# Rip-off Republic Episode 3



## Brendan Burgess (29 Aug 2005)

Hi folks

Please restrict this thread to issues raised in Episode 3 only. 

More general issues can be raised in any of the many other threads on the topic e.g.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Aug 2005)

Show Me The Rip-Off?


----------



## jasconius (29 Aug 2005)

Must say, I did not learn anything new from this program. All he has done is stitch a few ancient clips together of politicians promising the s,m and stars (what's new), show us he can use a mobile phone from his FWD tank (what's new), throw a few numbers up on the screen garnered from any newspaper (what's new) and eat a mixed grill on a train to Cork (don't understand the relevance of that one).

What's the punchline ?


Poor,sorry I watched


----------



## Lemurz (29 Aug 2005)

Well it confirmed one thing - there is serious money to be made in construction and the taxpayer/Government seems to be the one getting ripped off judging by the cost overruns quoted.

It seems to be the only thing keeping the Irish economy moving, accounting for EUR 27 billion or 22% of GNP & directly providing 233,000 jobs or 12% of total employment.  (twice as many jobs as agriculture).

I suppose it's better than paying out dole money?


----------



## Guest127 (29 Aug 2005)

nothing we didnt know already. still hurts though. especially that vrt on cars.


----------



## Eurofan (29 Aug 2005)

cuchulainn said:
			
		

> nothing we didnt know already.



I think thats the point though, nothing *we* didn't know already. I'd like to think members of this forum make a point of informing themselves about the relevant issues.

However many don't and he's very successfully getting the message accross to a much much wider audience.

Watered down it may be but as far as I'm concerned it can only be a good thing.


----------



## jasconius (30 Aug 2005)

You are right *Eurofan *in what you say, but what was point of filming the mixed grill meal on the Cork Express - showing off??


----------



## Bizzy (30 Aug 2005)

jasconius


> but what was point of filming the mixed grill meal on the Cork Express - showing off??


 I think the point was that the mixed grill, reclining chairs, and Italian waiter didn't make up for the high price of the rail ticket.  It was a Rip-Off. If Government want to encourage us to use Public Transport this is not the way to go about it.  So, why did they increase rail fares? According to the boy from the Lee - It's because the Government has more to make from people continuing to drive cars.  More cars = more VAT+VRT.

That's my guess on the Mixed Grill!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Aug 2005)

Hi Bizzy

There was not one concrete example of a rip-off on the entire programme. If you choose to define a rip-off as "anything you don't like about modern Ireland", then of course we live in "Rip-off Republic".

The vast majority of us are quite happy to travel by the standard train class and we know the fare well in advance. It is not a rip-off. I don't know how it compares to other countries, so it might be expensive or cheap. If we can't afford it, we can travel by bus or hitch.

But this is the key point. No one is forced to travel first class. No one in first class is obliged to buy a mixed grill. 

We may or may not have mismanaged our construction projects. But that does not make them rip-offs. 

Brendan


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> We may or may not have mismanaged our construction projects. But that does not make them rip-offs.


 
Surely the mismanagement of construction projects is a rip off in the sense that the price taxpayers were charged for the project was several times higher than the original figure? Or that projects haven't delivered expected benefits?  I don't want to get into semantics here, but surely these are 'rip offs' in some way?


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> No one in first class is obliged to buy a mixed grill.
> 
> Brendan



I don't agree - just because you are not obliged to purchase something does not mean it isin't a rip-off.  Over Eur15 for a grill is a rip off if you're hungry and you want one.


----------



## tiger (30 Aug 2005)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> but surely these are 'rip offs' in some way?


 
I totally agree with CCOVICH, and I'm glad Eddie highlighted it last night.  The biggest "rip-off" is the way the government has been p****ng money up the wall on massive infrastructure projects that don't deliver what they promise and go way over budget.

In any other business this level of performance wouldn't be tolerated, but the humble Irish tax payer keeps coming back for more...


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> Hi Bizzy
> 
> There was not one concrete example of a rip-off on the entire programme. If you choose to define a rip-off as "anything you don't like about modern Ireland", then of course we live in "Rip-off Republic".
> 
> ...



€15 for a mixed grill is outrageous surely?


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Aug 2005)

The single biggest theme I've gotten so far from the three shows is that Eddie is trying to show how we are not getting value for money for the many taxes we pay in this country. And that, to me, is a message well worth telling. I think that they are the single biggest culprits in ripping off the people in this country, not the retailers, or service providers. I think if it could be shown that the taxpayers money was sensibly spent, with good value being obtained, there would be a hell of a lot less complaints. And then yesterday we hear the figures about the pensions these guys are on (multiple pensions in some cases) ... I tell ye it just gets better!!


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

This was the first of the ROR programmes that I have seen. It was entertaining in a shallow sort of way, but I didn't like Eddie's negativity and tendency to sneer. Neither was I impressed by his abject failure to suggest even one possible solution for the many problems he addressed.

Despite his opening spiel about being stuck in traffic for 2 hours a day, I got the impression that Eddie would be happier if we hadn't bothered upgrading our transport infrastructure at all in the past 10 years, simply because everything cost too much - much like an old farmer going around with the backside out of his trousers but who won't buy a new suit because they're more expensive than 10-20 years ago. He complained strongly about tolls. He complained strongly about VRT & VAT on cars. He complained strongly about the tax burden on the public. He even complained about the price of a €15 grill on the train. Its hard to know what would make Eddie happy.


----------



## tallpaul (30 Aug 2005)

Ceist Beag said:
			
		

> The single biggest theme I've gotten so far from the three shows is that Eddie is trying to show how we are not getting value for money for the many taxes we pay in this country. And that, to me, is a message well worth telling. I think that they are the single biggest culprits in ripping off the people in this country, not the retailers, or service providers.


 
Ceist Beag has it spot on. The overwhelming message from last night's show is that it is the GOVERNMENT that is ripping off people the most in this country. Between tax on petrol, VAT on petrol, VRT on cars, VAT on cars, their share of the toll bridge fare and all the other indirect taxes that we now have to pay, it is the Government that are creaming it. And what does the taxpayer get in return? More indirect taxes, pure waste of money in overspends and pie in the sky plans calculated on the back of an envelope.

The programme is quite dumbed down but it has to be. When you see people filling up in petrol stations that are 10c a litre dearer than the one down the road, the programme has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

As an example, what is to stop Brian Cowen reducing the amount of take the Government gets from a litre of petrol/diesel and therefore reduce the price to the motorist?? Nothing but there is no way he will do it as the overspends and the waste of taxpayers money has to be paid from somewhere


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Aug 2005)

CC said:



> Surely the mismanagement of construction projects is a rip off in the sense that the price taxpayers were charged for the project was several times higher than the original figure? Or that projects haven't delivered expected benefits? I don't want to get into semantics here, but surely these are 'rip offs' in some way?



It's not really semantics and again there is little evidence of rip-off. The programme format is designed for entertainment rather than for information, so there was no one around to discuss or challenge the figures.

If I think something will cost €300m and it ends up costing €800m, there are two explanations. Eddie would only have us believe one explanation. The correct cost is the lower figure of €300m and therefore we have been ripped off by €500m. The much more likely explanation is that the planners underestimated the cost in the first place. Seamus Brennan made a very good point, which was derided by Eddie. The cost overrun should be compared with the tender documents, not with the original plan. All large projects must go out to tender across the entire European Union. It is a competitive market. 

There is a very serious issue if we plan our infrastructure based on €300m estimates but which should have been estimated at €800m. We do need to address this bad planning and seek to correct it. There is a problem, but it is not a problem of rip-off. And that is my main issue with the programme and everyone who labels everything they don't like about Ireland as a rip-off. 

To me a rip-off is where you are quoted one price and charged another; where you are quoted a misleading price; where suppliers act together to keep the prices to artificially high. Eddie suggests that this may have happened in the car industry and if it did, those guys would be guilty of a criminal offence. 

So why is the mixed grill a rip-off? Is the Merrion Hotel ripping me off charging me €5 for a pint  of Guinness? Absoultely not. If I want to enjoy a pint in the fabulous surroundings of that hotel, then I pay the price. If I don't want to pay €15 for a mixed grill, I have loads of other options. I could slum it and visit the catering car on the train. I could eat beforehand or afterwards. I could even bring my own sandwiches. 

As far as I remember I only travelled first class on a train once. I paid a high price for the breakfast, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and did not resent paying for it. 

Brendan


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> As an example, what is to stop Brian Cowen reducing the amount of take the Government gets from a litre of petrol/diesel and therefore reduce the price to the motorist??



There is in fact a compelling economic logic behind Cowen's decision to do nothing on this. The theory is that when international fuel prices increase, this puts pressure on government spending in all sorts of areas (for example the minibus operator from Sligo on Morning Ireland today who is looking for a 30% increase in his fees for bringing kids to school). As govt spending goes up, the govt has to raise additional amounts in taxation. Reducing taxes on petrol & diesel would make this task more difficult.

By the way, I ate a meal in a local hotel bar last evening and the mixed grill cost €14...


----------



## jasconius (30 Aug 2005)

In a democracy you get who you elect.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> If I think something will cost €300m and it ends up costing €800m, there are two explanations. Eddie would only have us believe one explanation.



Anyone who has completed any construction project (eg built or extended their home) in the past decade will know that it is extremely difficult to complete the job without going over-budget. Some of this is to do with the ever-increasing cost of construction labour. Some of it is to do with ever-increasing standards and regulation, health and safety being one prime example. Some of it is to do with the unexpected glitches and hitches that arise on every project, most of which are impossible to predict. These matters are simple facts of life and in the Tiger and post-Tiger era have been impossible to avoid. 

For example the guy who planned to buy a site and  build a basic house for £80,000 in 1995 probably found it cost him £100,000 if he built it in 1997, £130,000 if he did so in 2000, €200,000 if he did so in 2003 or €250,000 if he built it in 2005.

The same obviously applies to road & rail construction projects - even more so as projects of such magnitude by their very nature will extend over many years and in an era when there have been extreme hikes in the prices demaned for land acquisition. 

The "mistakes" that the State sector has made are the same "mistakes" that have been made by tens of thousands of citizens up and down the country. Yet Eddie would have us believe that collectively the State sector is "stupid" and collectively the rest of us are "smart". I refuse to buy into such an infantile analysis.


----------



## Grumpy (30 Aug 2005)

When the Euro came to Ireland, stories abounded about how much more expensive things are in Ireland.Not everything, everywhere but enough to make us close to the most expensive country in Europe.Why?
Is it something intrinsically celtic?
Eddie is telling us why.Does the rollcall of some of the usual suspects (Pee Flynn, George Redmond, Liam Lawlor) not give just a wee indication that its not an accident?
Maybe we should deny his arguements and then maybe we won`t feel like the fools we are to have tolerated this for decades.
If the presentation seemed a little amateurish, it also gave it a freshness and clarity.
I await with great interest the response from government/business.
Just how will they attempt to bury this troublesome little man!


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

Pee Flynn left national politics in 1993. George Redmond retired about 15 years ago at age 65. Liam Lawlor has not had any meaningful influence on national policy making since Haughey stepped down in 1991. Even though they each appear to have serious questions to answer on the NTR M50 toll deal, its a bit much to attribute ALL our woes to these three gents - especially the post-2002 Euro inflation!


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> CC said:
> So why is the mixed grill a rip-off? Is the Merrion Hotel ripping me off charging me €5 for a pint  of Guinness? Absoultely not. If I want to enjoy a pint in the fabulous surroundings of that hotel, then I pay the price. If I don't want to pay €15 for a mixed grill, I have loads of other options. I could slum it and visit the catering car on the train. I could eat beforehand or afterwards. I could even bring my own sandwiches.
> Brendan



So if the Merrion Hotel started charging Eur15 a pint would you then consider it a rip-off?  Even though you could still go to Tesco and drink at home.

My understanding of the term "rip-off" as used over the past couple of years in Ireland, is that the charge is above and beyond cost + profit and is an indicator of seeing "how much can i get away with here?"

And Eur15 for a grill IMHO is a prime example of same.


----------



## Humpback (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> There was not one concrete example of a rip-off on the entire programme. If you choose to define a rip-off as "anything you don't like about modern Ireland", then of course we live in "Rip-off Republic".


 
I think it was an earlier show where Eddie described a rip-off as a "win-lose" transaction. It's a little off the wall, and probably not in any dictionary, but I'd go along with it.

I think the point of last nights programme and the rip-off it was illustrating was the fact that we pay SO MUCH money in taxes to do with buying/using our cars (not disputing the rights and wrongs of these taxes), yet we get SO LITTLE when it comes to how that money is spent on roads etc.

We are not getting value for money on how our money is being spent on roads (and yes, we all HERE know that).


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> My understanding of the term "rip-off" as used over the past couple of years in Ireland, is that the charge is above and beyond cost + profit and is an indicator of seeing "how much can i get away with here?"


Why do you assume that there is some sort of reasonable profit margin and that anything more is a rip-off? It's the nature of free market capitalism that businesses will strive to maximise profits. The corollary is that the free market leaves it open to others to enter, compete and - from the consumer's point of view - provide choice and downward pressure on prices. Of course the consumer is not a passive entity in all of this and must exercise choice in where they spend their money. If some people are happy to spend €5 on a pint or €15 on a mixed grill (or even if they are not happy, spend it anyway and then start moaning about it) then that's their prerogative.



> And Eur15 for a grill IMHO is a prime example of same.


If people stop paying the allegedly rip-off prices in question and use one of the practical alternatives suggested by _Brendan _earlier then the businesses in question will be forced to reduce their prices.


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> If people stop paying the allegedly rip-off prices in question and use one of the practical alternatives suggested by _Brendan _earlier then the businesses in question will be forced to reduce their prices.



I agree.  But the rip-off only exists because not everyone does this.  And while people are prepared to pay for something reluctantly, or stupidly, they should be allowed do so and call it a rip-off!


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Aug 2005)

Isnt there a point that VRT is contrary to the EU free market??  - fairly sure I heard Conor Faughnan talk re this before.

While Kilmeadan gave us all of the taste and none of the waste - is Ireland importing pain for the taxpayer or various sectors (e.g. nitrates directive for farmers, weee on electric appliances etc.) by implementing EU Directives that suit the exchequer or make us look like responsible EU citizens but ignoring other aspects of EU governance that would benefit the consumer/taxpayer but hurt the exchequer??

On the motoring theme, how about:

EU wide competition in the insurance industry - why not happened?, Irish profits were well above EU levels (and probably still are since, though premuims reduced a bit, personal injury claims also being reduced).

Promoting diesel cars as more environmentally friendly, more efficient, potential for use of renewable bio-fuels in diesel engines, at the very least there could be equivalent car tax i.e. tax on a 1.9L diesel being the same as a 1.6L petrol (i.e. why penalise the environmetally friendlier and more efficient option??).

Cut all duty on bio-fuel, give research grants. What better way to improve the economy but giving us our own home produced fuel - and with the new de-coupled farming regime, there is or will be plenty of underutilised land looking for something to be done.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Aug 2005)

> So if the Merrion Hotel started charging Eur15 a pint would you then consider it a rip-off?



No I wouldn't call it a rip-off. It would be ridiculously expensive and I would not drink there. But it would not be a rip-off. 

I am looking at the various dictionary meanings of "rip-off", and they tend to mean:


A theft.
 A thief.
 An act of exploitation 
 My Penguin reference dictionary also defines it as "the charging of an exorbitant price". 

The problem we face is that the media and Eddie have redefined the word to meaning charging high prices. And that is a pity. Ireland is a booming economy and prices are high. 

Brendan


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

Yes Clubman, but that's exactly the problem.

We have been almost totally apathetic to high prices, and that I think is beginning to change now.

We are entitiled to see value for money from our taxes.

Up to now we've taken all this from Bertie etc. for years and we simply re elect the crooks. That's plain crazy. 

Budgets and overuns - a lot of nonesense written on here. If a budget is unrealistic it's worthless. If I knew in advance the likely cost including crazy overuns on any project I could make a decision based on reality, and perhaps go for a better value alternative. Accountability is the issue here.

I'm not party political btw - they all suck as far as I'm concerned.

If any party can provide full accountabilty, transparency, honesty, and value for our taxes they are likely to do well in the future.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> I agree. But the rip-off only exists because not everyone does this. And while people are prepared to pay for something reluctantly, or stupidly, they should be allowed do so and call it a rip-off!


It's not a rip-off. It would be a rip-off if they didn't tell you the price in advance or changed the price that they charged you once you had transacted the business. If you know the price up front and can make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to make a purchase then there is simply no rip-off. I would certainly not pay €5 for a pint or €15 for a mixed grill. Some people obviously would. Good luck to them. Just as long as they don't cry rip-off after the fact.

Besides, if you agree that certain alleged "rip-offs" exist only because consumers don't exercise their discretion enough then your ire should be directed at them and not at the retailers or the Government. Even _EH_, from time to time, berates consumers for helping to perpetuate such situations through their buying behaviours and habits.


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> It's not a rip-off. It would be a rip-off if they didn't tell you the price in advance or changed the price that they charged you once you had transacted the business. If you know the price up front and can make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to make a purchase then there is simply no rip-off. I would certainly not pay €5 for a pint or €15 for a mixed grill. Some people obviously would. Good luck to them. Just as long as they don't cry rip-off after the fact.



The definition of rip off may be changing I think.

I think €10 tops is a fair pirce for a good mixed grill for example.

The thing is if I'm hungry and fancy good food in a decent place it's €15. i spent the €15 but that doesn't mean I've had value for my money.


----------



## contemporary (30 Aug 2005)

It was my first time to see ROR having read about it here and elsewhere and while the content of the program appeared to be factual, why does hobbes feel the need to talk to us like we are 10 year olds, I found it be be very degrading and ruined the show


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> There is a very serious issue if we plan our infrastructure based on €300m estimates but which should have been estimated at €800m. We do need to address this bad planning and seek to correct it. There is a problem, but it is not a problem of rip-off. And that is my main issue with the programme and everyone who labels everything they don't like about Ireland as a rip-off.


 
Agreed.  But I feel that we are getting 'ripped off' in the sense that it is our taxes that are paying for the planners who underestimate these costs.  Someone else pointed out that individuals constantly underestimate the costs of say, building their own home.  Fair enough, but the people who are responsible for planning infrastructure are professionals, and surely should have a better appreciation of what a major project costs than Mr. Smith next door.  I don't expect estimates to be spot on, but I expect a greater degree of accuracy than has been shown in recent years.  Maybe there are signs that it's beginning to change.  I read in the Irish Times last week that three road projects are due to be completed this year, on time (ahead of schedule AFAIR), and some were under budget.  That's a welcome change to what we have been hearing about the M50, Port Tunnel, Luas etc. in recent years



			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> To me a rip-off is where you are quoted one price and charged another; where you are quoted a misleading price; where suppliers act together to keep the prices to artificially high. Eddie suggests that this may have happened in the car industry and if it did, those guys would be guilty of a criminal offence.


 
Well aren't misleading estimates or tenders equivalent, or delays to the original timescale where you are charged the same price, close enough to 'price' for the purpose of discussion?  I understand your frustration of people bandying about the term 'rip off' without perhaps giving full consideration to what they are attempting to describe, but 'rip off' has clearly come to mean different things to different people.  I guess it's a more emotive term than simply saying 'poor value', 'high prices' or 'I didn't bother to shop around/investigate before I bought it and am paying for it now'

Wrt to the car industry, didn't the CA raid a couple of dealerships last year?  I don't know if anything has/will come of this?


----------



## Grumpy (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Pee Flynn left national politics in 1993. George Redmond retired about 15 years ago at age 65. Liam Lawlor has not had any meaningful influence on national policy making since Haughey stepped down in 1991. Even though they each appear to have serious questions to answer on the NTR M50 toll deal, its a bit much to attribute ALL our woes to these three gents - especially the post-2002 Euro inflation!



Where did "ALL" come from?
But all these years later, spare a thought for these gents as you pay Eur1-80 using the Westlink TODAY.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> Someone else pointed out that individuals constantly underestimate the costs of say, building their own home. Fair enough, but the people who are responsible for planning infrastructure are professionals, and surely should have a better appreciation of what a major project costs than Mr. Smith next door.



When Mr Smith next door plans the building of his house he employs a professional planner and/or architect, and a solicitor to ensure that the legals are in order. It doesn't stop the price rocketing between the initial planning phase and final completion.



> Well aren't misleading estimates or tenders equivalent, or where you are charged the same price, close enough to 'price' for the purpose of discussion?


Eddie Hobbs made no allegation that any estimate or tender was misleading. Neither have I heard any such allegation elsewhere. 

Its ludicrous to include "delays to the original timescale" as part of any alleged "rip off" as most of these are down to extraenous factors - objections, land vendors holding out for higher prices etc


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> I think €10 tops is a fair pirce for a good mixed grill for example.


Why? How would you break that €10 down in terms of costs, tax, profit etc.?



> The thing is if I'm hungry and fancy good food in a decent place it's €15. i spent the €15 but that doesn't mean I've had value for my money.


Why spend money if you don't get value for it so? Spend it elsewhere where you do.


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

The €10 tops valuation is my own. I neither mind nor care how it's broken down. I'd guess ingedients might be maybe €2.50?

I already said why I spent it. I wanted decent food in a decent place.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> The €10 tops valuation is my own.


Fair enough.



> I already said why I spent it. I wanted decent food in a decent place.


So - no rip-off even if you breached your own mixed grill price cap of €10. You saw that the price was €15 and decided to pay it presumably because you judged that the decent food and surroundings merited the additional charge. Fair enough. If you were dissatisfied with the food (e.g. quality, portion size etc.) then you were free to complain and even decline to pay. Where's the rip-off?


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> So - no rip-off even if you breached your own mixed grill price cap of €10. You saw that the price was €15 and decided to pay it presumably because you judged that the decent food and surroundings merited the additional charge. Fair enough. If you were dissatisfied with the food (e.g. quality, portion size etc.) then you were free to complain and even decline to pay. Where's the rip-off?



I got poor value. Nail hit on the head.


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Eddie Hobbs made no allegation that any estimate or tender was misleading. Neither have I heard any such allegation elsewhere.


 
Ok, but why isn't the final price = tender/estimate if the tender/estimate is not misleading (defn:  "possessing the capacity or tendency to create a mistaken understanding or impression ")?  If I hear that an estimate/tender is €500m and the actual cost turns out to be €1,000m, then I have been misled (i.e. the estimate/tender created an impression (rightly or worngly) that the actual cost would be €500m not €1,000m).  



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Its ludicrous to include "delays to the original timescale" as part of any alleged "rip off" as most of these are down to extraenous factors - objections, land vendors holding out for higher prices etc


 
Why is it ludicrous?  I consider objectors and land vendors to be just as responsible for the 'rip offs' of recent years as the planners/contractors.  I don't blame the government for actions outside their control (but legislation could be enacted to change this, and has been mooted in the past, but was knocked back by M. McDowell, no?).


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> I got poor value. Nail hit on the head.


Then presumably you voiced your complaints at the time and argued as to why the full price was not merited?


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Then presumably you voiced your complaints at the time and argued as to why the full price was not merited?



No because I knew the price in advance.

There was nothing wrong with the food, it's service, nor the surroundings.

It just wasn't worth the high price charged.

Perhaps I should have offered the owner €10 up front?


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> Ok, but why isn't the final price = tender/estimate if the tender/estimate is not misleading


Tender documents recognise the possibility of cost overruns and specifically include agreed details of how cost overruns and amendments to specification are to be handled. There is no golden rule which states that the tender price must always equal final cost as there will always be uncontrollable factors that cannot be quantified with certainty at the outet 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ubiquitous
> Its ludicrous to include "delays to the original timescale" as part of any alleged "rip off" as most of these are down to extraenous factors - objections, land vendors holding out for higher prices etc
> 
> Why is it ludicrous? I consider objectors and land vendors to be just as responsible for the 'rip offs' of recent years as the planners/contractors.



Who is ripping off who? Did Vincent Salaffia (spell??) rip off the Irish public by pursuing a campaign against the M50 construction at Carrickmines? He would certainly deny it. To go back to Brendan's definition, there is no evidence of "theft", "exploitation" or "the charging of an exorbitant price" on his part. 
Whatever his flaws, bear in mind that he didn't stand to gain financially by his objection. Equally if I object to the new public abattoir or sewage plant on my doorstep, am I guilty of ripoff? 



> I don't blame the government for actions outside their control (but legislation could be enacted to change this, and has been mooted in the past, but was knocked back by M. McDowell, no?).


I don't know what you are getting at here. Dismantling the planning laws to disallow objections to future developments is hardly a good idea in any democracy, although it would save money. It would hardly be constitutional either - perhaps this is what McDowell was getting at?


----------



## avantarklu (30 Aug 2005)

I do not believe rip-off Republic is about a €15 mixed grill or a €5 pint – we all have the ability to make the choice as to whether value for money is being received.  It is where that choice is removed and the single biggest example of this is the payment of taxes. Where is the value for money ?

For example, every major infrastructural announcement is made following an extensive process which inevitably involves the use of expensive “outside” consultants from all walks of life.  This process must involve some estimation of the cost of the project (Mr Smith next door would not engage the services of an expert to ascertain whether he could build a house in his garden \ field without wanting to know what it will cost). The Government (of the day) then announce that, following this process, they have decided to proceed with this project, and they have been informed that it will cost €x million or billion (based on the criteria given to the consultants and experts).  However, when they go to tender, it is suddenly discovered that building a road, tunnel, hospital whatever wherever was not as simple and straightforward as original envisaged, presumably because the initial criteria was made up by civil servants with no concept or care of how things operate in the real world and with the comfort of knowing that they will suffer no repercussions as a result of their errors or oversights.  The tenders come back and the actual budgeted cost is significantly higher.  The Powers that be then say, fine, we got it wrong, it’s actual going to cost 1.5 times what was initial announced (except no reminder will be offered as to the original figure announced).  The tender is awarded and any potential downside is heavily weighted on the side of the taxpayer in terms of what will eventually be paid because no Government wants a half-finished road, tunnel, hospital and a contractor walking away because he can’t get paid for all the unforeseen extras (unforeseen on his part of the tendering process).  This is why over-expenditure on major infrastructural projects in this country runs at 86% while the average everywhere else in 20%.  If Mr Smith was presented with a figure of €200k to build his house according to the specification provided to his builder, you can be sure he would expect to pay as close to that as possible for a house built to that specification. He wouldn’t be prepared to pay €372k (unless the finished product was 86% bigger and better !!!).  At the beginning of the process, Mr Smith has made an informed decision that that €200k represents value for money for the expected return, same way as the taxpayer is informed that the initial cost of a project represents value for money for the expected return.  The final outcome at 86% above budget cannot represent value for money.  

End rant.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> If Mr Smith was presented with a figure of €200k to build his house according to the specification provided to his builder, you can be sure he would expect to pay as close to that as possible for a house built to that specification. He wouldn’t be prepared to pay €372k (unless the finished product was 86% bigger and better !!!).



My example above referred to the cost of buying a site AND building a house. 

You obviously didn't buy a site and build a house in the late 90s or early 00s! Many people who did so found that the project costs doubled between initial planning and completion.

Again the assumption that civil servants are collectively "stupid" and the rest of us are collectively "smart" is simplistic in the extreme.


----------



## avantarklu (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Many people who did so found that the project costs doubled between initial planning and completion.



"Many people" were still able to make an informed decision as to what represented value for money.



> Again the assumption that civil servants are collectively "stupid" and the rest of us are collectively "smart" is infantile in the extreme.



There is no such assumption, but someone has to take responsibility for there actions. Joe Citizen can take his responsibility by voting for change next time round.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> No because I knew the price in advance.
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the food, it's service, nor the surroundings.
> 
> ...


In what way was it not worth the price charged in your view? Presumably this only came to light after the fact otherwise you would not have made the purchase? Did it come to light when you were presented with the dish or only after consuming it? If you felt that it was not worth it then you presumably voiced your opinion on this? If not why not? Do you really consider that you were ripped off?


----------



## Humpback (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> The definition of rip off may be changing I think.
> 
> I think €10 tops is a fair pirce for a good mixed grill for example.
> 
> The thing is if I'm hungry and fancy good food in a decent place it's €15. i spent the €15 but that doesn't mean I've had value for my money.


 
But isn't this one of the problems in our country now.

You may think that €10 is top fair price for a mixed grill, whereas I may be happy to pay €15 or more for a mixed grill in the Merrion Hotel while I'm watching Brendan pay €5 for his Guinness.

Value for money is subjective, and therefore lots of the items argued about with regards to rip-offs aren't really justified - food/drink - basically anything surrounding a service and a location.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> Joe Citizen can take his responsibility by voting for change next time round.


Don't assume that a single civil servant or a single civil service practice will change if the Taoiseach or Govt changes. Fine Gael took control of many local councils across the country 14 months ago and have yet to implement even a single reduction in local taxes or charges.


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Tender documents recognise the possibility of cost overruns and specifically include agreed details of how cost overruns and amendments to specification are to be handled. There is no golden rule which states that the tender price must always equal final cost as there will always be uncontrollable factors that cannot be quantified with certainty at the outet


 
That's fine, but I expect a greater degree of accuracy than has been the case to now.  Like I said above, there appears to be evidence that things are getting better in recent weeks.




			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Who is ripping off who? Did Vincent Salaffia (spell??) rip off the Irish public by pursuing a campaign against the M50 construction at Carrickmines? He would certainly deny it. To go back to Brendan's definition, there is no evidence of "theft", "exploitation" or "the charging of an exorbitant price" on his part.


 
Yes I feel 'ripped off' by his actions, despite what he might say to the contrary.  These court actions etc. have certainly made the price of the M50 'exorbitant' in my view.



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Whatever his flaws, bear in mind that he didn't stand to gain financially by his objection.


 
I don't really care whether he stood to gain financially or not, but I know that taxpayers lost financially as a result of his actions.  That's my concern.



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Equally if I object to the new public abattoir or sewage plant on my doorstep, am I guilty of ripoff?


 
No, I'm not trying to stereotype here, but objecting to something like an abbatoir or sewage plant on your doorstep isn't quite the same thing, is it? Mr. Salafia is a serial objector to major public projects, none of which are as detrimental to his quality of life as abbatoirs or sewage plants being sited on his doorstep.  I don't deny people their right to object, as long as it's within the legal framework for doing so.  However, I would take issue with their motives, and with the legal framework that allows them to do so.  But that's my own opinion.




			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> I don't know what you are getting at here. Dismantling the planning laws to disallow objections to future developments is hardly a good idea in any democracy, although it would save money. It would hardly be constitutional either - perhaps this is what McDowell was getting at?


 
What I was getting at was that this was seriously considered by the current government, but was abandoned (cafe bar style????) on the intervention of McDowell.  Was he getting at the constitutionality of it?  Maybe.  Or was he acting as TD for an area that was due to house an incinerator that could have been 'fast tracked' under the proposed legislation?  Who knows?


----------



## Culchie (30 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> Hi Bizzy
> 
> There was not one concrete example of a rip-off on the entire programme. If you choose to define a rip-off as "anything you don't like about modern Ireland", then of course we live in "Rip-off Republic".
> 
> ...


 
Aren't the standard class tickets a rip-off as well? approx €50 to Cork return .... and biggest scam of the lot, is that is €50 single as well .....Rip Off.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

> I think €10 tops is a fair pirce for a good mixed grill for example.


You would not get a mixed grill for stg£ 6.50 or €10 in the North.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

CC



> Yes I feel 'ripped off' by his actions, despite what he might say to the contrary. These court actions etc. have certainly made the price of the M50 'exorbitant' in my view... I know that taxpayers lost financially as a result of his actions....Mr. Salafia is a serial objector to major public projects, none of which are as detrimental to his quality of life


Do you think he should be locked up? Otherwise, what do you propose should be done with him?



> I don't deny people their right to object, as long as it's within the legal framework for doing so. However, I would take issue... with the legal framework that allows them to do so.



Eh?


----------



## balga (30 Aug 2005)

I watched this programme.  I think it is unfortunate that the phrase "rip-off" is used.   When I lived here in 1989 (making comparisons with Perth, WAustralia)  my experience of Dublin was of an extremely expensive place to live.  With the exception of the price of housing, perhaps Dublin now  is somewhat more expensive.  

Again, I recall the first drive from Dublin Airport, and thinking that the road system was very good.  As soon as we left the airport dual carriageway, that impression  rapidly changed.   Now, with the opening of, for eg, the M1, which is not too far from us, I can't justifiably argue that the roads I frequently travel are dangerous.  Likewise, our journey to Kilmore Quay from north county Dublin involves travelling along some very good roadway.  

I wouldn't argue with anyone returning with, "Yes, but it is very, very expensive roadway."  Why is that?  The programme, for me, didn't successfully deconstruct such a perception.    Certainly, more expensive compared to construction costs in WA, but HM more expensive than the European average?   ROR seemed to take some vicarious pleasure in excessively criticising the personalities involved in one (important) section of the decision-making process.  

This is a very small, and in some ways a very old marketplace.  An historical legacy seems to accompany every present decision.  However, I don't recall a programme (however unfocussed) like ROR 3 back in 1989 here in Dublin, so bully for the people behind the programme.  Perhaps it is a starting point. Eg  petrol prices here are far, far higher than in Perth (how do the prices compare with other Euro economies?) Petrol companies are required to submit the following days retail prices to a watchdog authority and will be substantially fined if the notified price is not charged at the bowser.  I recall penalty points were recently introduced here.  Such a scheme  has been in operation in Perth since 1983.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

balga said:
			
		

> Eg petrol prices here are far, far higher than in Perth (how do the prices compare with other Euro economies?)


I thought that petrol prices in _Ireland _were lower than in the _UK _and they even have some supplies of their own!


----------



## MoodyToo (30 Aug 2005)

These discussions on ROR are far more informing than the programme, most likely because here the opposing view points get equal opportunity to air. But I do think Eddie has a message to spread and in the main he is causing more awareness despite leaving himself wide open for criticism with dodgy math and odd examples.
The definition of rip-Off is broad, as pointed out here already it means different things to different people.
There are different kinds of rip offs that don’t compare well. The broad rip-off themes appear to be as follows:
1. How much tax we pay to the Government.
Are we ripped-off, yes if they waste it, maybe not if they spend it wisely to our benefit. This will require constant vigilance on our part as voters and tax payers. The proportion of tax paid by different sections of society is another aspect, everyone has their own opinion on this, and personally I think the low paid pay too much tax as a proportion of their earnings.
2. How we are taxed Stealth Vs PAYE.
They call it taxing by stealth and a rip off, I call it paying additional tax based on my level of consumption. If I can cycle to work I don't pay additional tax on petrol, if I abstain from drink I save paying additional tax there also. I understand that there are areas I can't control, for example in my case I have to drive to work and so have to buy petrol but I do have a level of control over a large proportion of my spending so I have choice in many areas. I don't have control over where I get me electricity, gas etc. and VAT has to be paid here so as a voter and tax payer I have work to do here to make my voice heard so that we might have some competition. 
3. How that tax is spent.
We need to insist on value for money and I think we are, certainly consumer groups are more vocal and because of the over runs of infrastructure projects the past all eyes are on existing ones and how they are costed and structured, we as voters and tax payers have effected change here as well. 
3. How we as consumers are ripped off by business.
Except in the case of monopolies we have alot of control here, if you make a resolution not to be ripped off again you will avoid it most of the time. As other posters have suggested this is as simple as bringing a sandwich on the train or your own pop corn to the cinema or having your friends over for dinner instead of meeting them at a restaurant etc.
It's all about awareness, I wouldn't have written a letter to Michael Martin about the Groceries order if it I had not been made aware of it through Eddie's programme so I'll forgive him his shortcomings and take responsibility for my own spending where I can.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

MoodyToo,

Thats an excellent post, if you don't mind me saying so!


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> CC
> 
> 
> Do you think he should be locked up? Otherwise, what do you propose should be done with him?


 
See below.  I don't think (well at least I won't say ) that anything should be done with him.





			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Eh?


In my view, the legal framework needs to be changed.  As long as people are allowed to object to projects on what I consider to be frivolous grounds, I'm sure they will continue to do so.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> In my view, the legal framework needs to be changed. As long as people are allowed to object to projects on what I consider to be frivolous grounds, I'm sure they will continue to do so.


So do you actively campaign to have the flaws that you perceive in the existing legislative framework rectified appropriately?


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> MoodyToo,
> 
> Thats an excellent post, if you don't mind me saying so!


 
And I'll agree with you on that one Ubi. 

I also think Balga made some good points above, especially:

-  Eddie is taking too much pleasure at poking fun at personalities, and this takes away from the credibility of the message.
-  It was good to see a programme like this being made, and fair play to the producers for making it.

But I think the 'problem' is that this is essentially entertainment as opposed to a documentary type programme (but we have Prime Time for that), and so is sensationalist, humorous, and simplistic.  To expand and justify some of the assertions made in the show would require a lot more airtime (and would be interesting to see, e.g "Eddie Investigates-The Port Tunnel").  And it will be interesting to see if Eddie and Co. are called to account for these assertions by the government.  There is an article in the Irish Times today that suggests that it is not clear cut:

_"Government advisors are cautious about such an approach (referring to Ministers being more active in countering claims made in the programme), fearing that a ministerial response could not compete with the impact of such a *populist *(my own emphasis) programme, and might only make matters worse for the Government"_

So I guess they'll just invite him to Inchydoney  .

Either way, I'm enjoying and learning a lot from the discussion that RoR has provoked on this site and in the media.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Aug 2005)

MoodyToo

Great post which actually adds more light than heat!


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> So do you actively campaign to have the flaws that you perceive in the existing legislative framework rectified appropriately?


 
No I haven't done so.  But I wouldn't rule it out in the future.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today? Or maybe you don't really have strong feelings on the matter in spite of what you say?


----------



## shnaek (30 Aug 2005)

My tuppence worth:
I thought there was nothing new in the programme but it still did enough to make me angry, and I hope it made some of the general population watching it angry. Whether or not our roads etc. have been a 'rip off', they have certainly been wrapped up in incompetence and shady deals. We can't let politicians or civil servants get away with that any more.
I heard before that the Germans contract the building and maintenance of their roads in one contract - so if you get to build the road you must maintain it for 10 years. What happens in this case is that the best road is built so the contractors won't have much maintenance to do going forward. Surely a decent idea?
I also heard from a friend of mine that when roads are being built in some Scandinavian countries they put pipes under the road at the construction stage and companies can rent space in those pipes - and thus the roads aren't dug up every couple of months leaving the motorist to deal with ground turbulence.
It would be interesting to see Eddie pose some ideas like these as solutions to transport problems.
As for the trains – we need two lines on the main rail links in the country. Simple as that.
To be honest, if we in Ireland suffer from incompetence rather than rip offs I would be much more pissed off. At least people pursuing/creating rip offs have some agenda and intellect. Incompetence comes as a result of laziness or lack of ability. So are our politicians and civil servants sh*te or just looking after their own interests?

(Just to clarify - by 'pursuing' rip offs I was referring to perpetrators)


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

shnaek said:
			
		

> At least people pursuing rip offs have some agenda and intellect.


Some people are exhibiting a stunning lack of intellect by seeing rip-offs where there are none though.


----------



## car (30 Aug 2005)

> So are our politicians and civil servants sh*te or just looking after their own interests?



Some of the civil servants are the best people we have, and are dedicated to doing the best for this country and care about their work and delivering on benchmarking and productivity deals that the unions cut for them. 
Some are the worst and are only interested in spending their day posting on website forums .  The management are ripping us off by not dealing with them.  The politicians are ripping us off by not replacing the management.  Nothing will ever be done as nothing can be done(unions,jobs for life etc).  Now thats a ripoff.


----------



## shnaek (30 Aug 2005)

Just to clarify - by 'pursuing' rip offs I was referring to perpetrators - just threw that into my post as I realised it wasn't really clear.  
And what you say is true - but there is plenty evidence of bad value for money re how our government spend our money.


----------



## delgirl (30 Aug 2005)

If you feel you're being 'ripped-off' by the M50 tolls - join 98FM & The Sunday World's campaign to Bury the Tolls!

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We aim is to get as many people as possible to text Toll to [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]51101[/font] to form the biggest SMS petition (Toll Poll) to get the National Toll Spokesperson to declare a free Toll 2 hours.  

Text number is 51101. 

"Text Toll to 51101 with your name and address" or email Toll@98FM.ie with the same info."[/font]​


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> In what way was it not worth the price charged in your view? Presumably this only came to light after the fact otherwise you would not have made the purchase? Did it come to light when you were presented with the dish or only after consuming it? If you felt that it was not worth it then you presumably voiced your opinion on this? If not why not? Do you really consider that you were ripped off?



As somebody else said price is a personal and subjective thing. Things are worth it or not. It's a personal call, based on experience. I've had one or two mixed grills and €10 is about right imho.

The only reason to have paid the €15, knowing in advance the price, is one of hunger and lack of alternative.


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> But isn't this one of the problems in our country now.
> 
> You may think that €10 is top fair price for a mixed grill, whereas I may be happy to pay €15 or more for a mixed grill in the Merrion Hotel while I'm watching Brendan pay €5 for his Guinness.
> 
> Value for money is subjective, and therefore lots of the items argued about with regards to rip-offs aren't really justified - food/drink - basically anything surrounding a service and a location.



Yes, but going back to basics €15 is not good value for that meal imho.


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

Some posters seem to think Hobbs should present solutions for these problems.

That's not his job - he's just identifying and publicising the wastes and lack of value.

If the Gov't agree with his opinions they really should resign. Serial wasters of valuable public funds.

If not they should make reasonable defence of their record - I'm still waiting for that. Tim O'Malley made a fool of himself on the radio attempting same.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> If you feel you're being 'ripped-off' by the M50 tolls - join 98FM & The Sunday World's campaign to Bury the Tolls!
> 
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We aim is to get as many people as possible to text Toll to [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]51101[/font] to form the biggest SMS petition (Toll Poll) to get the National Toll Spokesperson to declare a free Toll 2 hours.
> 
> ...


Is there a charge for those texts? The [broken link removed] doesn't say one way or another. If they are asking people to text the number but they will be charged for it (over an above their own operator's rate) then *that* is an example of a real rip-off!


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> Yes, but going back to basics €15 is not good value for that meal imho.


"Not good value" and "rip-off" are not the same thing in my opinion.



			
				RS2K said:
			
		

> As somebody else said price is a personal and subjective thing. Things are worth it or not. It's a personal call, based on experience. I've had one or two mixed grills and €10 is about right imho.
> 
> The only reason to have paid the €15, knowing in advance the price, is one of hunger and lack of alternative.


So - basically it's not a rip-off in this specific case. Case closed?


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today? Or maybe you don't really have strong feelings on the matter in spite of what you say?


 
Maybe I can't do it today, and yes, maybe I don't have strong enough feelings in spite of what I say, but I don't think that bars me from saying that something should be changed, or that I am unhappy about something?  

In fairness, do I go on as much as others about "rip off Ireland"? Probably not.  And this is a discussion forum, not an action group, is it?


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Maybe I can't do it today, and yes, maybe I don't have strong enough feelings in spite of what I say, but I don't think that bars me from saying that something should be changed, or that I am unhappy about something?
> 
> In fairness, do I go on as much as others about "rip off Ireland"? Probably not.  And this is a discussion forum, not an action group, is it?


Fair enough - I'm just pointing out the seeming contradiction inherent in complaining about being ripped off by the actions of _Vincent Salafia_ earlier, professing to having a problem with allegedly  such as his and stating that you believe that the legal framework needs modification to mitigate the problems caused by such actions but then admitting that you don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything constructive to address these issues. Fair comment on my part I would have thought?


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Fair enough - I'm just pointing out the contradiction of complaining about being ripped off by the actions of _Vincent Salafia_ earlier, professing to having a problem with  such as his and stating that you believe that the legal framework need modification to mitigate such issues but then admit that you don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything constructive to address these issues. Fair comment on my part I would have thought?


 
Yes, of course.  But did you ask whether I intended to do anything about it out of interest, or to goad me into saying that no I wasn't and then pointing out that I'm contradicting myself (I don't believe that I am by the way)?

Believe it or not, I'm not all talk no action.  I could (I will if you need evidence) post details of how I shop around, how I get the lowest possible prices through research, how I avoid retailers etc. who believe charge prices that are too high. etc. (you questioned whether I was a 'Rip Off Ireland merchant' and 'all talk no action' in another thread).  Trying to effect a change in legislation is a different matter altogether.

I think I am entitled to express my views, and of course you are entitled to disagree.  But I don't necessarliy feel that I should have to provide solutions, or take action in all cases, should I?


----------



## RS2K (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> "Not good value" and "rip-off" are not the same thing in my opinion. *Not good value = bad value = rip off?*
> 
> 
> So - basically it's not a rip-off in this specific case. Case closed?
> ...



A question of interpretation imho.


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Some people are exhibiting a stunning lack of intellect by seeing rip-offs where there are none though.



Who is this directed at! Do you mean that some people are stupid because their interpretation of the meaning of "rip-off" is not the same as yours?!



			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> No I wouldn't call it a rip-off. It would be ridiculously expensive and I would not drink there. But it would not be a rip-off.
> 
> My Penguin reference dictionary also defines it as "the charging of an exorbitant price".
> Brendan



Maybe I'm stupid but "ridiculously expensive" and "exorbitant price" are the same in my book!




			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> The problem we face is that the media and Eddie have redefined the word to meaning charging high prices.
> Brendan



Not just the media and Eddie

Oxford dictionary:  • noun informal 1 an article that is greatly overpriced
Cambridge:             noun [C usually singular]
                            something that is not worth what you pay for it:
                            £300 for that shirt? - That's a complete rip-off.


----------



## delgirl (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Is there a charge for those texts? The [broken link removed] doesn't say one way or another. If they are asking people to text the number but they will be charged for it (over an above their own operator's rate) then *that* is an example of a real rip-off!


 
Texts are charged at the normal operator's rate.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

Ah ... a batch reply is required here...



			
				CCOVICH said:
			
		

> Yes, of course. But did you ask whether I intended to do anything about it out of interest, or to goad me into saying that no I wasn't and then pointing out that I'm contradicting myself (I don't believe that I am by the way)?


I was not goading you - merely asking for clarification. 



> Believe it or not, I'm not all talk no action. I could (I will if you need evidence) post details of how I shop around, how I get the lowest possible prices through research, how I avoid retailers etc. who believe charge prices that are too high. etc. (you questioned whether I was a 'Rip Off Ireland merchant' and 'all talk no action' in another thread). Trying to effect a change in legislation is a different matter altogether.


The all talk and no action comment was facetious. Sorry if you took it seriously. The reference to "rip-off merchants" was an allusion to people (not necessarily you) who blame most or all of our ills on "rip-off Ireland" without distinguishing between real rip-offs and other stuff like high prices.



> I think I am entitled to express my views, and of course you are entitled to disagree. But I don't necessarliy feel that I should have to provide solutions, or take action in all cases, should I?


Of course. But I just thought that seeing that you were accusing _Vincent Salafia _of ripping you off and of frivolous objections to developments and saying that you believed that the relevant legislative framework was flawed insofar as it facilitated this then you would have strong enough views on the matter to do something about it. Fair enough if you don't and just want to complain about it. That's your prerogative.



			
				RS2K said:
			
		

> A question of interpretation imho.


I don't think so. If you considered it bad value for money yet spent the money and did not voice your opinions/complaints then there is certainly no rip-off.



			
				podgerodge said:
			
		

> Who is this directed at! Do you mean that some people are stupid because their interpretation of the meaning of "rip-off" is not the same as yours?!


It was not directed at any individual in particular. I think some people are exhibiting a stunning lack of intellect when they mistakenly label things a rip-off when they are patently not. Not only are they wasting their time complaining but they are often also overlooking the real rip-offs as a result.



			
				delgirl said:
			
		

> Texts are charged at the normal operator's rate.


OK - thanks for that info. They really should say that on the campaign flyers otherwise people who assume that the usual high price on such premium text numbers apply might not participate.


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Aug 2005)

Ah... ClubMan, I still say you missed your calling as an academic!


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> If you considered it bad value for money yet spent the money and did not voice your opinions/complaints then there is certainly no rip-off.



IMHO you are still ignoring a perfectly valid definition for "rip-off" as I posted from Oxford and especially Cambridge earlier:

Oxford dictionary: • noun informal 1 an article that is greatly overpriced

Cambridge: "noun [C usually singular]
something that is not worth what you pay for it:
£300 for that shirt? - That's a complete rip-off."

Note the shirt example is from Cambridge, not me.


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Aug 2005)

podgerodge said:
			
		

> Oxford and especially Cambridge


Eeeee-uuuuw!


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

I only used "especially cambridge" in the sense that the particular example it gave seemed to further my point!  Not because I'm a snob!


----------



## Marion (30 Aug 2005)

> Cambridge: "noun [C usually singular]
> something that is not worth what you pay for it:



This is not contradictory to what Brendan and ClubMan et al have been saying. 

A high-priced item is not necessarily overpriced or indeed greatly overpriced as per the _Oxford_ definition.

I happened to hear Ian O Doherty (I believe he is a journalist with the Irish Independent/Sunday Independent, but I'm not really sure and I'm open to correction) on the Ray D'Arcy show and he was delighted with the show. 

However, he mentioned that the best value restaurants in Dublin were _Shanahan's on the Green_ and _Thornton's._ That they were in fact much better value than some of the mid-priced restaurants in Dublin.

High prices do not mean _rip-off_.

Marion


----------



## sherib (30 Aug 2005)

I thought yesterdays ROR episode was a bit weak and the audience didn't seem as receptive either. Eddie seems to be beating the same drum every week and fatigue is setting in. Did anyone hear a radio interview over the weekend which suggested that *Eddie could affect the outcome of the next election? *It wouldn't surprise me if he is offered a nomination from one of the opposition parties. If there is a change of government, does anyone *seriously* believe that would result in lower direct or indirect taxation? I don't. More likely the converse. He keeps hammering at our undeniably high indirect taxes and government waste, including:

Electronic voting machines
Cost overruns all over the place
Inadequate public transport system
Privatisation of toll roads to the benefit of particular individuals
Vehicle Registration Tax which is out of line with European harmonisation

Balance that _*imbalance*_ against patients on trolleys, traffic mayhem and hours wasted commuting, little in the way of child support services, inadequate funding of education especially at primary level and not forgetting our vulnerable elderly - the list is long; is it any wonder Eddie is succeeding in whipping up the electorate? 

My main conclusion is that with *coffers that were never so full,* (or maybe ever will be again), the government is behaving like a skin flint, getting themselves "made up" for camera "bites" and generally ignoring and treating with disdain the populace who elected them. It should be a walkover for the opposition to win the next election unless they change their tune. IMHO a little bit of _"soul"_ or vision is needed and a little less accounting - especially for low and middle income workers. 

To be fair to the government, costs are very high here due to minimum wage adherence (unlike some other countries), rents, energy and all the other costs associated with business; not forgetting our good friends at _Eircom_, ever the monopolist.

Is there a solution? I'd have to see the books (!) but I'd start by significantly increasing Motor tax on SUVs and bull barred Jeeps - more suited to prairies and twice as likely to kill as a standard motor vehicle.


----------



## Marion (30 Aug 2005)

> It wouldn't surprise me if he is offered a nomination from one of the opposition parties.



I read over the weekend that the PDs would be intererested in him - not a party in opposition.

But then, paper never refuses ink!

Marion


----------



## CCOVICH (30 Aug 2005)

Marion said:
			
		

> I read over the weekend that the PDs would be intererested in him - not a party in opposition.



After the "Mama Harney" sketch????????

Keep your enemies close.........


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Aug 2005)

The PDs took Tom Parlon on board in similarly unlikely circumstances just before the last election...


----------



## Marion (30 Aug 2005)

> After the "Mama Harney" sketch????



So, he's a vulnerable child looking for a mother figure - even Tony Soprano has his moments! 

Marion


----------



## ClubMan (30 Aug 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> Ah... ClubMan, I still say you missed your calling as an academic!


Sorry - I don't get it!? 


			
				podgerodge said:
			
		

> IMHO you are still ignoring a perfectly valid definition for "rip-off" as I posted from Oxford and especially Cambridge earlier:
> 
> Oxford dictionary: • noun informal 1 an article that is greatly overpriced
> 
> ...


Look up a few other dictionaries and take the first definition (including from the one that you mention) and you'll find that the primary definition connotes some level of exploitation, swindle, theft, misinformation etc. I don't believe that high prices necessarily indicate a rip-off.


----------



## podgerodge (30 Aug 2005)

sigh, it's probably a letting of steam issue anyway!


----------



## tall chapy (31 Aug 2005)

Bad Value = Rip-off....???
If I have enough money, I am sure that I would think that the prices charged at _Shanahan's on the Green_ and _Thornton's _would be value for money and not a rip-off. But if I was on a basic minimum wage, I am also sure that the prices charged at _Shanahan's on the Green_ and _Thornton's _would be a Rip off !!. So it could boil down to our view on money and the actual item only becomes a sideline to debate.

ROR is entertainment. It informs the many about what is just below the surface. Most people on this forum probably knew most of the facts on Eddie's shows.The question that really needs to be asked is what is being done to change the fact that there is a real lack of investigive journalism. Do you remember Larry Goodman being confronted out side of a church all those years ago. It took the British 'World in Action' team to bring it to the television. Here in this Banana Republic (new name for Eddie's new series....) the libel laws protect the dirty politicians and the rip-off merchants and hinder any real TV investigation. Loosen the libel laws a little...

Clubman
Nice as you are, playing Devils advocate, means critising both sides equally and this thing of having to prove one's credentials ie...'and what have you done about it' type questions and 'if you have done nothing than you cannot talk', clarification/goading what ever you call it is a load of codswallop. It is like you saying that because Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion and never convict of any gangland crimes, he was not a Gangster !!!



> _The only reason to have paid the €15, knowing in advance the price, is one of hunger and lack of alternative._ So - basically it's not a rip-off in this specific case. Case closed?


So if they have you over a barrell, and you pay for it, it is not a rip-off,..more closer to extortion..



> Why do you assume that there is some sort of reasonable profit margin and that anything more is a rip-off? It's the nature of free market capitalism that businesses will strive to maximise profits. The corollary is that the free market leaves it open to others to enter, compete and - from the consumer's point of view - provide choice and downward pressure on prices. Of course the consumer is not a passive entity in all of this and must exercise choice in where they spend their money. If some people are happy to spend €5 on a pint or €15 on a mixed grill (or even if they are not happy, spend it anyway and then start moaning about it) then that's their prerogative.



We are not in a free market. If we were in a free market we would not have the groceries Order.
Your line "leaves it open to others to enter, compete" . when new shops arrive they will not apply downward pressure they will set their prices to the nearest retailer, as there is enough business for both and more with the current growth rates that we have. A good example of this is the introduction of B&Q, known for its cheap prices in Britain, so I was expecting some "downward pressure", instead they seemed to join in a cosy arrangement where 'all boats' rise at the same time.

As for the argument, we are not forced to buy it !!..
 Those that do buy it are in the minority !! 
This really equates to being priced out of the market and leaves those that have the money to buy it. Land being a good example.
So those that have money can afford to buy something where demand is greater than supply, this can lead the majority out in the wilderness. Houses being a good example at present
Another example would be Clubman or myself, being the guy in the McDonalds advertisement, where he is about to go into the Nightclub, and has to pay for additional charges.Yes, he could walk out but then thats where all the fun is, he could wear his jacket while he is dancing, he could dance alone instead of with someone..so he is not forced to pay these charges...

Brendan


> So if the Merrion Hotel started charging Eur15 a pint would you then consider it a rip-off?
> No I wouldn't call it a rip-off. It would be ridiculously expensive and I would not drink there. But it would not be a rip-off.


€15 is a rip-off for a pint..how far would it take to move it from a ridiculously expensive pint to a Rip-off pint.
Our valuation of money is totally different Brendan.
It is true, I could walk away, but it is also excluding me from the Merrion Hotel Bar, it is setting the price so high it is excluding a certain set of customers. 
The whole idea of the Rip-off merchant is to milk everyone until they cannot afford it,so while the boom lasts, 'sell dear and then sell cheap'..if that day ever comes.
It is a bit like the reverse of the current low cost airline model, sell cheap and then sell dear.

As for the government spending our taxes, accountability is what is required, even if it has to go down to the civil servents, along with transparency (No FOI fees to the public, would do for starters).

One interesting 'fact' that came out lastnight for me was that €1 in every €8 of government revenue comes from the car. That is an awful lot of money. Some of this needs to go towards building some decent public transport. A metro system would be a good starter, using the National Pension Fund or SSIA's to fund it, and giving it a guarenteed return at the end, instead of investing it in Equities, where their is an element of risk.

I think to have any balanced debate on this we need some bright person out there, to come up with an equation of what a Rip-Off is, quick stab VALUE⋠PRICE With value being an average of opinions. 
I'm sure having you over a barrell will come in to it, ie:last flight out of a war zone,truck stop on a motorway, use of toilet in a building where you have to pay..St. Stephens Green SC. so need maybe greater than demand...

PS, Where is the spellchecker these days ??


----------



## Brendan Burgess (31 Aug 2005)

Tall Chappy said



> It is true, I could walk away, but it is also excluding me from the Merrion Hotel Bar, it is setting the price so high it is excluding a certain set of customers.



So what?  Being excluded from the Merrion Hotel is not a problem for me. Doheny's is much better and is just around the corner. I am also excluded from driving a Ferrari and living on Shrewsbury Road, but so what? 



> we need some bright person out there, to come up with an equation of what a Rip-Off is, quick stab VALUE equals PRICE With value being an average of opinions.



What brighter persons do you want than ClubMan and me? If you accept that high prices means rip-off, you will need to find a new phrase to cover those cases where people are overcharged because of misleading prices, simple theft as in taxi drivers charging more than is on the meter or pubs charging more than the published price. 


I would suggest the following:

Cheap - low in price but may or may not be good value

Expensive - high in price, but may or may not be good value

Rip-off - a price involving some act of fraud or theft or deceit

Good value - A higher than average standard of product or service for the price you pay  which may be cheap or expensive. 

So can we agree on anything?

Ireland is generally an expensive place to live compared to our European neighbours

There is a mixture of good and bad value. 

There are occasional examples of rip-offs, but there is not a rip-off culture. 

Brendan


----------



## RS2K (31 Aug 2005)

Good morning evryone!

Our beloved Gov't "rip us off" daily with stealth and other taxes and provide appaling value for our money.


----------



## DoctorEvil (31 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> There are occasional examples of rip-offs, but there is not a rip-off culture.
> 
> Brendan



I wonder about that sometimes - I was getting a quote from a few builders there recently and they were all coming in about the same and while talking to one it turned out that he knew my brother so he dropped his quote by 500 euro. Leads me to believe that the culture is to rip off but if you know some-one you can get a fair price.


----------



## shnaek (31 Aug 2005)

I think a good deal of the debate here owes itself to the equation of rip-off with bad value.  Perhaps it would be best if Eddies programme was called 'bad value' Ireland - because I think that that is what most people are arguing about. I would not have put fraud/theft/deceit into my definition of rip-off, so I would have been debating about a different issue if that was the definition we were using here. 
To bring it back to this weeks ROR show - I think that the 700-odd million that we pay in ROAD TAX every year is bad value considering the ROADS/TRANSPORT NETWORK we get for it. We have had 10 years of boom. We should have more to show for it. Are we to go the way of the Italians who also had a long boom and spent feck all on infrastructure and are now looming in a slump because of that? A bit of forward thinking would be nice. The Finns, Spanish and Portuguese could do it.
I am not sure that LUAS was good value either. Sure it is a fine system, and it is the best mode of transport in Dublin at the moment – but we paid an awful lot for it, and if we compare what we paid for it to what other capital cities paid for a superior system (underground, lines that link up etc) then perhaps it would be fair to call it bad value.
Our motorways are taking longer to build than most other developed nations. Now we are being told that even though tax payers money has built them they will be handed over to private enterprise to milk. That to me would be bad value for tax payers money.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2005)

Being called "nice" and "bright" in one thread? What a great start to the morning. Thanks folks!


----------



## Grumpy (31 Aug 2005)

Private businesses make cost/benefit analysis on  possible projects all the time.
Its not rocket science for the professional.I`m sure Intel would have lent someone to the government for a while.
We have all done this in our own lives....
Do simply calculations of material and labour, add other sundry expenses, add something for unexpected costs
(get second back of envelope)
add cost of inflation
add a some more for costs overlooked
add another lump so wife/voter doesn`t think you`re a complete fool for getting it so  wrong.
The LUAS is really a joke.
They must have had some idea of how much the benefit was worth when they decided Eur220M cost was OK.
Now we have a light rail built by us at over Eur700M, contracted out to Connex who hope to be breakeven on operating costs in 2-3 years.
Think of Dundrum Shopping Centre being built, furnished and stocked, then handed over to someone free who then couldn`t even make a profit.
This isn`t Rip-Off Ireland......its La La Land.


----------



## ubiquitous (31 Aug 2005)

> Think of Dundrum Shopping Centre being built, furnished and stocked, then handed over to someone free who then couldn`t even make a profit.



Er..., rumour has it that the traders in the Dundrum Shopping Centre are finding business (and presumably profitability) a lot slower than they originally expected.


----------



## Humpback (31 Aug 2005)

RS2K said:
			
		

> Yes, but going back to basics €15 is not good value for that meal imho.


 
Fair enough. IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION.

In my humble opinion, given the surroundings, the service, the quality - the full package - €15 may very well be excellent value for money, as I said, imho.

You can't tell me that €15 isn't worth it. You've no idea how my value-scale works.

Just the same as if I'm willing to pay €3 for a litre of milk in a shop at 4.30am in the morning for the convenience (made up example!!!). 

If it's what I want to pay, then it's not a ripoff to me, and it's within my value assessment. 

I think that one of the problems in this country at the moment is that people are earning so much money (relatively to before, and what they saw their parents earn), that many people very quickly make these value judgements based purely on the "right here, right now", "I want it all and I want it now" type of judgement rather than on a logical assessment of what they're actually getting for their money.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2005)

tall chapy said:
			
		

> Clubman
> Nice as you are, playing Devils advocate, means critising both sides equally


I'm not playing _Devil's Advocate _- I don't believe that we have a pervasive rip-off culture in _Ireland_. There are genuine rip-offs but blaming everything on "rip-off Ireland" misses the point and fails to concentrate on the real rip-offs. I totally agree with raising consumer awareness, shopping around, complaining about bad service/value, alerting the relevant statutory authorities to breaches of consumer legislation, identifying real rip-offs and taking steps to deal with them etc. etc. but I don't believe in populist and unconstructive moaning about "rip-off Ireland" for the sake of it.


----------



## Humpback (31 Aug 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> If you feel you're being 'ripped-off' by the M50 tolls - join 98FM & The Sunday World's campaign to Bury the Tolls!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just a small thing in the larger scheme of things on this particular discussion. 

Firstly, I think that 98fm are supposed to declare what the cost of messages to an SMS code like this - whether or not it's premium, it must be declared.

[broken link removed]

Secondly, and I'm open to correction on this, but I believe that any number beginning with anything except 50*** is chargeable at more than just the operator rates. So 51101 is liable to cost you more than operator rates.

6.2* Use of word 'Free' *

[broken link removed]


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2005)

Ah - so I was correct after all - there is an element of rip-off about this rip-off campaign insofar as the charges applicable are not clearly disclosed!


----------



## onekeano (31 Aug 2005)

I thought the show (like the previous 2) was great. Most AAMers knew a lot of this stuff before. The only reservation that I would have is that it will open the door for the Shinners because if ever they had an election manifesto gift this is it. 

How anyone would vote for the current idiots is unbelieveable (he says as one of the idiots that did!). Apart from the NTR odour that still emanates from Pee, Georgy Porgey and Liamo, who in their right might would get a builder who quoted 100k but finised at 600k to quote for the next job? This is what the govt have been doing with overruns.

Seamy was great when he was saying that "it wasn't fair to quote the original estimates" - ultimate idiot! There was some quotes about previous shows that they were simplistic but why do we need to have all the smoke and mirrors about macroeconomics / hidden costs etc. etc.

Roy


----------



## Brendan Burgess (31 Aug 2005)

This thread was making great progress in a reasonably civilised manner until bitter personal attacks on other posters were made. As the poster of those insults has withdrawn them, I have deleted the post and the subsequent responses. 

Some of us have very strong feelings on this subject. I don't want to quell the lively nature of the discussion, but please everyone respect everyone else's right to disagree with you. 

I find it very irritating when the country is being swept along on a massive negative wave which describes everyting in Ireland as a rip-off. I know that a lot of people find it irritating that some of us, a minority perhaps, believe that there is a difference between things being expensive and a rip-off.

But can we all suppress our frustration and discuss the real issues involved and not the personalities, apart from Eddie of course.


----------



## podgerodge (31 Aug 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> until bitter personal attacks on other posters were made.



Personally I didn't find the comments on either side so bad that anyone should lose sleep over them - heated maybe, but I sensed it as being more of a sparring match. Maybe it's just me!

What I am disappointed though to see, is that many of the comments contained in the deleted posts, which were valid opinions and not forming part of the attacks, have been deleted.

If no-one minds I would like to re-introduce some of the non volatile comments into the thread as their deletion, IMHO, has bolstered the minority opinioin (IMHO) in relation to the meaning of "rip-off"... :

_Podgerodge

Trying to maintain a civil atmosphere on Askaboutmoney is not easy. Rd made a number of posts which some people found offensive. He apologised for causing offence. I turned the clock back to see if we could have the debate on this topic continued in the civil manner in which it was being conducted until Rd made his contribution. If Rd wishes to reinstate his comments in a civil manner, he is welcome to do so. If you wish to make any points you wish to in a civil manner, you are welcome to do so. 

Whether or not you agree with a moderator's decision, please do not undo that decision

Brendan_


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2005)

I had responded to some of these comments but I feel that it's fruitless to reproduce my own comments again now that they have been deleted.


----------



## delgirl (31 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Ah - so I was correct after all - there is an element of rip-off about this rip-off campaign insofar as the charges applicable are not clearly disclosed!


If you were an avid 98FM listener, which you're obviously not, you would have heard them say each time they called for listeners to text that the SMS's are charged at the normal operator rates and not premium rates.

I have passed ronan_d_john's comments on to them and hopefully they will also include this information on their website.



> Being called "nice" and "bright" in one thread? What a great start to the morning. Thanks folks!


Yes, you can be very nice and are obviously very bright and very articulate - hope this provides a good start to the day tomorrow!


----------



## daltonr (31 Aug 2005)

> As the poster of those insults has withdrawn them


 
Brendan could you correct this.   I didn't withdraw anything.  The comments were deleted by someone else.   You're perfectly entitled to delete them, but it's misleading to suggest that I withdrew anything I said.

I'm not going to engage in any further discussion of Rip-Offs.    Enough people agree with what I've been saying for the last 2 years that the points will still get made by others.  

Thanks to those who've PM'd me and who've posted comments of agreement in the various threads.   The Rip-Off Republic TV Show is very important as it is giving a national profile to an issue that many of us feel strongly about.   Of course there will be some who don't like the message.  But that's life.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (31 Aug 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> Yes, you can be very nice and are obviously very bright and very articulate - hope this provides a good start to the day tomorrow!


Thanks. Could you arrange some more compliments for the morning now that I've seen this one. It would be a nice antidote to some of what went on just recently here.


----------



## Marion (31 Aug 2005)

Hi DaltonR

I presume that your apology for causing offence was interpreted in the best possible way by Brendan as a withdrawal of your comments?

Marion


----------



## podgerodge (31 Aug 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> I had responded to some of these comments but I feel that it's fruitless to reproduce my own comments again now that they have been deleted.



True you had. I should have added some of those as well. Apologies!


----------



## Marion (31 Aug 2005)

Hi PodgeRodge

As I stated, if a post is deleted it should be deleted in its entirety and not be reproduced by *others.* 

DaltonR could have reposted these valid viewpoints if he had wanted.

I will not be moderating your post.

Marion


----------



## podgerodge (31 Aug 2005)

Hi Marion

It's ok, Brendan did it for you!


----------



## daltonr (31 Aug 2005)

It's ironic that the very thing Brendan tried to achieve is not happening.
Perhaps you shoudl delete the last few posts again back to oneKeano's.

The last few contain the following

"until bitter personal attacks on other posters were made"
"As the poster of those insults has withdrawn them, I have deleted the post and the subsequent responses."
_"He apologised for causing offence"_

Since the original comments are no longer available it gives a very unfair image of what transpired. 

I did not withdraw any comments.
I would not characterise ANYTHING I said as a bitter personal attack.
I believe that some of the attacks towards myself on AAM have been worse than anything I've written, but you wouldn't know it to read this thread.
I did not apologise for causing offense because I don't believe the comments were offensive.

I am sorry if some people find certain turns of phrase offensive. But more sorry for the individuals than sorry towards them.

I'm happy to have my posts moderated, but not to create a false imprsesion.

-Rd


----------



## Marion (31 Aug 2005)

> It's ok, Brendan did it for you!



I don't know what is wrong. 

You specifically mentioned twice in your earlier posts that you hoped it was ok to repost quotes from a deleted post.

I posted that it wasn't appropriate to reproduce from a deleted post. I asked if you would edit your own post. I had hoped that you would have done this. You chose not to. 

You suggested that the editing be done by an Administrator. It was.

Marion


----------

