But if you think we should accept their bona fides without question, that’s your business.

I did give Simon the benefit of the doubt. My point about having read those documents was that it put me in a position to state, without fear of contradiction (and it hasn’t been contradicted) that Simon hadn’t read them and had missed my point about “genuine” reform of uncompetitive practices. I don’t understand why that can’t be accepted as a fair point. An illustration of how off base Simon was on this one (and I like this site by the way and what goes on here) was his repeated, blinkered reference to the PIAB.

He only skimmed my comments. He can’t have read them properly, to have kept raising arguments which had been logically disposed of as irrelevant. It’s his prerogative not to read what I write, but it’s a bit dispiriting to have to rebut the same wrong points over and over again.

And I think you guys are getting really fixated on the snobbery issue - probably as a way of rationalising your irritation of my point of view.

To wit, I am not a snob. I don’t look down on anyone and I wouldn’t characterise my opinions as superior, rather I would aver that my arguments have been based on and supported with reference to the facts at every turn.

‘So what if no Minister has tackled the bar before? How does that have anything to do with my opinion of Mr. McDowell’s policies and their effectiveness? I don’t see the point in dealing in relativism. I’d rather address his policies on their own merits.’

So whilst McDowell’s policies might not be your cup of tea, you would agree that he is ,at least, one of the most reforming Minister for Justice we’ve ever had?

And as for calling people snobs, snobbery is more than just an ‘irrational distaste’ for something. Snobbery also includes an irrational belief that you or your opinions are better than someone elses simply because of who they are or where they come from.

Anyway, you seem to have an ‘irrational distaste’ or a very low opinion of career politicians (’never had a job’), barristers & pharmacists (’thanks mum and dad’) and farmers (’where are my subsidies’).

And thanks for giving Simon the benefit of the doubt:
‘Basically, you’ve been responding to my comments by googling McDowell+law reform etc, and then presenting the resulting links as “proof” of his reforming zeal.

Well, unlike you I’ve actually read McDowell’s speech on reform, the report of the Competition Authority, the submission of the Bar Council to the Oireachtas committee, and the response of the Bar Council to the Competition Authority report.’

Why not practice what you preach?

So what if no Minister has tackled the bar before? How does that have anything to do with my opinion of Mr. McDowell’s policies and their effectiveness? I don’t see the point in dealing in relativism. I’d rather address his policies on their own merits.

Again, I didn’t label you or anyone else. If someone is middle-class, it’s not a spurious label to identify that as their socio-economic context. And my reference to my own class was to support my reference to snobbery among certain people of that class. Why on earth would you take that as a slighting reference to your own background, which I have no idea about and made no reference to whatsoever?

The Nenagh Ormonde thing was supposed to be a slightly amusing reference to a north tipp rugby club - I thought you were from Tipp and might enjoy the idea of contrasting it with the south County Dublin mentality to which I was referring.

I may be way off base (and sorry if I am) but you seem to be making yourself bitter about my comments by seizing on notions you have about what I’m trying to say rather than what I am actually saying.

moved on to the PIAB I still don’t conside your point on the PIAB while perphaps not brought in by McDowell policy it certainly was brought in by the PD’s and it certainly did challange the socilitor monopoly on compo cases.

While you say that McDowell measures at the bar are quiet week. Could you name another minister that has brought any changes to the bar at all.

I’m not so far removed from the upper middle classes myself and I can tell you that what passes for civilised discourse about women and the poor after a few drinks down the
rugby/golf club in south County Dublin certainly constitutes snobbery if not something a little worse.

I have no doubt that things are a lot more civilised after a Nenagh Ormonde game.

Anyway, we started with State capitalism and moved on to the PIAB - you were wrong and I was right. Everybody makes mistakes. I made one myself, and conceded the point. So which of us is being unreasonable?

So you disagree with me I disagree with you we are never going to agree with each other. So this entire excersise is entirely fruitless.

Re PIAB, so what if Mary Harney is a PD? You brought it up and you were wrong to do so. It has nothing to do with Mr. McDowell’s remit as Minister for Justice to address competition in legal services. As you point out yourself, legal services are no longer really required in personal injury claims. So by your own admission, solicitors and barristers have nothing to do with PIAB. So why oh why are you still banging on about it as part of competition among lawyers and as relevant to entry into the professions?

Basically, you’ve been responding to my comments by googling McDowell+law reform etc, and then presenting the resulting links as “proof” of his reforming zeal.

Well, unlike you I’ve actually read McDowell’s speech on reform, the report of the Competition Authority, the submission of the Bar Council to the Oireachtas committee, and the response of the Bar Council to the Competition Authority report. And I can tell you categorically, that McDowell’s reforms will be largely cosmetic.

Why not actually consider my points, rather than the fact that you’re annoyed I’m making them?

So does that make you a snob for having an irrational distaste for PD supporters.

Department of Enterprise initiative to address the cost of insurance.
Fair enough Was it not introduced by Mary Harney of the PD’s.

Considering that it solves claims without Solicitors and Barristers does not in fact mean that people have a choice in dealing with claims and not being forced into the arms of the solicitors.

This is an unbelievable waste of time.
At last we agree

Again, PIAB is not a Justice initiative, it was an Department of Enterprise initiative to address the cost of insurance. It has no impact on the price of legal services or competition among lawyers. Why can’t you accept that? This is an unbelievable waste of time. I thought you were a pretty reasonable fellow, but we are not even speaking the same language.

The PIAB gives people an ability to get justice by an alterenative means. This to me is competion in the justice sector. Can you name a previous justice minister that has instituied a reform as major as this.

High is a realative measurement that can not be taken in isolation. So the measure realitive to the rest of Europe in my opinion is realivent. On the whether tax is high issues read Franks comments here
they make the arguement better then me.