13 thoughts on “De Thursday Papers

        1. rory

          This opinion is totally built on stereotype, but I think devout catholic mammies should run the church. They’d be highly observant of the rituals/dogma, but they’d also know when to bend the rules.

  1. classter

    ‘The state failed in its responsibilities to buyers’

    What utter raimeis.

    The people happily voted in a govt which was very open about wanting to remove regulation & ‘get out of the way’ of private business, especially builders. Buyers seemed to have done little to no due diligence before putting themselves on the hook for huge amounts of money & put huge trust in obvious shysters.

    Somehow the likes of me (cautious renter) have to pay for the poor investment decisions of others again.

    1. meadowlark

      Yes poor you. Half of the developers in this country are dishonest and cut corners wherever they could because greed. But when you commit yourself to a mortgage and buying a property you presume that it, being signed off by appropriate parties, is safe to live in. These people bought in good faith. They should not be the ones paying out 10k or 20k extra for the privilege of being able to stay in the home they bought.

      1. meadowlark

        The blame lies with the developer, with the ones who signed off on a building which was not safe. It is not the fault of the people who paid money for a home.

        I would say that the developer is the one to point the finger at in terms of blaming someone. But the state is not blameless. The safeguards that were put in place are clearly broken and do not stop incidents like this or Priory Hall. So the onus is on the gov to fix it.

        1. classter


          People do more research and due diligence before buying a mobile phone than they do when they buy a house. I am willing to bet that none of the buyers knew the name of any of the design team, nor of their respective reputations.

          Placing all your trust in a developer is absolutely stupid unless he/she has a long established reputation for probity, decency & competence – something this chap (former FF councillor, no relevant professional qualifications, pal of Bertie) did not have in my book. There are stories about price gouging in the papers in the 90s.

          You buy from a FF insider without due diligence, then pick up the tab yourself.

          1. Clampers Outside!


            I like your comments classter, but not once did you mention the regulators role in that.

            If I’m told there’s a government regulator watching the quality of buildings, then I should be fine. That’s what they do…. and so it shouldn’t matter who the developer is.

            If I’m NOT told the regulator is inept and toothless and not doing a proper job, then I’ve been conned and fiddled by the government and those the regulator let away with poor quality buildings.

            There are consumer protections, but by your reckoning we should do away with them and we should all become our own experts in how multiplex apartment blocks are built… which is ridiculous.

          2. Deluded

            As I understand it, the Quakers rejected “caveat emptor” and promoted business based on trust. (Hence the success of firms such as Cadbury’s and Fry’s)
            The law has been changed here, I believe, to make the architect bear full responsibility, an expensive compromise and a signal failure of civil government to enforce standards in a key area.
            (Should I now retain a solicitor when I upgrade my phone?)

          3. classter

            ‘If I’m NOT told the regulator is inept and toothless and not doing a proper job’
            YOU WERE TOLD THIS. The govt of the day removed building control & brought in self-certification for building. No public body had a responsibility to review the work of engineers, architects & builders – even if they were empowered to carry out the occasional inspection. If you bought a house at this time, you should know this.

            That being said, even in jurisdictions with more onerous building control, the govt does not guarantee the work of private developers, builders & designers.

            If you buy a shoddy phone, you have consumer rights but there is no requirement on the govt to buy you a new one.

            Similarly, if you buy a shoddy home (and essentially make a poor investment decision without due diligence) the state has zero responsibility to pay for repairs. I currently rent & I would never have bought a home from McNamara. Why the f*** should public funds (which might otherwise go to health/education/infrastructure..) be given to middle class people to use on an appreciating asset?

          4. classter

            Yup, the Quakers grounded their business actions in a strong code of ethics (which could be invasive & illiberal as well as compassionate). They considered bankruptcy shameful & ejected from the church those who became bankrupt!

            When you buy an apartment from a well-connected FFer with no relevant professional qualifications, you do not have the same basis for trust as that earned by the rigorous, upstanding, puritanical Quakers.

Comments are closed.