Evelyn Cawley Literature

dubsgirl

Hi All

There was a mail shot last night promoting Evelyn Cawley asking for the no.1 vote, Was this done by the Charlesland residents committee?
Seemed to be?

MuffinsDa

dubsgirl wrote:

Hi All

There was a mail shot last night promoting Evelyn Cawley asking for the no.1 vote, Was this done by the Charlesland residents committee?
Seemed to be?

No it was NOT from any residents committee.
It seemed to have been from a "charlesland Committee for Evelyn Cawley"
A bit misleading I suppose, someone being smart...
Obviously residents commitee has no right to express political views and it hasn't done that, as far as I know.

birdwatcher

MuffinsDa wrote:

It seemed to have been from a "charlesland Committee for Evelyn Cawley"
.

Hmmmmmm!
I wonder who'd be in charge of that??????? :rolleyes:

Langerland

Aren't they the same crowd who posted leaflets a few months back about the proposed new shopping centre, planning application for a nursing home and the Greystones South Quarter? I bumped into two of them last night and they said they were with the residents commitee. I was surprised when I read the actual leaflet to find it was more political in content. I would be inclined to agree with some of their points but yes, it was a clever stunt I suppose.

dubrunner

Agreed.

It appeared very sneeky indeed.

We saw one of the committee members delivering it themselves lastnight.

MuffinsDa

dubrunner wrote:

Agreed.

It appeared very sneeky indeed.

We saw one of the committee members delivering it themselves lastnight.

That committee member is free to act for any candidate in personal capacity and there's no problem with that. However, it's a bit unusual to see such ambiguity in source of the leaflet when it's a commitee member who should know the code of conduct and that such ambiguity is unethical (if intentional). But maybe (and hopefully) (s)he overlook that. Maybe if he/she is on this board -as many are- he may be able to clarify that and ensure that it was a personal one, not a committee one?

dubrunner

MuffinsDa wrote:

That committee member is free to act for any candidate in personal capacity and there's no problem with that. However, it's a bit unusual to see such ambiguity in source of the leaflet when it's a commitee member who should know the code of conduct and that such ambiguity is unethical (if intentional). But maybe (and hopefully) (s)he overlook that. Maybe if he/she is on this board -as many are- he may be able to clarify that and ensure that it was a personal one, not a committee one?

Agreed. I don't think the committee should begin (without the full consent of the members they are representing) supporting political figures in any capacity.

The leaflet clearly gave the indication that the 'committee' were supporting EC's agenda.

One member alone has been caught out on this very forum for pushing Evelyn Cawley on numerous occassions. The fear is that this is spreading throughout the committee with unsubstantiated claims that they are supporting this candidate.

Eoin

Does anyone know the exact wording of the relevant part of the literature?

MuffinsDa

dubrunner wrote:

The fear is that this is spreading throughout the committee with unsubstantiated claims that they are supporting this candidate.

What makes you say that? Surely the actions of one individual has nothing to do with residents committee, and it is obvious to anyone who read that leaflet carefuly that it is NOT from any of residents committees. But as mentioned previously the leaflet is very misleading, and it shouldn't be like that in the first place. This is the fault of whoever wrote and distributed the leaflet, and it's either and oversight or an unethical stunt.

dubrunner

and it's either and oversight or an unethical stunt.[/QUOTE]

That's what I mean...... the committee are a good group representing us.

I'm sure you don't think this was a little oversight.

MuffinsDa

dubrunner wrote:

I'm sure you don't think this was a little oversight.

I actually do, or at least hope so! I am a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty" thing And in fairness (s)he has done nothing technically/legally wrong, morality is another (subjective) issue!

new arrival

Was surprised to see letter to come through like that.

I'm sure everyone is entitled to their views, but that letter certainly leant to some confusion on the actual committees support for Evelyn Cawley.

dubrunner

MuffinsDa wrote:

I actually do, or at least hope so! I am a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty" thing And in fairness (s)he has dont nothing technically/legally wrong, morality is another (subjective) issue!

Agreed on the innocent until proven guilty.

But have you noticed that the 'innocent' parties who are normally the most active contributors to this forum, have gone mysteriously quiet on the matter!

He (they) know who they are!!:)

MuffinsDa

dubrunner wrote:

Agreed on the innocent until proven guilty.

But have you noticed that the 'innocent' parties who are normally the most active contributors to this forum, have gone mysteriously quiet on the matter!

He (they) know who they are!!:)

No idea what you're talking about now

Sparks115

I for one think it was a very clever and very well written letter. I have met Ms Cawley on several occasions and I dont think she is the type to be pulling any stunt and if she has a supporter in the area who is doing this for her well bully for them and her. Myself and my other half were saying when we got the letter in the door last night how good the letter was and very clever on the 2nd last night on the canvassing. PLus the fact we have had only one person call to our door over the election period and that was her??? So sod the rest of them if they are not bothered and just post their flyers..... Role on the election!!!

ToyotaF1

Inch, I had a similar experience....but it was Joe Behan (FF) I met. He actually called to my door one evening...everyone else was just canvassing for others who were 'across the road'. This quote of 'across the road' I heard so many times but I had a good lenghty discussion with Joe Behan about issues around Charlesland and Greystones...He was interested in engaging in conversation with me. I wouldn't have voted for any of the FF's but seeing as he paid some attention to me he goes to the top of my list. Anyway, Joe Behan seems like a decent chap (he's the chairperson of Wicklow Co Co AFAIK which may not be popular in some people's books but I certainly will be supporting him tomorrow!)

It's good to see that EC is doing the rounds...I have yet to meet her...would be nice to get an idea of how she presents herself in person cause all I've had are the leaflets through the door with promises listed out but it's not till you actually interact (I think) with these people that you get a true impression of who they are.

On the issue about the 'commitee' wording on the leaflet (saviong my post from being off-topic!)...I never noticed it cause it went straight in the recycling bin!

woodser

Fair enough deleted so much for a discussion board for opinion I thought it was a cheap and sneaky election stunt why wasnt it dropped weeks out not at the last minute
.Wonder if this committe are going to appear on Ms Cawley declaration of expenditure to the Standards in Public Office Commision as contributors or donors .A drop in Charlesland and 1300 photocopies @market value 20c acopy=€260 plus Labour to drop it total value of donation contribution I'd say €500.

[Mod]Woodser PM Sent. I've taken out the offending wording, however, you could do with toning down the rest of the message yourself[/Mod]

D2

The Charlesland Overall Residents Committee, which has reps from each of the residents committees across the estate, has not issued the literature circulated. Cheers.

Wineman

woodser wrote:

I'm not voting for Cawley after the misinformed bull**** I read on that flyer about management fees and using A Charlesland Residents Committe for Evelyn Cawley

I was considering a vote for Cawley even though I disagree with her stance on the harbour but after seeing that flyer last night you have to ask yourself what legnths these people will go to to get into power, and how responsible they would be when they got it. Im afraid its anyone but Cawley for me.

MyPerfectCousin

woodser wrote:

[Mod]Woodser PM Sent. I've taken out the offending wording, however, you could do with toning down the rest of the message yourself[/Mod]

Ridiculous.

If a post is offensive or against the charter, delete the whole post. Don't go editing sentences and paragraphs so that someone's else's post says what you want it to say.

El Cid

hello, I have been asked to come her to explain the leaflets because some people are confuesd and maybe just want to look like they are, beacuse their are some very nasty comments. it is good that they are now letting people discuss this election beacuse I see before they were not.

my wife and me are from the wood and we are on the comittee to elect evelyn cawley. 5 other members are from fairways park and grove. we have met evlyn many times and when we met other residents who were impressed like us we formed a comittee. we called it charlesland comitee to elect evelyn cawley because we are form charlesland and it is a comitee to elect evelyn cawley. if you are confused by this then I am sorry for you. we did not say anywhere that we are a residents comittee. read the letter and it is very easy to see if you want to see.

one of our members from charlesalnd park looked at the park newsletter to see what the confusion is. she think that maybe because it is in black and white and the fees are mentioned.

the things talked about in the leaflet are all things that residents are worried about like fees and palnning and evelyn is trying to help with all the time not just for the election.

SNIP

[mod] The clarification/explanation was enough on it's own [/mod]

MuffinsDa

Good clarification, although a bit late but better than nothing.

mikedragon32

MyPerfectCousin wrote:

Ridiculous.

If a post is offensive or against the charter, delete the whole post. Don't go editing sentences and paragraphs so that someone's else's post says what you want it to say.

I don't have to justify the moderation of this board to you, however for clarity, I have removed potentially libellous/slanderous remarks posted by Woodser and sent him a message to explain my action. It's up to him to rephrase the rest. Eoin_S has reveiwed my moderation of this thread (as dubrunner can attest to: he actually went the right way about questioning the moderation) and found it apt for the circumstances.

The owners of this site would not see it as ridiculous to be slapped with a law suit, and I am bound by their rules. Boards.ie is a private entity, not a public space and "free speech" is neither a privilege nor a right here.

I would suggest in future, if you have issues with how this board is moderated, either PM me or start a thread in Feedback.

dubsgirl

El Cid wrote:

if you are confused by this then I am sorry for you. we did not say anywhere that we are a residents comittee. read the letter and it is very easy to see if you want to see.

one of our members from charlesalnd park looked at the park newsletter to see what the confusion is. she think that maybe because it is in black and white and the fees are mentioned.
]

Thanks for the clarification El Cid, However people don't usually form committees to canvas for a candidate, that is where the confusion lies...
Not as you suggest that I didn't read it correctly.

Sparks115

I think some of the comments here against ms Cawley are very unfair. and before the loolas and stone throwers kick me before I continue..(1) I am not on any committee and (2) I am certianly not part of any party but the way some of the comments are going here is like a fricking witch hunt. Some of you should really calm down a bit. As someone said earlier innocent until proven guilty. Or for those of you stone throwers if you dont agree with her politics and agenda fine but dont use a flyer as a reason not vote for someone thats ridiclous, does anyone on this website know how dirty politics work!!! I will certainly have her in my top 3 to represent the people of Greystones now while the stone throwers may vote for the usual same old same old and get what they deserve ie another 5 years of bad health system - double taxing - drunk driving deaths - massive crime - property developers screwing everyone - dying planet - fantasic my baby son has so much to look forward too with the future of this country in the hands of mindless/moral - less idiots. Cheers to a bright future:(

mikedragon32

Okay, now that someone from the residents' committee and someone involved with the flyers have stated their positions, various opinions have been stated and I've received abusive messages, I reckon it's time to close this thread.

Suffice to say, irrespective of the quality of posts or moderation here, people are smart enough to make up their own minds on the candidates and vote accordingly. And at the end of the weekend we'll most likely have the government we deserve (to paraphrase an old saying).

To those of you eligible to vote, make sure you exercise your franchise.

If you don't vote, don't bitch.