The Fine Gael thread

[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.

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...

Absolutely fox but literally NOTHING to do with the current govt!!

[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...

Absolutely fox but literally NOTHING to do with the current govt!!

Funding for these bozos comes from Department of Finance and ultimate responsibility for the councils lies with Alan Kelly's Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

[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?

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'm not trying to defend the actions of the DCC. I'm just pointing out the holes in your contribution.

This council brought this woman to court to seek a criminal conviction for breach of planning laws, not for money. The woman lost her case and the council sought recovery of their legal costs from her. There's no way of interpreting that as a revenue generation move. At best, the council would break even.

If costs can be recovered they are not 'sunk'.

[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.

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...

Absolutely fox but literally NOTHING to do with the current govt!!

Funding for these bozos comes from Department of Finance and ultimate responsibility for the councils lies with Alan Kelly's Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Well part of their funding comes from the LPT but regardless, are you seriously suggesting that the minister of environment should get involved or even be aware of this kind of stuff?? Come on, I don't believe for a second that you actually think that.

The day to day running of the country at a micro level is determined by civil servants who remain in place regardless of what party is in power.

[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'm not trying to defend the actions of the DCC. I'm just pointing out the holes in your contribution.

This council brought this woman to court to seek a criminal conviction for breach of planning laws, not for money. The woman lost her case and the council sought recovery of their legal costs from her. There's no way of interpreting that as a revenue generation move. At best, the council would break even.

If costs can be recovered they are not 'sunk'.

Legal costs I assume have already been paid to their solicitors. Are they recoverable from their solicitors? If not, then they are sunk costs. They are now chasing their losses. If they get the 1,500 from this 90 year old woman then  this will be money in which could thus be deemed to be "revenue", "income" or "cash from blackmail".

[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.

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

Where did I say taking her to court was a money generating exercise? The legal costs are paid = expense. They are now chasing her for 1,500, if they are successful then this will be money in, revenue, income or whatever you prefer to call it.

You think there is no problem chasing a 90 year old woman for money? You heartless wagon. Whether she can afford it or not is a separate issue.

Also you didn't answer whether Inda sending his goon across to Callinan was a breach of your "separation of powers". In your own time, shill.

[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.

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...

Absolutely fox but literally NOTHING to do with the current govt!!

Funding for these bozos comes from Department of Finance and ultimate responsibility for the councils lies with Alan Kelly's Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Well part of their funding comes from the LPT but regardless, are you seriously suggesting that the minister of environment should get involved or even be aware of this kind of stuff?? Come on, I don't believe for a second that you actually think that.

The day to day running of the country at a micro level is determined by civil servants who remain in place regardless of what party is in power.

Council budgets are allocated by govt. Their policies dictate how much they can allocate. A state owned bank, IBRC are alleged to have given a  1.5% loans to Dinny O Brien, while the govt were borrowing at about 7%.

I'm not sure how you can think that decisions like this do not impact spending at lower levels of government. You have admitted that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt. This is anecdotal evidence of what govt policy has resulted in. Councils chasing 90 year old women for 1,500. Best little country to do business in (if you're wealthy). This is no different than all those cancer patients who had their medical cards taken away because they weren't dying quick enough. It's the people who are unable to defend themselves that are being targeted. The poor, sick and old.

[macdanger2]

Degenerating into name-calling already mikey?? 

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.

Now it seems like you're saying here that the council are chasing this lady for money. You can try to twist what you were saying and talk about sunken costs if you like but if you take your argument to the nth degree then almost every cost incurred by the govt (health service, police force, etc.) are sunken costs and shouldn't be "chased".

You think there is no problem chasing a 90 year old woman for money? You heartless wagon. Whether she can afford it or not is a separate issue

You've definitely been listening to too much Joe Duffy 

You are trying to relate the cut in govt funding to the council following this lady for costs after taking her to court. There is no such relationship. Has the council policy been changed since their funding was cut such that they now look for costs in all cases they win?? If you can point to such a change in policy, then you may have a basis for relating the two. If such a decision was taken, then it's surely the responsibility of Dublin City council – I believe SF are currently in the hotseat there?? For what it's worth, I don't think this mess is their responsibility either – politicians aren't supposed to be involved in the day-to-day matters such as this. If the council takes someone to court and wins, then they should generally seek costs unless the person is genuinely unable to pay....which leads to.......

The actual decision you should be focussing on is the one which resulted in this lady ending up in court in the first place and which subsequently lead to her being followed for costs. That decision is as a result of the incompetence of a civil servant who thought that this would be a worthwhile way to spend his time and our money.

As regards Callinan, that is entirely irrelevant to the point you made (i.e. that the govt are responsible for this lady being followed for money).

It's a sad reflection on the standard of opposition to the govt that with all the genuine issues cropping up on a weekly basis that you could be taking them to task over, you seem to be unable to do so.

[macdanger2]

Council budgets are allocated by govt. Their policies dictate how much they can allocate. A state owned bank, IBRC are alleged to have given a  1.5% loans to Dinny O Brien, while the govt were borrowing at about 7%.
I'm not sure how you can think that decisions like this do not impact spending at lower levels of government. You have admitted that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt. This is anecdotal evidence of what govt policy has resulted in. Councils chasing 90 year old women for 1,500. Best little country to do business in (if you're wealthy). This is no different than all those cancer patients who had their medical cards taken away because they weren't dying quick enough. It's the people who are unable to defend themselves that are being targeted. The poor, sick and old.

You're off on a tangent again Mike - an entirely legitimate discussion to have but it has ZERO relevance to this particular case.

As I said, there are plenty of genuine issues you could be raising in relation to the govt but instead you choose the tabloid, "look at the govt chasing a poor old 90 year old woman" story when in fact it has literally nothing to do with govt

[mikehunt]

Council budgets are allocated by govt. Their policies dictate how much they can allocate. A state owned bank, IBRC are alleged to have given a  1.5% loans to Dinny O Brien, while the govt were borrowing at about 7%.
I'm not sure how you can think that decisions like this do not impact spending at lower levels of government. You have admitted that there has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich under this govt. This is anecdotal evidence of what govt policy has resulted in. Councils chasing 90 year old women for 1,500. Best little country to do business in (if you're wealthy). This is no different than all those cancer patients who had their medical cards taken away because they weren't dying quick enough. It's the people who are unable to defend themselves that are being targeted. The poor, sick and old.

You're off on a tangent again Mike - an entirely legitimate discussion to have but it has ZERO relevance to this particular case.

As I said, there are plenty of genuine issues you could be raising in relation to the govt but instead you choose the tabloid, "look at the govt chasing a poor old 90 year old woman" story when in fact it has literally nothing to do with govt

Well, if you don't believe that govt policy impacts decision making at all levels of the public service then i'm glad we don't agree, you are clearly wrong. You still haven't answered the separation of powers issue u threw out earlier. Do you think Inda crossed the line when sacking Callinan?

[macdanger2]

Mike, this isn't a media interview where you (as the lovely Miriam or Dobbo) get to randomly throw questions at me as if I'm some sort of spokesperson for Enda Kenny. It's a discussion board where people make comments and others comment on what has been said. If you have a position on the whole Callinan affair, fire away and post it here. If I'm interested in what you say or take issue with anything you have to say I'll reply to you.

[mikehunt]

Mike, this isn't a media interview where you (as the lovely Miriam or Dobbo) get to randomly throw questions at me as if I'm some sort of spokesperson for Enda Kenny. It's a discussion board where people make comments and others comment on what has been said. If you have a position on the whole Callinan affair, fire away and post it here. If I'm interested in what you say or take issue with anything you have to say I'll reply to you.

Ure the one that said govt don't interefere in things that are outside their remit. I just mentioned the Callinan sacking as one example where separation of duties are ignored by the current govt.

[Rossfan]

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?

[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?

Why isn't everyone with a satellite dish at the front of their house brought to court?

Because it is govt policy to go after those who are most vulnerable. This approach feeds down through the ranks, something public sector "workers" obviously approve of.

Now get back to that trough!!!!

[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...

Absolutely fox but literally NOTHING to do with the current govt!!

Funding for these bozos comes from Department of Finance and ultimate responsibility for the councils lies with Alan Kelly's Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Well part of their funding comes from the LPT but regardless, are you seriously suggesting that the minister of environment should get involved or even be aware of this kind of stuff?? Come on, I don't believe for a second that you actually think that.

The day to day running of the country at a micro level is determined by civil servants who remain in place regardless of what party is in power.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that the government does actually play a role in all of this.
It's up to the department of local government to oversee how funds are being allocated and used (and wasted) - otherwise they aren't doing their job. Wasting judges/court time and taxpayers money into the bargain.