The Fine Gael thread

[armaghniac]

If government policy leads to the enforcement of laws, then I am all for it.

[mikehunt]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

[mikehunt]

Seeing the  tabloidesque mock shock horror over the Planning case ( which is of course nothing to do with FG as Mac and Maguire pointed out to the 2 biggest eejits on the Board ) do the Planning Acts and Regulations lay down anything about
- minimum height of person below which Legislation doesn't apply
- Maximum age ditto
- Sex ditto.

If it's not right to prosecute a "little old lady" does it follow that only tall young men can be prosecuted?

A very valid point. Do we even know how many people not fitting into the "little old lady" category have been prosecuted? Is it just that this is the only one that has been highlighted because it was a "little old lady"?

Rossfan has never made a valid point in his life. The fact u agree with him says all. The woman was 90 and did not realise what was going on. They sent her letters, brought her to court and now are trying to chase her for sunk costs. I doubt there are many people in court over having a satellite dish at the front as opposed to the back of the house. Judges would soon put a stop to stupid cases like that being brought to court on a regular basis.

[Maguire01]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

[Maguire01]

Seeing the  tabloidesque mock shock horror over the Planning case ( which is of course nothing to do with FG as Mac and Maguire pointed out to the 2 biggest eejits on the Board ) do the Planning Acts and Regulations lay down anything about
- minimum height of person below which Legislation doesn't apply
- Maximum age ditto
- Sex ditto.

If it's not right to prosecute a "little old lady" does it follow that only tall young men can be prosecuted?

A very valid point. Do we even know how many people not fitting into the "little old lady" category have been prosecuted? Is it just that this is the only one that has been highlighted because it was a "little old lady"?

Rossfan has never made a valid point in his life. The fact u agree with him says all. The woman was 90 and did not realise what was going on. They sent her letters, brought her to court and now are trying to chase her for sunk costs. I doubt there are many people in court over having a satellite dish at the front as opposed to the back of the house. Judges would soon put a stop to stupid cases like that being brought to court on a regular basis.

Well the judge convicted in this case, did he not? And unless you have stats to show that this was an isolated case of DCC enforcing legislation, then you don't know what you're talking about.

But I also doubt there are many in court over a satellite dish as most people would take action following enforcement notices, thereby avoiding court.

[Rossfan]

The 2 Bucko's still resolutely defending their joint title of GAA Boards biggest eejits

[mikehunt]

The 2 Bucko's still resolutely defending their joint title of GAA Boards biggest eejits

We've a bit to go to take your crown.

[mikehunt]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

Your defence of Irish Water and now the council for harassing a 90 year old lady. What next? NRA on the gun control thread no doubt.

[foxcommander]

The 2 Bucko's still resolutely defending their joint title of GAA Boards biggest eejits

+1

How would you be able to tell if you're "ignoring" posters? 

Shall I stick a +1 under everyone's post like you do? Or have you learned to think for yourself yet?

+1

[Maguire01]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

Your defence of Irish Water and now the council for harassing a 90 year old lady. What next? NRA on the gun control thread no doubt.

I'm not actually defending them. But I wouldn't expect you to grasp that, given how everything else is going over your head.

[mikehunt]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

Your defence of Irish Water and now the council for harassing a 90 year old lady. What next? NRA on the gun control thread no doubt.

I'm not actually defending them. But I wouldn't expect you to grasp that, given how everything else is going over your head.

You always defend public service waste and in fact encourage it from time to time. I don't pay too much heed to your ramblings so maybe missed out on what your point was, if you actually had one.

Your "ah shur it'll do" attitude" is typical of why this country is a joke. You never once commented on GSOC, Dennis O Brien, Irish Water debacle once it became obvious what was going on etc but come on to defend the Blueshirts at every opportunity except when it's impossible. You stay quiet on the major issues like democracy, transparency and accountability.

[Maguire01]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

Your defence of Irish Water and now the council for harassing a 90 year old lady. What next? NRA on the gun control thread no doubt.

I'm not actually defending them. But I wouldn't expect you to grasp that, given how everything else is going over your head.

You always defend public service waste and in fact encourage it from time to time. I don't pay too much heed to your ramblings so maybe missed out on what your point was, if you actually had one.

You see that's the problem. You don't even read and/or understand what someone is saying before you jump in. That's why you, as you put it yourself, 'miss the point'.

I never defend public sector waste. I definitely never encourage it. If you can point to specific examples to contradict me, please do. On this thread, for example, you had it in your head that I was posting to defend DCC. I wasn't.

Your "ah shur it'll do" attitude" is typical of why this country is a joke. You never once commented on GSOC, Dennis O Brien, Irish Water debacle once it became obvious what was going on etc but come on to defend the Blueshirts at every opportunity except when it's impossible. You stay quiet on the major issues like democracy, transparency and accountability.

Please point out all those times I've "defended the Blueshirts" - specific examples.

And I can't comment on every thread, I just don't have the time, but am often drawn to populist tabloid nonsense that 'misses the point'.

[Farrandeelin]

Aw, I was hoping the News would start off with a breaking message of an election. Especially since it was 10 minutes late starting.

[Rossfan]

Your man was keeping them guessing today Farr on his good news visits.

[mikehunt]

Now you're just making up new definitions. It doesn't matter who the cost is recovered from.

I'm just matching your habit of being pedantic. Solicitors fees have been paid, are the solicitors going to refund? If not then this cost is sunk.

You're not being pedantic, you're just making things up. If the legal fees are recovered it doesn't matter from who.

Either way, the definition of a sunk cost is a distraction. You were claiming that DCC was chasing this woman for money because they had reduced revenues, when in fact she was being chased for a conviction - a process that costs the council money.

Your defence of Irish Water and now the council for harassing a 90 year old lady. What next? NRA on the gun control thread no doubt.

I'm not actually defending them. But I wouldn't expect you to grasp that, given how everything else is going over your head.

You always defend public service waste and in fact encourage it from time to time. I don't pay too much heed to your ramblings so maybe missed out on what your point was, if you actually had one.

You see that's the problem. You don't even read and/or understand what someone is saying before you jump in. That's why you, as you put it yourself, 'miss the point'.

I never defend public sector waste. I definitely never encourage it. If you can point to specific examples to contradict me, please do. On this thread, for example, you had it in your head that I was posting to defend DCC. I wasn't.

Your "ah shur it'll do" attitude" is typical of why this country is a joke. You never once commented on GSOC, Dennis O Brien, Irish Water debacle once it became obvious what was going on etc but come on to defend the Blueshirts at every opportunity except when it's impossible. You stay quiet on the major issues like democracy, transparency and accountability.

Please point out all those times I've "defended the Blueshirts" - specific examples.

And I can't comment on every thread, I just don't have the time, but am often drawn to populist tabloid nonsense that 'misses the point'.

You have championed Irish Water on numerous occasions. That is encouraging public sector waste and defending Fine Gael.