Messages

That's fair. I read your comments as more or less that in family issues etc the courts and Trust wouldn't award custody unless rigours check etc. apologies if picked you up wrong.

As I said, I'm more making the point that custody of the kids can be a misleading bias in cases as our experience of Trust is they are understaffed and some workers incompetent. Which can easily lead to manipulation and distortion. But that's just my experience. Other Trusts I know operate more efficiently and are more competent.

Never even knew non-mols existed until family member was served. Couldn't believe the other party didn't have to be present or made aware of the process. Our barrister told us it would have covered accidental contact but I thought that was strange so will take your word on it.

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

Usually agree with majority of your posts David but having had a family member involved in a DV case, which is still ongoing, in which the children were taken into care by the Trust, can only completely disagree with you in this instance.

In the letter informing said family member of the decision not to prosecute, they were told initially there was insufficient evidence. On the advice of their solicitor they appealed and the subsequent letter effectively said it is a he said/she said matter and they won't be pursuing a prosecution.

These extensive investigations have been non existent and there have certainly not been many experts involved. A single social worker and a guardian appointed by the court are the only people who have been involved with the children.

There have been many suggestions (on both sides I will add) that the children shouldn't be returned to either parent yet the Trust appear ignorant to such and inconsistent at best, incompetent at worst. They also appear to make complete illogical decisions and u-turns for no reason. For example, an application was made to the court by the Trust to reduce parental contact of one parent mentioning they didn't demonstrate the ability to understand the requirements needed to be a parent. The application was to reduce contact to one hour supervised a week. This was rejected by the court who had the opinion current contact (two supervised visits of two hours) should remain. The very next day the trust informed us the same parent would now be getting unsupervised contact for three hours twice a week.

Any dealings I have had with the trust and their understaffed employees, have been an eye opener to the sheer incompetence and/or inability of the Trust at times. The point I am getting is that the "system" so to speak, is far from this infallible, bastion of truth you seem to suggest. Our experience has been the complete opposite.

Lies and misleading statements have regularly been believed by the Trust and not followed up or fact checked.

This is not a suggestion that RG is guilty, more to say in our experience, not being prosecuted and having custody of the kids means sweet f**k all and the Trust can easily be manipulated by someone with a bit of cunning or brains.

In this case, the abuser sought and was granted a temporary ex-parte Non-molestation and Occupation order which upon review and with evidence was immediately scrapped. Maybe you'll explain it better than I can, but my understanding is an ex-parte Non-molestation is brought without representation from the other party and is essentially a restraining order, which is enforceable even if the party whom the order is against isn't aware the other party is in the vicinity. ie they could be walking down the street and not even know the other party is in the same town and yet be arrested for breaching.

In fairness there is a massive difference in winning the McCrory with the equivalent of Kerry and bringing Kilkeel single handedly to the final more suited to a Sligo.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you.

But Clarke weren't alone. It was a freakish time for St Louis football.

Over those couple of seasons he'd teammates of the calibre of James Colgan, Joe Ireland and Pete Fitzpatrick, three of the best players in Ireland for their age group.

Then Gavin Joyce, Eamon McConville, Hugh Magee, Gerard McCartan, who won AI minor medals in 2005.

Luke Howard was involved too, a fine player who I think played in an u21 Ai final.

And something in my head says the O'Reilly brothers were St Louis men too around that time.

Marty was fabulous.

But this wasn't just the Marty show.

This is true, they did have a great group. However you take one of those named players out and they still get to the finals. You take Clarke out and they don't. He was still very very much the main man, despite the others around him. The same can be said of the AI Minor team, a great group, but without Clarke, wouldn't have done what they did. In my opinion.

I'd have the same opinion. The second MacRory year, the game plan seemed to be give him the ball and hope for the best. That year it very much was the Marty Show. His fifth year he was also prolific in St Louis McLarnon & All Ireland B campaign's, man of the match in both finals?

Jamie O'Reilly never was near St Louis and Ben joined the year after Clarke left.

[in general wages have kept pace with inflation]

While there are people struggling, in general wages have kept pace with inflation, and in the ROI the government has indexed tax bands etc. Most people are about the same and do not have a crisis, which seems to showing up the shops.
In Ireland, people have not lost the run of themselves they way they did in 2007.

You read of queues for food vouchers etc, I would be interested in the stories behind these; e.g. excessive rent might be squeezing the food budget.

Not up north they haven't or even close. Are you just talking about the south here because in the north or the remainder of the UK that is very very far from the truth particularly for public sector workers.

Clearly public sector workers are screwed, but someone is getting increases, many in the private sector are doing OK.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/pay-up-75-in-northern-ireland-to-2100-a-month-report/a256063943.html

Not sure I'd use that term given inflation was around 11% the year prior. So not only was there a delay in wage rise but they haven't even kept pace with inflation.

[I would be interested in the stories behind these]

While there are people struggling, in general wages have kept pace with inflation, and in the ROI the government has indexed tax bands etc. Most people are about the same and do not have a crisis, which seems to showing up the shops.
In Ireland, people have not lost the run of themselves they way they did in 2007.

You read of queues for food vouchers etc, I would be interested in the stories behind these; e.g. excessive rent might be squeezing the food budget.

Surprising how easily it could happen - our mortgage fixed rate came to an end a year ago and went from £700 to £1200, childcare bill shortly after went up due to increased staff, heating & electricity cost from £780 to £1100 a month - so there's £820 a month extra we are paying on those two items. Factor in home electricity, gas, food & fuel increases and I can understand how people who were relatively comfortable are suddenly having trouble paying bills and buying food.

Edit - my salary hasn't increase by £820 a month in the same period!

Think one of the big differences which gets ignored is the pension. Excellent pension at end of it by they sure pay for it while working. Not uncommon to see a deduction of 4/500 pm taken out. Compare this to a pension of eg tesco/tyre fitter.

Just one argument but I know what yous are saying

Yeah and what they pay in their employer (taxpayer) is paying in 4/5 times that

So break it down for me, a pension for a teacher who retires at 65 gets what (on average) per month after tax?

Employee putting in anywhere from 7.4% to 12%
Employer putting in a whopping 17.7%

Normal pension is 8% total (4% employee, 3% employer 1% Gov)

Nice work if you can get it.

Plus they're Defined Benefit which are impossible to get in the private sector. A guaranteed income for life which increases with inflation each year - "PI is always applied on the first Monday falling on or after 6 April. PI this year will be 10.1%, which will be applied from 6 April 2023."

Nice wee 10% boost to their pensions this year!

[why are they chosing to go to uk when they are passing through a number of far better countries to get to the uk and in some respect ireland.]

There is a lot of talk that the UK situation is now worse due to Brexit too.

No incentive now for the ex-partners in the EU to stop the migration through their countries to the UK.

Actually it makes sense for them to allow them migrants through to the final destination of the UK. The UK Govt are now going to have to pay the likes of France etc to prevent the migrants from crossing the channel. Instead of working as a partner inside the EU framework.

Crazy decision of Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving for the people of GB/ UK.

The question should be why are they chosing to go to uk when they are passing through a number of far better countries to get to the uk and in some respect ireland. The only answer i can think of is the benefit package must be better in ireland and uk than elsewhere in Europe.

If you stop that then it would solve alot of the issues in that people who then come to the uk and ireland will only do so because they want to and not because its an easy life.

Would be interesting to see the figures compared to France or Germany say over the last 10 years. I'd imagine it isn't a case of UK being the most desired for migrants, although I did read numbers have sky rocketed the past year or so.

[If it keeps going the way it is will more and more people just end up driving around with no insurance?]

If it keeps going the way it is will more and more people just end up driving around with no insurance? Probably worth the risk if you drive an old banger but maybe not so much if you're running around in a 20-30 grand motor.

What would happen if you were stopped? Not in an accident or anything, but just pulled in by the cops and no insurance.

6 points and a huge fine. Also in the north (not sure about the south) they don't need to pull you over and discover it. It flags up when they are driving past you, behind you etc.
Camera on the car picks up your reg and does the search automatically.

How huge would you be talking? More expensive than a years insurance?

Potentially a lot more expensive:

"The police could give you a fixed penalty of £300 and 6 penalty points if you're caught driving a vehicle you're not insured to drive.

If the case goes to court you could get:

an unlimited fine
disqualified from driving
The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases, destroy the vehicle that's being driven uninsured."

Niall McCoy now reporting that Gough considering pulling out. What a shit show

Ciaran Meenagh in with Down & Laverty.

Maguire perfectly entitled to stay and receive his wages while sitting on the bench and not playing. Football no different to any other workplace in that you'll get employees with no motivation to better themselves and coast along collecting their wage.

You'd think with a euro's coming up, regular first team football and securing his England spot would be the priority over money but obviously not.

If I was in a workplace were I effectively got demoted twice (losing captaincy & first team place)and told there was no plans for me, I'd be fairly eager to move on regardless of money owed. Maybe it's different when you're a multimillionaire.

He's hardly coasting along. I assume he turns up to training and gives nothing less than 100% every time. The choice not to play him is the club's. Nothing to do with his "motivation to better himself", whatever the f**k that means in this context.

Of course he is coasting along lol. Sitting on the bench collecting 200k a week is coasting along, regardless if it is the clubs choice not to play him.

'Motivation to better themselves' in this context = play first team football & therefore an England spot, not that hard to understand 

Maguire perfectly entitled to stay and receive his wages while sitting on the bench and not playing. Football no different to any other workplace in that you'll get employees with no motivation to better themselves and coast along collecting their wage.

You'd think with a euro's coming up, regular first team football and securing his England spot would be the priority over money but obviously not.

If I was in a workplace were I effectively got demoted twice (losing captaincy & first team place)and told there was no plans for me, I'd be fairly eager to move on regardless of money owed. Maybe it's different when you're a multimillionaire.

[this was a new thing the Government]

Hi guys...have a query that hopefully some of you can offer me help.

I have a small business (4 year old) and recently the bank (Santander) contacted me asking for information to back up the cash i was lodging as this was a new thing the Government have been pushing them for (all banks). Information like invoices, till receipts, proof of address and utility bills etc that match what I bank, I provided them with everything they asked for and about a month later they contacted me again asking for the tax returns for further info which I reluctantly provided but they said a few weeks after i submitted this that because there is a Water mark on the tax return that it was not acceptable. I downloaded a digital copy from HMRC and sent it to them and they said as there was no signature that it was unacceptable, I explained it's digital tax return taken of HMRC and that there is no section in that for a signature. Long story short whilst on Holiday last week the put a block on my account and I am unable to use my Business account, I can't pay the wages tomorrow and can't pay any bills.

Can I go above the banks heads to Regulatory Authorities or Financial Conduct Authority and report them...I have done everything they asked and provided everything i possibly have and have nothing else to give them. I have nothing to hide, I pay tax and VAT and have all the accounts up to date so WTF is their gripe. Any help or useful info would be appreciated.

P.S. I intend to move banks after this but need a short term solution...

This will be part of their anti money laundering due diligence but certainly isn't something new so don't know why they would tell you that. It looks as if you have been flagged for some suspicious activity or money laundering - usually if a large or unusual transaction occurs but sometimes the algorithm can just flag customers in complete error.

Tax returns can be asked for as part of AML but the fact they didn't accept it due to watermark is ridiculous. The digital copy not being accepted doesn't surprise me, my own bank wouldn't accept their own digital statement for my mortgage. Common sense is usually scarce when it comes to banking processes.

I would call them and ask for a full explanation as to why the account has been frozen, state you have wages to pay and ask them to remove the block. You'll most likely be put through to a junior call center staff member, so ask to speak to someone with more authority if they aren't doing much, and however hard it may be, try and keep the head and be reasonable. I think if they have money laundering suspicions they can freeze your account for up to 38 days.

If they are being unreasonable, mention they aren't complying with the new Consumer Duty regulations which recently came into force, specifically Chapter 9 on Consumer Support. In this case it appears to contradict that firms should;

• put consumers at the heart of their business and focus on delivering good outcomes for customers
• ensure that customers can use their products as reasonably anticipated
• ensure that customers do not face unreasonable barriers (including unreasonable additional costs) during the lifecycle of a product or service

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf

The FCA are putting a big push on banks surrounding Consumer Duty, so use this to your advantage and query how they are complying with it in this case - they have to provide evidence that they are complying with it. Also mention you want to make an official complaint and by law they have to then register your compliant and provide you with a complaint process. Use key buzzwords & terms for this part like 'customer journey has been terrible', 'very poor customer outcome' etc etc. Google their values on their website and stress your experience does not meet these values. You will also be needing financial compensation for loss of funds from having your business account blocked, compensation for late payment off wages and anything else that may be affected (mention this when speaking about unblocking your account also). The length of time it has taken for this could also be unreasonable if it is rolling on.

You certainly can also make a complaint with the FCA and detail the above, as well as the FOS https://help.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/help. The bank should make all this clear to you if you complain (and even if you are unhappy with the service should state it), so make a note if they don't. All their calls should be recorded (again they should mention this) so you can take them up if they don't mention either. You may also be entitled to compensation from the FOS.

The bad news is, this all takes time and unless they remove the block from your account today of their own accord, there is nothing immediately that you can do to get it unfrozen if they refuse I'm afraid.

If you have the funds to pay staff outside that account somewhere, setting up a Starling or Monzo business account and using it to pay is the next best thing. Always useful to have them and some cash sitting in them for future use also.

[That in itself does not mean that your local petrol station makes more money.]

Interesting how many of these big firms' profits have increased by factors of stupid yet they'd have you believe on a day-to-day basis that their margins are being squeezed which is why prices have had to go up. Everyone is at it from oil companies, energy companies, insurance companies, supermarkets etc. It is us mugs at the bottom who are being taken for every penny but sure look over there, there is a boat load of people that look different than us arriving into the country. It is an absolute scandal where the super-rich are getting richer by the minute and everyone else is poorer.

Your statement is indiscriminate. Some companies are making large profits, if you own an oil well or gas field and the price of these things go up then of course you make a big profit. That in itself does not mean that your local petrol station makes more money.

"Recent figures from RAC Fuel Watch show that the average profit margin on a litre of petrol is 10p. For diesel it's a massive 21p. Prior to the pandemic, the long-term margin on both fuels was around 7p per litre"

https://www.nationalworld.com/opinion/as-profit-margins-double-its-hard-not-to-feel-drivers-are-being-taken-for-a-ride-on-fuel-prices-4155088

The above statement may be heavily influenced by supermarkets taking the pi$$, but would suggest that everyone is at it.

[and as a neutral]

Why is it one ref makes them work for a free, and another was giving frees for very littikr in the semi, it's either a free or its not.

According to MR2, the ref was correct when he called a foul in one incident of foul play and still correct when he doesn't call a foul in a similar  or even worse incident of foul play, because apparently it wasn't foul play when the ref decides it wasn't a foul. Or the last resort excuse, it wasn't foul play because of the peculiar viewing angle.

Regardless, a GAA ref  has a mammoth task to ref championship games, I 100% favour having 2 refs  say from group stage onward. There's usually an experience ref  lingering on the sideline whose only duty is to inform the mentors of what's what. I couldn't care less if the 2 refs slightly differed on their application of the rules. Eventually they will end up performing in unison like those synchronized swimmers.
For my money Coldrick was the best at letting a game roll with the punches and blowing up for foul play when appropriate, definitely the best for an Ulster free for all final.

If ref'ing was so simple, as in how everyone here knows better and how it should be applied, then why are we having these discussions?

2 Ref's? f**k me! Clubs struggle to put forward one referee, the fall out rate after completing the course is nearly 50% after the first year, main reason is gobshites either hanging over the fence or on the pitch telling the ref he's a useless cnut!

Some people haven't the first clue of the actual rules, and still questioning the rules when they are explained, As for Sunday's game I haven't seen it on TV, watching it on my phone isn't the same, was raining too which didnt help, I'll watch the game back, as I said earlier

Plenty of Referees haven't a clue on the rules either!  The problem a lot of the time is Refs apply their own interpretation of the rules. Take Sunday for example David Gough influenced the game by not applying the rules of the game consistently.
McCarthy should not have been on the pitch & it could be argued that he allowed Dublin away with overly aggressive late hits (McCarthy, Smalls) & let Costello away with throwing a punch.

If you have played the game you will realise his call to overturn the Clifford free was a cop out. Why did he not consult his umpires on the other decisions?

There is no consistency from game to game and as a neutral it appears The Dubs seem to come out on the right side of these inconsistent performances in the big games.

Lol