Random Thoughts

[mickO)))]

Well then I am sure you would also agree that the Government should be up front and make it clear to people the pros and cons of what a yes vote would mean but instead they are refusing to publish the minutes of meetings discussing the negative side of what will happen if the yes vote wins. How else are people suppose to weigh up the actual issue when they are only shown one side of the argument.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I do agree with that, yes. The minutes should be published. As to what those minutes might reveal, the only guesses I can see for the moment are coming from Michael McDowell, so I'd be applying an equal pinch of salt there as to anything any sitting minister might be saying.

[ochoill]

Roderic O'Gorman has decided that it would not be in the "public interest" to publish the minutes of sixteen government meetings which examined the consequences of amending the constitution in the upcoming referendums in relation to tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers.

Have you a link for this?  Not goading here I just genuinely am out of touch with the discussion on this on any form of social media - unless here today counts

I would absolutely agree the minutes of these meetings should be published too, they do themselves no favours with this shit.  Like I said above I don't have much trust or faith in FF/FG as things stand but unfortunately have to suffer them on a regular basis.  I couldn't see any downside myself to changing this and can only see positives for reforms to welfare and care realistically but am happy to be told otherwise.  Modernising the constitution to suit modern life seems alright to me.  Is there something else I am missing?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Only thing I found so far was a report (in Gript) quoting from a free-wheeling statement by McDowell. I'll take the core claim as fact, that there are minutes of meetings that haven't been published, but the other claims orbiting around that in the article... I'd wait and see myself! 

[mickO)))]

It came from here

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/mcdowell-condemns-o%E2%80%99gorman%E2%80%99s-department%E2%80%99s-foi-cover-up.html#:~:text=Minister%20Roderic%20O'Gorman's%20Department,of%20the%20last%20year%202023.

I didn't see it on Gript I don't even look at that site someone sent me a screen shot of the McDowell quote last night. When I pasted it into google the site above was the first result. The paragraph I posted is an exact quote from the site.

I don't know much about McDowell other than his name sounds familiar and he's a politician but I haven't seen anyone disputing what he is saying. It has been up for over a day so by now would expect someone to be calling him out if it were untrue. He is also not the first person to say things like this I have seen others make similar claims since the rumours of this referendum started this time last year.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

He's a former Tánaiste, was at the centre of more (literally more) than his fair share of political controversies.


Here's something from the Indo on it I just saw:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-says-there-were-upsides-and-downsides-to-choosing-proposed-wording-in-upcoming-referendum/a386089974.html

[ochoill]

It came from here

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/mcdowell-condemns-o%E2%80%99gorman%E2%80%99s-department%E2%80%99s-foi-cover-up.html#:~:text=Minister%20Roderic%20O'Gorman's%20Department,of%20the%20last%20year%202023.

I didn't see it on Gript I don't even look at that site someone sent me a screen shot of the McDowell quote last night. When I pasted it into google the site above was the first result. The paragraph I posted is an exact quote from the site.

I don't know much about McDowell other than his name sounds familiar and he's a politician but I haven't seen anyone disputing what he is saying. It has been up for over a day so by now would expect someone to be calling him out if it were untrue. He is also not the first person to say things like this I have seen others make similar claims since the rumours of this referendum started this time last year.

Cheers for the link.  I agree with him that the info should be released but the rest of it is opinion and suggestion on his part.  The NGO he names (Treoir) I had a look online about and I don't see why they wouldn't be involved in discussions like this - they're the information service for unmarried parents.

Something of an aside here but the term NGO is absolutely bandied about lately as if they are all nefarious, but literally any organisation can be an NGO.  It isn't a particular type of organisation that has hidden hands in anything by any means but the phrase has become synonymous with this, some underlying control group that influences everything.  There are plenty of groups that the state work with for legislation and constitutional changes and a lot of these groups work in social areas, there's going to be a crossover with them either looking for the state to raise services for people, or the state consulting them when working on things.  It's normal but is sold as utterly evil.  Not that you yourself now are saying that or anything but the term has again cropped up as the hidden hand in his article there when he mentions Treoir.  Never mind that McDowell himself on a quick Google donates €60k a year to undisclosed NGOs

I do think that there should absolutely be transparency to the whole thing but I can't see anything with meat on it in his suggestions on voting yes being terrible by any means and I would like to see a modernisation to both the constitution and the services related to the areas I can see linked to the section of it.

[ochoill]

Only thing I found so far was a report (in Gript) quoting from a free-wheeling statement by McDowell. I'll take the core claim as fact, that there are minutes of meetings that haven't been published, but the other claims orbiting around that in the article... I'd wait and see myself! 

Ahh Gript yeah I will stay well clear of anything they have to say about it.  Completely stone totally religiously biased and funded so, operating at a totally contrarian level.  The joy of quitting twitter too is now I never have to suffer any of these rags ever again.

[astfgyl]

Roderic O'Gorman has decided that it would not be in the "public interest" to publish the minutes of sixteen government meetings which examined the consequences of amending the constitution in the upcoming referendums in relation to tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers.

Have you a link for this?  Not goading here I just genuinely am out of touch with the discussion on this on any form of social media - unless here today counts

I would absolutely agree the minutes of these meetings should be published too, they do themselves no favours with this shit.  Like I said above I don't have much trust or faith in FF/FG as things stand but unfortunately have to suffer them on a regular basis.  I couldn't see any downside myself to changing this and can only see positives for reforms to welfare and care realistically but am happy to be told otherwise.  Modernising the constitution to suit modern life seems alright to me.  Is there something else I am missing?

Such a fuckin rant I had typed out to you earlier but I switched tab and fuck no to writing it out again

[astfgyl]

Was in the car with the young lads and the two boys said to me hey dad name something you hate that begins with G.

Well,I says, aaahhh, ummmm, ahhh .... Girls!

Ah dad sure didn't you say you love mam

Oh yeah I did well aaaahhh aammmmm aahhh

I dunno lads I give up...

The Government dad, do you not remember

    

It's working well so far anyway, even though I didn't do it on purpose

Edit: this must be mw version of kids say the darndest things,  with Art Linkletter

[The Butcher]

This is my thoughts pretty much on it, wishy washy and vague. "Strive to support." The 'durable relationships' vote is a big no, the other one, a slight no, I'm not keen on the existing wording but what it's being replaced with seems worse to me.

https://www.thejournal.ie/women-in-the-home-catherine-connolly-6275205-Jan2024/?utm_source=twitter_short

Whatever about the others - Catherine is usually balanced/logical in her critique of legislature.

[ochoill]

Such a fuckin rant I had typed out to you earlier but I switched tab and fuck no to writing it out again

No it's grand we had it out down the phone instead so now nobody gets to read the resolution we came to on it all

Absolutely the wrong thread for this anyway since it is simple pleasures.  Actually talking bollix down the phone is a simple pleasure shared with only a handful of lads.  Way better than text, voice notes of demented stories a close second though.

[astfgyl]

Such a fuckin rant I had typed out to you earlier but I switched tab and fuck no to writing it out again

No it's grand we had it out down the phone instead so now nobody gets to read the resolution we came to on it all

Absolutely the wrong thread for this anyway since it is simple pleasures.  Actually talking bollix down the phone is a simple pleasure shared with only a handful of lads.  Way better than text, voice notes of demented stories a close second though.

A simple pleasure indeed!!!

[astfgyl]

jaysus i don't remember this song fading out like this on this album that I'm absolutely on the fence about whether i think is any good or not

Song doesn't really fade out. You've gone deaf. Never hear anything again

Aieee

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

This is my thoughts pretty much on it, wishy washy and vague. "Strive to support." The 'durable relationships' vote is a big no, the other one, a slight no, I'm not keen on the existing wording but what it's being replaced with seems worse to me.

https://www.thejournal.ie/women-in-the-home-catherine-connolly-6275205-Jan2024/?utm_source=twitter_short

Whatever about the others - Catherine is usually balanced/logical in her critique of legislature.

Good arguments from Connolly on the "women in the home" change. She does add that she is leaning Yes on the definition of the family one though. What is your reason for a big no on that?