Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

HAMMERCURRENT

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

what people learn't is if they think your ff supporter even if you not you get this bull and doesn't matter what you can show other wise

If all Sean Gallagher haters but me on ignore list ,I be very happy

What happened to your good grammer, are you suffering a stroke?

KELTICKNIGHTT

HAMMERCURRENT wrote: »

What happened to your good grammer, are you suffering a stroke?

tut tut,, no need to be childish

dav3

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

what people learn't is if they think your ff supporter even if you not you get this bull and doesn't matter what you can show other wise
so if someone doesn't agree with you so called argument ,you post this bull,,,please
This thread only proves one thing
Sean Gallagher was targeted because he was connected too ff

If all Sean Gallagher haters but me on ignore list ,I be very happy

Your posts are so difficult to read and decipher. We can all forgive a few spelling mistakes or grammatical errors once you get your point or points across, but it's getting ridiculous at this stage, making it impossible to engage you in any kind of debate.
Maybe take a bit more time in constructing your posts in future, and while you're at it, throw in a few links to back up your claims.

raymon

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

aqain no proof ,only hear say from a criminal
and
no need to be petty

Keltic , listen .... the game is over .
He lied repeatedly on live tv, in print , on his website.

Don't try to paint this as a conspiracy. I raised these issues weeks before the shinners

The guy was a fake .

He lied, he lost the election.

I'm not sure why you won't let it go ....

Capt'n Midnight

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

aqain no proof ,only hear say from a criminal
and
no need to be petty

Are you calling Gallagher a criminal ?

irishdude11

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

aqain no proof ,only hear say from a criminal
and
no need to be petty

Are you calling Sean Gallagher a criminal? Because he is the one who said himself that he solicited cash from Hugh Morgan and several other businessmen. He admitted that on national TV. He had denied it previously. So he was shown to be a liar on live TV and I have to say I really enjoyed seeing this spoofer get found out in this way. It's there on permanent record, and the words came out of his own mouth.

michael999999

Kelthick where is your proof now you have accused Gallagher of being a criminal?

Link please?

mikom

Did someone say Sean Gallagher is a criminal?
KELTICKNIGHTT, was that you that said that?

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So would I, but when people make excuses or engage in whataboutery and defend the likes of Gallagher and don't object then the politicians decide that there's no need to change.

IMO -it is comparative and I can't say which of the stories are spin. I am saying stories as there is so much spin and politics it is hard to make out.

I do not think anything he did untoward and that is why I popped up.

Nothing I have seen has really changed my view of Gallagher as being a decent guy.

SF's credibility is stretched a lot and whatever happens from now on -its gotta hurt.

Louth certainly is on the map now.

kippy

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

politicians lie
weather its a big lie or small
they do
all parties do fundraising and get donations,
nothing new there also
what has this thread proved
positively Nothing

Reason Sean Gallagher was target was about he once connected in membership to ff
and
If he wasn't connected to ff,
then
posters would have something different to say
They felt threatened by Sean Gallagher so hence the thread or was it more personal with Sean Gallagher ?

Ah jaysus,
There were numerous issues with SG. The fact that he solicited and took donations on behalf of FF isn't the big issue. As mentioned countless times before if he came clean about his involvement with FF I dont think MDH would be heading for the Aras now. Instead he didn't come clean. HE LIED and lied through his teeth for that matter, changing his story at least three times before getting to some semplance of the truth.
The premise of this thread is pretty straight forward, Is Sean Gallagher telling lies. Its fairly obvious that he was telling lies, although he did correct them as time went on when it became obvious that he was digging a deeper hole for himself.

I felt threatened by the chance of a FF senior member, a symbol of all that was wrong with this country in the 00's, a guy who reminded me so much of Berte, getting into one of the most high profile (if not powerless) jobs in this country by deceiving the Irish people.

Forget about Morgan, sitting on numerous boards, the claims of community work, the directors loans, the minimum amount of investment in dragons den, the company prostectus for a minute and get back to even the most basic of his claims.

"Seán was the co-founder of Smarthomes, Ireland’s fastest growing technology company and he has built up a successful business presence in Ireland. As an entrepreneur for over a decade, Seán has helped to mentor other budding entrepreneurs through RTE’s successful Dragons’ Den and through his work with County Enterprise Boards and Chambers of Commerce around the country."
(From here http://www.seangallagher.com/2011/about-sean/)
Irelands fastest growing technology company? Really. Going from 100 staff to 20 (never mind the financial meltdown) and he has the gal to call it the fastest growing technology company in this country. What a kick in the teeth to almost every other Irish technology company out there who I am sure are growing at a faster rate than that.

I amn't pro any party or indeed individual, but there are many issues from the past 10 years that havent been properly addressed. Seeing this guy as president for the next 7 years (if he didnt manage to bring the office into disrepute before then) would have been yet another extension of the memory of the disaster that we've had in this country.

So don't come on here trying to knock us all down as party activists out to get poor aul SG.

CDfm

kippy wrote: »

I amn't pro any party or indeed individual, but there are many issues from the past 10 years that havent been properly addressed. Seeing this guy as president for the next 7 years (if he didnt manage to bring the office into disrepute before then) would have been yet another extension of the memory of the disaster that we've had in this country.

So don't come on here trying to knock us all down as party activists out to get poor aul SG.

Maybe so, but whoever and whatever the vitriol should be directed at , it is plain to me and others that the responsibility is not Gallaghers.

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

I amn't pro any party or indeed individual, but there are many issues from the past 10 years that havent been properly addressed. Seeing this guy as president for the next 7 years (if he didnt manage to bring the office into disrepute before then) would have been yet another extension of the memory of the disaster that we've had in this country.

So don't come on here trying to knock us all down as party activists out to get poor aul SG.

Maybe so, but whoever and whatever the vitriol should be directed at , it is plain to me and others that the responsibility is not Gallaghers.

Why not ? He either subscribes to it and is therefore "more of the same" or else is ethical an honest.

Which is it ? And why is his choice not his responsibility ?

tayto lover

CDfm wrote: »

IMO -it is comparative and I can't say which of the stories are spin. I am saying stories as there is so much spin and politics it is hard to make out.

I do not think anything he did untoward and that is why I popped up.

Nothing I have seen has really changed my view of Gallagher as being a decent guy.

SF's credibility is stretched a lot and whatever happens from now on -its gotta hurt.

Louth certainly is on the map now.

Louth didn't vote for him. Even the village where he lives, Blackrock, voted for Higgins. If he is such a great Community worker then I wonder why they didn't vote for him ?

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

You have a copy of your resignation letters and not MDH's BTW.

According to raymon FF came 2nd , having not fielded a candidate and now it appears they may have won after all.

Another FF President it seems, who would have thought.

Yup - we will have a Fervent Feminist in the Áras.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup - we will have a Fervent Feminist in the Áras.

Oh that is so mean.

(Well I did ask him about constitutional equality for guys when I met him and he mentioned next springs constitutional commitee . Him & Shatter have a lot to answer for .)

kippy

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe so, but whoever and whatever the vitriol should be directed at , it is plain to me and others that the responsibility is not Gallaghers.

Re read a couple of my posts early on.
There isnt any one person that can be "blamed" for the mess we are in right now. There are many many people responsible, very few of whom have been taken to task over it. However, this "ah sure it wasnt his fault" attitude, is, in my opinion a disgrace and one of the reasons no one has been taken to task for the issues we've had in this country.

Would you prefer the Irish electorate voted in a liar with a lot on unanswered questions about his political and business background?
The responsibility of this mess may not be Gallaghers, but THAT IS NOT WHY I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HIM.
He has lied to us countless times. How can anyone trust a man like this?

EDIT:
Also vitriol.......vitriol is usually baseless, everything I personally have accused this guy of is a matter of public record.

swampgas

kippy wrote: »

Would you prefer the Irish electorate voted in a liar with a lot on unanswered questions about his political and business background?
The responsibility of this mess may not be Gallaghers, but THAT IS NOT WHY I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HIM.
He has lied to us countless times. How can anyone trust a man like this?

+1

It seems that for a significant number of Irish people, lying is perfectly natural and acceptable, and anyone who says otherwise is a naive innocent who doesn't know how to "play the game". Taking money for favours - bribery to you and me - is also perfectly natural and acceptable, and anyone else is a mug. Better to be a corrupt gombeen on the inside than an honest guy on the outside.

It turns my stomach.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why not ? He either subscribes to it and is therefore "more of the same" or else is ethical an honest.

Which is it ? And why is his choice not his responsibility ?

And, 50 % of Irish Voters voted FF in the past -are you looking to disenfranchise them all.

Well what we have now is more of the same.

A change would be good .

You also have the then "opposition" and cross reference that with their "client groups" and against the social partnership/corporate stateism and I reckon there is a long enough list to choose from.

SG is not really on it though but MDH was certainly there in the corridors of power and part of the Galway Troika of Higgins, Rabbitt & Gilmore .

So FF may have had its "clients" Labour has its clients and back doors too as do FG.

Whatever way it has been working , it has not been operating as a parlimentary democracy and our elected politicians that were in power and opposition are of course responsible.

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

SG is not really on it though....

I give up! SG acted THE EXACT SAME as every other dodgy FF character, lying and pulling strokes.

I have no idea why you pretend otherwise.

If people delude themselves that he's different, then - as I said - there is no reason for him (in the absence of decency and ethics, that is) not to continue doing more of the same.

I honestly can't understand why you - as someone who appears to want a change - are persisting in supporting someone who has no intention of being part of that change.

CDfm

tayto lover wrote: »

Louth didn't vote for him. Even the village where he lives, Blackrock, voted for Higgins. If he is such a great Community worker then I wonder why they didn't vote for him ?

More than a bit of local politics hit the national stage and it has a way to run.

kippy wrote: »

Re read a couple of my posts early on.
There isnt any one person that can be "blamed" for the mess we are in right now.............
Also vitriol.......vitriol is usually baseless, everything I personally have accused this guy of is a matter of public record.

We can agree to disagee on bits.

It is a matter of opinion what happened and the accuracy of the media reportage. The country is still broke with politicians drawn from the same pool.

raymon

CDfm wrote: »

More than a bit of local politics hit the national stage and it has a way to run.



We can agree to disagee on bits.

It is a matter of opinion what happened and the accuracy of the media reportage. The country is still broke with politicians drawn from the same pool.

The facts for most of his lies are clear cut. He told many lies.

For the FF bag man specific lie , the fact that Gallagher was the bagman is by his own admission true and correct.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I give up! SG acted THE EXACT SAME as every other dodgy FF character, lying and pulling strokes.

We disagree that the list should be extended accross political party lines to senior civil servants and decision makers in the social partnership then.

You seem to want to exclude the de facto decision makers from the list of who is culpable and insert SG's name.

Why not adjust the definition

as every other dodgy FFpolitical type character, lying and pulling strokes.

I have always said SG's behavior is no worse than others.

CDfm

raymon wrote: »

The facts for most of his lies are clear cut. He told many lies.

For the FF bag man specific lie , the fact that Gallagher was the bagman is by his own admission true and correct.

Bagman is a perjorative term - but once I am used to your terms it does not bug me that you refer to legitimate fund raising this way.

You are ,of course, entitled to your opinion on what has been reported but it is far less clearcut for me ,especially when I look at areas I have experience in.

I honestly can't understand why you - as someone who appears to want a change - are persisting in supporting someone who has no intention of being part of that change

I cant understand you either.

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

We disagree that the list should be extended accross political party lines to senior civil servants and decision makers in the social partnership then.

You seem to want to exclude the de facto decision makers from the list of who is culpable and insert SG's name.

Where did you get that idea ?

To your credit, you included the "seem to" in the second paragraph in order to circumvent an accurate accusation that you are following the SG philosophy of lying.

However - like your hero - you have overlooked something; your first paragraph has no such caveat, and therefore I can honestly say that you are misrepresenting my position and, therefore, lying.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Bagman is a perjorative term - but once I am used to your terms it does not bug me that you refer to legitimate fund raising this way.

You are ,of course, entitled to your opinion on what has been reported but it is far less clearcut for me ,especially when I look at areas I have experience in.

Let's look at this issue of legitimate fund raising. Leaving aside the ethical issues for all parties, yes, it is legal and I for one don't give a flying monkey's if Gallagher raised funds for FF - my issue is that he denied ever doing so and ended up conceeding to Dobson that he did indeed engage in increasing FF's coffers by means of informing individuals that a donation to FF prior to an upcoming social event hosted by FF (suggested amount c 5k) would gain personal access to the Taoiseach.

Personally - if I was in FF (:eek: :eek: :eek:) I'd be less then impressed with Gallagher's loyality to the party on whose national executive he once served.

Did the cock crow 3 times as SG denied FF?

AnnyHallsal

CDfm wrote: »

I have always said SG's behavior is no worse than others.

Being "no worse than others" is not good enough. We should expect far more from our leaders than merely being "no worse" than the conniving, the dishonest and the corrupt. What a low bar you set.

swampgas

CDfm wrote: »

I have always said SG's behavior is no worse than others.

So, in your opinion, the 7 candidates for the presidency were equally dishonest?

Do you really think MDH is as dishonest as SG? Really?

jonniebgood1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally - if I was in FF (:eek: :eek: :eek:) I'd be less then impressed with Gallagher's loyality to the party on whose national executive he once served.

Did the cock crow 3 times as SG denied FF?

Why would he be loyal to them when he has left them? Its politics.

The Quadratic Equation

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Why would he be loyal to them when he has left them? Its politics.

The FFker golden circle ran him as a covert FFker candidate, hence no FFker candidate.
The FFkers must still think we're all idiots.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where did you get that idea ?

Just asking.

I do not know how you view politicians ?

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Being "no worse than others" is not good enough. We should expect far more from our leaders than merely being "no worse" than the conniving, the dishonest and the corrupt. What a low bar you set.

Didn't I just. Though lots of international journalists do too.

swampgas wrote: »

So, in your opinion, the 7 candidates for the presidency were equally dishonest?

Do you really think MDH is as dishonest as SG? Really?

MDH was/is part of the establishment as anyone at a senior level and I do not think he and his party colleagues have served us well.

We are that small a country - how much governering do we need and how complcated could it be .

Capt'n Midnight

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Why would he be loyal to them when he has left them? Its politics.

So many people have "left" FF in the past and rejoined later on that it's nearly an empty gesture.

How many ex-FF candidates at the last election ran as "independents" ?

AnnyHallsal

CDfm wrote: »

Didn't I just. Though lots of international journalists do too.

This sums up your contribution to the thread and the only defence of Gallagher you have been able to mount. Whatboutery.

swampgas

I asked you a straight question about MDH's honesty ...

swampgas wrote: »

So, in your opinion, the 7 candidates for the presidency were equally dishonest?

Do you really think MDH is as dishonest as SG? Really?

And you answer with this waffle:

CDfm wrote: »

MDH was/is part of the establishment as anyone at a senior level and I do not think he and his party colleagues have served us well.

Are you sure you're not a seasoned politician yourself? You seem to be allergic to giving a straight answer to anything!

senordingdong

CDfm wrote: »

We are that small a country - how much governering do we need and how complcated could it be .

How many interests can be served?

jonniebgood1

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

This sums up your contribution to the thread and the only defence of Gallagher you have been able to mount. Whatboutery.

What a nonsense. If you are going to sum up someones contribution in a negative fashion such as you do here you should at least give examples of what you are talking about. Just what is whatboutery or what do you mean?

jonniebgood1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So many people have "left" FF in the past and rejoined later on that it's nearly an empty gesture.

How many ex-FF candidates at the last election ran as "independents" ?

Maybe higgins will rejoin then.

You are correct of course but that to is 'politics'

raymon

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What a nonsense. If you are going to sum up someones contribution in a negative fashion such as you do here you should at least give examples of what you are talking about. Just what is whatboutery or what do you mean?

You know exactly what whataboutery is.

It is the tactic that both you and CdFm employ

Rather than argue against the op you interject some unrelated topic.

You are a whatabouterist

AnnyHallsal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What a nonsense. If you are going to sum up someones contribution in a negative fashion such as you do here you should at least give examples of what you are talking about. Just what is whatboutery or what do you mean?

I wrote:

Being "no worse than others" is not good enough. We should expect far more from our leaders than merely being "no worse" than the conniving, the dishonest and the corrupt. What a low bar you set.

CDfm responded:

"Didn't I just. Though lots of international journalists do too."

A dreadfully weak, inadequate response. I've seen him respond to many such direct questions and statements with similar deflections, as others have also pointed out on a number of occasions. That's popularly known as "whatboutery" on Boards.

Sponge Bob

CDfm probably meant 'no worse than Charlie Haughey and Ray Burke who were HIGHLY capable FF fundraisers in their day others.'

jonniebgood1

raymon wrote: »

You know exactly what whataboutery is.

It is the tactic that both you and CdFm employ

Rather than argue against the op you interject some unrelated topic.

You are a whatabouterist

You have consistently come out with this accusation against anyone who questions, queries or asks for clarification of points. If you are not able to debate a topic then I am mystified as to what you are at.
It is like your fall back, default line. When you are unable to debate the subject in an adult fashion you make accusations of 'whataboutery'. If you did not wish for debate of the topic you should have wrote a blog.

jonniebgood1

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I wrote:

Being "no worse than others" is not good enough. We should expect far more from our leaders than merely being "no worse" than the conniving, the dishonest and the corrupt. What a low bar you set.

CDfm responded:

"Didn't I just. Though lots of international journalists do too."

A dreadfully weak, inadequate response. I've seen him respond to many such direct questions and statements with similar deflections, as others have also pointed out on a number of occasions. That's popularly known as "whatboutery" on Boards.

Does'nt the response suggest that it is a common view, although maybe not amongst the dreadfully inadequate media we have here. I find the media from abroad often give a better summary of where we are at. For example the BBC coverage of MMG was interesting in the election.

KELTICKNIGHTT

dav3 wrote: »

Your posts are so difficult to read and decipher. We can all forgive a few spelling mistakes or grammatical errors once you get your point or points across, but it's getting ridiculous at this stage, making it impossible to engage you in any kind of debate.
Maybe take a bit more time in constructing your posts in future, and while you're at it, throw in a few links to back up your claims.

so this is your excuse in answering,..no surprise

AnnyHallsal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Does'nt the response suggest that it is a common view, although maybe not amongst the dreadfully inadequate media we have here. I find the media from abroad often give a better summary of where we are at. For example the BBC coverage of MMG was interesting in the election.

No. It suggested he was unable to defend the indefensible and had to deflect attention elsewhere, as he has consistently done throughout this thread.

"Though lots of international journalists do too" had no relevance to the point I directly addressed.

KELTICKNIGHTT

raymon wrote: »

Keltic , listen .... the game is over .
He lied repeatedly on live tv, in print , on his website.

Don't try to paint this as a conspiracy. I raised these issues weeks before the shinners

The guy was a fake .

He lied, he lost the election.

I'm not sure why you won't let it go ....

according to you which i Wouldn't believe as they way you posted
you have proved anything really
all you do is retell same old ,same old
next

KELTICKNIGHTT

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are you calling Gallagher a criminal ?

Sean Gallagher no criminal,theres others I would
sg just wasn't politician and cute enough as politicians

KELTICKNIGHTT

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are you calling Gallagher a criminal ?

check it again
was referring to morgan

KELTICKNIGHTT

mikom wrote: »

Did someone say Sean Gallagher is a criminal?
KELTICKNIGHTT, was that you that said that?

Morgan is the criminal
check it again

KELTICKNIGHTT

kippy wrote: »

Ah jaysus,
There were numerous issues with SG. The fact that he solicited and took donations on behalf of FF isn't the big issue. As mentioned countless times before if he came clean about his involvement with FF I dont think MDH would be heading for the Aras now. Instead he didn't come clean. HE LIED and lied through his teeth for that matter, changing his story at least three times before getting to some semplance of the truth.
The premise of this thread is pretty straight forward, Is Sean Gallagher telling lies. Its fairly obvious that he was telling lies, although he did correct them as time went on when it became obvious that he was digging a deeper hole for himself.

I felt threatened by the chance of a FF senior member, a symbol of all that was wrong with this country in the 00's, a guy who reminded me so much of Berte, getting into one of the most high profile (if not powerless) jobs in this country by deceiving the Irish people.

Forget about Morgan, sitting on numerous boards, the claims of community work, the directors loans, the minimum amount of investment in dragons den, the company prostectus for a minute and get back to even the most basic of his claims.

"Seán was the co-founder of Smarthomes, Ireland’s fastest growing technology company and he has built up a successful business presence in Ireland. As an entrepreneur for over a decade, Seán has helped to mentor other budding entrepreneurs through RTE’s successful Dragons’ Den and through his work with County Enterprise Boards and Chambers of Commerce around the country."
(From here http://www.seangallagher.com/2011/about-sean/)
Irelands fastest growing technology company? Really. Going from 100 staff to 20 (never mind the financial meltdown) and he has the gal to call it the fastest growing technology company in this country. What a kick in the teeth to almost every other Irish technology company out there who I am sure are growing at a faster rate than that.

I amn't pro any party or indeed individual, but there are many issues from the past 10 years that havent been properly addressed. Seeing this guy as president for the next 7 years (if he didnt manage to bring the office into disrepute before then) would have been yet another extension of the memory of the disaster that we've had in this country.

So don't come on here trying to knock us all down as party activists out to get poor aul SG.

are you connected to a party ?
It's a question

Sponge Bob

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

are you connected to a party ?
It's a question

Nobody cares whether he/she/it answers it either. Now cease this obdurate defense of the indefensible or forever smear the Seán by association.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody cares whether he/she/it answers it either. Now cease this obdurate defense of the indefensible or forever smear the Seán by association.

when posters get better facts and not hear say comments with addon's by posters
and I think poster can answer for posters self
don't you