RTE Investigates programme on greyhound racing industry

anewme

gozunda wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

A boycott of products is a form of protest and has been used for decades. You are choosing to redefine what constitutes a protest. Famous boycotts include the Montgomery Bus Boycott(that was in support of Rosa Parks), The 1936 Olympics due to fascism, BP due to Oil Spill Scandal. So do you think they were all anti democratic forms of intimidation?

You are conflating legitimate protest with the targeting of companies in support of a partisan cause.

This wasn't a boycot btw - it was a threat of sanctions if the company did not do with what small number of activists wanted and ignores other peoples opinions or beliefs on this issue.

The examples given are not comparable tbh - greyhound racing remains legal - it is neither pollution, facism or racism.

It is evident that some may wish to crush all legal greyhound based activities - and btw that has openly been declared in this thread. What is evident - there is nothing democratic in the means being used.

Something that is democratic is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions. This is not.

I think you are underestimating the amount of backlash this has got. The kickback os from consumers, not activists.

My Mum, in her 70's, hardly an activist said last Saturday in the Supermarket, "no more Barrys"

gozunda

whisky_galore wrote: »

For now.
Bull baiting was legal here once, now it isn't.
Times change.

Aligning greyhound racing with something which involves humans fighting animals is transparent and disingenuous. Again it is not comparable.

Do you believe we should we ban pet ownership? There is a growing movement who advocate we should - they use similar comparative statements in support of their cause. That too is an obvious non sequitur.

gozunda

anewme wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the amount of backlash this has got. The kickback os from consumers, not activists.

My Mum, in her 70's, hardly an activist said last Saturday in the Supermarket, "no more Barrys"

I describe those behind the campaign to advocate the targeting of companies. Take s look online - the usual suspects are to the forefront (and no I'm not naming those btw) I would agree your grandmother is most likley not one of these promoters tbh.

batgoat

gozunda wrote: »

I describe those behind the campaign to advocate the targeting of companies. Take s look online - the usual suspects are to the forefront (and no I'm not naming those btw) I would agree your grandmother is mist likley not one of these promoters tbh.

You're emphasising these people online as if they're doing something criminal. They have every right to organise boycotts.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Aligning greyhound racing with something which involves humans fighting animals is transparent and disingenuous. Again it is not comparable.

Do you believe we should we ban pet ownership? There is a growing movement who advocate we should - they use similar comparative statements in support of their cause. That too is an obvious non sequitur.

Bull baiting was done with dogs not humans.

I have yet to see people call for an end to people having cats and dogs etc as pets, I have seen people call for the end of the exotic pet trade, and I can see the point of this.

Bannasidhe

anewme wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the amount of backlash this has got. The kickback os from consumers, not activists.

My Mum, in her 70's, hardly an activist said last Saturday in the Supermarket, "no more Barrys"

My 84 year old Mam binned her Barry's and bought her tea in Mark's - she couldn't bring herself to drink Lyons. :pac:
62 year old sister binned the Barry's.

Neither of them has ever campaigned politically for anything in their lives never mind being 'activists'. I doubt if either have ever boycotted anything in their lives. But both watched RTE and both knew Barry's sponsored a race at Curraheen and that was enough for them.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

I describe those behind the campaign to advocate the targeting of companies. Take s look online - the usual suspects are to the forefront (and no I'm not naming those btw) I would agree your grandmother is mist likley not one of these promoters tbh.

Sure the FAI called for boycotts against the sale of farms and some members actually forced their way into AIB's AGM. Nothing illegal about what AIB were doing.

You might not agree with what they did, but it's the exact same thing.

gozunda

batgoat wrote: »

Yep thinking similar, my mother wouldn't have touched it again if they didn't drop sponsorship. And she's not one who would ordinarily boycott a product.

Ten minutes ago you said boycotting isn't a legitimate form of protest, make up your mind. Crappy things can be legal and people have every right to boycott companies that sponsor them. It's a democratic right. So your anti democratic claims are nonsense.

Not so. A full quote please. So you are saying greyhound racing is "crappy" and you want it made illegal because of your opinion - becsuse it is 'crappy" according to you. That's real logic there lol.

Btw could point out the piece of legislation which gives anyone the right to threaten a company with sanction to force them to do what they want?

Again something that is democratic is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions. This owever us not democratic but simply the of targeting of companies to support their beliefs only.

batgoat wrote: »

You're emphasising these people online as if they're doing something criminal. They have every right to organise boycotts.

Nope again - that's your suggestion not mine. Try and read what was written.

whisky_galore

gozunda wrote: »

Aligning greyhound racing with something which involves humans fighting animals is transparent and disingenuous. Again it is not comparable.

Do you believe we should we ban pet ownership? There is a growing movement who advocate we should - they use similar comparative statements in support of their cause. That too is an obvious non sequitur.

You should look up what bull baiting involved, not just have an oul guess at it.

Where is this 'growing movement' I'm not aware of? Have yet to see the RTE primetime on it.

jackboy

whisky_galore wrote: »

Where is this 'growing movement' I'm not aware of? Have yet to see the RTE primetime on it.

It is a real thing alright. No big push in Ireland yet but a serious push now in some parts of America.

batgoat

gozunda wrote: »

Not so. A full quote please. So you are saying greyhound racing is "crappy" and you want it made illegal because of your opinion - becsuse it is 'crappy" according to you. That's real logic there lol.

Btw could point out the piece of legislation which gives anyone the right to threaten a company with sanction to force them to do what they want?

Again something that is democratic is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions. This owever us not democratic but simply the of targeting of companies to support their beliefs only.

Why would be there legislation in relation to a person's right to choose to not buy a product? I view greyhound racing as cruel for the record and clearly, it's a bit of a cesspool in terms of practises. So as a consumer, I would not give money to groups that sponsor it. I am entitled to, it is my money.. That is boycotting, anyone is free to do it in relation to whatever they want.

gozunda

whisky_galore wrote: »

You should look up what bull baiting involved, not just have an oul guess at it.Where is this 'growing movement' I'm not aware of? Have yet to see the RTE primetime on it.

I read bull fighting but yup correct it was 'bull baiting' - well spotted mcduff. However again not comparable to racing no matter how you want to package it. My apologies I didnt realise that prime time is now the only source of information on such issues. :pac:

gozunda

batgoat wrote: »

Why would be there legislation in relation to a person's right to choose to not buy a product? I view greyhound racing as cruel for the record and clearly, it's a bit of a cesspool in terms of practises. So as a consumer, I would not give money to groups that sponsor it. I am entitled to, it is my money.. That is boycotting, anyone is free to do it in relation to whatever they want.

No you've claimed things said without quoting. You've been asked to give the relevant text. I dont deal with imaginary conversations thanks all the same

Wheety

gozunda wrote: »

You are conflating legitimate protest with the targeting of companies in support of a partisan cause.

This wasn't a boycot btw - it was a threat of sanctions if the company did not do with what small number of activists wanted and ignores other peoples opinions or beliefs on this issue.

The examples given are not comparable tbh - greyhound racing remains legal - it is neither pollution, facism or racism.

It is evident that some may wish to crush all legal greyhound based activities - and btw that has openly been declared in this thread. What is evident - there is nothing democratic in the means being used.

Something that is democratic is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions. This is not.

Racism was legal at the time of the boycotts of the bus company, regarding the Rosa Parks incident. You saying people shouldn't have boycotted the company then?

Other racists opinions and beliefs were ignored.

Straffan1979

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latest update on sponsors who have withdrawn:


Mullingar Agri Store
Botanica International
Bank of Ireland
Tracey's Hotel
FBD Insurance
Permanent TSB
Barry's Tea.

I don't know that I agree with that about local stores, they would be more likely to feel the pressure of folks boycotting them than the likes of FBD or Barry's.

€85 billion to bail out the likes of TSB and BOI; Do you really think people’s moral compasses will be guided by what these thugs are pontificating to Greyhound owners or the general public; As I pointed out to you earlier if this was Iceland these crowd would be in jail ;

it didn’t take them long to get back into their ivory towers dictating and pontificating again to ordinary people; BOI & TSB have ZERO credibility in this state - ZERO;

The insurance industry - more crooks; nobody cares about them either- the same as the distain with which they treat their customers with outrageous premiums.

Mullingar Agri store- should know better really than to be sucked into this NCABS circus .

The rest of them - knee jerking to emotive propaganda - again should know better than to be led by the nose by the lynch mob.

gozunda

Wheety wrote: »

Racism was legal at the time of the boycotts of the bus company, regarding the Rosa Parks incident. You saying people shouldn't have boycotted the company then?

Other racists opinions and beliefs were ignored.

So you are saying 'racism" is the same as those who like greyghound racing? Right so. I'll leave you there ...

batgoat

gozunda wrote: »

So you are saying 'racism" is the same as those who like greyghound racing? Right so. I'll leave you there ...

Nope, guessing they're simply pointing out that legal practices are often protested via boycott. Think I'll leave you to your outrage for the evening.

Cork Boy 53

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sure the FAI called for boycotts against the sale of farms and some members actually forced their way into AIB's AGM. Nothing illegal about what AIB were doing.

You might not agree with what they did, but it's the exact same thing.

That's the IFA. The FAI have enough problems regarding their governance of Irish soccer without getting involved in farming issues.

gozunda

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 84 year old Mam binned her Barry's and bought her tea in Mark's - she couldn't bring herself to drink Lyons. 62 year old sister binned the Barry's.
Neither of them has ever campaigned politically for anything in their lives never mind being 'activists'. I doubt if either have ever boycotted anything in their lives. But both watched RTE and both knew Barry's sponsored a race at Curraheen and that was enough for them.

And you're going to tell me you did not talk to yer mammy, the sister etc about this issue at all?

You've done a helluva lot of talking about it here - I can't quite believe you weren't at least a little bit promotive of this idea over the non Lyons tea no? :pac:

markodaly

The next step is for the government to withhold and stop its €16 million annual grant.
If there is such a demand for greyhound racing in rural Ireland then surely they can vote with their feet and money and support the industry themselves?

Hopefully, this will signal the end of this 'sport' in Ireland

Gen.Zhukov

anewme wrote: »

The whole thing about sponsorships is that it should tie in with and promote a company's values.

A good sponsorship will do that whereas a bad one will cost business.

You can try and ride it out, but in this case, the sentiment was picking up, not blowing over and in my ooinion quite rightly so.

Bought my first box of Lyon's this week *spit,spit* as I was a Barry's fan. It's not much, but I figured I was doing something. I'd have preferred to fly out to China and turf one of the dog boiling c**ts into a pot of boiling water and ask him:
How's that working out for ya? Everything ok? feels good doesn't it? Nice and cosy eh?...Ya *****n ****K

Wheety

gozunda wrote: »

So you are saying 'racism" is the same as those who like greyghound racing? Right so. I'll leave you there ...

*SIGH*

Here you go because you've stated a few times about people not quoting you correctly. Couple of extra questions for you too.

gozunda wrote: »

You are conflating legitimate protest with the targeting of companies in support of a partisan cause.
Why is it not a legitimate protest?

This wasn't a boycot btw - it was a threat of sanctions if the company did not do with what small number of activists wanted and ignores other peoples opinions or beliefs on this issue.
batgoat mentioned Rosa Parks in relation to a boycott of the bus company. You posted this reply in response to that post. What you just mentioned is exactly what a boycott is. The protests back then were by a small number of activists and certainly ignored other people's opinions and beliefs. Doesn't make it wrong.

The examples given are not comparable tbh - greyhound racing remains legal - it is neither pollution, facism or racism.
The treatment of Rosa Parks was legal. I don't see how you think people can't boycott a company sponsoring a legal event. The bus company was acting legally in that case.

It is evident that some may wish to crush all legal greyhound based activities - and btw that has openly been declared in this thread. What is evident - there is nothing democratic in the means being used.
What is undemocratic about wanting a legal activity banned? Lots of legal things are protested. Countries grow and rules change.

Something that is democratic is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions. This is not.
Let's put it to the vote and see who wins.

thomas 123

Straffan1979 wrote: »

€85 billion to bail out the likes of TSB and BOI; Do you really think people’s moral compasses will be guided by what these thugs are pontificating to Greyhound owners or the general public; As I pointed out to you earlier if this was Iceland these crowd would be in jail ;

it didn’t take them long to get back into their ivory towers dictating and pontificating again to ordinary people; BOI & TSB have ZERO credibility in this state - ZERO;

The insurance industry - more crooks; nobody cares about them either- the same as the distain with which they treat their customers with outrageous premiums.

Mullingar Agri store- should know better really than to be sucked into this NCABS circus .

The rest of them - knee jerking to emotive propaganda - again should know better than to be led by the nose by the lynch mob.

To add to this these companies are doing this as it’s popular to publicly withdraw at this point - ie ten fold the marketing reach vs sponsoring a track/race.

Wheety

gozunda wrote: »

Indeed *Sigh*. Yes indeed correct- I did state that and for good reason and its late and no not going back over the same ploughed field btw. Read the comments - I've been more than clear about what I think of this type of crap. Here was my first comment

Nothing like a bit of mob rule eh? ... and all the Barry Tea drinkers who support greyhound racing or those who are involved in racing etc and do things right? I believe this type of bullying of companies says it all about these types of campaigns tbh.

Only thing I'll add is it's funny how some will promote just about anything to further particular beliefs. But hey that's the way it is.

Wait, you actually think that because there may be some greyhound racing supporters who also drink Barrys Tea, others don't have a right to call for a boycott? That's actually crazy.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. Would you mind expanding on that please?

Oh, and this line too:
"I believe this type of bullying of companies says it all about these types of campaigns tbh."

It's just nonsense really. What do you mean?

Graces7

batgoat wrote: »

No you cannot bully a company, you can simply choose to not buy their product because of things they sponsor or views they represent. Do you think the apartheid Africa boycotts were bullying? The right to peacefully protest is integral to a democratic society. It would appear that you're more annoyed that boycotting was effective. But definitely not bullying.

In the same way as many of us have been boycotting anything containing palm oil that was not produced in sustainable plantations. Since the Iceland ad

A moral choice.

Graces7

jackboy wrote: »

It is a real thing alright. No big push in Ireland yet but a serious push now in some parts of America.

Proof please? Thank you in anticipation.

Straffan1979

markodaly wrote: »

The next step is for the government to withhold and stop its €16 million annual grant.
If there is such a demand for greyhound racing in rural Ireland then surely they can vote with their feet and money and support the industry themselves?

Hopefully, this will signal the end of this 'sport' in Ireland

€16m is a thing of nothing to the government coffers- the Industry should be getting a lot more; in fact it’ll need a lot more to get it’s act together with proper regulation of drug use and to bring in a proper system of managing the breeding end of it etc etc

It’s starved of funding-has it ever crossed your mind that it might require more funding to get it up to standard- again get it out if your head that’ll be banned next week despite the despicable Facebook comments campaign against the likes of Barry’s Tea by NCABS- people aren’t that easily led.

we spent €50/60m on the likes of e voting machines & I can guarantee you there’re 1000’s of examples of other ‘voting machine type’ expenditures or worse use of public money;

to put it in context Horse racing Ireland gets about €70m afaik.

jackboy

Graces7 wrote: »

Proof please? Thank you in anticipation.

A quick search in google will show you it is a real thing. I am not prepared to do the work to put links up here. I don't mind if you do not believe this is a real thing.

It's basically down to the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Most people are pro animal welfare (improving the treatment of animals). Animal rights is very different. This is about giving animals some of the rights of humans. In this context, pet ownership can be viewed as exploitation or slavery. I know this sounds a bit out there, but it is a real thing, which is growing.

Igotadose

Straffan1979 wrote: »

€16m is a thing of nothing to the government coffers

Per the Irish examiner, it's the only part of the budget ring-fenced from reduction even during austerity. Nasty if you ask me, cutting pensions and so on and raising taxes during downturns, but not reducing outlays to entertainment businesses like racing and gambling.

the Industry should be getting a lot more; in fact it’ll need a lot more to get it’s act together with proper regulation of drug use and to bring in a proper system of managing the breeding end of it etc etc

It’s starved of funding-has it ever crossed your mind that it might require more funding to get it up to standard- again get it out if your head that’ll be banned next week despite the despicable Facebook comments campaign against the likes of Barry’s Tea by NCABS- people aren’t that easily led.

Well, they were led to ringfence money for this business. Now, they're becoming woke to just what a bad, ineptly run business it is.

we spent €50/60m on the likes of e voting machines & I can guarantee you there’re 1000’s of examples of other ‘voting machine type’ expenditures or worse use of public money;

to put it in context Horse racing Ireland gets about €70m afaik.

They're a business. They'll have to realign their spending appropriately. It's what businesses do when you change direction. More funding is laughable - they've not proven they can run their business with what they have, their plans are murky and they routinely hide information (reports.) Sure, let's give them more money and they'll do a fine job. Nope.

One way they can save a bunch of money is reduce the number of IGB and ICC employees. Over 1000 per the data I dug out a few days ago. Can't find their balance sheet (protect), but I'm sure that's a big chunk of their budget. Start with the most expensive employees (typically the top of the hierarchy) and I'm sure that's a few million/year right there.

Straffan1979

Igotadose wrote: »

Per the Irish examiner, it's the only part of the budget ring-fenced from reduction even during austerity. Nasty if you ask me, cutting pensions and so on and raising taxes during downturns, but not reducing outlays to entertainment businesses like racing and gambling.

Well, they were led to ringfence money for this business. Now, they're becoming woke to just what a bad, ineptly run business it is.



They're a business. They'll have to realign their spending appropriately. It's what businesses do when you change direction. More funding is laughable - they've not proven they can run their business with what they have, their plans are murky and they routinely hide information (reports.) Sure, let's give them more money and they'll do a fine job. Nope.

One way they can save a bunch of money is reduce the number of IGB and ICC employees. Over 1000 per the data I dug out a few days ago. Can't find their balance sheet (protect), but I'm sure that's a big chunk of their budget. Start with the most expensive employees (typically the top of the hierarchy) and I'm sure that's a few million/year right there.

You want it better regulated but you want to slash its funding and undermine its finance base by that FB campaign;

I work in a regulatory environment- have u any concept of what it takes to get something like a drug test before a court and present a legally sound case against an individual that might result in a conviction- multiply that by no of dogs you want tested routinely ;

We’ll need a lot more staff and funding to get anywhere close to what will be required.