secondly, you only have to look at the influence of the various organisations like IBEC and the Vintners Association to see how they influence government policy.

    Agreed, but that doesn't do anything to tackle the current political climate does it?


    No Patrick, it doesn't. But real change doesn't happen overnight, it happens over a period of time, usually it takes a few generations for real change to be seen. You cannot expect the current system to change overnight because of the pervasive attitude of arse covering, nest feathering, nepotism, and morally questionable behaviour that seems to only concern itself with short term gain, sacrificing real economic growth in the long term. They know full well they can just fob off the current generations problems on the next generation, the very same way as they know the next government will inherit the problems of the last one.

    Nothing at all, hence why I post there all the time and will be posting this debate there when it's finished here, as I said in my OP...


    I only said that Patrick because I'm sure the Politics forum is full of this type of rabble rousing stuff, but you actually seem quite serious about this, even though IMO you're misguided as a stray missile.

    The other thread was about the lockout, this thread is about starting a new protest group. The other thread was about an anti austerity protest, this one is anti corruption. I was accused of hijacking the other thread hence why I made my own.


    Well Patrick as I said in my earlier post, when people are telling you to stop hijacking the thread, it's usually a signal that your audience aren't very receptive to your argument. This usually means you have to go back to the drawing board, refine your message, and define your audience. AH isn't giving the anti-establishment lobby much of a hearing, and Politics is a MUCH more stringent forum, so before you post there - refine your message for your audience, don't just do a copy and paste job.

    It's against the rules to have a debate on Politics about something that's already been debated on AH? O_o


    No, it's in the Boards.ie Guidelines that starting identical threads in two or more different forums is also known as spamming -


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_spam

    I never said that, and I don't appreciate the condescension. The point of this thread is that I don't want an anti/pro austerity debate here since austerity and corruption are completely different issues.


    Hmm, chicken and egg there unfortunately Patrick - Which came first, the corruption or the austerity? Or is austerity causing more corruption?


    I can't help but think about the article Kyuss posted earlier referring to Gresham's Dynamic, where the author posited the following -

    It�s axiomatic these days that the mortgage loan fiasco and the subsequent Wall Street meltdown were caused by a top-to-bottom infestation of scumbags.


    but then went on to say -

    Mortgage loan bucket shops like Countrywide Financial conjured up huge incomes that didn�t exist from home purchasers in now notorious �liars loans�; customers themselves, with the encouragement of mortgage underwriters lied through their teeth about their income; the loans were sold to Wall Street banks who sliced and diced them into unregulated derivatives that they then sold off to unsuspecting investors; ratings agencies gave the steaming **** piles AAA ratings in order to protect their business relationships with the Wall Street banks; insurers like AIG entered into credit default swaps to insure the $441 billion of securities rated garbage� And on and on and on.


    The home purchasers who are now suffering, are the cause of their own demise, because they artificially inflated their incomes to buy properties that were artificially inflated in value. Prosperity begets corruption which begets austerity, which begets corruption, which begets prosperity - vicious circle.

    So talking about a protest in a thread about protesting is tiresome? Just a minute ago you said I should have continued this debate in the other thread instead of making a new one, which is it?


    No Patrick, bringing your own agenda into every thread with a sniff of politics off it is tiresome. You should have stuck to the point in the other thread, but instead you chose to wedge in your own agenda yet again.

    So something isn't worth protesting about unless it has a direct and immediate affect on your own life then?

    Can you explain, how is asking for anti corruption laws "vague", "idealist", "cloud cuckoo land", "pie in the sky", or "rabble rousing"? How is it any different to calling for new laws against gangland crime, or bullying, or sexual harassment?


    Something isn't worth protesting about full stop IMO when your time could be far better spent doing something to lessen the effect of something on your life. Asking for anti-corruption laws when you cannot clearly identify and define a standard for what's corruption and what's not, is vague, idealist, etc.


    Gangland crime is easy to create a standard for, as is bullying and sexual harassment, because most people will tend to agree on a set standard. "Corruption" isn't so easily identifiable as everyone will see those situations you posited earlier in their own way, and some will agree with you, and more people won't.

    Why do you have to do both? That's not what this movement would be about. It's possible to care about your own life and care about wanting to live in a better society *at the same time*. You're acting as if once you have what you need, you couldn't give a f*ck about anything else. Is this why there are so many "how bad do you really have it" questions directed at me and others who object to corruption? If I have everything I need I should just shut up and not care that others don't, or that I live in a horribly corrupt society? Question, during the civil rights movement up North would you have applied the same criteria to a protestant who fought for catholic civil rights? He shouldn't bother since his life is ok and that's all that matters? What about a white man joining the US 1950s civil rights movement? He should just shut up and concentrate on his own sh!t?


    Would be an unbelievably depressing world to live in if everyone lived by your apparent philosophy. Sort yourself out and once you're ok, that's all that matters. Eh, no thanks. I care about others too, and I care about the type of country I live in.


    Patrick you're soap-boxing. You're seeing bad guys left, right and centre now at this stage, and displaying an awful short memory too while you're at it. I'm not about to get into an e-penis measuring contest, but if you care so much about the people and the country you live in - get down off your soap-box, go outside your door, and go help the first person you meet that you meet who asks you for help. You'd be amazed how quickly your network grows and how people within your network start helping each other, making the network bigger, and increasing your shared resources.


    I'm only alright because when I ask for help, I get it. It gets to a point where people offer their help without me even having to ask. I got a new vinyl floor laid in my kitchen the other night and I wasn't charged a cent for either the vinyl or labour. Why? Because last year I helped him turn his carpet and flooring business around and didn't charge him for it.

    Actions, sure. So what actions can I take against government corruption apart from legitimate protesting or starting a new political party (which I fully intend to as soon as I'm finished college)? What are you advocating? Calling Joe to complain? Blockading the Dail, because that worked out well for everyone involved? writing letters to whipped TDs who are powerless to do anything unless the cabinet lets them?

    What are you suggesting instead of a legitimate protest movement?


    See above.


    Start at the root of the tree, instead of thinking you'll change anything at the top by shaking the branches. All that will happen is you'll soon learn how to feather your own nest and you'll be the new Ming or Mick Wallace - clown politicians, who went in all high and mighty, and it wasn't long before they were shown up for their incompetence.

    Do you regard this man as being as much of a waste of space as I am, since he achieved nothing and he himself wasn't being targeted, and what he did had nothing to do with everyday life?


    Now Patrick, when did I EVER refer to you as a waste of space? I don't regard you as a waste of space either. I can see you're passionate about eliminating corruption in politics, and while I think it's a noble ideal and all, I feel your scope is way off, you need to set your sights a lot closer to home if you want real long lasting long term change to happen.


  • #53
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    Think we should keep protesting 'till something changes.


  • #54
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    hansfrei wrote: »
    Think we should keep protesting 'till something changes.
    The most valuable tool we have to counter corruption and low standards in public office is not protest but our vote. And we simply do not use that to this end. Look at the TDs that were re-elected to the Dáil despite adverse findings being made against them by tribunals, and even courts.

    Truth is, we, or at least not enough of us, just do not care enough about high standards. If our man or woman is delivering for the constituency, we seem prepared to let a lot of other things slide.


  • #55
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Not really - it's pretty easy to implement reform top-down just by putting in the right anti-corruption/anti-fraud laws, and bolstering regulations against future fraud (arguably that's the only way, as we have already seen business/finance can't be trusted to self-regulate).

    The main bottom-up work involved with that, is developing a strong enough political movement and political pressure, to make that happen.

    But the people who are in a position to make such laws aren't very likely to do so and for some bizarre reason we see it fit to keep voting these people into power. This IMO rules out any sort of a top-down approach working.


  • #56
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    The problem with corruption and fraud, is you can not fix it from the ground-up, starting at the community level; that presupposes that people can 'self-regulate', which isn't true, because it only takes a handful to use corrupt/fraudulent or (where the legal framework isn't there) unethical actions, to gain a winning advantage over others (drawing others into the same unethical acts).

    That needs lawmaking and enforcement to resolve, and learning about the deficiencies in Irish laws and financial regulations, and preparing solutions, is perfectly realistic and manageable - in many cases, intelligent people (lawmakers/journalists/lobbyists) have already done the necessary work here (particularly if you look to lawmaking in other countries), and where they haven't, this is real beneficial work that can be done.

    One person for instance, who has enough knowledge/experience to make serious efforts in resolving both regulatory and economic problems here, would be William K. Black (who I learned about the Greshams Dynamic from), who is a regulator that helped put thousands of financial fraudsters in jail in the US in the 80's, and who writes regularly here on economics and fraud (here is an analysis on fraud in Ireland by him); there are plenty of knowledgeable/intellectual resources to draw from, which I've been learning about the last couple of years.

    The hard part is the politics - that's where protest movements, public awareness, and networking among the right knowledgeable/intellectual/influential people to further the movement and develop political connections, comes into play (we're not going to make any dent in corruption, by restricting our political activity, to one vote every election).


    I heavily disagree with posts in the thread, implying that seeking direct political change is futile; a successful protest movement (especially if co-ordinating with unions later on), can bring enormous political pressure to bear on government, to bring about real change, and it's also (in my view) probably a useful seed for bringing together and educating the right people, for forming a new and credible political party.


  • #57
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    P_1 wrote: »
    But the people who are in a position to make such laws aren't very likely to do so and for some bizarre reason we see it fit to keep voting these people into power. This IMO rules out any sort of a top-down approach working.
    That's if you restrict exercising your political power, to just voting; protests and strikes are two other extremely powerful ways the public can bring political pressure to bear on government, outside of election time, and these are abilities that have been gradually eroded over a long period of time, which I think need to be built up again.

    Top-down, through lawmaking and enforcement, is really the only effective way to clamp down on corruption, as otherwise people can just say "that's not illegal, I'm not doing anything wrong", and (for stuff that is illegal) "nobody brought me to court, it wasn't illegal"; and this is not considering where there is straight-out lack of investigation of fraud/corruption, and suppression of investigation (and sometimes even of evidence/whistleblowers).


  • #58
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    The most valuable tool we have to counter corruption and low standards in public office is not protest but our vote. And we simply do not use that to this end. Look at the TDs that were re-elected to the Dáil despite adverse findings being made against them by tribunals, and even courts.

    Truth is, we, or at least not enough of us, just do not care enough about high standards. If our man or woman is delivering for the constituency, we seem prepared to let a lot of other things slide.


    Professional lobbyists > voters. Silly little minority groups > voters. Moneymen > voters.

    Direct action is about all we have left.


  • #59
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    hansfrei wrote: »
    Professional lobbyists > voters. Silly little minority groups > voters. Moneymen > voters.

    Direct action is about all we have left.

    I’m intrigued as to who the “silly little minority” groups are????

    But I’m absolutely baffled as to why you think voters cannot decline to return a TD to the Dáil, if they consider them unfit for office? Do the moneymen, and the others, somehow stop us?


  • #60
    hansfrei
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 915 ✭✭✭hansfrei


    Painted Pony wrote: »
    I’m intrigued as to who the “silly little minority” groups are????

    But I’m absolutely baffled as to why you think voters cannot decline to return a TD to the Dáil, if they consider them unfit for office? Do the moneymen, and the others, somehow stop us?
    _
    Voters haven't solved the issues so far. Party whips have most TDs redundant anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Painted Pony
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭Painted Pony


    hansfrei wrote: »
    _
    Voters haven't solved the issues so far.
    That’s exactly my point. They could have (at least done something), but they didn’t.


Advertisement
Advertisement