Mexican stand off at RTE Primetime

Try_harder

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd say it was never the intention to have Cora there, only way they could get Harris on the show was to promise no Maria.

Not surprised at her pulling out of Pat Kenny show after the run in with him last week.

So Cora was bait? Pat Kenny pulled her weak argument apart alright. Pat is shrewd

pc7

hotmail.com wrote: »

Cora said she didn't pull out but then doesn't explain what happened. There's speculation that their polls are showing the No side losing so hence they are panicking.

Could they legally challenge the result if Yes win based on media bias? Could that be the endgame on this one?

Hitman3000

drunkmonkey wrote:

I'd say it was never the intention to have Cora there, only way they could get Harris on the show was to promise no Maria.

Sherlock sought the debate with Harris he agreed, it's not him or RTE looking like Muppets. The spin ain't working.

drunkmonkey

Try_harder wrote: »

So Cora was bait? Pat Kenny pulled her weak argument apart alright. Pat is shrewd

That's not a fair debate then is it. Pat Kenny should be the host not pushing his own narrative to force an outcome. That's a stitch up.

Yea I think Cora was bait as RTE would not allow the No side representative to represent the No side.

Hitman3000

drunkmonkey wrote:

Not surprised at her pulling out of Pat Kenny show after the run in with him last week.

I thought Maria was the No sides star performer? Jaysus if Kenny can tear her nonsense apart no wonder she pulled out.

kunst nugget

pc7 wrote: »

Could they legally challenge the result if Yes win based on media bias? Could that be the endgame on this one?

How could they? RTÉ cut down on the amount of contributors on the pro side when Cora Sherlock withdrew from the debate (pulled out just seems so wrong in this discussion) so they did their best to keep the show balanced. Is it the fault of RTÉ that the no side didn't have faith in one of their leading campaigners and should they capitulate to any side when they demand to make last minute changes to try and throw the cat amongst the pigeons?

Hitman3000

pc7 wrote:

Could they legally challenge the result if Yes win based on media bias? Could that be the endgame on this one?

What media bias? The media has tip toed around the No campaign. Never called out on their b.s.. Although the factcheck at the end of debates has lessened the lies to an extent.

drunkmonkey

pc7 wrote: »

Could they legally challenge the result if Yes win based on media bias? Could that be the endgame on this one?

Bingo, it nearly happened in the presedential election. RTE have been proven to be biased. The she appeared last week argument doesn't wash as they gave Boylan a second crack at it on the Late Late show.

pc7

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What media bias? The media has tip toed around the No campaign. Never called out on their b.s.. Although the factcheck at the end of debates has lessened the lies to an extent.

No, I don't believe they've shown bias, I just wondered could this be what the no side are up too and would they have any case?

Loafing Oaf

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The plot thickens

From Cora

"Sherlock released a statement through her brother Leo's website The Liberal, saying "At no stage did I pull out of this debate. There's been a lot of noise today, but please don't worry about headlines."

Something we haven't been told?

If Leo is involved I'd say it's more a case of 'the thick plottens'...

Try_harder

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's not a fair debate then is it. Pat Kenny should be the host not pushing his own narrative to force an outcome. That's a stitch up.

Yea I think Cora was bait as RTE would not allow the No side representative to represent the No side.

The was an interview- not a debate. Did you hear it?

Its th journalists job in an interview to grill the candidate

lawred2

Mr.H wrote: »

Hopefully not. Terminally ill people are going through too much mentally to make that choice.

You just come up with that yourself?

Try_harder

They will leagally challenge the result if they lose regardless- nominate some nobody to take an injunction against the result. They did it with the Childrens referendum and Marriage ref

lawred2

fritzelly wrote: »

As Leo said - why wait til now to bring up these constitutional amendment options, what were they doing the past 30 years.

And all the 'supports' that they keep banging on about providing for these women and children..

These were promised over 30 years ago..

It's an idealogical position and no amount of lies or disingenuous proposals is enough to serve it...

drunkmonkey

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If Leo is involved I'd say it's more a case of 'the thick plottens'...

How did you get Leo into it? His appearance on the RTE news was a bit of a sham. You don't run out of time with the Taoiseach before an important Q&A on the national airwaves. Again Neutral no win for either side.

drunkmonkey

lawred2 wrote: »

And all the 'supports' that they keep banging on about providing for these women and children..

These were promised over 30 years ago..

It's an idealogical position and no amount of lies or disingenuous proposals is enough to serve it...

So we didn't do it in the last 30 years so we shouldn't start now. Bit of a cop out from Leo

Hitman3000

pc7 wrote:

No, I don't believe they've shown bias, I just wondered could this be what the no side are up too and would they have any case?

No case whatsoever. Any suggestion otherwise is b.s. and clutching at straws tbh.

Hitman3000

Try_harder wrote:

They will leagally challenge the result if they lose regardless- nominate some nobody to take an injunction against the result. They did it with the Childrens referendum and Marriage ref

They will fail a third time so if they challenge it.

JohnFalstaff

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How did you get Leo into it? His appearance on the RTE news was a bit of a sham. You don't run out of time with the Taoiseach before an important Q&A on the national airwaves. Again Neutral no win for either side.

Leo Sherlock, brother of Cora, not Leo Varadkar.
Founder of the inappropriately named Liberal.ie and Ireland's far-right Walter Mitty.

Try_harder

Maria is back in tonight.

No realised the folly of their ways? She is their best performer

kunst nugget

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How did you get Leo into it? His appearance on the RTE news was a bit of a sham. You don't run out of time with the Taoiseach before an important Q&A on the national airwaves. Again Neutral no win for either side.

He's talking about Leo Sherlock, editor and story fabricator of theLiberal.ie, male model and man about town.

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The plot thickens

From Cora

"Sherlock released a statement through her brother Leo's website The Liberal, saying "At no stage did I pull out of this debate. There's been a lot of noise today, but please don't worry about headlines."

Something we haven't been told?

Well why wasn't she on the show then? Or did she just simply forget to give her reasoning?

Hitman3000

Try_harder wrote:

No realised the folly of their ways? She is their best performer

Yet in an interview with Pat Kenny she came across as a clown.

Hitman3000

lawred2 wrote:

Well why wasn't she on the show then? Or did she just simply forget to give her reasoning?

I saw her claim on Facebook that she didn't pull out but they didn't explain why she wouldn't be debating. Strange.

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So we didn't do it in the last 30 years so we shouldn't start now. Bit of a cop out from Leo

We should definitely start now.

But I don't see why it should be an either or.

bauderline

BarryD2 wrote: »

Maria Steen is not everyone's cup of tea. Frankly she was somewhat unwatchable last time, so I wouldn't blame RTE. They want people to watch, not throw the TV out the window!

Agreed she poses a serious health risk to peoples mental well being...

bauderline

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Well if RTE can dictate the line up then it sounds like RTE are playing politics?

Wouldn't be unknown... :pac:

It's fairly obvious that the NO camp were trying to pull a fast one here by switching the agreed candidate at the last moment, the fact that Sherlock has given a shred of a reason for her withdrawal makes it all fairly obvious. RTE called them out on it and fair play to them for it !!

drunkmonkey

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Yet in an interview with Pat Kenny she came across as a clown.

I can't find it only this one with Pat which I'd say is a year or so old, didn't come across as a clown https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Highlights/134406/Maria_Steen_of_the_Iona_Institute_on_abortion_drugs

purpleisafruit

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The plot thickens

From Cora

"Sherlock released a statement through her brother Leo's website The Liberal, saying "At no stage did I pull out of this debate. There's been a lot of noise today, but please don't worry about headlines."

Something we haven't been told?

Ah yes, the Liberal. A bastion of truth :rolleyes: https://twitter.com/TheLiberal_x/status/977168376161325056
This guy has done a wonderful dissection of the tactics employed by Leo

drunkmonkey

lawred2 wrote: »

We should definitely start now.

But I don't see why it should be an either or.

If we had the proper things in place Abortion would be a lot easier sell as they'd have every opportunity not to abort so it would be a lot easier for people to say at least we tried.
What was the figure there earlier, 5 adoptions last year.

BarryD2

Ally Dick wrote: »

Great. I love looking at and listening to Maria Steen

That comes across as a bit creepy.

Pegmatite wrote: »

Can you back up your claim that RTE is pro choice please. Can you provide some examples please.

As best I can perceive, RTE have bent over backwards for the No side on this issue. They have erred on the side of giving that side of the argument more coverage. Likely because the pro life groups have plenty of legal help and are quick & efficient to complain about bias.

Even this morning, it was notable that they got this issue covered on the main morning RTE news. All publicity.

Hitman3000

drunkmonkey wrote:

I can't find it only this one with Pat which I'd say is a year or so old, didn't come across as a clown

I can't link articles off my phone. Maybe it's on the NT podcast. She was interviewed by Kenny last week. A career awaits her in the Big Top if she ever quits the Iona Institute.

lawred2

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If we had the proper things in place Abortion would be a lot easier sell as they'd have every opportunity not to abort so it would be a lot easier for people to say at least we tried.
What was the figure there earlier, 5 adoptions last year.

A functioning adoption system would be wonderful for many reasons.

While I would be a yes voter I don't see repeal of the eighth or abortion as a reason not to seek to put such measures in place. Women and their babies should be supported and helped in these situations in whatever they feel that they need to do. If there were a real suite of options available to women then each and every one of them could make the right decision for themselves. They might still take the decision to abort but that would be their decision.

This is Ireland though so we're more likely to go from no abortion with little support to liberal abortion with little support.

bauderline

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think it worked out better for the antis in the end though. IMO toibin is by far their most effective salesman to undecided voters. Very smooth, very plausible, not a hint of the bead rattler about him. If he had some ionabot alongside him it would just have queered the pitch, as it were...

Not really, Toibin was using the debate to take a few cheap shots at Harris and the government, came across as quite scummy in that regard, wasn't the time or place for that nonsense.

Mr E

Guys, we're veering into discussing the 8th again and not discussing the show. Unless this discussion goes back to talking about Primetime, I'm going to lock this thread.

bauderline

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's not a fair debate then is it. Pat Kenny should be the host not pushing his own narrative to force an outcome. That's a stitch up.

Yea I think Cora was bait as RTE would not allow the No side representative to represent the No side.

Doesn't really scream integrity for the NO side though does it. If RTE/Harris wouldn't let them field Steen again I would have thought they would have went public with that with glee to force the issue rather than try to pull a fast one on RTE at the last minute and Cora unable to provide any cogent explanation.

It was either a profound tactical error by the NO camp or your theory is BS.

lawred2

You're really working hard to construe last night's no show by Sherlock for no given reason as anything other than a balls up for the no side.

lawred2

Especially after baiting Harris for hiding

Try_harder

https://twitter.com/reelinginthe8th/status/999240971056447488?s=21

Colonel Claptrap

Spoke to a friend who was in Leinster House last night. An hour before the show, an irate Senator Mullins was seen frantically pacing the corridors on his phone. Not a happy chappy.

Cora pulling out seems to have seriously backfired.

Any sign of an explanation from the No campaign? Pat Kenny didn't mention it on his radio show today.

drunkmonkey

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any sign of an explanation from the No campaign?.

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

Danjamin1

kerry cow wrote: »

I will be voting no , because it's not right to end a life, only in the event the mothers life was in danger .we have a allowance for that already .Yes we have lost a few mothers to mistakes but we have saved so many babies lives with the system we have .
Rape cases don't have to wait 10 , 12 0r 20 weeks to terminate .
Your raped today , take the morning after pill this evening .
What's the big issue .the deed is done .
There is many a downs child loved up and down the country .If it was normal to abort , we would not have their presents .
Is it a perfect race that is been sought here ? Is it a reduced maintenance bill the government want on long term health care ?
I believe we should have a little more reflection in our lives , on why are we here ? We should be glad of the hand that we are dealt and deal with it .life is about challenges and how we cope .
How many children have been born to young people who's parents flipped it when they heard the news ? Some babies were aborted , some were not .If you asked the survivors to give their little ones back , it won't happen , why because they are loved by all , and it wasn't as bad as people made out .
People will read this post who have aborted or who are thinking of aborting and who did not abort .why not let that baby grow , adopt out , there are so many wanting children that can nt have .
I will vote no and at this point it doesn't matter to me if the yes side win , because all I can do is the right thing , lead my life as best I can , harm no one and Let all life grow .
I am not any set religion but am a believer in the right to live .

Is that you Michael Healy-Rae?

Loafing Oaf

drunkmonkey wrote: »

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

Yeah I had presumed that Cora got cold feet at the last minute but it looks like No were trying to pull a fast one by substituting Maria. They should just have been honest from day one and said she's our best player, we want her on all the showpiece debates. If Harris refused to debate her well that would just reflect badly on him...

Try_harder

If No wanted a medic why nominate a non practicing solicitor?

Penn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

"A statement from Love Both campaign said Ms Sherlock withdrew because the group wanted a medical professional from the anti-abortion campaign to debate Prof Higgins. Despite this, the group nominated Ms Steen, who is not a medic. She is a qualified barrister, but has not practiced in a number of years.

The statement went on to say: “The public is entitled to a fair presentation of the issues before the referendum. RTÉ chose not to deliver that in their original panel.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/maria-steen-will-take-part-in-tv3-debate-having-previously-pulled-out-1.3505341

It's a fair enough point about a doctor on both sides, maybe 3 on each side would have been a better format than no women involved.

If it was a fair enough point, why didn't the No side ask to put a doctor on instead of Steen? From RTE's statements, they were willing to have anyone on bar Ms Steen due to her having been on the last debate. It could have still been two-on-two, with Toibin and a doctor nominated by the No side.

I think it's clear that the No side, having seen Maria's performance on the last debate, just wanted her on this one too to try and keep that momentum. It's backfired significantly.

Charmeleon

Three on each side would have been better, pulling out though looks really bad for the no campaign. Any point about fairness could have been made in the debate itself.

Akrasia

pleas advice wrote: »

The same way that everyone is pro choice

Not in this case. The pro-life campaign are explicitly against giving women the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

Even when that choice is a tragic choice between terminating early, or carrying a pregnancy that will either miscarry, be stillborn, or die very shortly after birth.

beertons

Is Toby fronting for the Mexican's now?

GreeBo

kerry cow wrote: »

harm no one and Let all life grow .
I am not any set religion but am a believer in the right to live .

Other than the potential lives you end before they can begin by advocating the morning-after pill?

You dont see a contradiction at all in this approach?
By definition, you are taking the morning after pill to stop a life from growing.
Hows that different than having an abortion other than via semantics about when life starts?

Charmeleon

GreeBo wrote: »

Other than the potential lives you end before they can begin by advocating the morning-after pill?

You dont see a contradiction at all in this approach?
By definition, you are taking the morning after pill to stop a life from growing.
Hows that different than having an abortion other than via semantics about when life starts?

No one knows, when they take the MAP, whether there is a fertilized egg or not and the chances are very high there isn’t. You could argue, if you believe human rights apply from conception, that it is a reckless act but could never be proved either way.