Joan Accuses Brown (Sunday Headline)

Sir Oxman

http://twitpic.com/3uuamf

Scan of article thanks to David Cochrane


It's not as bad as the headline (and why it was the main story I can only guess)
She's wrong about VB harrassing her and she'd want to get her media analyst to be a bit truthful in telling her how she acted and how it came across, the sexist thing is foolish but she is right about VB and his style.
I like teh show and sometimes he gets the politicos to admit something they shouldn't but he can be very, very annoying and egotistical.

I'm still confused as to why this is a frontpage headline...?

Biggins

gambiaman wrote: »

...I'm still confused as to why this is a frontpage headline...?

Its a cheap tabloid, 'nuff said!

Min

It is a front page headline because Vincent Browne will be interviewing people from the Labour party during the election, Joan made some nasty comments about Browne on the paper.
If TV3 are hosting one of the debates...then Joan has come out in the paper and questioned if VB is impartial, she accused VB of being partial to Joe Higgins.

The article in question comes with lots of quotes from Joan and she does herself no favours.

Sir Oxman

Min wrote: »

It is a front page headline because Vincent Browne will be interviewing people from the Labour party during the election, Joan made some nasty comments about Browne on the paper.
If TV3 are hosting one of the debates...then Joan has come out in the paper and questioned if VB is impartial, she accused VB of being partial to Joe Higgins.

The article in question comes with lots of quotes from Joan and she does herself no favours.

A frontpage headline? Really?

Fitzerb

Biggins wrote: »

Its a cheap tabloid, 'nuff said!

same as the cheap tabloid headlines of the past six months......

You are dead right "Enough Said"

Sir Oxman

DeVore wrote: »

Dear God that woman is annoying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG_ii1xiYOU

Labour will be a disaster for this country because they wont tackle the deficit and they have conniving idiots like her.

DeV.

That's not what their policy document says.

Fitzerb

gambiaman wrote: »

http://twitpic.com/3uuamf

Scan of article thanks to David Cochrane


It's not as bad as the headline (and why it was the main story I can only guess)
She's wrong about VB harrassing her and she'd want to get her media analyst to be a bit truthful in telling her how she acted and how it came across, the sexist thing is foolish but she is right about VB and his style.
I like teh show and sometimes he gets the politicos to admit something they shouldn't but he can be very, very annoying and egotistical.

I'm still confused as to why this is a frontpage headline...?

Christ, Moan of Arc had a media analyst tell her VB interrupted her 52 times and interrupted SC so many times. Christ if she is having this service now just imagine the cost of PR for her in Government. Why didnt she go to you tube and the count the interruptions herself. Lazy git.

Sir Oxman

Fitzerb wrote: »

Christ, Moan of Arc had a media analyst tell her VB interrupted her 52 times and interrupted SC so many times. Christ if she is having this service now just imagine the cost of PR for her in Government. Why didnt she go to you tube and the count the interruptions herself. Lazy git.

LOL.
That bit had me scratching my head - she should fire the media analyst cos he/she is keeping the truth from her.

sollar

If she can't see how she came across badly in that interview then she is clueless and doesn't deserve to serve in gvernment

Min

gambiaman wrote: »

A frontpage headline? Really?

Yeah, I know, you would swear that it was an issue with a topic on the biggest internet forum in Ireland with over 200 replies and the VB appearance was still an issue days after the event...

Of course no one has any interest in the story...

Dirk Gently

Fitzerb wrote: »

Christ, Moan of Arc had a media analyst tell her VB interrupted her 52 times and interrupted SC so many times. Christ if she is having this service now just imagine the cost of PR for her in Government. Why didnt she go to you tube and the count the interruptions herself. Lazy git.

was she really interrupted 52 times, or was she interrupted from interrupting 52 times. The less ranting she does and the more she answers questions put to her in a reasonable fashion then the less she will be interrupted.

Frankly if she is pushing the sexist card as a licence for herself to be as obnoxious as she wants and throw around accusations without consequence then she should be expelled from the Labour party and feminists and equality campaigners should come out and condemn her actions as it demeans people who have genuinely experienced sexism in the workplace.

Sir Oxman

Min wrote: »

Yeah, I know, you would swear that it was an issue with a topic on the biggest internet forum in Ireland with over 200 replies and the VB appearance was still an issue days after the event...

Of course no one has any interest in the story...

In which thread I posted my fair share - if that's the criteria for frontpage headline making in this country then this should make their next frontpage.
Biggins answered my question succinctly.

M cebee

she's prob been watching that nonsense with the lineswoman:)

and reckons she can capitalise on it

later12

clown bag wrote: »

Frankly if she is pushing the sexist card as a licence for herself to be as obnoxious as she wants and throw around accusations without consequence then she should be expelled from the Labour party and feminists and equality campaigners should come out and condemn her actions as it demeans people who have genuinely experienced sexism in the workplace.

I agree and I think to accuse Vincent Browne of sexism in this instance, if that is what Joan Burton is really doing, is totally without basis. Nobody was making an issue out of her gender, she was being totally unreasonable in shouting down her fellow contributor and Vincent Browne himself. She is a political embarrassment in detracting from and debasing the rather serious issue of sexism in political and professional life which I'm sure in many cases can be quite serious.

Liam Byrne

Fitzerb wrote: »

Do you find it strange that when Daily Mail Headline are about other parties they dont need to be substantiated but when about Labour they need to be verified.

Care to cite any examples ? I know for a fact that I don't take Sindo or equivalent red-tops as fact.

I noticed another post above that says that the article doesn't even support the headline.

If Joan Burton has overstepped the mark, then she - like all crap & dodgy politicians - needs to be gotten rid of. Absolutely no bias on my part there, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.

But since the standard has been set that some posters excuse the likes of Ahern & Callely & O'Dea, they can't be the ones objecting, now can they ?

Fitzerb

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Care to cite any examples ? I know for a fact that I don't take Sindo or equivalent red-tops as fact.

I noticed another post above that says that the article doesn't even support the headline.

If Joan Burton has overstepped the mark, then she - like all crap & dodgy politicians - needs to be gotten rid of. Absolutely no bias on my part there, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.

But since the standard has been set that some posters excuse the likes of Ahern & Callely & O'Dea, they can't be the ones objecting, now can they ?

I think the IF part is pushing it a bit.

Ahern is gone as is O Dea (until next election) and Callely is finished, so not much point in going there. I think its great to see "some" posters now holding all politicians to task if they dont get up onto their high moral ground. You know "One rule for all" and all that wonderful stuff.
So no doubt "someone" will start a thread seeking Joans resignation as soon as the IF is clarified.

Liam Byrne

Fitzerb wrote: »

I think the IF part is pushing it a bit.

Ahern is gone as is O Dea (until next election) and Callely is finished, so not much point in going there.

Why not ? Why is O'Dea only gone "until next election" ? If you apply the same logic, Burton could be back in "after next election" and you wouldn't have an argument about it.

Fitzerb wrote: »

I think its great to see "some" posters now holding all politicians to task if they dont get up onto their high moral ground. You know "One rule for all" and all that wonderful stuff.
So no doubt "someone" will start a thread seeking Joans resignation as soon as the IF is clarified.

Well, to my knowledge I've never done otherwise, other put my own convictions aside to point out inconsistencies in how other posters excuse one "side" (even though that phrase doesn't even apply) more than the other.

I might even start that thread myself if it's clarified.

Given a previous article that you linked to where you (and, to be fair, the attention-seeking "editor" who didn't obviously base headlines on facts) claimed that Varadkar had retracted his cronyism statement and needed to resign, as distinct from the facts which were that Varadkar had qualified his statement, I'll await an actual article from a reputable paper that doesn't have an exaggerated headline.

Fitzerb

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why not ? Why is O'Dea only gone "until next election" ? If you apply the same logic, Burton could be back in "after next election" and you wouldn't have an argument about it.




Well, to my knowledge I've never done otherwise, other put my own convictions aside to point out inconsistencies in how other posters excuse one "side" (even though that phrase doesn't even apply) more than the other.

I might even start that thread myself if it's clarified.

Given a previous article that you linked to where you (and, to be fair, the attention-seeking "editor" who didn't obviously base headlines on facts) claimed that Varadkar had retracted his cronyism statement and needed to resign, as distinct from the facts which were that Varadkar had qualified his statement, I'll await an actual article from a reputable paper that doesn't have an exaggerated headline.

Well I can only forward that when you tell me what in your considerations are reputable newspapers. Or do they change every day depending on the populace headline thats to your liking.

Liam Byrne

Fitzerb wrote: »

Well I can only forward that when you tell me what in your considerations are reputable newspapers. Or do they change every day depending on the populace headline thats to your liking.

No, it doesn't change at all, but I strongly suspect you knew that before you continued your post with the bull that started at "Or do they change....."

We've been down this road before with you throwing in extra pointless and unsubstantiated digs in order to discredit and cast doubt over my posts; it might be a tactic that FF promotes, and some people might fall for it or even find it funny, but if you want to engage in conversation with me I would request that you avoid such tactics because they're pretty sad, really.

BTW, I think the word you wanted was "populist"; the sentence would still have been completely wrong and unsubstantiated, but it would have been what you intended to say.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whatever about the actual issue (which, as others have said, needs to appear in a credible newspaper to be taken seriously) I cannot see how the OP has managed to twist it in order to cast doubt re Barruso.

Typical FF mud-slinging.

given my reference to her using the same "you are sexist" tactic in the past,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70359262&postcount=10

I think the poster might be suggesting she may well use it elsewhere in the future.
If she can use it on the chair of the house why not the Chair of any commission or committee?

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

given my reference to her using the same "you are sexist" tactic in the past,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70359262&postcount=10

I think the poster might be suggesting she may well use it elsewhere in the future.
If she can use it on the chair of the house why not the Chair of any commission or committee?

There's definitely an underlying issue there that she needs to clarify, because there's little worse than someone claiming discrimination where none exists; it's simply an attempt to undermine a potentially valid argument by other means.

So - like I said - once we get the facts rather than the tabloid headlines - we'll judge accordingly.

D1stant

I have to thank Joan really for so deliciously exposing the myth that the opposition were anymore competent than FF. It had all the grace of a Roman vomatorium

It's SF or/(and?) emigration for me

jank

Can we have more of her on TV? It will be good for FG!:D

Einhard

D1stant wrote: »

I have to thank Joan really for so deliciously exposing the myth that the opposition were anymore competent than FF. It had all the grace of a Roman vomatorium

It's SF or/(and?) emigration for me

I take it you missed Gerry Adams' interview on Morning Ireland the other day then?

Fitzerb

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's definitely an underlying issue there that she needs to clarify, because there's little worse than someone claiming discrimination where none exists; it's simply an attempt to undermine a potentially valid argument by other means.

So - like I said - once we get the facts rather than the tabloid headlines - we'll judge accordingly.

Like we did with Cowan and Fitzpatrick playing golf Yeah?

PatsytheNazi

Fitzerb wrote: »

Joan has just claimed that VB is sexist bully in the headline of the Irish Mail

Has she lost it completely. How is Quinn allowing this stuff get to the papers. If they cant manage this little problem (Joan) i wonder how they will manage Barroso. What is she going to call him as we look for a better interest rate ??... She is a WMD
(Weapon of mass destruction)

Surely Lab have to sack her.

And to think she could be the future minister of finance :eek: :eek: She'd make Lenihan look good :rolleyes:

" Joan has just claimed that VB is sexist bully in the headline of the Irish Mail "

ISAW

D1stant wrote: »

I have to thank Joan really for so deliciously exposing the myth that the opposition were anymore competent than FF. It had all the grace of a Roman vomatorium

You are aware a roman vomitorium was a way for a crowd of people to get out?

DLB

I'm one of the 'floating voters' but I'm not now floating Labour's way after her performance and this insulting, to men at least, imbecilic attempt to justify it. Even worse, Gilmore is supporting her.

I don't like Browne's style but it flushed out an interesting self-portrait.