A Limerick A Day

at

90414229

Socialist Party TD Paul Murphy outside the Criminal Courts of Justice, Dublin yesterday

It’s lovely to see that TDs,
Can get help paying their legal fees,
This may cause some rage,
If you look at his wage,
But at least the nice fellow said please.

John Moynes

Rollingnews

95 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

  1. Nessy

    He only claims a workers wage and the surplus of his TD salary is given back to his party and used to fund people to work for him

    I think the main gripe people should have is why on earth the state is bringing such a ridiculous case to court in the first place which will cost the taxpayers multiples of millions of euro. The Irish media doing well again to fuel tension in a simple act of divide and conquer

    What about Sean Fitzpatrick getting legal aid? Surely the media was just as critical as him having earned well over a million euro annually at times?
    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/anglo-chief-gets-bonus-of-almost-1m-1.342981
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sean-fitzpatrick-granted-legal-aid-for-upcoming-trial-1.1924222

      1. Nessy

        The sale of any house will not complete/finalise unless the property tax is paid. The proceeds of the sale would have been used to clear any LPT arrears the property had whether he liked it or not. Hardly hypocritical

        1. F.W. De Clerk

          You’re right, Nelson Mandela would have rolled over in the face of such adversity.

          Principles vs Selling House for €€€ ?

          Paul chooses €€€ every time.

          1. Sam

            You might have a point if she was a single man with no children – then it’s soley his house, and no dependents relying on the proceeds nor place to live – but as a father he has obligations, and his choices have to take that into account.
            Choosing to mount your own high horse on that isn’t big or clever.
            Undoubetdly you’d be more militant with your partner and child depending on you?
            No, I don’t think so.
            Twit.

    1. Disasta

      I don’t care it’s his choice to send his money to his party.

      My gripe is paying for his legal aid.

      Full stop.

      1. Nessy

        So I take it you’re grand then with the state wasting many millions of euro in bringing such a ridiculous case in the first place?

      2. The Real Jane

        Mine, too. Surely if his party have several TDs giving them loads of money every month they can afford to engage legal aid as an organisation? Rather than getting the likes of minimum wage people to pay it (albeit indirectly)?

        1. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

          This. His actual wage is very high. If he chooses to give that away, fair enough but he could also ask for it back for legal fees. It won’t look good for someone who is an apparent champion for the little guy.

        2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

          If only you knew whatever it is that the Judge knows but you don’t know, who knows?
          -YOU could be the judge!!!!!

          But no…

      3. Declan

        + 50,000

        Does Paul get a tax credit if he donates the money to the AAA/socialist party? Or does the party claim the credit like charities can. Assuming the political parties are treated like charities

    2. joj

      He volunteers his income, his choice.

      And besides, if he is paying that much into his own party every week you think they would cover his legal fees, especially considering it was official party activity he is up in court for.

      If he says his income is too low to pay legal fees, then he is also saying he should be entitled to a medical card, to social housing, to welfare.

      You have a situation which allows any organisation mandate its members must pay their most income and apply for state benefits to survive. its a crazy ideology and must I’m afraid paints socialists as arrogant, gleefully spending other peoples money with abandon (his MEP expense bill supports this too)

    3. Wayne.F

      Nessy, he takes his full salary, then spends it. I am curious how he affords his home on 1,800 a month or that nice Saab of his?

    1. dedeluded

      Is this not more of a reflection on how expenive it is to defend yourself in this country?

      1. Nessy

        ^^ exactly dedeluded

        Everyone is entitled to fair and equal representation in court, the fact that he’s been awarded legal aid proves that he wouldn’t be able to afford that privilege otherwise

        1. ScaryLady

          No – he can’t afford the privilege because he CHOSE to do something else with his salary.

          Sorry – I don’t see the logic here – if he chooses to give his salary to his party – fine!

          If that means that the taxpayer is now liable for his legal bills – well that’s not fine at all.

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            Take it up with the people who thought it would be a good idea to bring these stupid charges to court.

        2. Anomanomanom

          He earned over €1,000,000 as an unelected mep. If he urinated or gave it away that was his choice. Where is his mep gone actually?

        3. brownbull

          no his salary is more than enough, and he owns property, so he is independently wealthy; while the legal system is a joke and too costly, that is a separate issue

  2. MoyestWithExcitement

    I have no problem with this. Why should anyone be put out of pocket for these spurious, offensive charges? Only thing, his fees should come out of Joan’s wage.

  3. Vanessa

    When i see victims of “false imprisonment” from rapes to violent home robberies these trumped up charges make my blood boil.

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      They’re offensive, they really are. But we should all be mad at the victim of these politically motivated charges because he needs help paying the lawyer.

      1. Anomanomanom

        He’s a very rich man. So he’s either hid is money or he CHOSE to use it by giving it away.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          According to the judge who’s got more knowledge on his situation than you or I, he does. Even still, this triall should not be happening. The people who want it to happen should pay for it. It’s disappointing that we’re all focusing on this unimportant issue and not the blatant political policing and show trials.

          1. Rob_G

            I’m glad that you’re here to tell us who is innocent and who is guilty, without having to resort to all that unnecessary bother of due process.

          2. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            Judges can be wrong and I think, at least morally, he has made the wrong decision applying for legal aid. Real Jane’s comment above is completely right.

            “The people who want it to happen should pay for it. ”

            Now, that is just silly because where do you stop with that? And if it’s a blatant show trial, it will be thrown out pretty quickly.

          3. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I’m glad that you’re here to tell us who is innocent and who is guilty, without having to resort to all that unnecessary bother of due process”

            You know this “crime” happened in front of tv cameras, right? Good man.

          4. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Judges can be wrong”

            And what information do you have to make that claim?

            “And if it’s a blatant show trial, it will be thrown out pretty quickly.”

            And Murphy will be able to claim them cost of his legal team if that happens so we pay for it anyway. It’s deeply disappointing to see people talk about the victim of a political ally motivated show trial getting legal aid instead of the content of the case itself.

          5. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            For a start the BS Judge of the Day posts?

            “It’s deeply disappointing to see people talk about the victim of a political ally motivated show trial getting legal aid instead of the content of the case itself.”

            Because people can’t talk about both things at all, nope.

            Anyway, he got it so we’ll see what comes out of the trial

          6. They Tried To Make Me Go To Rehab

            @ Moyest

            Are you planning on ruining this thread as usual with your belligerence and destructive badger-baiting? Please let me know so I can avoid reading it,

          7. MoyestWithExcitement

            The BS judge of the day posts? I have no idea what those are.

            “Because people can’t talk about both things at all, nope.”

            The fact it’s a focus at all for people is really disappointing. And I don’t see anyone complaining also talking about the dubious nature of the charges considering we could see everything that happened on the news.

          8. MoyestWithExcitement

            Right and if I return serve there with a personal jab of my own, I’ll be the bad guy.

          9. ivan

            “And yet that’s not stopping you making judgements about those figures.”

            Well i’m not really. I’m making an observation. We know that X thousand goes out of the exchequer to fund his salary. That’s publicly available knowledge. We know that Y thousand goes into his back pocket. (That article on Journal quotes him as getting 1800 a month) The difference between the two is Z. The observation i’m making – you’re the one calling it a judgement – is that Z should be scrutinised. That’s all. If it’s ok to pay Z into his political party (and I’m not saying it’s not) then what else is it OK to pay Z into?

            “Okey doke. And what does that have to do with him using his wages to fund the wages of others?”

            Sound, So if he’d a swimming pool and used his wages to pay the lad that looks after it, that’d be cool as well, would it?

            “So you’re on board with the idea that anger over any wasted money here should be directed at state authorities?”

            Among others, yes. Paul Murphy doesn’t get a free pass because of this though.

          10. Owen C

            Ivan, you need to understand the trolling madness of Moyestie before you get too deep down into the rabbit hole.

            If you make an observation, based on your own opinions and knowledge, but which are unproveable at this juncture, then you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Expect a “good lad” attempted put down at the end.

            But if Moyestie is sure that “these (are) politically motivated charges”, well that’s 100% aok and his comments are beyond reproach.

          11. MoyestWithExcitement

            “Well i’m not really.”

            Well, you are. You’re saying he shouldn’t claiming legal aid without any knowledge of his financial circumstances. Even at the bottom of that post you say he shouldn’t get a free pass.

            “The observation i’m making – you’re the one calling it a judgement – is that Z should be scrutinised.”

            The judge didn’t do that?

            “So if he’d a swimming pool and used his wages to pay the lad that looks after it, that’d be cool as well, would it?”

            What a stupid and fatuous analogy. He puts his money into the AAA. Does the AAA have any swimming pools? Why are you trying to equate that with selfish gain? That’s more than suspicious.

            “Paul Murphy doesn’t get a free pass because of this though.”

            Huh? You agree the anger should not be directed at him but it should be? What?

            While you’re making judgements on figures, how much will this case actually cost? I mean, you’re sure he can afford the legal fees so you’ll know how much those fees are, right?

          12. MoyestWithExcitement

            Also, ignore the troll above. He follows me everywhere. Nobody takes him seriously.

          13. ivan

            (right – we’ll move in here – scooch up there, good lad)

            “Well, you are. You’re saying he shouldn’t claiming legal aid without any knowledge of his financial circumstances. Even at the bottom of that post you say he shouldn’t get a free pass.”

            OK. Seriously now, can you put forward a serious fact-based objection to my XYZ thing above?

            “The observation i’m making – you’re the one calling it a judgement – is that Z should be scrutinised.”

            The judge didn’t do that?

            The Judge did. And my point – as i’ve been fupping saying for ages – is that the judge has made his/her decision, and that’s grand, but it’s left us in a limbo position where a judge has now effectively stated (again, based on my XYZ thing above) that deductions are evidently permitted. I mean, is there another reading – a convincing one – of this?

            “So if he’d a swimming pool and used his wages to pay the lad that looks after it, that’d be cool as well, would it?”

            “What a stupid and fatuous analogy. He puts his money into the AAA. Does the AAA have any swimming pools? Why are you trying to equate that with selfish gain? That’s more than suspicious.”

            My point is that your analysis is completely subjective; Paul Murphys ‘deductions’ to pay wages of AAA personnel are ‘good’ and pool maintenance people would be bad. The fatuous analogy was intentional – dammit i could hear the whoosh as it went over your head from here. :) My point is again your relentless subjectivity on this; because PM pays the wages of people engaged in people whose aims you approve of, it’s OK, but in other cases it mightn’t be. As I’ve averred to above, a subjective reading of what’s OK as salary deductions re legal aid doesn’t cut it. It can’t.

            “Paul Murphy doesn’t get a free pass because of this though.”

            Huh? You agree the anger should not be directed at him but it should be? What?

            While you’re making judgements on figures, how much will this case actually cost? I mean, you’re sure he can afford the legal fees so you’ll know how much those fees are, right?

            I think significant anger should be directed at Joan Burton. Abso-bally-lutely. But I just mean that PM is a bit cheeky here as well.

            how much will his defence cost? If he loses, he’s not liable for the costs of bringing the case, so worst case is he ends up saddled with his own solicitor/barrister and any other witness expenses. There’s no doubting it’d be expensive.

            I’m going go leave this argument now. Friendly handshake extended and all that.

            This isn’t – for me – about PM per se. I mean, that’s what we’ve grounded the argument on, but my central point remains. My perception (ooooh look – subjective!) is that a person is making a choice (a well intentioned one, no doubt) to take money from their wages and put it towards what they see as good.

            Bully for him.

            That is not, IMHO, fair when it comes to this because next week, if somebody does something similar but their wages go to something that THEY see as good but 99% of society mightn’t- (say a lobby group to ban gluten-containing products) then should THAT particular Z be allowed for legal aid purposes?

            We need to get making that list.

            g’luck!

          14. ivan

            sorry moyest – i asked you to respond to answers and then said i was butting out. That may appear cowardly. wasn’t meant to.

            we’ll agree to differ. i’ve to get the car to the NCT and then i’ve work so this argument will wither anyway.

            cheers

          15. MoyestWithExcitement

            “OK. Seriously now, can you put forward a serious fact-based objection to my XYZ thing above?”

            No cause I don’t see how it’s relevant.

            “judge has now effectively stated (again, based on my XYZ thing above) that deductions are evidently permitted.”

            Is there any evidence this is a new situation? People who own businesses haven’t been in similar situations?

            “My point is that your analysis is completely subjective; Paul Murphys ‘deductions’ to pay wages of AAA personnel are ‘good’ and pool maintenance people would be bad.”

            Subjective in the sense that regarding theft as “bad” is subjective. I doubt too many people aren’t going to see any difference between putting your wage into a fund for the political party you work for and maintaining your personal swimming pool.

            “As I’ve averred to above, a subjective reading of what’s OK as salary deductions re legal aid doesn’t cut it.”

            Have you already forgotten that you saI’d you’d be open to a list of exceptions? Do you STILL think there’s no difference between helping a receptionist pay her mortage and feed her kids is the same as fixing your personal swimming pool, considering you said you’d be open to exceptions?

            “how much will his defence cost? If he loses, he’s not liable for the costs of bringing the case, so worst case is he ends up saddled with his own solicitor/barrister and any other witness expenses. There’s no doubting it’d be expensive.”

            So you don’t know how much it will cost but you know he can afford it without knowing what his income is. Grand.

            “We need to get making that list.”

            I’m saying that list can include other people’s wages. Agree?

          16. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            You’re not the bad guy, it’s just very tiring talking to you.

            You don’t have the figures either but are happy making judgements about them because of the greater morality of paying the mortgage of a receptionist and putting her kids through school. Do you know that’s actually happening or are you making an argument based on assumptions about gender roles in employment? If not, you’re doing exactly what you say others are doing.

          17. MoyestWithExcitement

            “You’re not the bad guy, it’s just very tiring talking to you.”

            And another personal attack. You should rethink taking the moral highground when dealing with theach trolls who go after you.

            “You don’t have the figures either but are happy making judgements about them”

            Are you serious? You’re making a judgement about a man’s ability pay for something despite not knowing how much money he takes in, nor do you know how much that something will cost. You think that’s the same thing aso making a *moral* judgement on whether money is better spent on a staffer’s mortgage or a swimming pool? Jesus.

          18. Dόn 'The Unstoppable Force' Pídgéόní

            “You’re not the bad guy, it’s just very tiring talking to you.”
            That is not a personal “attack”. Get a grip. It is my opinion on how it is trying to talk to you about things. If you calmed down a bit in your responses, people would be more likely to listen to your points. I should know, I used to do it. The initial point you claim you wanted to discuss, that of the legality of the charges, gets overshadowed by all this nonsense.

            “You don’t have the figures either but are happy making judgements about them”

            “Are you serious? You’re making a judgement about a man’s ability pay for something despite not knowing how much money he takes in, nor do you know how much that something will cost. You think that’s the same thing aso making a *moral* judgement on whether money is better spent on a staffer’s mortgage or a swimming pool? Jesus.”

            See? This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re like the John McEnroe of BS – you don’t respond to questions at all but I can almost hear you tsking and throwing your arms around and rolling your eyes and swearing at the judge. Swimming pools or whatever was not my point.

            “You’re making a judgement about a man’s ability pay for something despite not knowing how much money he takes in, nor do you know how much that something will cost.”

            And you are doing the same thing but from the other angle. You aren’t the judge, as much as you would like to be, and aren’t privy to that information.

            So, there you go. Take from that what you will.

          19. MoyestWithExcitement

            “That is not a personal “attack”…If you calmed down a bit…..”

            Patronising/personal attack. Tomato/tomayto. If I’m difficult to speak to, maybe try not speaking to me? It’s very easy. I do it to plenty of others. I’ll save you the bother and ignore the rest of that incoherent drivel.

        2. MoyestWithExcitement

          What, you reread that last post of yours and realised how ridiculously it was?

    2. brownbull

      the judge will decide what constitutes a false imprisonment, but what he did that day was wrong

  4. Rob_G

    If a banker, or the head of Irish Water, or a Fine Gael TD, were in receipt of legal aid due to the fact that they’d spent all of their massive salary on things that they enjoy, every person on here defending Murphy would be having a conniption.

    And rightly so.

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      1) Comparing him using his wages to help fund the wages of other people is NOT the same as spending it on ‘things he enjoys’. That’s a highly dishonest analogy.

      2) You’re assuming you have more knowledge about his circumstances that the judge which is just delusional.

      3) If a Fine Gael TD or Irish Water exec were brought in on obviously politically motivated criminal charges, I’d have no issue with them not having to pay out money for charges that should not have been brought against them.

      1. Rob_G

        1) Every expenditure ‘helps fund the wages of other people’; if the banker blew his money on fast women and slow horses, he would still be supporting his local economy – would that be fine?

        2) You say this…

        3) … and in the next breath make all sorts of assumptions about the competence, not to mention the integrity, of the DPP.

        1. MoyestWithExcitement

          1) What does any of that have to do with your highly and intentionally dishonest claim that Murphy was spending money on things he likes as of he was spending it on holidays and clothes?

          2) So you DO have more knowledge than the judge?

          3) Ummmm…..what does the integrity of the DPP have to do with you thinking you know more than the judge in this case?

          1. ivan

            I didn’t say that I did. I showed the information that’s requested, the headings. That’s what you’re asked for. Of course I’m not privy to how he answered it. But it occurs to me that if he’d stated his income to be 87000 (or whatever) divided by 52, as his weekly, then it’s unlikely he’d get legal aid. In fact, from my own experience of seeing this kind of thing (yes, I know, anecdotal evidence aren’t published verifiable figures) your average DC judge *tends* to not grant LA if the accused is working.

            So, it would actually be interesting to see what he put in as income because he either put in Full Salary/52 or he didn’t. And if he didn’t, then have we a situation where discretionary donations don’t count as part of your income. Which is grand, I suppose, but i’m not sure that’s how Legal Aid is meant to work. It also means that, rightly or wrongly, there’s going to have to be a list of things to which discretionary donations are allowed and those that aren’t. Political parties will be on the ‘good’ side. Coke, cake, hookers and hooch on the ‘bad’.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            OK, so you have no access to the information on which the trial judge decided get qualified for legal aid. Grand. As for expections, his wages go toward paying administration staff. Someone has to answer the phones, like. That’s a pretty good exception I would say. If we demand he pays full whack, someone might lose a job. I’m not ok with that.

          3. ivan

            two tiny things

            a) the trial judge didn’t grant him LA; the district court judge did, and then remanded him to the Circuit court
            b) doesn’t he get an allowance for administrative staff from the Oireachtas anyway?

            Lookit – i don’t think these charges should be brought either, but subjective opinions aside, there’s a problem where 87000 goes out of the state coffers, an amount is deducted to go to a political party under an unwritten agreement, and *because* of this very arrangement, the cost of the trial is borne by the taxpayer.

            as I say, this means that generating that list ‘things you can allow as deductions v things you can’t’ genuinely needs to be drawn up.

          4. MoyestWithExcitement

            “the trial judge didn’t grant him LA; the district court judge did, and then remanded him to the Circuit court”

            OK, so you don’t have the information on which the district court judge decided he qualified for legal aid.

            “doesn’t he get an allowance for administrative staff from the Oireachtas anyway?”

            Can’t remember the exact details but pretty sure staff allowances are tied to amount of TDs in the party. Even still, who’s to say the allowance is enough for their needs? I do know there are admin staff in small parties who are not paid by the state.

            “the cost of the trial is borne by the taxpayer”

            He can get expenses back if he wins, right? So the state pays anyway? Maybe the anger over wasted money should be aimed at the authorities who insisted this ridiculous trial go ahead?

          5. Anomanomanom

            Why as no one mentioned that he’s not actually in a party. Who’s the party leader, Oh wait if there is no leader and it’s only an alliance then they all get(I’m not 100% on the amount) about €20/30k extra as a independent allowance. So if he only takes his poor awful little salary is also getting his allowance.

          6. ivan

            NEITHER of us have the figures, but I think it’s safe to say that the ‘net of deductions’ figure was presented as income. I’m admittedly going by J**rnal.ie article for that line. This ties back to my point about the difficulty we now face that political party donations are seemingly a special case, and appear to attract special treatment. For a legal system to ‘work’ there has to be certainty; the rule made today has to (largely) apply tomorrow. So now, if *redacted* were hauled up for, say, being drunk/disorderly and he flings all his cash into, say, a lobby group that furthers the aims of fat rich businesmen who like balloons and rugby, should he be entitled to legal aid? Because if we accept that flinging your cash at source into *one* group with a ‘mission’ then what’s wrong with other groups with a mission? Where’s the certainty? Where’s the line? Who’s drawing it?

            “who’s to say the allowance is enough for his needs?”. Well, quite. But at the same time, that doesn’t entitle him to more, per se; one doesn’t go to an all you can eat buffet and fill a holdall with food ‘because I’ll be hungry later’. Don’t you remember when yer man in the Shinners went to town on the printer cartridges…wasn’t that the line he used?

            You actually *don’t* get your costs if you successfully defend a criminal prosecution and there’s something in what you say there, alright, because if you *did* perhaps the state would be a little less gung-ho in bringing spurious/offensive charges.

          7. MoyestWithExcitement

            “NEITHER of us have the figures,”

            And yet that’s not stopping you making judgements about those figures.

            “But at the same time, that doesn’t entitle him to more, per se; one doesn’t go to an all you can eat buffet and fill a holdall with food ‘because I’ll be hungry later’”

            Okey doke. And what does that have to do with him using his wages to fund the wages of others?

            “if you *did* perhaps the state would be a little less gung-ho in bringing spurious/offensive charges”

            So you’re on board with the idea that anger over any wasted money here should be directed at state authorities?

          8. Owen C

            “Even still, who’s to say the allowance is enough for their needs?”

            Is this the argument in favour of legal aid? He doesn’t get enough of a Dail allowance for general discretionary administration? I mean, as intellectual arguments go, this is pretty awful stuff. If we had a FF or FG TD claiming legal aid on this basis you’d rightly be calling it a disgrace.

          9. ivan

            “And yet that’s not stopping you making judgements about those figures.”

            Well i’m not really. I’m making an observation. We know that X thousand goes out of the exchequer to fund his salary. That’s publicly available knowledge. We know that Y thousand goes into his back pocket. (That article on Journal quotes him as getting 1800 a month) The difference between the two is Z. The observation i’m making – you’re the one calling it a judgement – is that Z should be scrutinised. That’s all. If it’s ok to pay Z into his political party (and I’m not saying it’s not) then what else is it OK to pay Z into?

            “Okey doke. And what does that have to do with him using his wages to fund the wages of others?”

            Sound, So if he’d a swimming pool and used his wages to pay the lad that looks after it, that’d be cool as well, would it?

            “So you’re on board with the idea that anger over any wasted money here should be directed at state authorities?”

            Among others, yes. Paul Murphy doesn’t get a free pass because of this though.

  5. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Will nobody think of the limericks?
    Do I have to it all meself?
    (I’ll do me best.)

    Moynsey, this time you’re wrong.
    Bong-bong, diddley bong-bong, diddely bong-bong.
    You should go back to school
    And stop being such a t
    I think you are cool.
    Bong-bong diddley bong-bong diddley bong
    bong.

    I wish I could write gooder limericks but it’s such hard.

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      There’s something wrong with you.
      -Why do you always leave out one word?

      Is this private joke or something?

  6. Eoin

    He wouldn’t be in a position to claim legal aid if he wasn’t facing, literally, ridiculous charges. Blame the governments political policing POLICY. It’s an unwritten one, but it’s still a policy.

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      Yes.
      Thank you Eoin.

      Nobody sees it until it’s on their own back doorstep, or until they take a step back from the door, or until they back a door up the step, or if they step from a back to a..

      You make much more sense than me.
      I couldn’t have it said better any.

    1. MoyestWithExcitement

      Yeah but people who’ve not read a single thing about this case know better so let’s keep attacking the awful champagne socialist.

      1. Anomanomanom

        He is a champagne socialist though. Right or wrong with regards to the trial, he’s a man that got an mep seat Unelected then could not get voted in as a td in area his party was based so he jumped shipped to another area. It goes to show it’s not the people he cares about or his case, it’s any area and people that will vote for him he cares about.

        1. Sam

          then could not get voted in as a td in area his party was based so he jumped shipped to another area. It goes to show it’s not the people he cares about or his case

          You can argue the parish pump line, and that a TD is only supposed to look after constituents, but the last time I looked, the Dáil describes itself as a national legislative body. Any legislation opposed or proposed by Paul Murphy will affect every constituency, whether he is the elected representative or not.

    1. Owen C

      Interesting. Not entirely sure what that’s got to do with a case being heard in the Central Criminal Court, but do continue…

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        @ Owen C

        Rule # 24;
        DO NOT begin a reply to Anne with the word ‘Interesting’.

        Who knows what you’ve unleashed?

      2. Anne

        I tweeted back and got the following response –

        “would have thought false imprisonment would warrant a trip to the high court, but apparently not.”
        &
        “yeah, circuit civil costs about 15k a day, so presume its roughly the same.”

        If you know any different, let us know…

          1. Anne

            ” but 15k a day sounds high vs legal aid fees”

            It wouldn’t look to be that high, no, but here’s some figures on the amounts on legal aid paid out – (2014)

            In relation to their work in the circuit court, senior counsel receive a brief fee of €1,716 with a subsequent daily fee or refresher fee after the first day of €858… while junior counsel receive a brief fee of €1,144 in the circuit court along with a refresher or daily fee of €572.

            In total, solicitors and barristers received just under €49.89 million through the criminal legal aid scheme last year – a 2 per cent drop on the €50.86 million received in 2013.

            I suppose if you’d require both junior and senior counsel in the circuit court and how many days the trial lasts would have a bearing on the costs involved.

            http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/frank-buttimer-s-firm-receives-highest-criminal-legal-aid-fees-1.2085977

        1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

          This reply is at Owen C too.
          Bear with me…hang on….

          Oh yes, back in my day we used to use the ‘@’ symbol.
          We found it useful.
          It was great.

          Youze kidz, I can’t keep up with you at all sometimes Anne, I mean Owen C.
          Both of you.
          I mean neither of you.

          Not you, the other one.

  7. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    You should’ve used the song by that same bloke about being drunk.
    You know the one?

    If you misinterpret the lyrics completely the wrong way it kinda says that Jah wants you to get drunk in the afternoon and that’s good enough for me.

    BTW, do you think the censors will leave this up?

  8. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    No way, I swear to God.

    This should never be read by anybody, living or dead, I swear to God.
    -You can test me on that.

    [I’m not in the video lin…

    Oops!!!!!
    No, seriously…I swear to God.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!