Planet Rugby Forum

nardol wrote:
Don't go throwing out insults because you made a claim that's complete BS and have now made a hole you can't get out of.

Saying the state will not take the money off the sick lady has no influence on the arguments of law.

State appealing indicates they want to win the case... or why appeal? This was a retort to you saying that the Minister not wanting the money back is interfering with the judiciary because it indicates he doesn't want to win.

Even your strawman argument is wrong.

A minister telling a court that he's appealing a judgment but that he won't take the money back from the Respondent is clearly inviting that court to find for him. That's utterly inappropriate. If you don't understand the rationale for the law surrounding public discussion of a sub judice matter, that's on you.

School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well.
The problem though is they don't do enough PE. One hour a week in my daughter's place, FFS.
There's already some kids in my daughter's class who could be pushing Type 2 diabetes in a few years.

Leinsterman wrote:School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well.
The problem though is they don't do enough PE. One hour a week in my daughter's place, FFS.
There's already some kids in my daughter's class who could be pushing Type 2 diabetes in a few years.

More hippy talk.

I want the kids doing more sport in school. That's hardly hippy talk.

anonymous_joe wrote:

nardol wrote:
Don't go throwing out insults because you made a claim that's complete BS and have now made a hole you can't get out of.

Saying the state will not take the money off the sick lady has no influence on the arguments of law.

State appealing indicates they want to win the case... or why appeal? This was a retort to you saying that the Minister not wanting the money back is interfering with the judiciary because it indicates he doesn't want to win.

Even your strawman argument is wrong.

A minister telling a court that he's appealing a judgment but that he won't take the money back from the Respondent is clearly inviting that court to find for him. That's utterly inappropriate. If you don't understand the rationale for the law surrounding public discussion of a sub judice matter, that's on you.

You're really scrabbling now

Sub judice has next to NO relevance outside of criminal cases. In fact freedom of speech for non criminal cases almost in every instance weighs more heavily.

And since when do arguments of law get clarified backwards?

The appeal won't be before a jury I assume? In which case your sub judice argument holds no weight at all.

Leinsterman wrote:I want the kids doing more sport in school. That's hardly hippy talk.

You want them dressed however they so please.

Leinsterman wrote:School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well.
The problem though is they don't do enough PE. One hour a week in my daughter's place, FFS.
There's already some kids in my daughter's class who could be pushing Type 2 diabetes in a few years.

It’s insane. It should be 1 hour per day, it’s more important than an hour’s lesson at this stage. We need to wake up

Mullet 2 wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:I want the kids doing more sport in school. That's hardly hippy talk.

You want them dressed however they so please.

You'll be hard pressed to find where I wrote that.

Duff Paddy wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well.
The problem though is they don't do enough PE. One hour a week in my daughter's place, FFS.
There's already some kids in my daughter's class who could be pushing Type 2 diabetes in a few years.

It’s insane. It should be 1 hour per day, it’s more important than an hour’s lesson at this stage. We need to wake up

If they ditched religion then they'd have plenty of time

Now THAT'S proper hippy talk for you, Mullet

Leinsterman wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well.
The problem though is they don't do enough PE. One hour a week in my daughter's place, FFS.
There's already some kids in my daughter's class who could be pushing Type 2 diabetes in a few years.

It’s insane. It should be 1 hour per day, it’s more important than an hour’s lesson at this stage. We need to wake up

If they ditched religion then they'd have plenty of time

Now THAT'S proper hippy talk for you, Mullet

Let’s be honest here, they need to drop Irish

You'll have Mullet out marching with Gemma if you're not careful.

Leinsterman wrote:You'll have Mullet out marching with Gemma if you're not careful.

See Gemma and Co are allegedly making vexatious complaints to the medical council about Ciara Kelly due to her anti vaxxer stance

Leinsterman wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:I want the kids doing more sport in school. That's hardly hippy talk.

You want them dressed however they so please.

You'll be hard pressed to find where I wrote that.

"School uniforms for junior and senior infants is ridiculous, perhaps even for first class as well."

Eh right here

How is that the child's opinion?
C'mon, that's weak.

See many parents standing up to their kids these days do you?

Half the mothers are in PJs ffs at least uniforms make the children look respectable

Mullet 2 wrote:See many parents standing up to their kids these days do you?

Half the mothers are in PJs ffs at least uniforms make the children look respectable

See, you've gone all George Hook on us.
I'll let you in on something. My kids actually couldn't care less what they wear to school. Do you know why? It's because they're too young to know otherwise. They'd wear absolutely anything (apart from Munster gear) they're given because they're more excited about the fact of being in school than anything else. Same applies to their classmates.
I have absolutely no problem with uniforms. In fact, I think they're great and have no problem with the kids wearing them. However, I don't think kids under 7 should wear them, primarily because a uniform is sh1te for PE and lots of kids under 7 are incapable of getting out of the uniform into PE gear and then change back afterwards. As a result the uniform gets destroyed and if you don't get in the door until late in the evening, you have to throw the fcuking thing into the wash and then get it dried for the next morning so they don't look like a bloody tinker going to school.

So of the kids don't give a shít then the reason you don't like uniforms is bone idle parents.

Mullet 2 wrote:So of the kids don't give a shít then the reason you don't like uniforms is bone idle parents.

Yeah

Come back to us when you have some of your own [/high horse]

sewa wrote:

normilet wrote:Lads, any of you have any experience working with Pfizer? There's a Process Engineering role that's popped up in Grange Castle that I'm interested in so I'm curious about what the place is like, the people etc.

Yup, worked in a couple of the Cork plants, great places to work. Pretty much as handy a number as you can get. Staff turnover is almost zero due to good T&C's.

Not the case anymore.
Turnover much higher these days due to low pay and no pay increases.

Workforce is very young. A lot of graduates.

Leinsterman wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:So of the kids don't give a shít then the reason you don't like uniforms is bone idle parents.

Yeah

Come back to us when you have some of your own [/high horse]

Pfff child's play

Indeed! Dozy showed it was possible to post right the way through the night while feeding a child.
Although then again, maybe the "baby" was imaginary!

Mullet 2 wrote:See many parents standing up to their kids these days do you?

Half the mothers are in PJs ffs at least uniforms make the children look respectable

Malahide is such a shit hole.

paddyor wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:See many parents standing up to their kids these days do you?

Half the mothers are in PJs ffs at least uniforms make the children look respectable

Malahide is such a shit hole.

Money talks

Duff Paddy wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:You'll have Mullet out marching with Gemma if you're not careful.

See Gemma and Co are allegedly making vexatious complaints to the medical council about Ciara Kelly due to her anti vaxxer stance

I'm presuming you don't mean Kelly is anti vax there. What could she have said/done that the medical council would have issues with?

No, I think there's a hyphen missing

CM11 wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:You'll have Mullet out marching with Gemma if you're not careful.

See Gemma and Co are allegedly making vexatious complaints to the medical council about Ciara Kelly due to her anti vaxxer stance

I'm presuming you don't mean Kelly is anti vax there. What could she have said/done that the medical council would have issues with?

Back when O'Doherty was first starting her ranting Kelly had an argument or two with her on Twitter. O'Doherty was saying she couldn't be trusted as she was paid by big pharma as she'd done a presentation or two for them when she was a doctor.

MrBunhead wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Duff Paddy wrote:

Leinsterman wrote:You'll have Mullet out marching with Gemma if you're not careful.

See Gemma and Co are allegedly making vexatious complaints to the medical council about Ciara Kelly due to her anti vaxxer stance

I'm presuming you don't mean Kelly is anti vax there. What could she have said/done that the medical council would have issues with?

Back when O'Doherty was first starting her ranting Kelly had an argument or two with her on Twitter. O'Doherty was saying she couldn't be trusted as she was paid by big pharma as she'd done a presentation or two for them when she was a doctor.

nardol wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote:

nardol wrote:
Don't go throwing out insults because you made a claim that's complete BS and have now made a hole you can't get out of.

Saying the state will not take the money off the sick lady has no influence on the arguments of law.

State appealing indicates they want to win the case... or why appeal? This was a retort to you saying that the Minister not wanting the money back is interfering with the judiciary because it indicates he doesn't want to win.

Even your strawman argument is wrong.

A minister telling a court that he's appealing a judgment but that he won't take the money back from the Respondent is clearly inviting that court to find for him. That's utterly inappropriate. If you don't understand the rationale for the law surrounding public discussion of a sub judice matter, that's on you.

You're really scrabbling now

Sub judice has next to NO relevance outside of criminal cases. In fact freedom of speech for non criminal cases almost in every instance weighs more heavily.

And since when do arguments of law get clarified backwards?

The appeal won't be before a jury I assume? In which case your sub judice argument holds no weight at all.

The fact that it's more important in criminal trials doesn't mean it doesn't apply in civil rules.

Did you not study Irish law?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/h ... 39833.html

For fook sake, Union scum want a pay rise for doing their existing job.

sewa wrote:https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/h ... 39833.html

For fook sake, Union scum want a pay rise for doing their existing job.

in fairness if they literally roll this guy out and call him the "Siptu Health Division Rep" they clearly are just saying fcuk you ; show me the money

A picture of health alright.

The Mary Harney school of health representatives.

EverReady wrote:Lads the neighbours and I are thinking of building partition walls down the gardens. Leylandi tree at the moment and a bit shit. We are going to do fancy shit like have seats and hamocks and maybe sex swings. How much would about 100 metres cost?

I'm assuming that's 100sqm rather than 100m of wall? How long and high do you want the wall to be? That matters because you have to putt in foundations and you can only lay 3 blocks in a day unless you go cinder blocks

Wait for the next recession .... I.e. brexit and get it half price

EverReady wrote:Nah 100 of garden wall again as in each 25m. About 1.68 to 1.75

Jaysus so like 100m of trees to be removed? Leaving that aside(maybe price that separately?)

About 5-6k materials and waste. What kind of access can you get to the back of the houses? This matters for getting the foundations dug and getting the concrete in with a cement truck? Like would the foundations for the wall have to handballed in or can it be dropped straight from he truck? Not sure about the labour for the foundations(even with a digger). 1.5k-2k for the brickie and his labour.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3929941

Wasn't posted last week. DCC trying to reign in Murphy lifting the height caps.

Was around Leopardstown and Sandyford at the weekend. How have Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council managed to do such a better job than Dublin City Council (with the Docklands) with the area in terms of density?

Blackrock Bullet wrote:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland ... -1.3929941

Wasn't posted last week. DCC trying to reign in Murphy lifting the height caps.

Was around Leopardstown and Sandyford at the weekend. How have Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council managed to do such a better job than Dublin City Council (with the Docklands) with the area in terms of density?

An unholy alliance of Crank and the IT nimby team, the greens, and the lefties who believe that high rise is capitalism gone mad, and that the workers are entitled to live in state supplied, heavily subsudised 2-storey semi d houses with front and back gardens in the centre of Dublin.

Incidentally I believe that legally Murphys national guidelines trump anything the council does, ie the courts will throw out any area plan that ignores, or tries to restrict, the national guidelines.

And it will be tested in court as Ronan, in particular, appears up for the fight.

EverReady wrote:Lads the neighbours and I are thinking of building partition walls down the gardens. Leylandi tree at the moment and a bit shit. We are going to do fancy shit like have seats and hamocks and maybe sex swings. How much would about 100 metres cost?

Check your planning permission as well. It may specify hedges rather than walls. Obviously not an issue until you try to sell but worth squaring off. In general councils (certainly Kildare CC) are in favour of getting rid of Leylandii, but they may specify replacement with another hedge.

lilyw wrote:

EverReady wrote:Lads the neighbours and I are thinking of building partition walls down the gardens. Leylandi tree at the moment and a bit shit. We are going to do fancy shit like have seats and hamocks and maybe sex swings. How much would about 100 metres cost?

Check your planning permission as well. It may specify hedges rather than walls. Obviously not an issue until you try to sell but worth squaring off.

Aren't garden walls under 1.8m high, to the rere of residential properties exempted development ?

EDIT Not for one off detached houses in the countryside obvs.

camroc1 wrote:

lilyw wrote:

EverReady wrote:Lads the neighbours and I are thinking of building partition walls down the gardens. Leylandi tree at the moment and a bit shit. We are going to do fancy shit like have seats and hamocks and maybe sex swings. How much would about 100 metres cost?

Check your planning permission as well. It may specify hedges rather than walls. Obviously not an issue until you try to sell but worth squaring off.

Aren't garden walls under 1.8m high, to the rere of residential properties exempted development ?

I must confess that I don't know in general. My PP (albeit for a 1-off house) is very specific - all boundary fencing (except for entrances) must be native hedging.