Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RTE reports the Rally For Life march had 70k people...no it didn't! Here's evidence!

Options
«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grandslammer wrote: »
    In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

    Opinions????

    That's a bizarrely specific estimate!


  • Options
    #3
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Grandslammer wrote: »
    So both of these videos are the evidence:

    Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g

    Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDGouci2FI

    In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

    Opinions????

    5,280 sounds a bit low. I'd say it was easily twice that. It was a well-attended march, just nowhere near as big as the organisers (or RTE) claimed.


  • Options
    #4
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    RayM wrote: »
    5,280 sounds a bit low. I'd say it was easily twice that. It was a well-attended march, just nowhere near as big as the organisers (or RTE) claimed.


    If it was an Irish Water march I'm sure RTE would have said the figure was 5,280.
    As its a ProLife rally I'm sure the RTE quoted figure of 70000 plus is correct.


  • Options
    #5
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Grandslammer wrote: »
    So both of these videos are the evidence:

    Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g

    Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDGouci2FI

    In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

    Opinions????

    RTE didn't report that the march had 70k people. They reported that the organisers claimed they had 70k. Big difference.


  • Options
    #6
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Donal55 wrote: »
    If it was an Irish Water march I'm sure RTE would have said the figure was 5,280.

    Before adding that half the people there were "sinister" and involved in dissident republicanism.
    super_furry wrote:
    RTE didn't report that the march had 70k people. They reported that the organisers claimed they had 70k. Big difference.

    I'm sure they introduced their report with the words "tens of thousands of people..."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,322 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    RayM wrote: »
    I'm sure they introduced their report with the words "tens of thousands of people..."

    Yeah, Gardai put the number at 20,000 - which is tens of thousands. RTE themselves said verbatim "It was organised by groups who want to preserve the Eighth Amendment. They said around 70,000 people took part in the march today."


  • Options
    #8
    Ann_Landers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Ann_Landers


    I'd say there was a similar amount to the Repeal march in September. Both were well-attended. It's probably worth mentioning that there were a few different figures going around about the Repeal march too, ranging from 20,000 to 100,000. There tends to be a lot of wild guesses around these events, but RTÉ should try and confirm the correct number.


  • Options
    #9
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭OU812


    Grandslammer wrote: »
    Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g


    Opinions????

    There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

    My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.


  • Options
    #10
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    Numbers numbers numbers.

    ALWAYS exaggerated.

    "3 billion will see opening ceremony of Olympics"
    "360 million will watch eurovision"
    "billions will watch world cup"

    Correct statement is "if everyone who had access to view xxx actually watched it, these would be the numbers"

    So about 3 billion have access to a TV, but not a chance in hell that they'd all be watching one programme.


    Same with marches - they seem to count all the bystanders going about their regular business for the entire time of the march and who have no interest in the protest.

    But best ever was "thousands turn up to protest against var insurance" correct figure was 14!


  • Options
    #11
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    OU812 wrote: »
    There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

    My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

    Thats a nice model of democracy you're proposing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    super_furry wrote: »
    Yeah, Gardai put the number at 20,000 - which is tens of thousands. RTE themselves said verbatim "It was organised by groups who want to preserve the Eighth Amendment. They said around 70,000 people took part in the march today."

    "Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.


  • Options
    #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OU812 wrote: »
    There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

    My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

    Would also exclude those who have fertility problems on the same basis? They can't have children so it doesn't affect them?

    It seems strange.


  • Options
    #14
    hidinginthebush
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭hidinginthebush


    OU812 wrote: »
    There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

    My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

    That's complete bollix. That's similar to saying only gay people should have been allowed vote for the marriage referendum.


  • Options
    #15
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,199 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RayM wrote: »
    "Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.

    thinly veiled etc....


  • Options
    #16
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭OU812


    Donal55 wrote: »
    Thats a nice model of democracy you're proposing.

    It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form.
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Would also exclude those who have fertility problems on the same basis? They can't have children so it doesn't affect them?

    It seems strange.

    No, because they're of childbearing age with the potential to have children.


    hidinginthebush wrote: »
    That's complete bollix. That's similar to saying only gay people should have been allowed vote for the marriage referendum.


    Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.


  • Options
    #17
    hidinginthebush
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭hidinginthebush


    OU812 wrote: »
    Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

    Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.


  • Options
    #18
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    I'm no good at judging the size of crowds Ted, but I'd say there's about seventeen million of them out there.


  • Options
    #19
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    I would estimate that there is about 4.5 million people who didn't march?


  • Options
    #20
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    RayM wrote: »
    "Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.

    "Usually" usually implies, "not always" though. So nothing wrong with saying tens of thousands when it is only 2 x 10k rather than more than 2 x 10k.


  • Options
    #21
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭OU812


    hidinginthebush wrote: »
    Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.

    Of course it affects straight people. It affects all people. It affects equality.

    Also as generally straight people are most likely parents of gay people, it affects their children's rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    hidinginthebush
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,679 ✭✭✭hidinginthebush


    OU812 wrote: »
    Of course it affects straight people. It affects all people. It affects equality.

    Also as generally straight people are most likely parents of gay people, it affects their children's rights.

    And the women affected by the 8th are likely someone's daughter / sister / wife / mother


  • Options
    #23
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    OU812 wrote: »
    It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form.



    No, because they're of childbearing age with the potential to have children.






    Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

    So you want equality for some people but not for others.
    Mmmmm?


  • Options
    #24
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,189 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    So the organisers said 70 thousand?
    Pssh. Call me a cynic but everything appears to be bull****.


  • Options
    #25
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭OU812


    hidinginthebush wrote: »
    And the women affected by the 8th are likely someone's daughter / sister / wife / mother

    Don't know about you, but my reproductive system is nothing to do with my parents
    Donal55 wrote: »
    So you want equality for some people but not for others.
    Mmmmm?

    No, I want equality for people it effects, not people who are going to die off having screwed it up for everyone else.

    I have my kids, I'm male & I've had a vasectomy. This couldn't affect me in any way possible. However, I want my kids to have the right to control their own destiny & not be influenced by a load of silver-haired bible bashers.


  • Options
    #26
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    hidinginthebush wrote: »
    Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.

    There was quite a cohort of straight people voting against it that claimed it affected them. Devaluing their marriages etc etc


  • Options
    #27
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Your woman a few mins in is very sinister looking. Walking holding her rosary beads up like a shield with a weird grin o her face. The abortions won't be penetrating he defences anyway.


  • Options
    #28
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    OU812 wrote: »
    Don't know about you, but my reproductive system is nothing to do with my parents



    No, I want equality for people it effects, not people who are going to die off having screwed it up for everyone else.

    I have my kids, I'm male & I've had a vasectomy. This couldn't affect me in any way possible. However, I want my kids to have the right to control their own destiny & not be influenced by a load of silver-haired bible bashers.

    So you get to vote for your kids but "silver haired Bible bashers" can't vote? Sinister stuff.


  • Options
    #29
    OU812
    Registered Users Posts: 6,046 ✭✭✭OU812


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Sinister stuff.

    Hardly.

    Chances are their kids are the same age as me and have their own kids at this point


  • Options
    #30
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,475 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Your woman a few mins in is very sinister looking. Walking holding her rosary beads up like a shield with a weird grin o her face. The abortions won't be penetrating he defences anyway.

    I think the one is clothes hanger is even more sinister looking!

    image.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    HonalD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭HonalD


    OU812 wrote: »
    My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

    That's a bizarre opinion to have.

    Would children be allowed to vote i.e. They will be of child bearing age in the future?

    What is a viable pregnancy age? And does that differ from male to female?


Advertisement