Election 2011 - General

[pineapple stu]

Again proves that there is one law for them, one for us.

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.

[Billsthoughts]

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.

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.

[Dodge]

Plus like most well known sayings, it isn't meant to be taken that literally

[pineapple stu]

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.

[BohsPartisan]

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.

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.

[pineapple stu]

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.

[dahamsta]

Again proves that there is one law for them, one for us.

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.

Replying is one thing (and it isn't actually them who reply, don't cod yourself)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Don't see them jumping due to public opinion right now on austerity or on resigning from government before the budget.

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.

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 get your point but we're really talking a miniscule amount for those things compared to what the wealthy get away with.

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.

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

[Macy]

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.

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!

[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.

[dahamsta]

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.)

[BohsPartisan]

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.

[dahamsta]

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.

[BonnieShels]

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

[dahamsta]

I'll jizz myself with joy if FF drop into single figures.

[BonnieShels]

I'll jizz myself with joy if FF drop into single figures.

I'll join ya.
If only to rub it in Dermo Ahern's homophobic face...

Oooh.

[culloty82]

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.

[BonnieShels]

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.

[Macy]

FF are dead if they are not even the main opposition!

[peadar1987]

Which I translate as a Labour-SF government eep.

Wouldn't be the worst. I don't like SF, but I think labour could temper their crazy a little!

[ArdeeBhoy]

Which I translate as a Labour-SF government

90 years or so too late, but it'd be a start.
Though whoever wins could be so unpopular because of the austerity measures, it might let in one of the previous shower next time round?