Fianna Fail Church Gate Collection

Liam Byrne

A close friend's anniversary mass was on tonight, and there was a guy at the gate for an FF Collection.

Do FF *SERIOUSLY* think people will contribute, based on (a) their ineptitude in the boom times and (b) the fact that it appears that at least some FF money was used to buy a house for Celia Larkin or her aunt or whoever.....

We - or rather, a majority of us - might have been mugs this time last year, but SURELY people have seen through the "smoke and daggers" by now ?

ninty9er

Just like every other organisation, Fianna Fáil fundraises from the public.

Limerick West always tops the collection and brought in more than €42k last year. €4.2 stays in the constituency IIRC, the rest goes towards administration. There are people *EMPLOYED* in Fianna Fáil you know, same with every political party. They have to be paid!

I wasn't even notified this year that it was on, thought it was still upcoming tbh.

Grudaire

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We - or rather, a majority of us - might have been mugs this time last year, but SURELY people have seen through the "smoke and daggers" by now ?

But there's too much smoke...

Out of curiosity could FF (or FG, or anyone) not just slip a few grand in, thus allowing them to fundraise without declaring (Sinn Féin I'm sure can actually explain the practicalities of laundering money like this)

old boy

die hards always contribute, plus you have the people that can never pass a collection plate, without putting money on it, its an inbred thing, 99er you thought you were well in, you just got notification of how well in you are.

ballooba

Peanuts compared to this:
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Reports/AnnualDisclosures/DisclosurebyTDsSenatorsandMEPs/DonationsDisclosedbyTDsSenatorsandMEPsfor2007/File,8135,en.pdf

The overhwelming majority of benefactors are from the construction industry.

Liam Byrne

Ah well, I just asked the guy whether Celia needed money for an extension, walked past him without contributing anything, and then gave some change to the St Vincent de Paul collection at the church door.

As for people being "employed" within FF - I don't know about the normal people (if such a thing exists within the organisation), but the sooner the spin-doctors and speech-writers and other unelected gob****es are fired so that we can actually see who's paid what and what we get for it the better!

If people want to volunteer, fair enough, that's their choice; but I'm not gonna fork out any more cash to see it wasted on this crowd.....they waste enough of our taxes as it is!

Rock Climber

Ah for heavens sake.I'm very sorry for your loss but bringing an emotional red herring into this is ridiculous.There are dead people prayed for at every mass.
Shall we send the tidy towns people to hell now for blasphemy aswell?
He's gone so it is obvious now that your main truck is with Fianna Fáil.Fine you're entitled to that as much as others are entitled to go *yawn*

While I'm here ,have you seen this ?

They're apparently no longer interested in him now that he's going to be no longer Taoiseach.
No excitement in it anymore for them? Or has their "purpose" been achieved ?
If it's the latter,it's in my opinion been a scandalous inditement on the legal thrawl involved and the cost of it,all for what ?
To get at Bertie of course.

Or maybe to turn this on it's head..As so many posters here seem to always say..that Bertie knew what was down the road so he resigned..Maybe the tribunal knew what was down the road and decided they were going nowhere with this,that they wouldn't be able to prove anything worthwhile other than continue to show a sloppy book keeping record.
That also would be utter waste.
Except of course for the utter zealots who believe apparently in the guilty untill proven innocent mantra because they've got their needles stuck in utter disdain for Bertie.
Thats an interesting but hardly an above reproach stance to take.
Some would say it's just plain unfair.

Wishbone Ash

Rock Climber wrote: »

bringing an emotional red herring into this is ridiculous.There are dead people prayed for at every mass

Hear, hear.

kerry4sam

every organisation is entitled to fundraising as mentioned by ninety9er ... FG had their collection down here in Kerry not so long ago and i'm sure their were people attending masses where their loved ones were being prayed for and never thought much or even anything of the FG collection on their way in.

It wouldn't take much to just walk in past them without commenting but if you feel the need to, then that's your perogative. To contribute to that or any collection is optional, not compulsory anyway.

mikemac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah well, I just asked the guy whether Celia needed money for an extension, walked past him without contributing anything, and then gave some change to the St Vincent de Paul collection at the church door.

So it's ok for some organizations to collect money but not others? Most political parties have church gate collections, manned by local volunteers. Was there realy a need to make smart remarks to a volunteer? :rolleyes:

Hell, I typed "St Vincent de Paul" and "misappropriation" into google and got loads of links on dodgy dealings. They are less corrupt than Fianna Fail for sure, but are they perfect? I doubt it!

Different parishes have different rules. My own makes collectors go 20 metres from either side of the Church and they have to be on the other side of the road. It stops people feeling under pressure but people can always donate if they want to.
Maybe ask your parish council for something similar. It could be done overnight

Liam Byrne

Rock Climber wrote: »

Ah for heavens sake.I'm very sorry for your loss but bringing an emotional red herring into this is ridiculous.There are dead people prayed for at every mass.
Shall we send the tidy towns people to hell now for blasphemy aswell?
He's gone so it is obvious now that your main truck is with Fianna Fáil.Fine you're entitled to that as much as others are entitled to go *yawn*

Talk about jumping to conclusions (something you pretend to hate when it comes to people questioning Bertie's background).

1) It wasn't an "emotional red herring"; I'm not normally at mass and that was the only reason I was there. But, if it suits you to read into it, then fire away....just remember that you're wrong.

2) "he's gone"......you could be referring to Bertie, but I presume you're referring to my friend ? Then you're wrong again coz it was a she. If you were referring to Bertie, then the fact is that Bertie saying that he knew nothing about the cash for the house implies that FF did, so I'm perfectly entitled to "have a truck" with that organisation when it comes looking for money - what are they going to do with it this time ?

So quit jumping to conclusions and stick to what I posted. :rolleyes:

micmclo wrote:

So it's ok for some organizations to collect money but not others? Most political parties have church gate collections, manned by local volunteers. Was there realy a need to make smart remarks to a volunteer?

That's twisting and simplifying it; I don't care who collects, as long as they are above board. If another "organisation" had been shown to misappropriate funds, then yes - I would be equally against them collecting at a church; e.g. if SVdP had paid for a house for a high-profile someone or their partner, then I'd have kept my change.

So please do not make it look like the two organisations are equal and deserve equal treatment; to my knowledge SVdP has not paid for anyone's house from funds that were not contributed for that purpose.

And while a smart comment to the volunteer might not be the most appropriate ammunition against this type of thing, I presume that anyone contributing (or otherwise) is perfectly entitled to let those collecting know why they are or are not. Collecting is asking for money - MY money - and if they ask for it I am perfectly entitled to answer. If someone who had a BMW and a huge house begged off you in the street, would you not be inclined to comment, rather than just walk past and ignore them ?

I was just curious as to how anyone would see fit to collect or contribute to FF after all the crap - including both Bertie's and FF's cock-ups, but primarily the FACT that FF money was used inappropriately......

I mean, why contribute to an organisation which pays for other people's houses from its funds (regardless of whether it was with or without Bertie's knowledge) when the construction-led economy that FF created is making damn sure that it's almost a luxury for your average person to own their own house ?

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Talk about jumping to conclusions (something you pretend to hate when it comes to people questioning Bertie's background).

1) It wasn't an "emotional red herring"; I'm not normally at mass and that was the only reason I was there. But, if it suits you to read into it, then fire away....just remember that you're wrong.

2) "he's gone"......you could be referring to Bertie, but I presume you're referring to my friend ? Then you're wrong again coz it was a she. If you were referring to Bertie, then the fact is that Bertie saying that he knew nothing about the cash for the house implies that FF did, so I'm perfectly entitled to "have a truck" with that organisation when it comes looking for money - what are they going to do with it this time ?

So quit jumping to conclusions and stick to what I posted. :rolleyes:



That's twisting and simplifying it; I don't care who collects, as long as they are above board. If another "organisation" had been shown to misappropriate funds, then yes - I would be equally against them collecting at a church; e.g. if SVdP had paid for a house for a high-profile someone or their partner, then I'd have kept my change.

So please do not make it look like the two organisations are equal and deserve equal treatment; to my knowledge SVdP has not paid for anyone's house from funds that were not contributed for that purpose.

And while a smart comment to the volunteer might not be the most appropriate ammunition against this type of thing, I presume that anyone contributing (or otherwise) is perfectly entitled to let those collecting know why they are or are not. Collecting is asking for money - MY money - and if they ask for it I am perfectly entitled to answer. If someone who had a BMW and a huge house begged off you in the street, would you not be inclined to comment, rather than just walk past and ignore them ?

I was just curious as to how anyone would see fit to collect or contribute to FF after all the crap - including both Bertie's and FF's cock-ups, but primarily the FACT that FF money was used inappropriately......

I mean, why contribute to an organisation which pays for other people's houses from its funds (regardless of whether it was with or without Bertie's knowledge) when the construction-led economy that FF created is making damn sure that it's almost a luxury for your average person to own their own house ?

Do you put on dark grey glasses when looking at FF or just rose tinted one's looking at everyone else

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

Do you put on dark grey glasses when looking at FF or just rose tinted one's looking at everyone else

TBH, there's no need for dark grey glasses to realise that there are a lot of issues with FF.....do I need to list them again in case you had your FF-supplied rose-tinted ones on for the last 2 years ?

There is some truth in the fact that FF have been in power for so long that they are the only ones who have been in a position to either do something worthwhile or do nothing when issues arise.....if other parties had been in Government during the boom and had been as useless and inept, then I would certainly be as objective and critical of them.....I have no axe to grind.

But as it stands, the only parties that have squandered the boom and dragged the average working person down to the gutter are FF, with help from the "you need to elect us as the watchdogs, but we'll say nothing when it counts" PDs and the "can you do a u-turn on a motorway ?" Greens.....

Would FG have done any better ? We'll never know.....but (as most FFers seem to say when it suits them) "innocent until proven guilty".

Anyway, totally aside from the "you must be anti-FF" and the annoyingly - and a-million-miles-from-truth incorrect - personal attack in earlier posts claiming that I was trying to get mileage out of the fact that it was a funeral, I have to say that the stance that the pro-FF posters are taking is astonishing......I've queried how come people can be expected to contribute when funds are used inappropriately, and straight away there's a Bertie-style "what have you got against us" whinge....

The main issue is - as I'll say again - the fact that we don't know what FF will use this money for; innocent until proven guilty, yes......but proven guilty once surely implies that a healthy level of scepticism and doubt is perfectly understandable ?

ninty9er

Trying to get money from FF is like drawing blood from a stone these days, believe me!!

I'm owed €60 for the last 8 months and the overdraft can't handle it apparently:D:D

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

TBH, there's no need for dark grey glasses to realise that there are a lot of issues with FF.....do I need to list them again in case you had your FF-supplied rose-tinted ones on for the last 2 years ?

I know ther are issues with FF, there'd have been no point in me joining if I liked everything as it is.

Rock Climber

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Talk about jumping to conclusions (something you pretend to hate when it comes to people questioning Bertie's background).

T.b.h theres no jump needed to conclude you have a singular hatrid of FF.

1) It wasn't an "emotional red herring"; I'm not normally at mass and that was the only reason I was there. But, if it suits you to read into it, then fire away....just remember that you're wrong.

2) "he's gone"......you could be referring to Bertie, but I presume you're referring to my friend ? Then you're wrong again coz it was a she. If you were referring to Bertie, then the fact is that Bertie saying that he knew nothing about the cash for the house implies that FF did, so I'm perfectly entitled to "have a truck" with that organisation when it comes looking for money - what are they going to do with it this time ?

It's denial thats in Egypt not the Shannon.
You're continuing with the emotional red herring by implying I'm saying white is black.
It's very obvious my "he's gone" comment refers to Bertie.

So quit jumping to conclusions and stick to what I posted. :rolleyes:

Thats a codswallop assertion as it's obvious I tackled you on what shone through from your post(s)..your real distaste is with FF.

That's twisting and simplifying it; I don't care who collects, as long as they are above board. If another "organisation" had been shown to misappropriate funds, then yes - I would be equally against them collecting at a church; e.g. if SVdP had paid for a house for a high-profile someone or their partner, then I'd have kept my change.

To be perfectly honest , since you are a self confessed non mass goer,I think it's perfectly valid to suggest that it's none of your business who the catholic church allow to collect at their gates..no more than it is mine to suggest what you do inside your own house.

I mean, why contribute to an organisation which pays for other people's houses from its funds (regardless of whether it was with or without Bertie's knowledge) when the construction-led economy that FF created is making damn sure that it's almost a luxury for your average person to own their own house ?

I would assume only supporters or friends or admirer's of FF contribute.
FF isn't all about Celiaia's aunties house.
To suggest so is just obsesional ranting t.b.h. and a yawnfest at this stage.

Liam Byrne

Will you ever sod off (to put it mildly and avoid censure) with that "emotional red herring" crap! It's insulting (to put it mildly) to suggest that I would even contemplate abusing the memory of someone to get a cheap "sympathy vote".....in fact, for all your talk and supposed criticism of WHAT YOU INCORRECTLY VIEW AS "an emotional red herring", I bet you were perfectly OK with Bertie using his marraige breakdown to get the sympathy vote and deflect from his dodgy finances...... :P

But I view my friends as more important than that, so if you continuously drag that crap up in your replies, I will simply ask the mods to delete this entire thread....you have your own "codswallop assertion" and I will - just once more - respectfully ask that you STOP insulting me and someone's memory by alleging that the reference is a key point of my post......yawnfest indeed - I've told you that you were wrong and I'm not going to say it again.....

You say "it's obvious that you were referring to Bertie"...well here's some information for you - it wasn't.

Anyway, FFS let's get back on the topic and leave aside your incorrectly perceived "emotional red herring", and get back on topic. And in that context, fair play to ninetyniner for his/her comments, at least he/she is being realistic in saying that there are issues within FF; plus, if I was in a mood to be gracious and hadn't been insulted by someone suggesting that I would be so callous as to do what they have suggested, I could also accept that RockClimber has a point in relation to how the Catholic Church can decide themselves who they'll allow to collect at the gates.....mind you, I wouldn't like to be in their shoes if they said no.

So can we PLEASE get back on topic as to whether people would be sceptical about contributing to FF, and leave the fact that RockClimber has deliberately muddied the water as to why I mentioned the fact that it was an anniversary mass (even though he/she also acknowledged the ONLY relevant facts behind mentioning it......that I'm not a regular mass goer.

Now back on topic and enough with the insults, please.....

Liam Byrne

Oh, and regarding the "singular hatred of FF".....I don't specifically have that, but I do have a singular hatred of being taken for a ride, and if the cap fits.....

Mind you, it can't be singular if I've already complained in this thread about the ineffective PDs and the u-turning Greens.

But again, in order to stay on-topic, the thread isn't about useless Government parties - it's about whether - having been made aware of the misappropriation of FF funds - people would contribute to those same funds......

I mean, if someone heard that Goal or Trocaire funds were used inappropriately, they'd probably be on here questioning those organisations' right to collect in a public place, wouldn't they ?

GuanYin

Liam, keep it civil. You've been warned about your behavior on this forum before. If you can't respect other peoples rights to a point of view or arguement, you shouldn't be on this forum. I don't expect to have to discuss this with you any more.

Hagar

Cliste wrote: »

(Sinn Féin I'm sure can actually explain the practicalities of laundering money like this)

Wouldn't that be like trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs?

Sherifu

Rock Climber wrote: »

While I'm here ,have you seen this ?

They're apparently no longer interested in him now that he's going to be no longer Taoiseach.
No excitement in it anymore for them? Or has their "purpose" been achieved ?
If it's the latter,it's in my opinion been a scandalous inditement on the legal thrawl involved and the cost of it,all for what ?
To get at Bertie of course.

That is interesting. Taoiseach or not, i'd like to see it investigated.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But again, in order to stay on-topic, the thread isn't about useless Government parties - it's about whether - having been made aware of the misappropriation of FF funds - people would contribute to those same funds......

Well I don't think actual FF church gate collections were involved in the fund Celia dipped into.
To the best of my knowledge,church gate collections from the two main parties,FF and FG are probably the most accounted for of all monies that go into parties coffers as they are listed as a specefic item in the statutory accounts that must be filed.

I mean, if someone heard that Goal or Trocaire funds were used inappropriately, they'd probably be on here questioning those organisations' right to collect in a public place, wouldn't they ?

Personally I don't contribute to street collections for any charity having seen a prime time special recently on how much of the contributions for some well known names are skimmed off to pay huge administration costs.
Thats not my idea of charity.

liambyrne wrote:

You say "it's obvious that you were referring to Bertie"...well here's some information for you - it wasn't.

It was obvious to me that the reference was to Ahern.
It appears to me that,your posts are a deliberate construction towards melodrama,emotional red herrings and latterly personal abuse to aid a rant thats not becoming of the spirit of discussion on this forum.
I see I'm the 3rd or 4th person to call you on aspects of that here.
Time for you to stop digging.

invincibleirish

National Church Gate collections are a relic of simpler times, but are still a key a part of funding for PPs for the simple reason its easy money. IIRC FF,FG & Labour have church gate collections, not sure about others.

Ideally such a situation would be done away with (as would donations from the construction industry), but parties have to be funded somehow, maybe sometime in the future a Government might initiate a change in how parties are funded.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

It was obvious to me that the reference was to Ahern.

Then obviously I do not have the same frame of mind as FF supporters....."him" is a little vague. I would also point out to any neutral readers that I covered BOTH possibilities in my reply, so attacking me over this is pointless.

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears to me that,your posts are a deliberate construction towards melodrama,emotional red herrings and latterly personal abuse to aid a rant thats not becoming of the spirit of discussion on this forum.

Then appearances can obviously be deceiving.....I've repeatedly pointed out that this was NOT THE CASE, but it appears to suit some people to ignore that. Hopefully the neutral observer will see through this tactic and see that some people appear to be more interested in discussing a tiny aspect and irrelevant aspect of the post instead of the question being posed. The only relevance was because - as I am not a regular mass-goer - I hadn't seen a church gate collection in years until Saturday.

That said, it appears to have been a bad call to mention it at all, since some people seem to be using it to deflect from the discussion and disgustingly suggest that I would stoop so low as to use it as an "emotional red herring".

Since those posts are off-topic, can we just ignore them and get back on-topic ?

I see I'm the 3rd or 4th person to call you on aspects of that here.

No, you're the 3rd or 4th person to INCORRECTLY assume that's what I meant.

Time for you to stop digging.

No, time for you (and one or two others) to stop putting words in my mouth. I've stated the facts a couple of times at this stage, and if people persist on twisting my words or insulting me by accusing me of emotional red herrings then I'll just ask for the thread to be closed.

FOR ONE LAST TIME : All I was getting at was that I am not normally at mass and have not seen a church gate collection in years. PERIOD.

Beyond that, believe what ye want.....ye probably will anyway......

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, you're the 3rd or 4th person to INCORRECTLY assume that's what I meant.

Oh dear.. I guess.Have a look back.The MAJORITY of posts in this thread have taken a similar view on your rant.You posted it so you should accept the tenure of the discussion on it that follows.
Otherwise you are just soap boxing ie unwilling to participate properly in a debate.That looks like You have come here to have a one sided rant.Thats something thats prohibited in the charter by the way for good reason.

No, time for you (and one or two others) to stop putting words in my mouth. I've stated the facts a couple of times at this stage, and if people persist on twisting my words or insulting me by accusing me of emotional red herrings then I'll just ask for the thread to be closed.

FOR ONE LAST TIME : All I was getting at was that I am not normally at mass and have not seen a church gate collection in years. PERIOD.

Beyond that, believe what ye want.....ye probably will anyway......

To be brutally honest,I haven't a clue what this thread is about anyway other than being a pointless rantfest by the looks of things and it's not made any easier to understand by yet another obfuscatory post like the above.You DID introduce an emotional red herring at the start of the thread and you WERE called on that.

HydeRoad

Well, to answer the question at the head of this thread, I too wonder who in their right and sane mind would hand money to this party, at a church gate or anywhere else.

Watching the man who ducked and dived and sneered and sobbed his way through perfectly reasonable and legitimate questioning on questionable matters in the public interest, watching him on the world stage giving a speech to US Congress frankly made my skin crawl, and I ask if that is the sum total of what politics in this country can offer it's people?

It will be a long generation before they will ever get a shilling out of me, and at that there won't be a single politician in the next generation who will ever be able to clean up that party, because it is in too many people's vested interests to keep things as they are.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

You DID introduce an emotional red herring at the start of the thread and you WERE called on that.

I DID NOT. I've cleared this up a million times at this stage and your incorrect posting is getting VERY irritating at this stage. You CHOSE to interpret it that way, despite numerous clarifications, and for the last time you are WRONG and you are dragging the thread WAY off-topic.

Not only that, but it's personally insulting (and therefore against the forum charter) to suggest that I'm the type of person to do that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Otherwise you are just soap boxing ie unwilling to participate properly in a debate

A debate about the topic ? No problem. A debate about how you and others interpreted a small part of my post ? No thanks - you've already proven that you wouldn't listen anyway.

I've admitted that in hindsight that it was a bad idea to post why I was at mass, but to come on here AGAIN and imply that it was a deliberate emotional red herring means that either you can't read or that it suits you to ignore that you were wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

To be brutally honest,I haven't a clue what this thread is about anyway.

Then why post in it ? Or, rather than making incorrect assumptions to fill in the blanks, why not just ask ?

Hyde Road managed to see through the bull**** assertions and discuss the topic....hopefully everyone else will from here on in.

It's odd, though - the posts which refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt or acknowledge the many clarifications that I've made are the very ones which claim that "he's gone" 'obviously' applies to Bertie.....apparently it's OK if someone won't give me the benefit of the doubt, but I have to give it to others.....that's fairly pathetic!

I had asked for the thread to be closed/deleted, but Hyde Road at least gives me some level of hope that the topic can be discussed.....and not just because he/she seems to agree, but because he/she actually discussed the topic without getting personal.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I DID NOT. I've cleared this up a million times at this stage and your incorrect posting is getting VERY irritating at this stage. You CHOSE to interpret it that way, despite numerous clarifications, and for the last time you are WRONG and you are dragging the thread WAY off-topic.

clarifications? There was no need to add why you were at the mass only to introduce the red herring.
Thats a simple deduction.

Not only that, but it's personally insulting (and therefore against the forum charter) to suggest that I'm the type of person to do that.

If you find being tackled on what you post ,the very calling that was made insulting,then you shouldn't be posting.What you post here is open to being challenged and challenged it was.

A debate about the topic ? No problem. A debate about how you and others interpreted a small part of my post ? No thanks - you've already proven that you wouldn't listen anyway.

You didn't want a debate,that much is obvious.The very minute a debate appeared like happening and you didn't like it, you jumped up and down in some sort of hissy fit and pegged personal insults.
Not anyone else- You.
That says it all really.You were warned by a mod not to continue with this.

I've admitted that in hindsight that it was a bad idea to post why I was at mass, but to come on here AGAIN and imply that it was a deliberate emotional red herring means that either you can't read or that it suits you to ignore that you were wrong.

Denying what you had done doesn't make it disappear.

Then why post in it ? Or, rather than making incorrect assumptions to fill in the blanks, why not just ask ?

I reserve the right like any poster here to free'ly discuss a topic without obfuscatory or soap box hindrance.

Hyde Road managed to see through the bull**** assertions and discuss the topic....hopefully everyone else will from here on in.

Well to be fair,he said whjat I would have said prior to tackling you like others did on two things (1) your real reason for starting the thread and your unnecessary use of an emotional red herring .
You were called on that - move on.

It's odd, though - the posts which refuse to give me the benefit of the doubt or acknowledge the many clarifications that I've made are the very ones which claim that "he's gone" 'obviously' applies to Bertie.....apparently it's OK if someone won't give me the benefit of the doubt, but I have to give it to others.....that's fairly pathetic!

Given the whole paragraph the "he's gone" statement was used in,it is obvious that it was referring to Mr Ahern.

I had asked for the thread to be closed/deleted, but Hyde Road at least gives me some level of hope that the topic can be discussed.....and not just because he/she seems to agree, but because he/she actually discussed the topic without getting personal.

At no point did anyone get personal in this thread except you.
It was you who told another poster to bugger off the thread not anyone else.
If you are labouring under the assumption that you are not the culprit here in that department,then I suggest you go back and read your own posts again and the replies to them.

Liam Byrne

Ah, FFS!

There was no need to add why you were at the mass only to introduce the red herring. Thats a simple deduction.

The point was that I'm not normally at mass and haven't seen a church gate collection in years. Period. Stated repeatedly but some people refuse to acknowledge it; I've ADMITTED that it wasn't the best way to make that point. But quit reading your own interpretation beyond that BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG.

At no point did anyone get personal in this thread except you

Sorry - I beg to differ. I was accused by one or two people - including you - of a being callous and disrespectful. That's personal.

It was you who told another poster to bugger off the thread not anyone else.

Excuse me ? If you read it again I did NOT tell them to bugger off the thread, I told them to lay off with that "emotional red herring" crap!", simply because their post was off-topic and contained the above accusation, to which I naturally took exception. I don't like being accused of something that I didn't do, or being ignored when I clarify it.

Aside from that, I want to thank you for the remainder of your contribution - that you would have agreed with Hyde Road. That was all the thread was about.

And having received that contribution, I am not going to discuss anything other than the thread title from now on. It's getting very boring to be accused of crap, and I'm going to let everyone else who views this thread judge for themselves as to whether what I'm saying is true.

Yes, if I had said "I was at mass for the first time in ages", it would have avoided the opportunity to be incorrectly accused of introducing a red herring; maybe I am an unwitting "culprit" in that sense. In addition, having been viewed as doing that - as pointed out above, posts can be open to interpretation, and I have to accept that too; but the most annoying thing was that I clarified it numerous times and people have refused point blank to accept it - that aspect is NOT my fault. One clarification should have been enough.

But if you and one or two others have your preconceived idea and won't accept that fact then there is no point in me repeating myself ad nauseum.

Can we have more on-topic posts like Hyde Road now, please ?

HydeRoad

HydeRoad wrote: »

Well, to answer the question at the head of this thread, I too wonder who in their right and sane mind would hand money to this party, at a church gate or anywhere else.

I don't think any party should have Church Gate collections.

The biggest farce is parties that, say advocate abortion or other issues which conflict with Church thinking, yet will hijack that institution to make a few grubby euros.

It's a complete nonsense to distinguish between different parties. If we give money to FG, will they use it to make another billion for Denis O'Brien? Will Labour use it next time Emmet Stagg gets caught in the Phoenix Park and needs someone to massage (ahem) the media? Are Labour members and Sinn Fein still up to their wrists in counterfeit ink and stolen bank notes?

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think any party should have Church Gate collections.

The biggest farce is parties that, say advocate abortion or other issues which conflict with Church thinking, yet will hijack that institution to make a few grubby euros.

Fair point. Although i don't think any parties *advocate* abortion.

My impression of church-gate collections is that they are more about supporting the local politician.

Of course, the main thing is that people don't have to give money if they don't want.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah, FFS!
The point was that I'm not normally at mass and haven't seen a church gate collection in years. Period. Stated repeatedly but some people refuse to acknowledge it; I've ADMITTED that it wasn't the best way to make that point. But quit reading your own interpretation beyond that BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG.

It's there in black and white and you took your time to realise that being called on it,you had to accept why you were called on it.

Sorry - I beg to differ. I was accused by one or two people - including you - of a being callous and disrespectful. That's personal.

Where has anyone said that? Or used those words? I've read all the posts now and see it nowhere.
Why are you inventing stuff to support things that aren't there.
Thats stupid-All anyone has to do is read the first two pages to see that you are lying about being accused of being callous and disrespectfull in this thread.

I mean when you are in a hole,you keep digging, and now you are inventing stuff that wasn't posted.

Excuse me ? If you read it again I did NOT tell them to bugger off the thread, I told them to lay off with that "emotional red herring" crap!", simply because their post was off-topic and contained the above accusation, to which I naturally took exception. I don't like being accused of something that I didn't do, or being ignored when I clarify it.

You told a poster to sod off.
Sod off and bugger off - whats the difference?

Aside from that, I want to thank you for the remainder of your contribution - that you would have agreed with Hyde Road. That was all the thread was about.

Well actually to clarify,I wouldn't contribute to a church gate collection period.It's nothing to do with where the money is going.
I'm sure there are plenty of people with enough affection for political parties and what they stand for (or supposed to stand for) to contribute at Masses or elswhere.

And having received that contribution, I am not going to discuss anything other than the thread title from now on. It's getting very boring to be accused of crap, and I'm going to let everyone else who views this thread judge for themselves as to whether what I'm saying is true.

Well I'm going to continue to consider everything you post as fair game for me to either agree with you or disagree with you with reasons and thats what I've been doing like any poster should.

Yes, if I had said "I was at mass for the first time in ages", it would have avoided the opportunity to be incorrectly accused of introducing a red herring; maybe I am an unwitting "culprit" in that sense. In addition, having been viewed as doing that - as pointed out above, posts can be open to interpretation, and I have to accept that too; but the most annoying thing was that I clarified it numerous times and people have refused point blank to accept it - that aspect is NOT my fault. One clarification should have been enough.

But if you and one or two others have your preconceived idea and won't accept that fact then there is no point in me repeating myself ad nauseum.

Can we have more on-topic posts like Hyde Road now, please ?

Well if you want to park this issue,I will.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest farce is parties that, say advocate abortion or other issues which conflict with Church thinking, yet will hijack that institution to make a few grubby euros.

I know where you're coming from, but since - I think - the Church could refuse permission (in theory at least) then it could be said that it's the Church that's being two-faced.....

Mind you, there is probably an extra edge to this; I mean, an STD or anti-underage-pregnancy organisation raising money to provide condoms for people might be refused without any possible backlash, whereas it might be harder to refuse a major political party that got you out of major financial liability regarding a sex scandal, regardless of their policies on abortion or whatever.

Those are, though - to some extent - side issues that might apply to any party......worth discussing, though, but maybe in a separate thread.

My main reason for the thread was wondering how people would feel about contributing to party funds considering what we've heard about how they were used in the past - like I said, the same question could also be posed if a charity had a high-profile abuse-of-funds scandal - people probably wouldn't contribute to that charity for a long time afterwards either, no ?

Liam Byrne

Where has anyone said that? Or used those words? I've read all the posts now and see it nowhere.
Why are you inventing stuff to support things that aren't there.
Thats stupid-All anyone has to do is read the first two pages to see that you are lying about being accused of being callous and disrespectfull in this thread.

I mean when you are in a hole,you keep digging, and now you are inventing stuff that wasn't posted.

I'm not lying, but it might be harder to spot; I didn't want to mention it explicitly up to now (in case I was again accused of the emotional angle) but to me, having people assume that I would use a friend's anniversary as "an emotional red herring" in a post or discussion or any such trivial matter came across as a very personal judgement on me and my values. Doing that would - in my view - be callous and disrespectful.

I'm not like that, and don't want people to read here and get the opinion that I was.

You told a poster to sod off. Sod off and bugger off - whats the difference?

You missed my point. I didn't want to repeat the actual word, for obvious reasons, but it was the bit in bold - as highlighted - that I was trying to emphasise....I didn't tell them to "anything"-off the thread - just to "anything" -off with the "ERH" angle. There's a MASSIVE difference - as in "stay on the thread and contribute, but lay off that angle coz it's wrong".

Anyways, assuming that I've finally clarified those two final points, we will park that aspect of it. Sorry for my part in the confusion, but like I said none of that was intentional and I'm sorry if I reacted to taking it personally when people assumed I would be like that.

Back on topic for once and for all, so ?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not lying, but it might be harder to spot; I didn't want to mention it explicitly up to now (in case I was again accused of the emotional angle) but to me, having people assume that I would use a friend's anniversary as "an emotional red herring" in a post or discussion or any such trivial matter came across as a very personal judgement on me and my values. Doing that would - in my view - be callous and disrespectful.

I'm not like that, and don't want people to read here and get the opinion that I was.

Well then in fairness,I'll unreservedly withdraw the liar comment so.
I hope you appreciate though that you should be more carefull with your wording as it was not just I who called you on it.

You missed my point. I didn't want to repeat the actual word, for obvious reasons, but it was the bit in bold - as highlighted - that I was trying to emphasise....I didn't tell them to "anything"-off the thread - just to "anything" -off with the "ERH" angle. There's a MASSIVE difference - as in "stay on the thread and contribute, but lay off that angle coz it's wrong".

Liam,I respectively suggest that you rethink the way you put things.It's important because,people in this thread aren't mind readers,we have to read and attempt to understand what you post.
Not thinking twice leads to the sort of exchange we've had.

Anyways, assuming that I've finally clarified those two final points, we will park that aspect of it. Sorry for my part in the confusion, but like I said none of that was intentional and I'm sorry if I reacted to taking it personally when people assumed I would be like that.

Grand parked.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know where you're coming from, but since - I think - the Church could refuse permission (in theory at least) then it could be said that it's the Church that's being two-faced.....

Round here one applies to the gardai for a date to collect outside the Church, they have no say in it. Then again, its not in Church grounds, but outside the gate.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then in fairness,I'll unreservedly withdraw the liar comment so.
I hope you appreciate though that you should be more carefull with your wording as it was not just I who called you on it.

Apology - and point - accepted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Liam,I respectively suggest that you rethink the way you put things.It's important because,people in this thread aren't mind readers,we have to read and attempt to understand what you post.
Not thinking twice leads to the sort of exchange we've had.
Grand parked.

Fair point, and in fairness it's one that I did try to clarify......and like I said I wasn't sure whether to say precisely why it bugged me so much in case I made matters worse (i.e. "kept digging").

Anyways, this post is just to say that on both points - as I did say earlier - my contribution to the confusion is accepted and I should've just said - in the first post, not later, when I did but the damage was done - that "I was at mass for the first time in ages".

I only got annoyed when the clarification was questioned and dismissed.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

Round here one applies to the gardai for a date to collect outside the Church, they have no say in it. Then again, its not in Church grounds, but outside the gate.

Interesting point......didn't know that!

I did wonder how come the FF table was outside the gate while the SVdP collection was inside the grounds, at the door......I actually thought it odd at the time that the Church would allow 2 different collections on the same day.....if someone had contributed to both there wouldn't be much change left for the "pass-the-basket" routine inside.....

Wishbone Ash

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting point......didn't know that!

I did wonder how come the FF table was outside the gate while the SVdP collection was inside the grounds, at the door......I actually thought it odd at the time that the Church would allow 2 different collections on the same day.....if someone had contributed to both there wouldn't be much change left for the "pass-the-basket" routine inside.....

I find it astonishing Liam that you are debating potitical "church gate" fundraising without realising that it is not within the remit of the church. I thought that was common knowledge. Did you really think the church had a say? It would be in their interest not to have any collections as people may have more money for the church offerings.

Liam Byrne

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I find it astonishing Liam that you are debating potitical "church gate" fundraising without realising that it is not within the remit of the church. I thought that was common knowledge. Did you really think the church had a say? It would be in their interest not to have any collections as people may have more money for the church offerings.

Well, there seems to be a difference between the inside-the-gate and outside-the-gate collections that I wasn't aware of ? And as I stated above I agree that it would have been in their interests to have AT MOST one collection...so having the two did strike me as odd, like I said.

I would assume that the SVdP collection needed the permission of the church, because it was inside the grounds, at the door.....but I'm open to correction if someone knows otherwise.

But regardless of whether or not the collection was allowed by the church or Gardai, the thread wasn't strictly debating the rights for anyone to stand there and attempt to collect - that's strictly a permit/permissions issue. If I'd seen them collecting on the street or house-to-house or something, I would have still wondered the same thing.

I was more wondering whether - and what type of - people would contribute, given what we've heard about where funds (might) have gone in the past.

ninty9er

With all due respect, the amount of **** spouting going on between Liam and Black Briar is mind boggling and all over the 3 words emotional red herring, I took it as being any other normal mass (which it actually was).

Black Briar and all others who took it as such had every right to do so. It was plainly obvious that Bertie was being referred to as nobodu would bother to go to a mass of someone they had "a truck with".

The thread is about a FF church gate collection, and while it wasn't necessary to say what the mass was for, what feckin difference does it make....it wasn't a wedding or funeral ffs.

It's a simple fact that the directors of construction companies give money to their friends/local politicians of all political persuasions (except Green....*snore*). To suggest your €2 on that table would buy my aunt a house is ridiculous. Just because the Dublin Central constituency organisation gave its money to Celia Larkin, doesn't mean that every constituency will do anything near that....or else she'd have €1.3 million in her pocket instead of €30k.

I don't condone that money being given to Celia Larkin, but what a constituency organisation does with its money is essentially its own business, be that donating €2k to each TD for election purposes or having a banner made for public rallys. Also, there must now be 2 treasurers in each unit of the party, which means such a transaction couldn't happen "undercover". We are not a stupid organisation. We constantly triumph in the face of adversity, and if any of the boardsies here accusing of all sorts had any bit of cop-op, it would be plain to them that such situations were rare in the extreme 15 years ago, and non-existent now.

oscarBravo

Enough of the meta-discussion. The emotional red herring is dead and buried, and the next person to drag it up will feel my wrath. Discuss the topic or stay the hell out of it.

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

It's a simple fact that the directors of construction companies give money to their friends/local politicians of all political persuasions (except Green....*snore*).

Fianna Fail
Fine Gael
Labour, Green & Sinn Fein

...one list stands out by a mile.

oscarBravo : ballooba, the last two links are the same - methinks you need to fix the last one.

Thanks.

oscarBravo

ballooba, the last two links are the same - methinks you need to fix the last one.

ninty9er

I'm currently working in accounting and I've seen the money trail to FF anf FG so far (most donate to both strangely enough), just because it isn't declared doesn't mean it wasn't donated!! Just means it was below the declaration limit.

Edit: And of course when you compare 80 Teachtaí to 30, there will be a disparity in the number of pages.

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm currently working in accounting and I've seen the money trail to FF anf FG so far (most donate to both strangely enough), just because it isn't declared doesn't mean it wasn't donated!! Just means it was below the declaration limit.

Edit: And of course when you compare 80 Teachtaí to 30, there will be a disparity in the number of pages.

It's the fact that certain types of businesses are brazenly open about donating money to Fianna Fail and you'd almost think are actively trying to go above the thresholds for inclusion on the lists. So that everyone will know that they've paid their way.

ninty9er

ballooba wrote: »

It's the fact that certain types of businesses are brazenly open about donating money to Fianna Fail and you'd almost think are actively trying to go above the thresholds for inclusion on the lists. So that everyone will know that they've paid their way.

If you check the constituency account of your local FG TD, depending on where you are, the account could throw up more construction donations than the equivalent FF TD. It's all a matter of disclosure really. SIPO examine all the statements, some are just more transparent in declaring everything (e.g Chris Andrews in previous link).

ballooba

ninty9er wrote: »

If you check the constituency account of your local FG TD, depending on where you are, the account could throw up more construction donations than the equivalent FF TD. It's all a matter of disclosure really. SIPO examine all the statements, some are just more transparent in declaring everything (e.g Chris Andrews in previous link).

Yes, I notice Chris Andrews also named John Ronan when he didn't have to. Others were more underhand about declaring John Ronan's donations including Jim O'Keefe. I'm not impressed with Mr O'Keefe at the moment. I think all forms of donations should be banned. It's the only way of avoiding corrupt donations.