Skip to main content

Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus are having a laugh!

Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus are having a laugh!

Last Friday I flew to Germany with Aer Lingus. It was an early start with a departure time of 07:00, so most people are not too keen to go for a healthy walk or jog at around 06:00 when you are on your way to the boarding gate. But Aer Lingus is considering our health and must have assumed that I was indulging the night before, because they were determined to get me to walk the calories off.

You check in Terminal 2 and you already know that for a tiny island, the airport in Dublin forces you to walk mad distances, but when you find out that your plane is not at Terminal 2 at all, but instead is parked at the Terminal that Aer Lingus is allegedly NOT using anymore, i.e. Terminal 1, then you feel that someone is having a laugh.

So you check in at Terminal 2 and then walk alllllll the way to Terminal 1 to board your flight. :-O

If that is not odd then wait for the return flight story:

On Tuesday we flew back to Dublin and arrived around 22:00. Usually you can leave the plane through the front and back door, but we were told that we will only be able to leave through the front door and that a bus will bring us to the terminal. But when we got out, there was no bus. Instead we were directed to a (new) walk way that brought us to a building that I had never seen before. I thought this is an extension of Terminal 2, but not so fast! We entered the building through the door on the right and were told to queue at the door OUT of the building in the left. :-O What for? To wait for the bus!

So you walk from the plane to this isolated new building, enter the building just to queue again to get out. Then you take the bus and it brings you to Terminal 2 where you have another loooooong walk to passport control and exit.

Are Dublin Airport and Aer Lingus that incompetent? Have they ever seen any other airports where buses bring passengers to the terminals? The bus normally waits next to the plane and then brings you to the airport. Why do we have to walk to a terminal to enter a bus that will bring us to a terminal. The new isolated building is called “South Gates” as I found out later. It was opened in December 2017 after being built for EUR22 mio (!?) and is only used by Aer Lingus for flights to Britain and Europe. Connection to and from the terminal is only via bus.

Can anyone tell me why Terminal 2 was built? Are any flights departing from and arriving at Terminal 2? Or do we have a situation where Terminal 1 and (mostly empty) Terminal 2 are already not big enough anymore? If that is the case then the future is not looking good.

Cyclists seeing red & Cyclists vs motorists

Cyclists seeing red & Cyclists vs motorists

The newspaper journalists LOVE to stir sh*t and create confrontation! It sells the paper and that’s what their job depends on, so we fully understand that. ;-) However if you brought the wrong two sides up against each other you could get squashed in the middle, so you have to pick wisely! A good target to pick are cyclists and motorists. There is a natural dislike for each other it seems and also you steer far away from any racial or gender issues and accusations of discrimination.

Last week the Irish Times reported that “More fines issued to cyclists but not to drivers parking in cycle lanes”. I get the link BUT this is just sh*t stirring! The journalist didn’t write about “More fines issued to speeding motorists than to drunk motorists” or something like that.

Cars in cycling lanes is against the law (during the hours a cycling lane is active or if there is a full white line) and there is no justification for parking there. And in the same way, crossing a red traffic light is against the law and there is no justification for doing it, but comparing the number of tickets is nonsensical.

It is interesting though that there were 571 (!) fines given to cyclists who crossed red lights in the Dublin region. Considering that you can hardly ever be at a red light as a pedestrian or in a car WITHOUT seeing a cyclists crossing a red light, this is just a tiny tip of a HUGE iceberg and but it did already amount to a sizeable number of 571.

It is a totally stupid and very dangerous thing to do at best of time! So I hope that the Gardai will continue stopping cars and bikes who cross red lights!

The Belfast Trial and the Consequences

The Belfast Trial and the Consequences

This post was first published in the “This is Odd!” section of the DublinEventGuide.com on 31 March 2018, hence some references to that and also the spam filter circumvention as described below.

———————————————————————–

First of all, please note that I can’t risk using the word ra pe in its proper spelling, because otherwise spam filters will not let this mail through, so instead I will use “Rp” wherever that word should appear. I am sure you will be able to work with that.

I have to admit that writing about the Rp Trial in Belfast is not a cheery subject in the slightest and you could say that it has nothing to do with events or with Dublin, but first of all the “This is Odd!” section in the Dublin Event Guide is an opinion section where I don’t just stick to Dublin or event themes and secondly, I think what happened and the emotional response to it is just to huge to ignore it.

BUT, I don’t intend to discuss the trial and its outcomes. Instead there is something much more important and that is what will we take from it and how will we change our attitudes going forward.

A quick reprise: Two years ago at a sort of party, a then 19 year old women experienced something that she called Rp (see first paragraph to understand what “Rp” means). The four men that were involved – and yes there was more than one – claimed all was consensual. The trial was done in front of a jury and after 8 days that jury decided that the men were not guilty and at the same time they implied with that that the women was telling lies.

The result is that the men walk free, the women involved not get any form of emotional “compensation” for having to go through the trial and the majority of women observing feel (rightly) that not much is done to protect or support them if they every had to experience Rp and therefore many women would probably never report it. A really bad outcome.

I didn’t follow the trial in detail and therefore don’t know all that was said by all sides, but I did read the What’s App and text message exchange between the four men and just based on that, I judge them as chauvinistic low lifes who definitely are capable of what they were accused of. There should be consequences for them, but unfortunately I can also see why the trial did result in an acquittal.

We have heaps of examples where very clear trials came to very unexpected results. OJ Simpson’s murder trial in 1994 is a perfect example. Everyone expected that he would be found to be the murder of his wife, but he was acquitted by a jury. Another example is the trial against Oscar Pistorius in South Africa. He shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in 2014 and claimed that he thought she was an intruder. Nearly everyone was convinced that he is guilty of murder, but a judge sentenced him to just 5 years in prison. And there are lots more cases as shocking and surprising as these. A lawyer friend of mine always said that “in court and at sea you are in god’s hand”. I would say “in court and at sea everything and anything can happen” and very very often it is not justice that is the result of a trial.

Many think that a trial in front of a jury is fairer, I totally disagree! I would rather have some professionals to decide my fate if I am innocent, but if I am guilty I would love to have a jury. Jury’s are randomly selected, but heavily influenced and influencable individuals with no expertise in assessing evidence and judging a difficult scenario. And if they have the SLIGHTEST doubt they will judge against the accusation. This is what happened here, in my opinion.

The outcome might have acquitted the men, but there is a HUGE difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”. The jury might have decided that they are not guilty of Rp, but that doesn’t mean AT ALL that they are innocent. Their Social Media/mobile phone exchanges shows that they are despicable chauvinistic low lifes and unfortunately the acquittal will turn them worse. I read that they now will sue people of libel (damaging their reputation).

The trial outcome is what it is, but what should we do now? How should we react to it?

In my opinion, the four men should be kicked out of the Irish and Ulster Rugby team with immediate effect just based on the Social Media/mobile phone exchange alone. This is not the way men should be allowed to talk about women and the sports teams have a responsibility to make that VERY VERY clear. We can’t have young people looking up to scum like that.

Secondly, we have to make clear that this one case does not mean that all other cases will be decided in the same way. Rosa Parks who – as a black woman – refused to give up her seating in the white section of a bus was the trigger for a societal change. Maybe or hopefully the victim from the Belfast Rp Trial will influence today’s society’s attitude to chauvinists and male low lifes as well!

And thirdly, I think we have to make a significant change in the current education of society. In the context with the #MeToo campaign and for education going forward, the “No means No” principle emerged and is quoted in many places also in connection with this trial. I feel this is a totally inappropriate principle. Sure it is better than what many women have experienced until now, but the only principle we should base our education (for all ages!) on is “Only YES gives you the right”.

It’s like this: It is not just a RED light that tells you to stop at a traffic light. A yellow light also doesn’t give you the automatic right to race ahead. ONLY the green light allows you to proceed. Our focus has to be on making clear that only a clear YES will give the right to proceed. And if it is not a CLEAR “Yes”, for example because alcohol is involved, then there can’t be a “I assumed it was ok to go ahead”.

Oh and two other things: I know one man, a Rugby fan, who celebrated the acquittal of the four and who wrote on Facebook that he knew they were innocent and he can’t wait until they are “in the green jersey again”. Sorry, Sir, you have NO clue how people that you don’t know personally behave behind closed doors and your ignorance and arrogance is disgusting.
And lastly: There are good guys out there who would NEVER talk like that about women and who would never treat them in a disrespectful way. I know PLENTY of them! Ladies, please don’t assume that we all are scum! But also, guys, if you hear other guys talk about women like the four from Belfast OR if you come across any disrespectful behaviour towards women or anybody else, please be a man and stand up for the badly treated person!

Sugar Tax Postponed

Sugar Tax Postponed

The (totally nonsensical!) Sugar Tax on sparkling drinks with added sugar was planned to kick in on 06 April and maybe you had already planned to buy LOTS of bottles before that day? ;-)

Since a 2 litre bottle will experience a price increase of 60 cent, you can indeed save some money if if you fill the spare room with bottles in the run up to the tax introduction. Only problem is that all these drinks have a best before date and they really change their taste and the level of fizziness after that date. If you have ever tasted expired Coca Cola, you know what I am talking about.

The good news is that you can postpone “The Big Bottle Buy” for a little. The tax will now get introduced on 01 May instead of 06 April. The Department of Finance has decided to check if the tax doesn’t break EU rules and that will take another bit of time.

[You might wonder why I am saying it is “totally nonsensical”? And if you care, here are some of the reasons, but there are too many reasons to go in detail for all of them, so just a list: 1) Unless all sweets are taxed (and maybe fast food as well?) it doesn’t make sense to single out ONE food type. 2) It is very unlikely that a 60cent increase will dramatically change buying behaviour. We have the most expensive price for cigarettes in the whole EU and there are still PLENTY of smokers buying cigarettes completely independent from their financial means. 3) Adding a tax is NEVER a good way to get people to understand what the problem is and to be interested in changing it. Education is the RIGHT way. 4) If you try to “educate” through a price increase, you have to make sure that that increase is felt by the customers. Manufacturers, however, decrease the bottle size to 1.75 or 1.25 litres at the moment so that the consumer THINKS that the price has not increased. The sugar tax increase should have come with an obligation to keep the bottle size at 2 litres as before. 5) Did you know that a sparkling drink with added sugar will NOT experience a tax increase if it is an alcoholic drink? It clearly shows how serious the government is to keep people healthy. Sugar is cool when in alcohol, but sugar in a non-alcoholic drink makes you obese. Dohhh! 6) The final argument for me is that someone who eats an otherwise reasonably balanced diet but occasionally likes a sugary sparkling drink should not be punished by any state for this. Nanny-state is the term that is often used in this context. And if you think the Irish state really cares, then check out the quality of the drinking water in Ireland. ALL countries in Europe accept now that Fluoride in the drinking water is a BAD decision and in some countries a Fluoride-addition is totally forbidden. In Ireland the State still claims that it is healthy. Not true!
Totally nonsensical tax!!]

MetroNorth is now MetroLink, but it won’t happen!?

MetroNorth is now MetroLink, but it won’t happen!?

On Thursday the National Transport Authority has announced that they will build an underground rail service from Sandyford to the Airport for EUR 3bn and that the 26km long train line will be operational by 2027. It will be called MetroLink (not Metro North anymore) and will go overground from Sandyford until Charlemont (that’s near Portobello) and will then go underground to the airport. The travel time will be 50 minutes along the whole route and just 20 minutes from the City Centre to the airport.

Sounds like a great plan! FINALLY an underground train service for Dublin instead of the annoying overground link between St. Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Street and finally a proper public transport link to the airport. But everybody who knows public transport plans in Dublin will probably ask if this is maybe too good to be true? And MANY people seriously question if 2027 will ever come for the MetroLink.

The building of the Dublin’s first subway will only begin in 2021 and a LOT can happen until then. In 2002 the MetroNorth was announced and it was meant to go into service in 2007. So we are JUST 10 years behind schedule. In the same way, cynics AND realists expect that based on “third time lucky” we might need to have one more announcement, maybe in 2039 before this Metro connection will ever happen! :-O

 
Malcare WordPress Security