Sean O'Rourke Today Show

Callan57 · 15-10-2014 10:31AM

Yakuza wrote: »

I thought he was a bit blunt with the guy who was commenting on tax individualisation (something he (Noonan) was critical of when McCreevy brought it in). A married couple / civil partnership should be allowed divvy up their allowances as they see fit.

But he didn't want to divvy up their allowances - he seemed to want two allowances!

Yakuza · 15-10-2014 10:47AM

Callan57 wrote: »

But he didn't want to divvy up their allowances - he seemed to want two allowances!

That's exactly what he wanted, and I agree with him. Prior to 2000, a married couple could transfer tax allowances between them (if one wasn't working, typically because they'd young kids and were looking after them). Now you have to be working to get the allowance, and the benefit of working is completely negated if you have to spend most of what you earn on childcare and commuting costs.

sudzs · 15-10-2014 10:53AM

"...men literally turning into prunes"

Now that I would like to see!

CountyHurler · 15-10-2014 10:55AM

You can get a great meal for 20 euros.. But it costs a 100 euro to get a translator to order the meal, since I dont speak the language...

15-10-2014 08:02PM

Yakuza wrote: »

I thought he was a bit blunt with the guy who was commenting on tax individualisation (something he (Noonan) was critical of when McCreevy brought it in). A married couple / civil partnership should be allowed divvy up their allowances as they see fit.

The callers point was that his ex partner wasn't playing ball. He didn't want to hear that married couples don't get this allowance. He just wanted to let off steam and rightly got no hop.

15-10-2014 08:05PM

neris wrote: »

this miscarriage story is real liveline territory but at least sean asks subtle relevant questions and not looking for the tears and misery

Misscarriage is a horrible experience for both parents and is not one to be made light of. I thought it was sensitively done.

Yakuza · 15-10-2014 08:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The callers point was that his ex partner wasn't playing ball. He didn't want to hear that married couples don't get this allowance. He just wanted to let off steam and rightly got no hop.

My post was referring to the stay-at-home dad whose wife couldn't claim his tax credits as he wasn't working, not the guy who wanted some allowance for separated parents and his ex-partner was claiming it.

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-10-2014 10:24AM

Why were they saying what a nice man the criminal thug was, who terrorised a defenseless pensioner in his home?

yop · 16-10-2014 11:09AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Why were they saying what a nice man the criminal thug was, who terrorised a defenseless pensioner in his home?

Because they are probably travellers. Anyone who thinks that Frog Ward was a nice man need a hard look at themselves or else haven't a clue what they are on about. The man have 80 convictions against him and shouldn't have been walking the streets. He terrorised man old person around the Galway/Mayo area and this time he went too far and push Nally too far.
If you enter someones property uninvited and with intent to harm them or take their property then be ready to accept the circumstances.

RayM · 16-10-2014 11:19AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Why were they saying what a nice man the criminal thug was, who terrorised a defenseless pensioner in his home?

He was neither a pensioner nor defenceless. He should never have been acquitted.

michael999999 · 16-10-2014 11:20AM

RayM wrote: »

He was neither a pensioner nor defenceless. He should never have been acquitted.

He should have been given an award to be honest. Them bastards had him terrified in he's own home!

RayM · 16-10-2014 11:39AM

michael999999 wrote: »

He should have been given an award to be honest. Them bastards had him terrified in he's own home!

Being terrified isn't an excuse for shooting someone, beating them up to twenty times with a stick and then shooting them again... when they're trying to get away. He should have been convicted of murder.

I never fail to be surprised by people's idiotic, illogical reactions to this.

mikom · 16-10-2014 11:40AM

RayM wrote: »

Being terrified isn't an excuse for shooting someone, beating them up to twenty times with a stick and then shooting them again... when they're trying to get away. He should have been convicted of murder.

I never fail to be surprised by people's idiotic, illogical reactions to this.

Tell it to the judge.

yop · 16-10-2014 11:57AM

RayM wrote: »

Being terrified isn't an excuse for shooting someone, beating them up to twenty times with a stick and then shooting them again... when they're trying to get away. He should have been convicted of murder.

I never fail to be surprised by people's idiotic, illogical reactions to this.

So what do you do? Ask him to leave politely. The guy was full of drugs, he was hardly going to be open to a bit of a chat now was he?
He had 4 bench warrants outstanding, so when P Nally asked him to leave then what reasoning was there to be had with him?
The guy tried to kill a garda, a man worth reasoning with then?

Ward had been at the house previously and items were missing from Nallys farm, conicidence you may say, but that was used in court. Nally lived in fear.

A judge and 12 others acquitted him, hardly idiotic or illogical now is it?

No defending Ward in this, he had his chance, all 80 of them in fact, he didn't take them, he got his come uppings, good riddance.

The best thing to come out of this means we can defend our houses and not worry about hurting the feelings of unwanted visitors to our houses.

mikom · 16-10-2014 12:08PM

yop wrote: »

So what do you do? Ask him to leave politely. The guy was full of drugs, he was hardly going to be open to a bit of a chat now was he?
He had 4 bench warrants outstanding, so when P Nally asked him to leave then what reasoning was there to be had with him?
The guy tried to kill a garda, a man worth reasoning with then?

Ward had been at the house previously and items were missing from Nallys farm, conicidence you may say, but that was used in court. Nally lived in fear.

A judge and 12 others acquitted him, hardly idiotic or illogical now is it?

No defending Ward in this, he had his chance, all 80 of them in fact, he didn't take them, he got his come uppings, good riddance.

The best thing to come out of this means we can defend our houses and not worry about hurting the feelings of unwanted visitors to our houses.

Don't forget bucky up the lane in the Hi-ace that sped off when he saw Ward was getting his hole handed to him (documented).
You can be sure he would have entered the fray had he thought Nally could be put down........ and put down he would have been if two less-than-apes started beating on him.

I wonder will Mr Nally have as big a headstone as the God-fearing Catholic Frog Ward?

ThisRegard · 16-10-2014 12:27PM

RayM wrote: »

I never fail to be surprised by people's idiotic, illogical reactions to this.

The judicial system disagrees with you.

RayM · 16-10-2014 01:44PM

yop wrote: »

So what do you do? Ask him to leave politely.

You do know he was actually attempting to leave, having already been shot and beaten (so heavily that part of his skull was exposed), when Nally ran back into his house, reloaded the gun and then fired the fatal shot?

That's the problem I have with Nally's actions. Not the original shooting, not even the beating (as brutal as it was - Nally himself described it as "like hitting a badger or a stone"), but the second shot. There's a difference between self-defence, or defending your property, and chasing a seriously wounded man with the aim of killing him.

michael999999 · 16-10-2014 02:39PM

RayM wrote: »

You do know he was actually attempting to leave, having already been shot and beaten (so heavily that part of his skull was exposed), when Nally ran back into his house, reloaded the gun and then fired the fatal shot?

That's the problem I have with Nally's actions. Not the original shooting, not even the beating (as brutal as it was - Nally himself described it as "like hitting a badger or a stone"), but the second shot. There's a difference between self-defence, or defending your property, and chasing a seriously wounded man with the aim of killing him.

Scumbags need to stop terrorizing people in there own homes, then they won't have to worry about being shot!

Are you a defence lawyer or something?

RayM · 16-10-2014 02:42PM

michael999999 wrote: »

Scumbags need to stop terrorizing people in there own homes, then they won't have to worry about being shot!

Are you a defence lawyer or something?

You don't have to be a lawyer to realise that chasing a wounded, unarmed man and then shooting him dead when he's running away from you is wrong.

I get the impression I'm not arguing with rational people here...

mikom · 16-10-2014 02:52PM

RayM wrote: »

I get the impression I'm not arguing with rational people here...

I'm sure the same thought went through Nally's mind regarding Ward but he did not have time to post it on boards.

I suppose if you are sipping on a coffee whilst posting it's is hard to imagine how the spit would thicken in your mouth during physical and life threatening conflict.

hotmail.com · 16-10-2014 07:50PM

The guy was shot in the back running away - it's not acceptable in a civil society. If the farmer was being terrorised, it's the fault of the Gardai and the justice system for not having dealt with it. Two wrongs don't make a right and him killing a man is unjustifiable.

RayM · 16-10-2014 07:54PM

mikom wrote: »

I'm sure the same thought went through Nally's mind regarding Ward but he did not have time to post it on boards.

I suppose if you are sipping on a coffee whilst posting it's is hard to imagine how the spit would thicken in your mouth during physical and life threatening conflict.

After shooting his victim and then beating him with a stick until his skull was visible, he had time to run back inside to reload his gun, before chasing him and shooting him dead as he was trying to escape. I find it amazing that people can excuse that.

michael999999 · 16-10-2014 08:24PM

RayM wrote: »

After shooting his victim and then beating him with a stick until his skull was visible, he had time to run back inside to reload his gun, before chasing him and shooting him dead as he was trying to escape. I find it amazing that people can excuse that.

Almost as amazing as people seeing no wrong with scumbags terrorizing innocent people in there own homes.

But then again its easy to be like that if its never happened you or your family!

Its only a pity the guy that got away didn't get a rattle, might make him think twice about robbing people in there own homes!

RayM · 16-10-2014 09:10PM

michael999999 wrote: »

Almost as amazing as people seeing no wrong with scumbags terrorizing innocent people in there own homes.

But then again its easy to be like that if its never happened you or your family!

Its only a pity the guy that got away didn't get a rattle, might make him think twice about robbing people in there own homes!

Your post is ridiculous and illogical. Has anyone here actually said they see nothing wrong with people being terrorised in their own homes? I simply don't believe that the death penalty should be used as punishment for burglary. I'm not sure how any rational person could possibly think that is equivalent to justifying people being terrorised in their own homes. I suppose this is what always happens when you try to engage in discussion with someone who clearly isn't capable of rational thought.

I haven't even argued that Nally wasn't justified in shooting or even subsequently beating Ward in self-defence. My objection lies with the fact that he wasn't satisfied with severely wounding him, breaking several bones, or defending himself and his property - he wanted the man dead. Whether he was a "scumbag" is irrelevant.

hotmail.com · 16-10-2014 09:26PM

michael999999 wrote: »

Almost as amazing as people seeing no wrong with scumbags terrorizing innocent people in there own homes.

But then again its easy to be like that if its never happened you or your family!

Its only a pity the guy that got away didn't get a rattle, might make him think twice about robbing people in there own homes!

Nobody said this.

The fault of that lies with the Gardai for not helping out the guy.

More Music · 16-10-2014 11:37PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

...If the farmer was being terrorised, it's the fault of the Gardai and the justice system for not having dealt with it....

Surely it's not. The Gardai didn't put Ward on Nally's lad.

If you commit burglary, terrorise, harass people and subsequently get charged over 80 times your luck is bound to run out. That doesn't even take into account all the times he was never caught or charged.

mikom · 16-10-2014 11:45PM

More Music wrote: »

If you commit burglary, terrorise, harass people and subsequently get charged over 80 times your luck is bound to run out. That doesn't even take into account all the times he was never caught or charged.

Remember when Ward attacked a car with a slash-hook while a woman and two children were inside?

yop · 17-10-2014 07:52AM

RayM wrote: »

Your post is ridiculous and illogical. Has anyone here actually said they see nothing wrong with people being terrorised in their own homes? I simply don't believe that the death penalty should be used as punishment for burglary. I'm not sure how any rational person could possibly think that is equivalent to justifying people being terrorised in their own homes. I suppose this is what always happens when you try to engage in discussion with someone who clearly isn't capable of rational thought.

I haven't even argued that Nally wasn't justified in shooting or even subsequently beating Ward in self-defence. My objection lies with the fact that he wasn't satisfied with severely wounding him, breaking several bones, or defending himself and his property - he wanted the man dead. Whether he was a "scumbag" is irrelevant.

Is that the response to everyones post?

Court of law has show that what Nally did wasn't ridiculous and illogical and he walks the streets, rightly, a free man.
Ward had as said above been a parasite on society and no one has sympathy for him, if he wants to live by the sword he will die by it, if it wasn't Nally it was going to be someone else.

P Nally has done this country a service in protecting his home and allowing the rest of us to do the same. Nothing ridiculous or illogical about protecting your home from the scumbags and vermin who think they have a right to do so.

Let us know how you get on when you use logic with anyone who enters your house uninvited and with unwelcome intent, I'll let them decide on the logic of leaving or talking to my double barreled.

SEPT 23 1989 · 17-10-2014 08:15AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

The guy was shot in the back running away - it's not acceptable in a civil society.[/B]

people like Ward do not follow the rules of living in a civilised society

hullaballoo · 17-10-2014 08:19AM

If only there was a forum to discuss legal things. Like a Legal Discussion forum or some such...

Moderator: Please leave off the Nally/Ward discussion now and bring the conversation back around to radio. Thanks.

Sean O'Rourke Today Show

Comments