Ireland politics (Part 2)

[tallback]

@glasagusban

Perhaps you’re right, but against that you have people whose homes are crumbling around them, you think many have the capacity to be taking on a high court case against a local authority, or anyone?

The fact that not one case has been taken on (that I know of) is informative to my mind. It would suggest that there isn’t a legal liability to the state - the campaigners are looking to a moral argument/political pressure instead.

The insurance companies seem to be able to walk away from this handy enough too …

[glasagusban]

The fact that no one can be identified as responsible just reiterates the point that the state failed as a regulator. Ultimately, it is right that the state takes responsibility for that.

[TheUlteriorMotive]

They should bring in no fault liability for catastrophic birth defects first

[artfoley]

@tallback

Your point about the tangled responsibilities is true I’d say.

Perhaps a legal expert could provide more insight but I’d imagine that a civil case against the local authority/state would struggle to get traction. If there was a legal case to answer then these cases would already be turning up in the courts

whatever about fixing liability on the Coco, there’s certainly scope for a JR seeking an order compelling the council to do their fucking jobs re: regulation

[tallback]

@glasagusban

The fact that no one can be identified as responsible just reiterates the point that the state failed as a regulator. Ultimately, it is right that the state takes responsibility for that.

But not in any way that a court could find.

But assuming you’re right - How do you suggest we pay for the extra billions expenditure required? Please don’t include the word “borrowing” or “debt” in your answer

[tallback]

@artfoley

@tallback

Your point about the tangled responsibilities is true I’d say.

Perhaps a legal expert could provide more insight but I’d imagine that a civil case against the local authority/state would struggle to get traction. If there was a legal case to answer then these cases would already be turning up in the courts

whatever about fixing liability on the Coco, there’s certainly scope for a JR seeking an order compelling the council to do their fucking jobs re: regulation

Why hasn’t that been done then? The campaign seems well organised

[Massey]

Jail is the only deterrent these boys understand but that’ll never happen under FFG

[tallback]

@Massey

Jail is the only deterrent these boys understand but that’ll never happen under FFG

Do you think a new non FF or FG government will put any of the protagonists in jail? Has that been suggested by any of them?

[glasagusban]

I don’t agree that that is necessarily true. I’m sure it is possible a court might a body liable. How long would that take and how much would that cost? If you were the mica group you’d have looked at that and taken note. What’s the best course of action for them, going after the state individually through the courts or lobbying the government? The answer to that seems obvious, so I think your reasoning is specious.

As to your second question and attempt to corral an answer, what exactly are you looking for in a response? How does the state pay for any liability? Tell me how you think we should pay for (insert anything we have to pay for here) and please don’t include the word “borrowing” or “debt” in your answer? How should we pay for victims of the cervical check scandal? See how that works?

[the_man_himself]

You won’t know what to do with yourself when SF come into power

[glasagusban]

Why? What’s the benefit for the homeowners?

[Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy]

@the_man_himself

You won’t know what to do with yourself when SF come into power

You’ve triggered the FF man @Massey

[Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy]

Jail and seizure of personal assets.

[the_man_himself]

FG are hardly at fault either considering this happened 1999 to 2009 according to the article above?

[Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy]

What reforms have they made since or before then?

[tallback]

@glasagusban

I don’t agree that that is necessarily true. I’m sure it is possible a court might a body liable. How long would that take and how much would that cost? If you were the mica group you’d have looked at that and taken note. What’s the best course of action for them, going after the state individually through the courts or lobbying the government? The answer to that seems obvious, so I think your reasoning is specious.

If I was the campaigners and I thought I had a legal case I’d take that, even on a test case basis, and then have that leverage over the state i.e. one house won damages of xxx, if we bring all the cases then …

@glasagusban

As to your second question and attempt to corral an answer, what exactly are you looking for in a response? How does the state pay for any liability? Tell me how you think we should pay for (insert anything we have to pay for here) and please don’t include the word “borrowing” or “debt” in your answer? How should we pay for victims of the cervical check scandal? See how that works?

I think some reflection on the fact that it’s extremely easy to sign blank cheques on behalf of the state but that most taxpayers have absolutely no interest in it coming back on them in terms of increased taxes or reduced services. They think the state should pay and that someone else should pay the state to enable that.

[the_man_himself]

According to the article

"These days a new State body, the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, has overarching responsibility for the sector. Hundreds of quarry operators were told in a letter earlier this year that its surveillance programme would focus on aggregates for concrete and mortar, bituminous mixtures and other materials.

“This campaign will include routine announced and unannounced inspections and surveys of your quarry, pits, place of manufacture and storage locations, the taking [of] samples of aggregates and blocks and other products for testing. We will also be requesting documentation,” the office said. It has powers to access any place of manufacture or storage of any construction product, any related technical documentation and any vehicle carrying such products.

Standards governing building products have also been tightened, but only after the emergence of the mica issue and the problem of expanding pyrite floors."

[Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy]

So it took Fine Gael until 2020 to do something and it’s very wishy washy what they’ve actually done?

What are the consequences? That’s the real issue. What is stopping a new Cassidy Bros trying to swell their profits by launching dodgy stuff on the market?

[glasagusban]

@tallback

I think some reflection on the fact that it’s extremely easy to sign blank cheques on behalf of the state but that most taxpayers have absolutely no interest in it coming back on them in terms of increased taxes or reduced services. They think the state should pay and that someone else should pay the state to enable that.

You’re not proposing any sort of counterpoint or alternative here, what’s your response to your own questions?

What do you think should happen? Should there be a redress scheme? How much should it be worth? How should it be paid for (obviously don’t include the word borrowing or debt in your response to this last)?

[the_man_himself]

@Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy

What is stopping a new Cassidy Bros trying to swell their profits by launching dodgy stuff on the market?

You’d be hoping this actually happens and isn’t just a threat which would help to stop it if done right.

“This campaign will include routine announced and unannounced inspections and surveys of your quarry, pits, place of manufacture and storage locations, the taking [of] samples of aggregates and blocks and other products for testing. We will also be requesting documentation,” the office said. It has powers to access any place of manufacture or storage of any construction product, any related technical documentation and any vehicle carrying such products."