Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, FFS!
The point was that I'm not normally at mass and haven't seen a church gate collection in years. Period. Stated repeatedly but some people refuse to acknowledge it; I've ADMITTED that it wasn't the best way to make that point. But quit reading your own interpretation beyond that BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG.

It's there in black and white and you took your time to realise that being called on it,you had to accept why you were called on it.

Sorry - I beg to differ. I was accused by one or two people - including you - of a being callous and disrespectful. That's personal.

Where has anyone said that? Or used those words? I've read all the posts now and see it nowhere.
Why are you inventing stuff to support things that aren't there.
Thats stupid-All anyone has to do is read the first two pages to see that you are lying about being accused of being callous and disrespectfull in this thread.

I mean when you are in a hole,you keep digging, and now you are inventing stuff that wasn't posted.

Excuse me ? If you read it again I did NOT tell them to bugger off the thread, I told them to lay off with that "emotional red herring" crap!", simply because their post was off-topic and contained the above accusation, to which I naturally took exception. I don't like being accused of something that I didn't do, or being ignored when I clarify it.

You told a poster to sod off.
Sod off and bugger off - whats the difference?

Aside from that, I want to thank you for the remainder of your contribution - that you would have agreed with Hyde Road. That was all the thread was about.

Well actually to clarify,I wouldn't contribute to a church gate collection period.It's nothing to do with where the money is going.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with enough affection for political parties and what they stand for (or supposed to stand for) to contribute at Masses or elswhere.

And having received that contribution, I am not going to discuss anything other than the thread title from now on. It's getting very boring to be accused of crap, and I'm going to let everyone else who views this thread judge for themselves as to whether what I'm saying is true.

Well I'm going to continue to consider everything you post as fair game for me to either agree with you or disagree with you with reasons and thats what I've been doing like any poster should.

Yes, if I had said "I was at mass for the first time in ages", it would have avoided the opportunity to be incorrectly accused of introducing a red herring; maybe I am an unwitting "culprit" in that sense. In addition, having been viewed as doing that - as pointed out above, posts can be open to interpretation, and I have to accept that too; but the most annoying thing was that I clarified it numerous times and people have refused point blank to accept it - that aspect is NOT my fault. One clarification should have been enough.

But if you and one or two others have your preconceived idea and won't accept that fact then there is no point in me repeating myself ad nauseum.

Can we have more on-topic posts like Hyde Road now, please ?

Well if you want to park this issue,I will.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest farce is parties that, say advocate abortion or other issues which conflict with Church thinking, yet will hijack that institution to make a few grubby euros.

I know where you're coming from, but since - I think - the Church could refuse permission (in theory at least) then it could be said that it's the Church that's being two-faced.....

Mind you, there is probably an extra edge to this; I mean, an STD or anti-underage-pregnancy organisation raising money to provide condoms for people might be refused without any possible backlash, whereas it might be harder to refuse a major political party that got you out of major financial liability regarding a sex scandal, regardless of their policies on abortion or whatever.

Those are, though - to some extent - side issues that might apply to any party......worth discussing, though, but maybe in a separate thread.

My main reason for the thread was wondering how people would feel about contributing to party funds considering what we've heard about how they were used in the past - like I said, the same question could also be posed if a charity had a high-profile abuse-of-funds scandal - people probably wouldn't contribute to that charity for a long time afterwards either, no ?

Liam Byrne

Where has anyone said that? Or used those words? I've read all the posts now and see it nowhere.
Why are you inventing stuff to support things that aren't there.
Thats stupid-All anyone has to do is read the first two pages to see that you are lying about being accused of being callous and disrespectfull in this thread.

I mean when you are in a hole,you keep digging, and now you are inventing stuff that wasn't posted.

I'm not lying, but it might be harder to spot; I didn't want to mention it explicitly up to now (in case I was again accused of the emotional angle) but to me, having people assume that I would use a friend's anniversary as "an emotional red herring" in a post or discussion or any such trivial matter came across as a very personal judgement on me and my values. Doing that would - in my view - be callous and disrespectful.

I'm not like that, and don't want people to read here and get the opinion that I was.

You told a poster to sod off. Sod off and bugger off - whats the difference?

You missed my point. I didn't want to repeat the actual word, for obvious reasons, but it was the bit in bold - as highlighted - that I was trying to emphasise....I didn't tell them to "anything"-off the thread - just to "anything" -off with the "ERH" angle. There's a MASSIVE difference - as in "stay on the thread and contribute, but lay off that angle coz it's wrong".

Anyways, assuming that I've finally clarified those two final points, we will park that aspect of it. Sorry for my part in the confusion, but like I said none of that was intentional and I'm sorry if I reacted to taking it personally when people assumed I would be like that.

Back on topic for once and for all, so ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not lying, but it might be harder to spot; I didn't want to mention it explicitly up to now (in case I was again accused of the emotional angle) but to me, having people assume that I would use a friend's anniversary as "an emotional red herring" in a post or discussion or any such trivial matter came across as a very personal judgement on me and my values. Doing that would - in my view - be callous and disrespectful.

I'm not like that, and don't want people to read here and get the opinion that I was.

Well then in fairness,I'll unreservedly withdraw the liar comment so.
I hope you appreciate though that you should be more carefull with your wording as it was not just I who called you on it.

You missed my point. I didn't want to repeat the actual word, for obvious reasons, but it was the bit in bold - as highlighted - that I was trying to emphasise....I didn't tell them to "anything"-off the thread - just to "anything" -off with the "ERH" angle. There's a MASSIVE difference - as in "stay on the thread and contribute, but lay off that angle coz it's wrong".

Liam,I respectively suggest that you rethink the way you put things.It's important because,people in this thread aren't mind readers,we have to read and attempt to understand what you post.
Not thinking twice leads to the sort of exchange we've had.

Anyways, assuming that I've finally clarified those two final points, we will park that aspect of it. Sorry for my part in the confusion, but like I said none of that was intentional and I'm sorry if I reacted to taking it personally when people assumed I would be like that.

Grand parked.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know where you're coming from, but since - I think - the Church could refuse permission (in theory at least) then it could be said that it's the Church that's being two-faced.....

Round here one applies to the gardai for a date to collect outside the Church, they have no say in it. Then again, its not in Church grounds, but outside the gate.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then in fairness,I'll unreservedly withdraw the liar comment so.
I hope you appreciate though that you should be more carefull with your wording as it was not just I who called you on it.

Apology - and point - accepted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Liam,I respectively suggest that you rethink the way you put things.It's important because,people in this thread aren't mind readers,we have to read and attempt to understand what you post.
Not thinking twice leads to the sort of exchange we've had.
Grand parked.

Fair point, and in fairness it's one that I did try to clarify......and like I said I wasn't sure whether to say precisely why it bugged me so much in case I made matters worse (i.e. "kept digging").

Anyways, this post is just to say that on both points - as I did say earlier - my contribution to the confusion is accepted and I should've just said - in the first post, not later, when I did but the damage was done - that "I was at mass for the first time in ages".

I only got annoyed when the clarification was questioned and dismissed.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

Round here one applies to the gardai for a date to collect outside the Church, they have no say in it. Then again, its not in Church grounds, but outside the gate.

Interesting point......didn't know that!

I did wonder how come the FF table was outside the gate while the SVdP collection was inside the grounds, at the door......I actually thought it odd at the time that the Church would allow 2 different collections on the same day.....if someone had contributed to both there wouldn't be much change left for the "pass-the-basket" routine inside.....

Wishbone Ash

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting point......didn't know that!

I did wonder how come the FF table was outside the gate while the SVdP collection was inside the grounds, at the door......I actually thought it odd at the time that the Church would allow 2 different collections on the same day.....if someone had contributed to both there wouldn't be much change left for the "pass-the-basket" routine inside.....

I find it astonishing Liam that you are debating potitical "church gate" fundraising without realising that it is not within the remit of the church. I thought that was common knowledge. Did you really think the church had a say? It would be in their interest not to have any collections as people may have more money for the church offerings.

Liam Byrne

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I find it astonishing Liam that you are debating potitical "church gate" fundraising without realising that it is not within the remit of the church. I thought that was common knowledge. Did you really think the church had a say? It would be in their interest not to have any collections as people may have more money for the church offerings.

Well, there seems to be a difference between the inside-the-gate and outside-the-gate collections that I wasn't aware of ? And as I stated above I agree that it would have been in their interests to have AT MOST one collection...so having the two did strike me as odd, like I said.

I would assume that the SVdP collection needed the permission of the church, because it was inside the grounds, at the door.....but I'm open to correction if someone knows otherwise.

But regardless of whether or not the collection was allowed by the church or Gardai, the thread wasn't strictly debating the rights for anyone to stand there and attempt to collect - that's strictly a permit/permissions issue. If I'd seen them collecting on the street or house-to-house or something, I would have still wondered the same thing.

I was more wondering whether - and what type of - people would contribute, given what we've heard about where funds (might) have gone in the past.

ninty9er

With all due respect, the amount of **** spouting going on between Liam and Black Briar is mind boggling and all over the 3 words emotional red herring, I took it as being any other normal mass (which it actually was).

Black Briar and all others who took it as such had every right to do so. It was plainly obvious that Bertie was being referred to as nobodu would bother to go to a mass of someone they had "a truck with".

The thread is about a FF church gate collection, and while it wasn't necessary to say what the mass was for, what feckin difference does it make....it wasn't a wedding or funeral ffs.

It's a simple fact that the directors of construction companies give money to their friends/local politicians of all political persuasions (except Green....*snore*). To suggest your €2 on that table would buy my aunt a house is ridiculous. Just because the Dublin Central constituency organisation gave its money to Celia Larkin, doesn't mean that every constituency will do anything near that....or else she'd have €1.3 million in her pocket instead of €30k.

I don't condone that money being given to Celia Larkin, but what a constituency organisation does with its money is essentially its own business, be that donating €2k to each TD for election purposes or having a banner made for public rallys. Also, there must now be 2 treasurers in each unit of the party, which means such a transaction couldn't happen "undercover". We are not a stupid organisation. We constantly triumph in the face of adversity, and if any of the boardsies here accusing of all sorts had any bit of cop-op, it would be plain to them that such situations were rare in the extreme 15 years ago, and non-existent now.

oscarBravo

Enough of the meta-discussion. The emotional red herring is dead and buried, and the next person to drag it up will feel my wrath. Discuss the topic or stay the hell out of it.

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

It's a simple fact that the directors of construction companies give money to their friends/local politicians of all political persuasions (except Green....*snore*).

Fianna Fail
Fine Gael
Labour, Green & Sinn Fein

...one list stands out by a mile.

oscarBravo : ballooba, the last two links are the same - methinks you need to fix the last one.

Thanks.

oscarBravo

ballooba, the last two links are the same - methinks you need to fix the last one.

ninty9er

I'm currently working in accounting and I've seen the money trail to FF anf FG so far (most donate to both strangely enough), just because it isn't declared doesn't mean it wasn't donated!! Just means it was below the declaration limit.

Edit: And of course when you compare 80 Teachtaí to 30, there will be a disparity in the number of pages.

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm currently working in accounting and I've seen the money trail to FF anf FG so far (most donate to both strangely enough), just because it isn't declared doesn't mean it wasn't donated!! Just means it was below the declaration limit.

Edit: And of course when you compare 80 Teachtaí to 30, there will be a disparity in the number of pages.

It's the fact that certain types of businesses are brazenly open about donating money to Fianna Fail and you'd almost think are actively trying to go above the thresholds for inclusion on the lists. So that everyone will know that they've paid their way.

ninty9er

ballooba wrote: »

It's the fact that certain types of businesses are brazenly open about donating money to Fianna Fail and you'd almost think are actively trying to go above the thresholds for inclusion on the lists. So that everyone will know that they've paid their way.

If you check the constituency account of your local FG TD, depending on where you are, the account could throw up more construction donations than the equivalent FF TD. It's all a matter of disclosure really. SIPO examine all the statements, some are just more transparent in declaring everything (e.g Chris Andrews in previous link).

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

If you check the constituency account of your local FG TD, depending on where you are, the account could throw up more construction donations than the equivalent FF TD. It's all a matter of disclosure really. SIPO examine all the statements, some are just more transparent in declaring everything (e.g Chris Andrews in previous link).

Yes, I notice Chris Andrews also named John Ronan when he didn't have to. Others were more underhand about declaring John Ronan's donations including Jim O'Keefe. I'm not impressed with Mr O'Keefe at the moment. I think all forms of donations should be banned. It's the only way of avoiding corrupt donations.