Why do the media ignore David Hall's Fianna Fail and casino links

AlanG

Another article on David Hall in the metro today and yet again no mention of his close links to FF or the fact that he runs a casino while advocating that taxpayers should write off peoples debts.
Does anyone have an insight into why he gets such an easy ride in the media? He claims to have opposed the bailout but he was best buddies with Lenihan when it was given. When the media do mention his Fianna Fail links they give the impression he was just an ordinary member, not a close insider.
It seems like he has something on many in the media - perhaps gambling debts or some other leverage?
Any ideas?

Reformed Character

AlanG wrote: »

Another article on David Hall in the metro today and yet again no mention of his close links to FF or the fact that he runs a casino while advocating that taxpayers should write off peoples debts.
Does anyone have an insight into why he gets such an easy ride in the media? He claims to have opposed the bailout but he was best buddies with Lenihan when it was given. When the media do mention his Fianna Fail links they give the impression he was just an ordinary member, not a close insider.
It seems like he has something on many in the media - perhaps gambling debts or some other leverage?
Any ideas?

Evidence for your claims would be nice.
Is he a member of FF? What is a close insider, is on the National Executive? Is owning a casino illegal? Have you evidence that he didn't oppose the bailout, or is friendship with Lenihan taken as support for every action taken by him?

AlanG

Its common knowledge he was a member of FF until 2009 - after the crash and their political fall from grace - he doesn't ever deny this, as per screenshot in attached feed. if he opposed the disastrous FF policies he would have left the party in 2005

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0923/world/fianna-fail-offers-hall-opportunity-to-run-for-europe-243937.html

He is claiming that he opposed the bailout agreed to by the group he chose to affiliate with so he should provide some evidence of this.

In my opinion owning a Casino that regularly takes thousands of euro off drunk and uninformed punters is a very hypocritical position for someone campaigning to have taxpayers pay to buy people out of contracts they made with their solicitors advice.

hfallada

AlanG wrote: »

Its common knowledge he was a member of FF until 2009 - after the crash and their political fall from grace - he doesn't ever deny this, as per screenshot in attached feed. if he opposed the disastrous FF policies he would have left the party in 2005

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0923/world/fianna-fail-offers-hall-opportunity-to-run-for-europe-243937.html

He is claiming that he opposed the bailout agreed to by the group he chose to affiliate with so he should provide some evidence of this.

In my opinion owning a Casino that regularly takes thousands of euro off drunk and uninformed punters is a very hypocritical position for someone campaigning to have taxpayers pay to buy people out of contracts they made with their solicitors advice.

Gambling is a choice. You choose to go into a Casino and everyone knows that the house always wins. You dont need an MBA from Harvard to know that. Likewise its no different than a person investing in the market. Casinos can be found all over the world and have existed for hundreds of years.

AlanG

hfallada wrote: »

Gambling is a choice. You choose to go into a Casino and everyone knows that the house always wins. You dont need an MBA from Harvard to know that. Likewise its no different than a person investing in the market. Casinos can be found all over the world and have existed for hundreds of years.

Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that many people have lost a lot in David Halls casino however he has not campaigned that they should be bailed out for their choices.

I also feel that certain home owners should get state assistance however I don't think David Hall should be claiming to represent them.

He just seems to openly manipulate the press and they don't question anything he does - for instance they were reporting him as the front runner last week when his racist statement was released (I'm not calling him racist - just the statement) yet he was only a front runner due to the low betting odds created by "one individual" placing a large wager on him, thus guaranteeing extra exposure due to his front runner status.

The_Captain

He's spent big on his campaign, but I can't see him getting elected on the back of his debt writeoff for millionaires ticket

jmayo

hfallada wrote: »

Gambling is a choice. ...

So is buying an overpriced property or any property for that matter.
So is taking out collosal loans.

Refusing to repay your debts is a choice, but usually a choice that will result in you losing anything used as colateral for those debts.

Except in Ireland some people like mr hall think that others should repay those peoples' debts.

tricky D

For accuracy: he doesn't own a casino, he is a shareholder and director which is quite different to the runs and owns spin.

As for the 'racist' incident, I know both of the parties and might even have been there that night, the notion that he's racist is frankly absurd.

However if little or no relevance whataboutery is du jour, what about his private ambulance service business? Profitable, legit, regular business: move on, nothing to see.

jmayo

tricky D wrote: »

For accuracy: he doesn't own a casino, he is a shareholder and director which is quite different to the runs and owns spin.

So he gets no financial reward from this casion, right ?

tricky D wrote: »

However if little or no relevance whataboutery is du jour, what about his private ambulance service business? Profitable, legit, regular business: move on, nothing to see.

Ahh Lifeline which was set up in 1998 and AFAIK it has been providing ambulance services to HSE/Dept Health since 1999.

As far as I also know he was supporter of bertie ahern and campaigned for and was friend of brian lendahand.

And didn't fianna fail confirm that they asked him last autumn to run for them in Europe ?

We know that he jumped ship in 2009, but can anyone confirm when he joined fianna fail ?

I just find it ironic he is running in his old buddies constituency, the same old buddy who was fond of the bailouts.
You know the bailouts for shysters and the one that would cost us taxpayers nothing.

tricky D

jmayo wrote: »

So he gets no financial reward from this casion, right ?

If and when a profit is made and a dividend is made available, then yes, of course he would get financial reward through a dividend, just like many other normal businesses. However, it's a very big 'if' considering the developments in the casino market over the last few years and the investment plowed into the Fitz in the same time frame.

Grudaire

Given he's running in Dublin West (ie Castleknock - ie backing onto the Phoenix Park Racecourse - where a massive casino was planned) I'm surprised that the Casino links haven't been mentioned. It'd lose him a few votes around Castleknock I'd guess..

My bet is that he won't do particularly well either way, but we'll find out tomorrow!

tricky D

Grudaire wrote: »

Given he's running in Dublin West (ie Castleknock - ie backing onto the Phoenix Park Racecourse - where a massive casino was planned) I'm surprised that the Casino links haven't been mentioned. It'd lose him a few votes around Castleknock I'd guess..

Actually the reality is quite the opposite. He was part of a campaign to get proper regulation for private members gaming clubs, aka casinos. However that's small casinos, not the mega types that were being talked about in Castleknock and down the country. So that in mind, in theory it should actually get him more votes, but people's perceptions and prejudices in politics probably mean a different 'reality'.

I know I sound like a shill for him, but I'm not in the constituency, haven't seen him in a few years and not sure I'd vote for him anyway if I was in the position. It's just I hear a lot inaccuracies, cheap shots and pure bull**** coming out about some one I've always found to straight up to deal with (and deal to) despite his FF connections.

raymon

If I was in this constituency I probably would not vote for the following type of people:


1) Fianna Failers ( or ex Fianna Failers)
2) Anyone who gives the impression that they were not in Fianna Fail when the bad decisions were being made
3) People who make racist comments ( example " send them all home " or "every home should have one")
4) People who make money from Casinos


David Hall will not be elected.

The_Captain

I'm quite glad David Hall is running. The old-money Fianna Failers in D15 have shown they won't vote for working-class boy done good David McGuinness and will probably vote for Hall.
The dilution of the FF bloc will mean that neither Hall nor McGuinness will get elected.

I feel bad for McGuinness because he genuinely seems to care about improving the community, but you've hitched your cart to the wrong horse son

Grudaire

The_Captain wrote: »

I feel bad for McGuinness because he genuinely seems to care about improving the community, but you've hitched your cart to the wrong horse son

At the end of the day the candidate will have to toe the party line (particularly in the Dáil).

I do hope that McGuinness, Hall (and Mary Fitzpatrick) don't get in. Fianna Fáil haven't changed, they haven't improved after learning from their mistakes. It's only a shame that the Shinners are getting the benefit.

Jolly Red Giant

In answer to the OP - it is because they hope to pump him up to scupper the election of an anti-austerity candidate.

raymon

The_Captain wrote: »

I'm quite glad David Hall is running. The old-money Fianna Failers in D15 have shown they won't vote for working-class boy done good David McGuinness and will probably vote for Hall.
The dilution of the FF bloc will mean that neither Hall nor McGuinness will get elected.

I feel bad for McGuinness because he genuinely seems to care about improving the community, but you've hitched your cart to the wrong horse son

I have no sympathy for McGuinness. He is sticking verbatim to the Fianna Fail script about the water charges and the property tax, which is in my opinion is a dishonest attempt to hoodwink the voters into believing they were not a Fianna Fail measure signed up to already.

Back to OP and Hall . Same applies. It was his party ( at the time ) that signed is up for all of these charges.

goat2

Grudaire wrote: »

At the end of the day the candidate will have to toe the party line (particularly in the Dáil).

I do hope that McGuinness, Hall (and Mary Fitzpatrick) don't get in. Fianna Fáil haven't changed, they haven't improved after learning from their mistakes. It's only a shame that the Shinners are getting the benefit.

i hope he does get in, at least he helped highlight the people who are in dire straits, and i hope he goes on doing so,
i am wondering how he is doing, guess we will know shortly.

Grudaire

i hope he does get in, at least he helped highlight the people who are in dire straits, and i hope he goes on doing so,
i am wondering how he is doing, guess we will know shortly.

He's already out... coppinger has the seat

The_Captain

Oh well, no mortgage write offs for millionaires so

AlanG

tricky D wrote: »

For accuracy: he doesn't own a casino, he is a shareholder and director which is quite different to the runs and owns spin.

If that is the case nobody owns a registered business, they are just shareholders. Legally any business owner only owns shares in the business unless they are a sole trader.

tricky D

AlanG wrote: »

If that is the case nobody owns a registered business, they are just shareholders. Legally any business owner only owns shares in the business unless they are a sole trader.

Or 100% shareholder or a majority/controlling shareholder who would often reasonably be referred to as the owner.

However, I think you are missing the point. It's mere spin and plain misinformation to say that he owns and runs a casino (more accurately, a private members club), when he is a shareholder along with 12 others, which is simply not the same. Furthermore, he's not even listed as a director according to the most recent company check (2013) of the the Fitz which is the trading name of The Golden Horseshoe Ltd.

Also, as I pointed out he has been part of lobbying efforts to sort the regulation issues out so that there is proper regulation, but that is omitted as it doesn't suit the spin, when the actuality is somewhat counter to that same spin considering they have no interest in the types of large casinos the spin attempts to evoke and is in favour of regulation of small ones only. As I alluded to that spin is inaccurate, a cheap shot and nonsense in parts, and also spins further by selective omission.

There are plenty of good reasons not to support him depending on one's point of view (policies, previous affiliations, etc.) without resorting to such spin, but the evil casino owner, luring in and extorting drunk people of their money is just a crass and wildly inaccurate cheap shot. You could of course head down to the Fitz and verify this for yourself.

Grudaire

tricky D wrote: »

However, I think you are missing the point. It's mere spin and plain misinformation to say that he owns and runs a casino (more accurately, a private members club), when he is a shareholder along with 12 others, which is simply not the same. Furthermore, he's not even listed as a director according to the most recent company check (2013) of the the Fitz which is the trading name of The Golden Horseshoe Ltd.

So it would be fair to say that he has a financial interest in a private members club for casino activities? :pac:

tricky D wrote: »

Also, as I pointed out he has been part of lobbying efforts to sort the regulation issues out so that there is proper regulation, but that is omitted as it doesn't suit the spin, when the actuality is somewhat counter to that same spin considering they have no interest in the types of large casinos the spin attempts to evoke and is in favour of regulation of small ones only. As I alluded to that spin is inaccurate, a cheap shot and nonsense in parts, and also spins further by selective omission.

Can you link to evidence that he has been part of lobbying efforts?


Either way the election is over this time around, and I'm not sad to see him not get the seat. I didn't look into him much as once I heard he was a member of Fianna Fáil up until the good times ended I knew I couldn't trust him as a politician.
That said I cannot find a huge amount of information on him when I look. He doesn't have a website..

tricky D

Grudaire wrote: »

So it would be fair to say that he has a financial interest in a private members club for casino activities? :pac:

That is accurate with no spin.

Grudaire wrote: »

Can you link to evidence that he has been part of lobbying efforts?

He's not currently listed as involved in glai.ie but the WayBackMachine has this from a few years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20090130135254/http://glai.ie/?Who_is_Who%3F

Grudaire

tricky D wrote: »

He's not currently listed as involved in glai.ie but the WayBackMachine has this from a few years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20090130135254/http://glai.ie/?Who_is_Who%3F

To be honest it *sounds* like a organisation that is pushing primarily for self-regulation rather than actual regulation.

Reading their recent submission to the Oireachtas http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/justice/Gambling-Control-Opening-Statements-(2-Oct-2013).pdf (I know he is no longer part of the organisation, so this is a pinch of salt stuff)
It appears to be primarily the hope that the gaming clubs get protection against online gambling.

No mention of protection of customers, and safeguards etc.. instead it's just asking that licences last longer, alcohol be no more restricted than for 'other' forms of gambling, and leave the important stuff to our codes of practice..

tricky D

There's plenty of info on their site about responsible gaming (customer protection and safeguards), taxation, gov regulation and licencing. There's also mentions in that submission you linked from the 1st page on.

As for offline vs online, 3 points:

• online is gaming is causing big and largely hidden problems which need addressing needed addressing years ago
• some of gaming clubs have both online and offline activities so it's not black and white in relation to market protection
• the notion that a representative organisation has self-interests is, if I may, stating the bleedin' obvious

Grudaire

tricky D wrote: »

As for offline vs online, 3 points:

• the notion that a representative organisation has self-interests is, if I may, stating the bleedin' obvious

Well given that you are trying to portray his membership of a lobby group as an attempt at actually getting good regulation of the private member club casinos I think it is relevant...

tricky D wrote: »

Also, as I pointed out he has been part of lobbying efforts to sort the regulation issues out so that there is proper regulation, but that is omitted as it doesn't suit the spin, when the actuality is somewhat counter to that same spin considering they have no interest in the types of large casinos the spin attempts to evoke and is in favour of regulation of small ones only. As I alluded to that spin is inaccurate, a cheap shot and nonsense in parts, and also spins further by selective omission.

There are plenty of good reasons not to support him depending on one's point of view (policies, previous affiliations, etc.) without resorting to such spin, but the evil casino owner, luring in and extorting drunk people of their money is just a crass and wildly inaccurate cheap shot. You could of course head down to the Fitz and verify this for yourself.

I would suggest you are trying to spin his lobbying :pac:

tricky D

Grudaire wrote: »

Well given that you are trying to portray his membership of a lobby group as an attempt at actually getting good regulation of the private member club casinos I think it is relevant...

Agreed. Telling how it really is without the spin is indeed relevant.

Grudaire wrote: »

I would suggest you are trying to spin his lobbying :pac:

Nah, just counter-spinning the misinfo with non-spin accuracy.:)

Gotta go out for a spin now, l8r.

jmayo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In answer to the OP - it is because they hope to pump him up to scupper the election of an anti-austerity candidate.

So let me get this right.
Anti austerity = not in favour of repaying ones debts and looking for someone else to do so.

I didn't realise I was pro austerity all my life. :mad:
I think I must become anti austerity and get me some of that free money.