Waterford gives a shirt.

Cabaal

7upfree wrote: »

Now THERE'S a thought.......:D

meh, Waterford hasn't a chance....Cork people have been ranting about having Cork passports for years :pac:

Sully

Dicky Pride wrote: »

It is political though...

From what I was told tonight and from the pictures I have seen, it was very much political. A number of local reps at the front of the photographs, a debate between local reps and so on.

wellboytoo

Sully wrote: »

From what I was told tonight and from the pictures I have seen, it was very much political. A number of local reps at the front of the photographs, a debate between local reps and so on.

Everything is political when you are dealing with politicians, enough of the innuendo Sully.
It was a productive day we were met with courtesy by Paudie Coffey who whether he agrees with all we had to say or not, had the cojones to come out and meet us, brought us to meet the Taoiseach's secretary, who listened to our case , we made six points that are pertinent to Waterford and gave six solutions with it.
Mr arrogance personified Deasy did not come to meet us, practically every other elected rep from Waterford South Tipp, and south Killkenny did, which proves that if it is east of Kilmacthomas Mr Deasy does not give a damn, the arrogance of the man is unbelievable.

Sully whether you agree or not with what we are trying to do, you should show a little more respect for differing opinions that happen to clash with your political affilations , I have refrained from pulling you up on your dismissive comments on Waterford gives a shirt campaign and do not want to get involved in the slanging match on here, but do show some tolerance and respect for others who have differing views to you and your party.
Uno duce una voce is long gone.

wellboy76

Sully wrote: »

From what I was told tonight and from the pictures I have seen, it was very much political. A number of local reps at the front of the photographs, a debate between local reps and so on.

Told by who? Me and wellboytoo are both members and we will both tell you right now that this is categorically not political. The councillors who went were not asked but told to go as citizens of waterford, in fact all of them were including the party you champion on here. I did see one email from one councillor from that party that was sent to another member by email that was fairly scathing towards what we were trying to highlight, maybe you are getting told what you wanted to hear from this particular councillor? Who knows.

Basically what I am telling you now is what you were told is wrong, please go back to your source and tell them that.

Sully

wellboytoo wrote: »

Everything is political when you are dealing with politicians, enough of the innuendo Sully.
It was a productive day we were met with courtesy by Paudie Coffey who whether he agrees with all we had to say or not, had the cojones to come out and meet us, brought us to meet the Taoiseach's secretary, who listened to our case , we made six points that are pertinent to Waterford and gave six solutions with it.
Mr arrogance personified Deasy did not come to meet us, practically every other elected rep from Waterford South Tipp, and south Killkenny did, which proves that if it is east of Kilmacthomas Mr Deasy does not give a damn, the arrogance of the man is unbelievable.

Sully whether you agree or not with what we are trying to do, you should show a little more respect for differing opinions that happen to clash with your political affilations , I have refrained from pulling you up on your dismissive comments on Waterford gives a shirt campaign and do not want to get involved in the slanging match on here, but do show some tolerance and respect for others who have differing views to you and your party.
Uno duce una voce is long gone.

I have no objection to making your point outside the Dail and handing over the letter to whomever. I have no objection to a campaign that focuses on the vital services of Waterford being chipped away, one of the highest unemployment rate in the country and so on.

I felt that bringing a range of local political representatives from across the political spectrum to attend the campaign made it political. Some of those in attendance were from government parties, and I didn't think it was appropriate. I believe that there was a political debate between Paudie Coffey and David Cullinane, again, making it political. A number of those holding the shirt line were politicians or party supporters like myself and they got in on the photo opportunity. You then decided to hold a silly protest outside the Ministers constituency office, again, making it political and further dragging the campaigns credibility down as you are completely obsessed with Phil Hogan and Kilkenny. This is my view. You don't see the issue, others don't and others do.

I have said since day one that a campaign needs to happen. I said it very clearly online, in writing and in public, that a campaign is needed. I supported the idea, until the point where the obsession about Kilkenny getting everything, Waterford getting nothing, Phil Hogan being evil and out to get Waterford took over a campaign that could have had so much potential. Some have disagreed and said the shirt idea was stupid - I think it was fantastic. If it focused on a range of issues, important factual issues, and didn't obsess about the one thing.

The Save Waterford campaign official stand and speeches ruled out having politicians, despite some from this campaign suggesting that their political supporters should be allowed make a speech to the crowd. This only serves to help them politically and make the issue politically. They didn't want that. Yes politicians turned up and protested. Yes the media interviewed them. But they were not invited officially or there representing the campaign - they were independently there supporting it and didn't jump on the stand or be in the background when the various organisers and speakers were talking and having photographs taken.

The above named campaign may very well be going against my party. If Fine Gael take the opinion of the report that WRH should be downgraded or have services spread to different constituencies than I wont fall in line and agree. I have disagreed since the very start, put time and money towards this campaign (through my business and by attending protests) and have spoken very highly about this and the additional issues they raise.

I do not support the campaign by 'Waterford Gives A Shirt' because of the earlier mentioned reasons. Some within FG here in Waterford disagree with parts of what was announced re: merger, but I don't see the big issue with that or the overall merger. Even when the concerns are raised, and I understand them I just don't see how its going to be a problem. Its not because FG decided this that I support it. Its because I as an individual, a tiny business owner and a citizen of Waterford believe in it.

If the campaign ever decides to have a reality check and deal with the other, bigger more pressing and important issues (not the fluoride in the water!!!!) than you will see me supporting that side. But it appears this one obsession wont be going away anytime soon.

Sorry if I have insulted you or the campaign members, it is not my intention to do so. We all have different views on this, some agree with me and many don't. I have the utmost respect for the theory and those behind it but the views expressed I do not support and its not because of who suggested it.

wellboy76 wrote: »

Told by who? Me and wellboytoo are both members and we will both tell you right now that this is categorically not political. The councillors who went were not asked but told to go as citizens of waterford, in fact all of them were including the party you champion on here. I did see one email from one councillor from that party that was sent to another member by email that was fairly scathing towards what we were trying to highlight, maybe you are getting told what you wanted to hear from this particular councillor? Who knows.

Basically what I am telling you now is what you were told is wrong, please go back to your source and tell them that.

I haven't spoken to any politician/TD/Senator/Cllr etc. about today. It was someone who attended your protest and who spoke with me this evening that told me what had happened at the meeting and spoke very highly about the day. The person is in favour of your campaign, supports it 100% and spoke with me (briefly) on the matter. I have only met the chap a handful of times and through business, not politics. I have no idea what party he supports, if any (I think he told me he was APolitical). Pictures went up on Facebook and a Video also IIRC.

fuzzy dunlop

Cabaal wrote: »

Lastime I checked I don't have to follow orders and do what you request

I'm also free to post in this forum or any other forum on boards.ie that I have access to as long as I stay in-line with the charter the same as anyone else can. shocking eh? :eek:

The joys of the interweb :pac::pac:

But you do have a habit of diasapearing back to the wetback forum when somone asks you to back up what you say with something other than the words tin foil hat:D

fricatus

From today's Indo:

Protesters get shirty for city

Up to 100 shirts have been delivered to politicians as part of a campaign by people from Waterford to highlight the "neglect" of their city.

Protesters took their "Waterford Gives a Shirt" campaign to Leinster House as part of a bid to prevent Waterford's city and county councils being merged, to petition against any downgrade of the regional hospital and to focus attention on unemployment.

Organisers Liz Murphy and Cian Foley brought some of the shirts to Dublin yesterday to present to politicians.

"We do appreciate that things can't happen overnight but they seemed to listen to us," Ms Murphy said afterwards.

- Conor Kane

7upfree

See, Sully, the problem with your reply is two words "my party". This is OUR CITY. "Your party" will be long gone but they will have sunk this City before they hit electoral oblivion.

FFS.

Elbows22

Is it possible a moderater can ban themselves?

The Hill Billy

If anyone has an issue with the moderation of this forum - use the Report Post function & mark it for the attention of a CMod.

Any further on-thread comments on moderation - no matter how glib - will result in a ban.

tHB (Region CatMod)

Sully

7upfree wrote: »

See, Sully, the problem with your reply is two words "my party". This is OUR CITY. "Your party" will be long gone but they will have sunk this City before they hit electoral oblivion.

FFS.

I hate using the term 'my party' because its not 'mine'.

Anyway, so far all Waterford has lost is the VEC if I am not mistaken, under this government. WRH, so far, remains as is with assurances given but I still see this as a threat either way until one way or another a concrete call is made but I can see that our reps are doing what they have been elected to do so. University has developed at a stronger pace than ever before. Increase in visits by the IDA. Moderate investments towards Waterford with potential on the line for two very large capital projects.

Unemployment is our biggest issue. Not fannying around with a council merger and claiming big Phil wants to rob us of our City status because Kilkenny isn't one. Its important that we stand up for ourselves of course and ensure that there is no further continuation of a chipping away of services.

7upfree

Sully wrote: »

I hate using the term 'my party' because its not 'mine'.

Anyway, so far all Waterford has lost is the VEC if I am not mistaken, under this government. WRH, so far, remains as is with assurances given but I still see this as a threat either way until one way or another a concrete call is made but I can see that our reps are doing what they have been elected to do so. University has developed at a stronger pace than ever before. Increase in visits by the IDA. Moderate investments towards Waterford with potential on the line for two very large capital projects.

Unemployment is our biggest issue. Not fannying around with a council merger and claiming big Phil wants to rob us of our City status because Kilkenny isn't one. Its important that we stand up for ourselves of course and ensure that there is no further continuation of a chipping away of services.

All the more important then to stand up for ourselves. Yet we were told to stay away from WRH on Friday last. Doesn't add up at all.

Dicky Pride

7upfree wrote: »

All the more important then to stand up for ourselves. Yet we were told to stay away from WRH on Friday last. Doesn't add up at all.

Told to stay away by who though?

ART6

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Told to stay away by who though?

Indeed! If the warning was issued by authorities such as the Gardai then that would be a totally unacceptable affront to democracy and the freedom of assembly. If is was from organisers of a protest, then why? How would it serve their interests for people to stay away? A link would be useful.

7upfree

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Told to stay away by who though?

1. The head of the Hospital.

2. Save Waterford said they weren't "having a protest".

As I said, a golden opportunity missed.

Dicky Pride

7upfree wrote: »

1. The head of the Hospital.

2. Save Waterford said they weren't "having a protest".

As I said, a golden opportunity missed.

1. Well he was hardly going to say, come out in your numbers and ruin my day.

2. The save waterford campaign is in its infancy and not properly organised at the moment. They were just afraid of their life of being associated with something that certain people thought would get messy. After 10-11-12, that was an offensive assumption imo.

comeraghs

This only makes it more important to support the protest on Dec 8th, a big crowd will show that this issue isn't going to fade away!

http://www.savewaterford.com/

Dicky Pride

comeraghs wrote: »

This only makes it more important to support the protest on Dec 8th, a big crowd will show that this issue isn't going to fade away!

http://www.savewaterford.com/

Yes but what's this I'm hearing about the trying to organise the most santas in one place or something like this. The two girls chaired a meeting, got a load of ideas, and were probably too afraid to tell people that some of the ideas where rubbish.

Another thing that's starting to really annoy me. Anytime anybody raises some genuine concerns on the facebook page they are instantly set upon and accused of being negative and not supporting these two women who are being so brave. All credit to the two girls, they deserve credit, but they are not royalty and most of the people that are raising concerns are 100% right.

There's a mob mentality at the heart of the save waterford campaign and it could very well undo all the good work. The treatment of Karen Frampton last week was sickening.

Deisetrek

Dicky Pride wrote: »

1. Well he was hardly going to say, come out in your numbers and ruin my day.

2. The save waterford campaign is in its infancy and not properly organised at the moment. They were just afraid of their life of being associated with something that certain people thought would get messy. After 10-11-12, that was an offensive assumption imo.

Those who "scaremongered " in the lead up to the protest outside the hospital whether on Boards or Facebook did Waterford and the South East a huge disservice .

MitchKoobski

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Another thing that's starting to really annoy me. Anytime anybody raises some genuine concerns on the facebook page they are instantly set upon and accused of being negative and not supporting these two women who are being so brave. All credit to the two girls, they deserve credit, but they are not royalty and most of the people that are raising concerns are 100% right.

There's a mob mentality at the heart of the save waterford campaign and it could very well undo all the good work. The treatment of Karen Frampton last week was sickening.

Finally someone else says it. This put me off straight away just a few days before the protest, but when anyone tried to make as much as a suggestion they were descended upon with comments such as "If you don't like it here, then leave.". They suggested boycotting This Is Up. Boycotting a Waterford recruitment agency that started from the ground up over the last two years. Eejits.

The two women were quick to point out that this shouldn't be happening and that "it just shows how much this means to the people of Waterford", but what the angry mob needed to be told was to cop the **** on and act like adults.

Deisetrek

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Yes but what's this I'm hearing about the trying to organise the most santas in one place or something like this. The two girls chaired a meeting, got a load of ideas, and were probably too afraid to tell people that some of the ideas where rubbish.

Another thing that's starting to really annoy me. Anytime anybody raises some genuine concerns on the facebook page they are instantly set upon and accused of being negative and not supporting these two women who are being so brave. All credit to the two girls, they deserve credit, but they are not royalty and most of the people that are raising concerns are 100% right.

There's a mob mentality at the heart of the save waterford campaign and it could very well undo all the good work. The treatment of Karen Frampton last week was sickening.

That says it all for me " mob mentality" . It's comments like that will definitely undo the good work .

Dicky Pride

Deisetrek wrote: »

That says it all for me " mob mentality" . It's comments like that will definitely undo the good work .

Listen, nobody disputes the fact that the two ladies are doing great work, and they are not hiding the fact that they are inexperienced and need help. The problem is, the people that are coming to their aid are from all areas and, to be frank, all agendas. Ollie Breslin asked the question about the next march and he expressed concern about "santa hats". Someone else made the point that they should have protested at WRH last friday. There are countless other people who have asked legitimate questions too...for example before the first match the girls were asked what the plan was for the Ballybricken march...the chap was then abused from all sides. It was despicable to watch it unfold.

And here you are saying that pointing out the mob mentality will undo the good work. You can't be serious?

Deisetrek

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Listen, nobody disputes the fact that the two ladies are doing great work, and they are not hiding the fact that they are inexperienced and need help. The problem is, the people that are coming to their aid are from all areas and, to be frank, all agendas. Ollie Breslin asked the question about the next march and he expressed concern about "santa hats". Someone else made the point that they should have protested at WRH last friday. There are countless other people who have asked legitimate questions too...for example before the first match the girls were asked what the plan was for the Ballybricken march...the chap was then abused from all sides. It was despicable to watch it unfold.

And here you are saying that pointing out the mob mentality will undo the good work. You can't be serious?

There were 15000 on Ballybricken green the last day . How many do you reckon were there because of what they read on Facebook or any other socioal media ? I reckon maybe 20% to 30% max , 'cause the age profile of the majority there would tell me there were not users of social media in any form . Your use of such language is what kept the "baying mob" away from the gates of WRH when a protest was essential ,in the form of the much suggested silent one . And yes I am serious .......

Dicky Pride

Deisetrek wrote: »

There were 15000 on Ballybricken green the last day . How many do you reckon were there because of what they read on Facebook or any other socioal media ? I reckon maybe 20% to 30% max , 'cause the age profile of the majority there would tell me there were not users of social media in any form . Your use of such language is what kept the "baying mob" away from the gates of WRH when a protest was essential ,in the form of the much suggested silent one . And yes I am serious .......

I'm not talking about the people that stood on the hill. i'm talking about CYBER BULLYING on facebook. Because that's all it was. And as far as I'm concerned, you're condoning it.

Deisetrek

Dicky Pride wrote: »

I'm not talking about the people that stood on the hill. i'm talking about CYBER BULLYING on facebook. Because that's all it was. And as far as I'm concerned, you're condoning it.

I couldn't give a ****e what goes on on facebook . My concern is for the future of the South East federation of hospitals and the campaign to retain FULL services in Waterford . I don't condone cyber bullying in any shape or form and people who partake in such are just cowards . I do however take issue with those who use social media to "scaremonger" in a cynical attempt to take the momentum from an honourable campaign .

7upfree

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Yes but what's this I'm hearing about the trying to organise the most santas in one place or something like this. The two girls chaired a meeting, got a load of ideas, and were probably too afraid to tell people that some of the ideas where rubbish.

Another thing that's starting to really annoy me. Anytime anybody raises some genuine concerns on the facebook page they are instantly set upon and accused of being negative and not supporting these two women who are being so brave. All credit to the two girls, they deserve credit, but they are not royalty and most of the people that are raising concerns are 100% right.

There's a mob mentality at the heart of the save waterford campaign and it could very well undo all the good work. The treatment of Karen Frampton last week was sickening.

Karen brought it on herself. Full stop. I agree about SW though. You cannot even dare to criticise their strategy without causing a backlash. Not good.

7upfree

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Finally someone else says it. This put me off straight away just a few days before the protest, but when anyone tried to make as much as a suggestion they were descended upon with comments such as "If you don't like it here, then leave.". They suggested boycotting This Is Up. Boycotting a Waterford recruitment agency that started from the ground up over the last two years. Eejits.

The two women were quick to point out that this shouldn't be happening and that "it just shows how much this means to the people of Waterford", but what the angry mob needed to be told was to cop the **** on and act like adults.

Rubbish. So Up were also supposed to be immune from criticism in your book? Did you actually take the time to read what she posted?

7upfree

Deisetrek wrote: »

That says it all for me " mob mentality" . It's comments like that will definitely undo the good work .

Indeed. Regardless of my feelings toward SW it is beyond time that we keep taking it up the ass from incompetent buffoons and their supporters.

7upfree

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Listen, nobody disputes the fact that the two ladies are doing great work, and they are not hiding the fact that they are inexperienced and need help. The problem is, the people that are coming to their aid are from all areas and, to be frank, all agendas. Ollie Breslin asked the question about the next march and he expressed concern about "santa hats". Someone else made the point that they should have protested at WRH last friday. There are countless other people who have asked legitimate questions too...for example before the first match the girls were asked what the plan was for the Ballybricken march...the chap was then abused from all sides. It was despicable to watch it unfold.

And here you are saying that pointing out the mob mentality will undo the good work. You can't be serious?

I would agree with a lot of the above. But I wouldn't call it a mob mentality. Just some people who think SW are immune from criticism.

A huge opportunity was missed on Friday last simply because of politically-oriented scaremongering from some quarters. And SW fell for it unfortunately.

And the Santa hats suggestion is completely naff.

Cabaal

Deisetrek wrote: »

I reckon maybe 20% to 30% max , 'cause the age profile of the majority there would tell me there were not users of social media in any form . Your use of such language is what kept the "baying mob" away from the gates of WRH when a protest was essential ,in the form of the much suggested silent one . And yes I am serious .......

You'd want to be careful with your assumptions,

There are plenty of 50, 60, 70 and even 80 year olds I know of who use facebook, even if they don't a friend of there's may so the word of mouth spreading via social media is likely much higher then the 30% you assuming it is.