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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

14142444647171

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That could well be the case, of course.

    But you'd be surprised what immense wealth and stardom can do to your ego. Money is a very corrupting substance.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    What they have will be something like - "Rashford signed a new deal with Nike/Adidas/Puma or whoever for *big increased percentage* more than his previous deal , Profiting directly from his "charitable" work , How dare he!!"

    It'll be right there with all their stories about how a "Tory MP cashes in on their time in Office with massive payday from a huge corporation by taking a job as a consultant".

    Oh wait.......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Well then wait for it and stop defaming him and comparing him to Jimmy Saville.

    For a man who is waiting you are banging on about it a lot



  • Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    How is there a conflict of interest? If he has shares in a company providing these meals and profiting that way then there is one.


    But if he is simply being paid by brands to do promo work, completely separate to his charity work, which is what he is doing.


    The 2 can be entirely separate things. It's the brands that are disingenuous. They want to use his good name and image to look better. He is using the money he makes to further the campaign.


    Not sure how you'd survive giving away 120% of your net earning from your employer, but he is able to do so



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,298 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    "I have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with."

    What are the legal implications you believe likely exist?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If The Spectator are going to publish an exposé such as that, they'd better make sure they have their beans in the right order.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,615 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    That's exactly what I'm expecting, frankly along with plenty of dogwhistling and snide comments about how Rashford should concentrate on his soccer and maybe a petty dig about the penalty at the end of the final.

    I'm genuinely intrigued by how the idea that a wealthy person using said wealth to avoid poor children starving in one of the wealthiest countries in the world can be considered a bad thing. Of course, it highlights the inadequacy and corruption of the state so maybe I've answered that for myself.

    Don't see The Spectator taking aim at anyone else giving generously. Wonder why.


    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    as you have not seen the spectator article you are just making **** up. there is no other word for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Was on Farages show recently where we got the old "all poor people need to do to stop being poor is work hard" then as soon as someone does get rich it becomes a problem



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    He's quite literally given away more money than he earns from his club.


    Remember the media uproar when sterling bought his mam a house. This comes froms the same place. No young rich, black sports star can do a nice thing without an ukteriour motive.


    Nobody gave a **** when Michael Owen bought an entire road. White Knight of English football that he was. Nobody questions Roy keanes charity work, or Niall quinns, or Juan Matas, or Craig Bellamy's or David Beckham.


    What's different about Rashford though, that GBnews and the spectator don't trust?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,298 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    You said that YOU have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with. Can you now confirm that you have no basis (as The Spectator article has not been published or any info from it released) for claiming that there are any legal implications regarding Marcus Rashford?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,615 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Exactly. It's an aberration created to justify the hoarded wealth and privilege of those who earned none of it. Once someone questions the order or, worse, campaigns for change then they must be demonised and censured.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    yeah, what is different about Rashford. I'm wracking my brains and i just can't think what it might be. what is it about this young man that certain supporters of boris johnson and nigel farage have an issue with him. 'Tis a mystery.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If he is found to have acted appropriately, then I'll have no problem with him at all.

    I didn't even think about the footballer until these allegations were surfaced by The Spectator.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Robbie Fowler owned so many houses in Liverpool that the kop used to sing "We all live in a Robbie Fowler house" to the tune of Yellow Submarine.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    but you do have a problem with him. You said he acted inappropriately. you said he had a conflict of interest. You compared him to saville. all based on nothing.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    And yet your immediate reaction and position is that there "must be something to it" despite the total absence of anything even approaching evidence of any wrong-doing.

    Why assume the worst?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Just to be clear. Here is what Rashford has stated on the matter:

    "Just heard spectator are planning to run a story on me tomorrow about how I have benefited commercially in the last 18 months. To clarify, I don’t need to partner with brands. I partner because I want to progress the work I do off the pitch and most of any fee I would receive contributes to that.

    Last summer, 1.3m children had access to food support, through my relationship with Burberry children have a safe place to be after school where they will be fed, following the November investment vulnerable children have safe places to go this summer holiday, and due to my relationship with Macmillan 80,000 children now have a book to call their own.

    Do I have a larger commercial appeal following the U-turns? I’m sure. But I’m also a Manchester United and England international footballer. Why has there always got to be a motive? Why can’t we just do the right thing? I actually enjoy reading bits from the Spectator now and again, but this is just a non-starter.

    Note the bolded words above. This is pretty much an open admission that he has financially benefited from his charitable work.

    It's a very cleverly worded set of Tweets. Alistair Campbell would be proud.

    So yes, we can conclude that - even without The Spectator article - Rashford is admitting that there is a real link between his charitable work and his personal interests, which is not something we would have considered before if it were not for The Spectator.

    The precise details we don't yet know, so we must first wait for The Spectator piece. Based on Rashford's Tweets, we can assume that the details in the piece are most likely accurate.



  • Site Banned Posts: 20,685 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Even the stuff that has been mentioned about the article don't say he's don't anything inappropriate.


    It just suggests that he is commanding a big fee for brands that want to be associated with him as a result of his sterling work. He has done nothing inappropriate in that respect.


    There's no doubt disingenuous work done by rich and famous people for charity that should be called out but why not go after c*nts like Rees mogg, Jeff Bezos and Zuckerberg who 100% do it for PR



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,615 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    So, the scintillating insight is that a man who plays for one of the world's wealthiest and most successful football clubs along with playing for the English international team and came a hair's breadth away from a Euro gold medal has commercial appeal? Seriously?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,298 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Once again though, there is a gulf of difference between his charity work leading to deals/sponsorships which he profits from (which would be legal), and profiting from his charity work (which would insinuate he's taking money from the charitable donations and profiting from that, which would be illegal).

    And as per an earlier post of mine, the thing which started all of this was him campaigning for the government to provide free meals to kids. The sponsorships/deals came after that because of his increased publicity and profile.

    His charity work lead to sponsorships which he profits from. He does not profit from his charity work. Incredibly important (and potentially legal) distinction to be made. If The Spectator have evidence to the contrary, let them present it.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    All that and he ticks pretty much every other box that a marketer might be looking for

    Good looking & photogenic - Check

    Good Reputation - Check

    Strongly associated with positive Media stories and Social Media activity - Check Check Check

    But - How dare he potentially profit indirectly from all that good work and enhanced reputation!!!!!!!!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    But that is not acting inappropriately. His charity work raises his profile and he gets more advertising off the back of that. That's perfectly normal.

    Acting inappropriately would be if he was taking the money he says is for the charity and keeping it.

    You have absolutely nothing to go on so follow your own advice for once and wait for the article before you comment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    I dont think any of this is unusual or surprising. There's a very long and ignoble history of this sort of stuff when it's come to sports stars and activism, a divide between people who celebrate them for what they achieve and those who see them as being uppity and getting above their station. And they must be targeted and punished for it. Billie Jean King, Smith & Carlos, Ali, Althea Gibson to name a few, all drew the wrath of bigots and misogynists down upon them for daring to use their platform to try and make the world a better place. The same with Colin Kaepernick - if he had been taking the knee to protest our boys in the military weren't being appreciated enough, do you think there'd have been the same song and dance about it? - and with Naomi Osaka getting piled on by right wing grifters in the US, cowardly using the cloak of mental health to spew out their naked hostility against her.

    All the billionaire tax dodgers and fraudsters, making ever bigger profits off death and misery, and they turn their weapons on a young black footballer who is a beacon of hope for millions. And they simply can't stand it, this young black upstart getting above his station and making fools of them and their lords and paymasters. And while their much trumpeted expose seems like it has failed this time, they've still sent the required message - know your place fella, we haven't finished with you yet.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't believe for one second, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that he has profited directly from charitable causes. Of course not.

    I'm basing my argument on indirect benefits, which were not disclosed to the public.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Your last paragraph is right to point out the important distinction and what Eskimo is doing is defamation which is against rule 2 of this forum



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Or Lance Armstrong. Now there is a man who really knew how to use a charity and it's money



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,298 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    What indirect benefits?

    Everyone knows about the charity work he did, it was a public campaign. Everyone knows he became more famous (I barely had a clue who he was before it, don't follow football at all). When he starts doing ads or wearing specific gear, everyone knows that too (be a pretty pointless sponsorship deal if they tried to hide it, they make it as public as they can).

    So what indirect benefits has he not disclosed to the public? What indirect benefits would suggest he acted inappropriately, had a conflict of interest or would have him be the subject of a piece by The Spectator which could disclose legal implications?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I think what eskimohunt is suggesting is that Rashford only does the charity stuff because of the extra endorsements and sponsorships that it attracts. Eskimohunt cannot comprehend that Rashford did this charity work (and shamed the british government in the process, which is probably what has really pissed eskimohunt off) because rashford thought it was the right thing to do.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 933 ✭✭✭jamule


    Tom Daly wins Gold and annonces

    'I feel incredibly proud to say I am a gay man and also an Olympic champion.”  Gold medal winner Tom Daley says he hopes his performance will inspire young LGBT people to realise “you can achieve anything”. 

    I presume this will be the no1 outrage on the right whinge grifter Alertnative reality channel later, how dare he mention his gayness. Virtual signaling at its worstest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I think they are smarter than going for a Olympian of Daley's stature.

    Although you never know. It might be this week's "what the Farage" moment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,656 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Why would they be "disclosed"?


    Can you show me your posts where you have slated Farage for sucking at the teat of the taxpayers? He claimed for EVERYTHING, including hiring his wife as his "secretary" yet not a peep out of you.


    You're OK with a millionaire white mam making money through dodgy schemes but if a young black man drags his way to success you're all over it.


    It must absolutely kill you that Rashford earns more in one week than you do in a year, I think we can all see your real agenda here and it shows what a terrible person you really are.

    Post edited by Timberrrrrrrr on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,111 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Which therefore shows me you only think what you are told to think .


    I think you may be an agent of chaos. What do I mean by that? You purely exist to thrive on chaos and propagate chaos situations that will get you responses and validate an existence.


    Prove me wrong. So far nothing you've posted on this thread counters that view. Assuming you could make money from this like farage does you would love to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,656 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Yup,


    Maybe he should read it.


    2. Do not post any material that you know or should know is hateful, abusive, harassing, false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or illegal.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So he's more attractive to advertisers due to his decent human behavior? That's not a conflict of interest and definitely not not illegal. He's also got millions of children fed which wouldn't have been otherwise. So due to these actions, you liken him to Savile... No evidence of anything unacceptable.


    This reminds me of Obama's tanned suit scandal...



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I've deliberately never used the word illegal. I've always used the word inappropriate. Perhaps unbecoming and/or shady are more appropriate terms.

    As I've repeated ad nauseum at this stage, I'm not comparing Rashford to Jimmy Saville re: abuse. I'm merely referring to the fact that many multimillionaire "popular" figures use charity as a Trojan horse for their own personal objectives. In that much broader sense, to which I could also add the Clinton Foundation, I think the comparison is a valid one.

    Let's not forget this thread is about GB News. And as we speak, the Farage show is on - so perhaps tune in and offer your thoughts on todays show, as I will later.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    i'd rather slice off my knob that watch that racist hate peddler.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You still haven't illustrated him doing anything inappropriate... What is the trojan horse factor? There's no reason to think he did it for advertising deals, he is responsible for drastically improving the wellbeing of children and teens though. If advertisers were more likely to go with him because he's decent, that's deserved credit. The Spectator article shows no signs of even being published so it may simply have backfired on them.... So you bringing the weird ass Savile comparison in, stinks. You can't illustrate an issue or unethical behaviour. No proof of shady or unbecoming behavior. Yet you're still happy to speculate with no basis.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Please, enough with the hyperbole. Deep down, you know he's not a "racist hate peddler".

    At least Farage often focusses on positive news stories. He just announced that, by cutting EU red tape, UK citizens will save 130 million pounds on wine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,160 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    It seems the most innapropriate thing Rashford has done is be a successful decent bloke who companies want to associate with so that THEY can benefit from his appeal.



    Like how pretty much all sponsorships of anything have always been. Ferrari, Manchester United, Yamaha, Dublin GAA all attract more sponsorship than Minardi, Galway United, Ilmor GP, Leitrim GAA.



    How dare Rashford actually help people. The innapropriateness of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,656 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    As if the low I.Q idiots that love Farage give a toss about wine prices, Lager and pork scratchings are what they care about.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Jesus, the Clinton Foundation! I hate the Clintons personally but this is just getting ridiculous, like comparing the guy flipping burgers for a dollar on the sidewalk to McDonalds. One is a massive organisation with thousands of employees, the other is a just a guy who kicks a piece of pigs bladder around, trying to do the best he can for some hungry kids. You can't not see how utterly daft this is getting at this stage. I'm having difficulty believing you actually believe half the stuff you're writing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nothing deep is required to know what farage is. racist hate peddler sums him up nicely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,298 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    "I have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with." - eskimohunt



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    It is much harder to keep track of what you say when you don't believe most of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    There was a fella on sky earlier this morning suggesting it would result in a 10-13p reduction on bottles of wine over £12. So wahey, a huge victory for the brexit working man who loves nothing better in the evening than to kick back with a mid or top of the range Beaujolais.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,615 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,656 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,124 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I googled the suit thing recently as I never heard of it the first time and man it really was the day US media jumped the shark.

    Its kinda funny to look back now after having to deal with ejits, screw ups and nutters like Johnson, May and Trump respectively and think that was the best they could come up with as criticism



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement