Printable View
No it doesn't. Maybe it shows that they can afford better legal representation than you, but the law is the same for all - you can't falsely accuse someone of something illegal (dodging tax in this case). If I publicly and in writing accuse you of dodging tax by claiming medical expenses relief, you would have recourse to take me to court over it too. That you mayn't be able to afford to do so - or even have the inclination to do so - is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I would say it is very relevant to the discussion. Charles Haughey used the threat of expensive legal action to hide obvious wrong doing for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Plus like most well known sayings, it isn't meant to be taken that literally
That's different though. The case here is that if you falsely accuse someone of something illegal, then if they sue you, that doesn't prove that there's one law for them and one for us. And in any case, the law is the same even in the case you quoted; it may well constitute bullying, but that doesn't mean there's one law for them and one for us.
The term "one law for them and one law for us" doesn't mean there are literally two different laws and it is adequately illlustrated by Billsthoughts. There may not be two different legal frameworks but the ability for some to use the system and others not to because of personal wealth has the same affect.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
It is also well illustrated by the fact that politicians and speculators involved in planning corruption end up in tribunals rather than the courts like people who don't pay bin charges or are involved in small scale welfare fraud.
Still doesn't mean you can go around falsely accusing people of dodging tax, which is what you seemed to used the phrase to defend doing.
stu has convered this adequately. The law is the law. Moreover, your representatives write and/or enact these laws, so the following applies here too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I've actually been a lobbyist on behalf of a small but relatively successful pressure group, and of course myself, so I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my hat. So:Quote:
Replying is one thing (and it isn't actually them who reply, don't cod yourself)
- Of course they don't write every response, in the same way you wouldn't write every response if a very large part of your job was correspondence. They do, however, generally dictate their own responses, which is essentially the same thing. Generally of course, not always; some delegate, some send form letters, some don't even reply. There's muppets in every field.
- Of course they try to fob you off, that's how politics works; that's why pressure groups have the word "pressure" in the name. If you're not happy with their response, whether it comes directly from them or indirectly from a Minister, you have to refute their response and hit back. Again, it's not an all-consuming affair, it takes as much time to as it took to write your response to me.
- Things do happen. I've had TDs and MEPs vote according to my wishes, and although it's very hard to know whether they would have voted that way anyway, if people don't get in touch and make their feelings known, they will vote with the way those companies and wealthy people you have so much disdain for will ask them to. I've met TDs, had coffee and lunch with them, and they will listen - and discuss - if you have something valid to say. And my colleagues in IrelandOffline have met ministers and encouraged them to implement things like government-mandated flat-rate internet access. If it wasn't for the pressure they generated on top of the commercial lobbying, I'd wonder if we'd ever have had it.
Marching is very different to lobbying, and we both know that in the grand scheme of things, a 50k march isn't going to change anything. If perhaps 1m+ people descended on Dail Eireann, and a few hundred occupied the Dail successfully for a few days, there might be more success. That won't happen because we're just a lazy, lax nation of people.Quote:
Don't see them jumping due to public opinion right now on austerity or on resigning from government before the budget.
If an equivalent or less number of people wrote to their TD and told them, in no uncertain terms - and followed up on it, both with replies and on election day - that if they vote for the budget they will not appear on their ballot card, the budget would likely fail and the government would likely fall. I have no proof for that, but I have absolutely no doubt it would be the case.
I'm not arguing with that, but they're just as entitled as you while those reliefs exist, and complaining here about it will achieve even less than your estimation of the affect complaining to your TD about it will.Quote:
I get your point but we're really talking a miniscule amount for those things compared to what the wealthy get away with.
Do yourself a favour and break The Oirish Way mold. Take your complaints here, reframe them, and send them to your representatives. Which is more likely to actually change something? Because I can tell you right here and now, much as I love ye all posting here, ye'll change feck all doing it.
adam
Gotta say, I wouldn't equate tax dodging to only tax evasion. Tax dodging to me is evasion and avoidance. No idea how that would stand up in court, so I'll know to be careful in future when dishing out distain!Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Well yeah. I was going with dahamsta's definition really. It does sound to me more like tax evasion, and I think that was the way it was meant as well.
It must be true, I read it in the Sun.
(In an odd way, that's where my definition comes from. Not the fact that they use it, but the regularity with which they're sued over it. For that reason, if someone here called someone a tax dodger, I'd presume they meant tax evader and I'd deal with it that way. Perhaps I'm biased because I'm considered - wholly incorrectly - a publisher.)
Tax dodging is not a legal definition and it is well illustrated by Macy's point which is the way I meant it andcould easily be argued in court. It would be a pretty flimsy defamation case and I'd wager not many would want to take it as the amount of tax they legally avoid would become public knowledge.
Also, I wouldn't consider myself a practitioner of the Oirish way DH. Probably more the continental way and my occassional posts on here are by no means a proxy war by keyboard.
I never said it was a legal definition BP, and my point stands. When the media stops getting sued for calling people tax dodgers, I'll be happy to accept a different definition.
I wasn't calling you in particular a practitioner of the Oirish way, just that that's the way I view people that complain in public, rather than in a way that actually has any semblance of a chance of achieving something. You've obviously done it in the past, I recognise your failures, and sympathise with them. Unfortunately persistance is the only way to achieve anything with a politician. Complain to them first, us later.
New poll out tonight...
Fine Gael 32%
Labour 24%
Sinn Féin 16%
Fianna Fáil 13%
Greens 3%
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1202/politics.html
I'll jizz myself with joy if FF drop into single figures.
I'll join ya. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
If only to rub it in Dermo Ahern's homophobic face...
Oooh.
A statistician at NUI Maynooth has come up with the following from the poll numbers:
FG 67
Lab 50
SF 22
Oth 15
FF 12
Only Canada would have seen anything like it.
Which I translate as a Labour-SF government eep.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
FF are dead if they are not even the main opposition!
Wouldn't be the worst. I don't like SF, but I think labour could temper their crazy a little!Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
90 years or so too late, but it'd be a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Though whoever wins could be so unpopular because of the austerity measures, it might let in one of the previous shower next time round?
But who will temper Labour's crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Really I can't see SF jumping so high and FF falling so low.
SF poll results never translate into seat numbers. FF will still, unfortunately be in existence. I think if we have an FG-Labour super-majority governnent, ie. somewhere in the region of 110-120 seats then I think that they could manage to put through whatever measures are needed to be done in the country to fix it.
I've a fuzzy feeling this morning looking at those FF figures so forgive some of my hyperbole.
Oh to have a first past the post system for this election only. That would sort FF out permanently.
Wouldn't that have been the ultimate irony if that was the end of them after Dev proposing that in the forties.
It's still disconcerting that 13% still think they are the answer.
Though to what question, god only knows. I can only hope they head the way of the PDs and election 2016 sees a proper left v right, FG v Labour-SF election.
I don't think there's enough data to support that assertion. SF's rise in interest has had, what, 2-4 data points? Even that's a stretch. Plus of course using polls as a data point either way is just a waste of time, the way they're run is dodgy at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Very true, but look at the last election... they were getting fairly decent poll results but they didn't end up with the seats that the polls suggested.
That would be data point number 3 or 4. I don't mean to be rude, but did you not understand my post?
I completely misunderstood your point. Why I ever bothered to comment on statistics whilst hungover I'll never know.
I find it's best to avoid the subject while sober too. ;)
I try to avoid it at all costs.
Very quiet day politically. Probably nothing going to happen until Wednesday.
Wouldn't trust polls to any great degree. There is a large cohort of the electorate out there that has been voting FF and I'd take any indication from them that they'll vote any other way with a large pinch of salt. As likely as not they just won't vote at all which may actually be something of a help to the 13%+? who actually will vote FF.
Saw a lass on PK last night who was a classic case study. Frustrated, fervent FF supporter who is -on evidence presented fairly uninterested in politics itself beyond calling Sarah whatserface a blueshirt. She just supports FF the same way she supports ...I dunno ...Tipp hurlin', ManU and Mary Byrne in X factor.
But she still gets to put an X in a box and as far as she is concerned, despite some soapy comment when pressed by Pat about 'the left gettin together' that kind of trailed off, her voting choice will be FF or stay home.
Too many out there like that for the real knockout blow to be delivered.
Funny, I see it the other way round. If SF could temper the Labour guys and their silly notions:DQuote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Well the FF charm offensive began in earnest on Monday's FFrontline. Then we had commentators talking about Cowens competence in interviews over the last few days. And then there's the interview on FFTV with the propagandist-in-chief O'Callaghan.
We are where we are.
:o:o:oQuote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
MOC is just easy on politicians, whether it's high profile interviews, or election debates. Her moderating to a cut-throat row in the studio is "we have to leave it there".
Ah now, she's worse than that. Definitely gets hard nipples talking to the Natural Party of Government. Sigh. Can't believe I wrote that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Can't believe what I am now picturing...Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
MOC standing over Mattie McGrath and Ned O'Keeffe with a whip and a jar of Mayonnaise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebeard
Miracle WHIP!
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=XgmTvQ...eature=related
One of the most embarrassing things I ever heard. I heard the entire NOK bull. My lord it was tough to. He is the king of the gombeens.
What can you say about that, wow just wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
He reminds me of Killeen, going down with the FF ship old school style.
And FF supporters wonder why we think they're strange?
Media Leanings:
Will be interesting to see what angle the Sunday indo adopts in the coming months: they've already flip-flopped from being Ahern cheerleaders and writing Kenny off as a lightweight to being fully behind Fine Gael at the moment, and of course we've already discussed RTE.
FF: RTE TV and radio.
FG: Sindo, Indo, George Hook
Neutral: Local papers and radio, all other papers, Newstalk, Today FM.
INM are just going back to their roots.
I wouldn't call today fm neutral... depends on the show.