Dana,Cathy Sinnott,john waters say vote no..good reason to vote yes.

Markcheese

Basically I haven't read the blurb or done any research... But feel I should vote..Dana,Cathy Sinnott and John waters all say vote no on sat.... Sounds like as good a reason as any other to vote yes...

gobnaitolunacy

Do the opposite of what Dana tells you, always.

Valetta

Anyone who decides how they will vote on that basis should have their vote taken off them.

Madam_X

Waters' concern is the father's rights aspect but wouldn't a yes vote help put paid to the traditionalist notion that a child is always better off with their mother no matter what?

Fritzl Funderland

ah great no need to read the booklet i got about this referendum so

ejmaztec

Kathy Sinnott should go into politics, she's so clever, popular and influential.








:pac:

Turtyturd

Madam_X wrote: »

Waters' concern is the father's rights aspect but wouldn't a yes vote help put paid to the traditionalist notion that a child is always better off with their mother no matter what?

But it wouldn't do any good to the corner he is fighting.

Lumbo

I'm surprised that Dana hasn't accused any children of trying to assassinate her.

Lenin Skynard

I believe this is how Enda and co. got in to government. Well done.

yeppydeppy

Not exactly the right way to decide your vote but I gotta say I can see where you're coming from.

SeaFields

It good to see the media are still interested in what Dana has to say :rolleyes:

eth0

I believe this referendum is a 'power grab' by the government to further stick their nose into people's private goings on. Right now only 'failed parents' can have their children taken away, when this gets passed they only have to be 'at risk'. Not good at all.

Don't give a sh1t about dana by the way, forgot she was even still around.

donegal.

as soon as that crazy mentaler dana gives her opinion , its very hard not to vote the other way.

RikkFlair

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Do the opposite of what Dana tells you, always.

Exactly. Think of her as a female version of Father Jessup.

Benny_Cake

RikkFlair wrote: »

Exactly. Think of her as a male version of Father Jessup.

Whatever about Dana, John Waters could use a spell in an underpants hamper . Never uses one word when twenty will do just as well, insufferable.

Markcheese

Valetta wrote: »

Anyone who decides how they will vote on that basis should have their vote taken off them.

It's important that I vote , and less effort than flipping a coin.... What could possiblye go wrong

Dr Turk Turkelton

For the first time since I turned 18 I was going to not vote as I don't feel that this referendum really concerns me.
But thanks to Dana I now realise which is the right way to vote so it will be a hell yeah from Cuchulainn1!

Drakares

I don't know who any of those 3 people are.

Robbo

This is the same John Waters who lost a custody battle because he was deemed less sane than Sinead O'Connor?

Gunmonkey

Lumbo wrote: »

I'm surprised that Dana hasn't accused any children of trying to assassinate her.

Ah give her time, its only Wednesday.

squod

Oh yeah, vote yes. Take the ''advice'' of some womans clothes wearing fuhken quear and some uncle fester lookin' creep!

Death and Taxes

Markcheese wrote: »

Basically I haven't read the blurb or done any research... But feel I should vote..Dana,Cathy Sinnott and John waters all say vote no on sat.... Sounds like as good a reason as any other to vote yes...

Silly reason to chose which way to vote on such an important issue

Smidge

So rather than educating yourself about the referendum OP you have decided to cast your vote on the basis of the three less than desirable candidates who have been allowed represent the no side?

I don't even know what to say about that other than I hope its a joke cause it's posted in AH.

What I do find very interesting about this referendum above others is the amount of people saying "Oh I'm voting yes, didn't the government tell us it's good for the kids"?

Anything else that the government brings in that directly affects everyone especially when it affects their pocket, is greeted by fierce debate and the usual sputtering of "I wouldn't trust that shower of gangsters in the Dail as far as I would throw them".

donvito99

I have lots of friends who are children


>.> <.<

eth0

Smidge wrote: »

So rather than educating yourself about the referendum OP you have decided to cast your vote on the basis of the three less than desirable candidates who have been allowed represent the no side?

I don't even know what to say about that other than I hope its a joke cause it's posted in AH.

What I do find very interesting about this referendum above others is the amount of people saying "Oh I'm voting yes, didn't the government tell us it's good for the kids"?

Anything else that the government brings in that directly affects everyone especially when it affects their pocket, is greeted by fierce debate and the usual sputtering of "I wouldn't trust that shower of gangsters in the Dail as far as I would throw them".

Nobody in real life has told me they were voting yes. Most people i talk to don't even really know what its about and others are voting no like myself.

kerry4sam

eth0 wrote: »

Nobody in real life has told me they were voting yes. Most people i talk to don't even really know what its about and others are voting no like myself.

I haven't spoke to one person either who is voting yes. It's all no. just vote no! I haven't looked at the booket we were all mailed out, but will do over the coming days to be sure.

Smidge

I genuinely thought this would get a resounding yes vote, maybe not now I've read the last few posts?
As for Dana and John Waters?
The yes side must have been wetting themselves with excitement when they found out who was representing to no side:D

Cathy Sinnott, I admired for her stance and her taking on of the government and actually changing the law about education for all children of the state.

goat2

i am in full agreement with john walters, the last night he was on television, he opened my eyse,
i had scanned through the booklet and re read it, and had decided on that, there is nothing in black and white to tell me that we will not be going down the road of forced adoption, do we really want to go backward, like the times babies were taken from girls and adopted in america, and no way of tracing family,

DK man

France's Fitzgerald was no match for waters on the tv debate.
This thing is not as straight forward as it sounds.
Last year ruari Quinn cut the counselling service to schools and left thousands of children in distress without a qualified counsellor to help them with their mental health - this government doesn't care about children and the state should not be given more powers in this regard.

secman

Last Friday morning i got the leaflet in the post and read it over breakfast, my initial reaction was to vote NO, as the states record to date on children in state care is at best abysmal. I will read it again before Sat but am leaning towards a No vote at the moment.


Secman

squod

Hugh O'Flaherty, former judge of the Supreme Court
''We don't need a referendum to protect our children's rights''

In that spirit, up to 20 implied rights have been recognised -- such as the right to work, marital privacy and access to the courts, to cite just a few examples. Thus, the Constitution has done its job. It is up to the other organs of State to do theirs.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/hugh-oflaherty-we-dont-need-a-referendum-to-protect-our-childrens-rights-3226110.html