"Lox as an Englishman living in Ireland,could I remind you that if I didnt like foreigners I wouldnt be living in IRELAND would I"

I didn't say anything about you or your like/dislike of foreigners.

I'm not interested in that.

what I'm interested in is this.


"its the same thing, lack of investment,by not having someone checking,or double checking the work practices,employ more people to make sure the railways are safer, employ more people to check safety[thats investment]instead of paying people to be unemployed.
it is not irrelevant."


What rubbish.


Someone was paid to examine the bridge and give his professional expert opinion. He did so, but was negligent.

The answer isn't to pay two men.

If the one man had done his Job properly the problems with the Bridge would have been dealt with.

He was responding the the concerns of sea scout and he decided he knew better and was criminally negligent.

He didn't take the sea scout seriously but decided that he knew better and couldn't be bothered to examine the bridge properly.

As clear cut a case of criminal negligence as I have ever seen.

Nonetheless you conclude that the collapse was a consequence of underinvestment.

And then advance that as an argument against Ireland signing up to an EU treaty.

Reading your argument reminds me of the time a small relative of mine proved to me that she could count to a hundred ...

1,2, skip a few, 99, 100.

... she was joking.