The Fine Gael thread

[foxcommander]

I thought you were a big law and order man anyway foxy?? You certainly don't approve of refugees breaking the law from what you've said

I don't approve of the law being broken in any form. Merely pointing out the vigorous nature of which this lady was brought to justice in comparison to the bigger crooks around.

[mikehunt]

So you're going off on a complete tangent now?? 

No, I certainly don't deny that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt (and indeed under previous governments, not just here but internationally)

To bring this back to your original point though in relation to this case, do I think that this govt is responsible for this particular case?? Not in the slightest. Some over-zealous clown of a civil servant is to blame - he and his bosses should have better things to do besides bringing something like this to court.

It is decisions made by the govt that are resulting in the City Council chasing people for money. Their revenues are reduced so they look elsewhere and go for easy targets like 90 year old ladies. There is absolutely no tangent here, govt policies are resulting in 90 year old ladies being chased.  (sarky smiley face right back at you. always an argument winner!!!!)

The €1,500 is to go towards Dublin City Council's legal costs for taking her to court. It doesn't even cover all their costs - it's a contribution. A net deficit for the Council in bringing this case. That's an odd way to boost revenue.

So they were right to chase her for 1500? Is this what you are saying.  Makes as much sense as your strategy to close the public deficit by implementing a super quango.

[mikehunt]

It is decisions made by the govt that are resulting in the City Council chasing people for money. Their revenues are reduced so they look elsewhere and go for easy targets like 90 year old ladies. There is absolutely no tangent here, govt policies are resulting in 90 year old ladies being chased.  (sarky smiley face right back at you. always an argument winner!!!!)

How will a couple of grand in legal costs boost revenue for the City Council?

Maths not your strong point. If they didnt get the 1500 then they'd have 1500 less.

[macdanger2]

Do you even read these articles or just look at the headlines??

She was taken to court in order to get her to remove a satellite dish. If it hadn't gone to court, there would have been no monetary return to the council. They weren't following her for cash.

[Maguire01]

It is decisions made by the govt that are resulting in the City Council chasing people for money. Their revenues are reduced so they look elsewhere and go for easy targets like 90 year old ladies. There is absolutely no tangent here, govt policies are resulting in 90 year old ladies being chased.  (sarky smiley face right back at you. always an argument winner!!!!)

How will a couple of grand in legal costs boost revenue for the City Council?

Maths not your strong point. If they didnt get the 1500 then they'd have 1500 less.

And if they hadn't taken her to court, they'd wouldn't have incurred the legal costs (of more than 1500) in the first place, therefore as a strategy to generate revenue, it's has the odd flaw.

[Maguire01]

So you're going off on a complete tangent now?? 

No, I certainly don't deny that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt (and indeed under previous governments, not just here but internationally)

To bring this back to your original point though in relation to this case, do I think that this govt is responsible for this particular case?? Not in the slightest. Some over-zealous clown of a civil servant is to blame - he and his bosses should have better things to do besides bringing something like this to court.

It is decisions made by the govt that are resulting in the City Council chasing people for money. Their revenues are reduced so they look elsewhere and go for easy targets like 90 year old ladies. There is absolutely no tangent here, govt policies are resulting in 90 year old ladies being chased.  (sarky smiley face right back at you. always an argument winner!!!!)

The €1,500 is to go towards Dublin City Council's legal costs for taking her to court. It doesn't even cover all their costs - it's a contribution. A net deficit for the Council in bringing this case. That's an odd way to boost revenue.

So they were right to chase her for 1500? Is this what you are saying.  Makes as much sense as your strategy to close the public deficit by implementing a super quango.

No, it isn't. Are you reading words that aren't there?

[Rossfan]

Maguire and Mac- I suspect ye can now see why I've put them 2 on my ignore list 

[heffo]

The Shinners housing policy would be to stick her in a safe house and let a couple of 'On the runs' look after her.

[foxcommander]

Maguire and Mac- I suspect ye can now see why I've put them 2 on my ignore list 

[mikehunt]

Do you even read these articles or just look at the headlines??

She was taken to court in order to get her to remove a satellite dish. If it hadn't gone to court, there would have been no monetary return to the council. They weren't following her for cash.

At this point in time they are following her for the cash. Their decision to take her to court was typical public sector incompetence. Legal costs are now sunk costs. Chasing her for 1500 is now a revenue generating exercise.

[Maguire01]

Do you even read these articles or just look at the headlines??

She was taken to court in order to get her to remove a satellite dish. If it hadn't gone to court, there would have been no monetary return to the council. They weren't following her for cash.

At this point in time they are following her for the cash. Their decision to take her to court was typical public sector incompetence. Legal costs are now sunk costs. Chasing her for 1500 is now a revenue generating exercise.

A 'sunk cost' is, by definition, a cost that can't be recovered. The 1500 is to recover the legal costs.

[mikehunt]

So you're going off on a complete tangent now?? 

No, I certainly don't deny that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt (and indeed under previous governments, not just here but internationally)

To bring this back to your original point though in relation to this case, do I think that this govt is responsible for this particular case?? Not in the slightest. Some over-zealous clown of a civil servant is to blame - he and his bosses should have better things to do besides bringing something like this to court.

It is decisions made by the govt that are resulting in the City Council chasing people for money. Their revenues are reduced so they look elsewhere and go for easy targets like 90 year old ladies. There is absolutely no tangent here, govt policies are resulting in 90 year old ladies being chased.  (sarky smiley face right back at you. always an argument winner!!!!)

The €1,500 is to go towards Dublin City Council's legal costs for taking her to court. It doesn't even cover all their costs - it's a contribution. A net deficit for the Council in bringing this case. That's an odd way to boost revenue.

So they were right to chase her for 1500? Is this what you are saying.  Makes as much sense as your strategy to close the public deficit by implementing a super quango.

No, it isn't. Are you reading words that aren't there?

The legal costs are sunk. Getting the 1500 now is money in so could be called revenue or income or blackmail of a 90 year old. Your Irish Water defence was wafer thin so good luck trying to defend this latest public sector fcuk up. To repeat my point for those a bit slow on the pick up. Resources are tight because of govt policy. This directly leads to them chasing a 90 year old. The decision to go to court in the first place was incompetence. In boomier times they may not have decided to go after her for the 1500.

I now expect the person who made this decision to be rewarded with a promotion and a move to Irish Water a la Tierney who excelled at incompetence and was rewarded with Irish Water gig.

[mikehunt]

Maguire and Mac- I suspect ye caun now see why I've put them 2 on my ignore list 

Christ have u nothing else to contribute? Surely you have something else to say. ....... actually I'm over estimating you.

[foxcommander]

Do you even read these articles or just look at the headlines??

She was taken to court in order to get her to remove a satellite dish. If it hadn't gone to court, there would have been no monetary return to the council. They weren't following her for cash.

At this point in time they are following her for the cash. Their decision to take her to court was typical public sector incompetence. Legal costs are now sunk costs. Chasing her for 1500 is now a revenue generating exercise.

A 'sunk cost' is, by definition, a cost that can't be recovered. The 1500 is to recover the legal costs.

Not to mention the man hours in wages and fees used up in chasing this 90 year old woman.
Go after the easy targets lads...

[macdanger2]

Do you even read these articles or just look at the headlines??

She was taken to court in order to get her to remove a satellite dish. If it hadn't gone to court, there would have been no monetary return to the council. They weren't following her for cash.

At this point in time they are following her for the cash. Their decision to take her to court was typical public sector incompetence. Legal costs are now sunk costs. Chasing her for 1500 is now a revenue generating exercise.

So was she taken to court to raise funds for the council or not??

The problem in this case is not that the lady has to pay 1500, chances are she's more than able to afford it. The problem is that the case went to court at all