RTE reports the Rally For Life march had 70k people...no it didn't! Here's evidence!

Grandslammer

So both of these videos are the evidence:

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDGouci2FI

In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

Opinions????

Grandslammer

Grandslammer wrote: »

In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

Opinions????

That's a bizarrely specific estimate!

RayM

Grandslammer wrote: »

So both of these videos are the evidence:

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDGouci2FI

In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

Opinions????

5,280 sounds a bit low. I'd say it was easily twice that. It was a well-attended march, just nowhere near as big as the organisers (or RTE) claimed.

Donal55

RayM wrote: »

5,280 sounds a bit low. I'd say it was easily twice that. It was a well-attended march, just nowhere near as big as the organisers (or RTE) claimed.

If it was an Irish Water march I'm sure RTE would have said the figure was 5,280.
As its a ProLife rally I'm sure the RTE quoted figure of 70000 plus is correct.

super_furry

Grandslammer wrote: »

So both of these videos are the evidence:

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFDGouci2FI

In reality the estimated figure was 5,280 people...

Opinions????

RTE didn't report that the march had 70k people. They reported that the organisers claimed they had 70k. Big difference.

RayM

Donal55 wrote: »

If it was an Irish Water march I'm sure RTE would have said the figure was 5,280.

Before adding that half the people there were "sinister" and involved in dissident republicanism.

super_furry wrote:

RTE didn't report that the march had 70k people. They reported that the organisers claimed they had 70k. Big difference.

I'm sure they introduced their report with the words "tens of thousands of people..."

super_furry

RayM wrote: »

I'm sure they introduced their report with the words "tens of thousands of people..."

Yeah, Gardai put the number at 20,000 - which is tens of thousands. RTE themselves said verbatim "It was organised by groups who want to preserve the Eighth Amendment. They said around 70,000 people took part in the march today."

Ann_Landers

I'd say there was a similar amount to the Repeal march in September. Both were well-attended. It's probably worth mentioning that there were a few different figures going around about the Repeal march too, ranging from 20,000 to 100,000. There tends to be a lot of wild guesses around these events, but RTÉ should try and confirm the correct number.

OU812

Grandslammer wrote: »

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxubaHCq0g


Opinions????

There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

CeilingFly

Numbers numbers numbers.

ALWAYS exaggerated.

"3 billion will see opening ceremony of Olympics"
"360 million will watch eurovision"
"billions will watch world cup"

Correct statement is "if everyone who had access to view xxx actually watched it, these would be the numbers"

So about 3 billion have access to a TV, but not a chance in hell that they'd all be watching one programme.


Same with marches - they seem to count all the bystanders going about their regular business for the entire time of the march and who have no interest in the protest.

But best ever was "thousands turn up to protest against var insurance" correct figure was 14!

Donal55

OU812 wrote: »

There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

Thats a nice model of democracy you're proposing.

RayM

super_furry wrote: »

Yeah, Gardai put the number at 20,000 - which is tens of thousands. RTE themselves said verbatim "It was organised by groups who want to preserve the Eighth Amendment. They said around 70,000 people took part in the march today."

"Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.

OU812

OU812 wrote: »

There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

Would also exclude those who have fertility problems on the same basis? They can't have children so it doesn't affect them?

It seems strange.

hidinginthebush

OU812 wrote: »

There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

That's complete bollix. That's similar to saying only gay people should have been allowed vote for the marriage referendum.

Grayson

RayM wrote: »

"Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.

thinly veiled etc....

OU812

Donal55 wrote: »

Thats a nice model of democracy you're proposing.

It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would also exclude those who have fertility problems on the same basis? They can't have children so it doesn't affect them?

It seems strange.

No, because they're of childbearing age with the potential to have children.

hidinginthebush wrote: »

That's complete bollix. That's similar to saying only gay people should have been allowed vote for the marriage referendum.

Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

hidinginthebush

OU812 wrote: »

Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.

Fr_Dougal

I'm no good at judging the size of crowds Ted, but I'd say there's about seventeen million of them out there.

Roger_007

I would estimate that there is about 4.5 million people who didn't march?

The Rape of Lucretia

RayM wrote: »

"Tens of thousands" usually implies more than 2 x 10k though. It would be like me saying that my penis is dozens of centimetres long, when it's actually only two-and-a-half dozen centimetres long.

"Usually" usually implies, "not always" though. So nothing wrong with saying tens of thousands when it is only 2 x 10k rather than more than 2 x 10k.

OU812

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.

Of course it affects straight people. It affects all people. It affects equality.

Also as generally straight people are most likely parents of gay people, it affects their children's rights.

hidinginthebush

OU812 wrote: »

Of course it affects straight people. It affects all people. It affects equality.

Also as generally straight people are most likely parents of gay people, it affects their children's rights.

And the women affected by the 8th are likely someone's daughter / sister / wife / mother

Donal55

OU812 wrote: »

It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form.



No, because they're of childbearing age with the potential to have children.






Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

So you want equality for some people but not for others.
Mmmmm?

B.A._Baracus

So the organisers said 70 thousand?
Pssh. Call me a cynic but everything appears to be bull****.

OU812

hidinginthebush wrote: »

And the women affected by the 8th are likely someone's daughter / sister / wife / mother

Don't know about you, but my reproductive system is nothing to do with my parents

Donal55 wrote: »

So you want equality for some people but not for others.
Mmmmm?

No, I want equality for people it effects, not people who are going to die off having screwed it up for everyone else.

I have my kids, I'm male & I've had a vasectomy. This couldn't affect me in any way possible. However, I want my kids to have the right to control their own destiny & not be influenced by a load of silver-haired bible bashers.

Guy:Incognito

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Marriage referendum didn't affect straight people, likewise the 8th doesn't affect people of non-childbearing ability. Seems pretty similar to me.

There was quite a cohort of straight people voting against it that claimed it affected them. Devaluing their marriages etc etc

Guy:Incognito

Your woman a few mins in is very sinister looking. Walking holding her rosary beads up like a shield with a weird grin o her face. The abortions won't be penetrating he defences anyway.

Yourself isit

OU812 wrote: »

Don't know about you, but my reproductive system is nothing to do with my parents



No, I want equality for people it effects, not people who are going to die off having screwed it up for everyone else.

I have my kids, I'm male & I've had a vasectomy. This couldn't affect me in any way possible. However, I want my kids to have the right to control their own destiny & not be influenced by a load of silver-haired bible bashers.

So you get to vote for your kids but "silver haired Bible bashers" can't vote? Sinister stuff.

OU812

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sinister stuff.

Hardly.

Chances are their kids are the same age as me and have their own kids at this point

freshpopcorn

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your woman a few mins in is very sinister looking. Walking holding her rosary beads up like a shield with a weird grin o her face. The abortions won't be penetrating he defences anyway.

I think the one is clothes hanger is even more sinister looking!

HonalD

OU812 wrote: »

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

That's a bizarre opinion to have.

Would children be allowed to vote i.e. They will be of child bearing age in the future?

What is a viable pregnancy age? And does that differ from male to female?

893bet

Yer mans method of counting is pretty scientific and accurate.

fatknacker

Wow, it really was mostly attended by old farts and dried up old prunes, by the looks of things.

Guy:Incognito

fatknacker wrote: »

Wow, it really was mostly attended by old farts and dried up old prunes, by the looks of things.

They self identify as hags.

Everyone has the right to be referred to as their desired title.

Hotblack Desiato

Ann_Landers wrote: »

I'd say there was a similar amount to the Repeal march in September.

The ad for this in Alive! magazine said that buses were being organised from all over the country. Presumably free. In any case lots of them have the bus pass

No free buses laid on at any pro-choice march I've been on, and most of those attending would be well below bus pass age.

So I'd say only having as many attending on Sunday as the pro-choice march is actually a poor outcome for them.

The anti-choicers have been caught out badly before with heavily inflated figures, when it was proven that Merrion Square was not big enough to hold the numbers claimed. Any talk of 'tens of thousands' can be dismissed as complete nonsense.

freshpopcorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The ad for this in Alive! magazine said that buses were being organised from all over the country. Presumably free. In any case lots of them have the bus pass

No free buses laid on at any pro-choice march I've been on, and most of those attending would be well below bus pass age.


.

The buses to the best of my knowledge were private buses which were hired. A bus pass wouldn't have been any use.

RDM_83 again

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The ad for this in Alive! magazine said that buses were being organised from all over the country. Presumably free. In any case lots of them have the bus pass

No free buses laid on at any pro-choice march I've been on, and most of those attending would be well bel1ow bus pass age.

So I'd say only having as many attending on Sunday as the pro-choice march is actually a poor outcome for them.

Do you actually think that free buses makes much of a difference, I get how organized buses do but the pro-choice groups do the same thing.

I personally don't think the marches (on either side) will give a realistic idea of the majorities opinion, as I said on the other thread a good few of the people I know most heavily involved in the pro-choice scene won't have a vote in the referendum, to some extent the campaigning and meetings are used as a rather fun social club.
I'm sure the same happens on the pro-life side but trending to an older more church based demographic (the few younger people I know who hold pro-life views keep it completely off social media and demonstrations)

OU812

OU812 wrote: »

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

OU812 wrote: »

I have my kids, I'm male & I've had a vasectomy. This couldn't affect me in any way possible. However, I want my kids to have the right to control their own destiny & not be influenced by a load of silver-haired bible bashers.

Mother.

Of.

God.

Where to start...

Samaris

OU812 wrote: »

There's a massive amount of people outside of viable pregnancy years in that video. Having skimmed through it I'd say 50& of people in it were elderly.

My opinion on this referendum is that people outside of viable pregnancy age should be excluded from being allowed a vote. They've had their children or at least had their chance to. Them voting in this could unduly influence something that will have absolutely no bearing on their lives.

This is not how referenda work though.

Also, I presume you won't be voting then as a male, since it's not your reproduction system on the line and you already have kids, yeah?

hidinginthebush

OU812 wrote: »

Don't know about you, but my reproductive system is nothing to do with my parents
.

Neither is your sexual orientation

hidinginthebush

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There was quite a cohort of straight people voting against it that claimed it affected them. Devaluing their marriages etc etc

That's been my point. I went on this ramble when the poster said that only women of childbearing age should be allowed vote in the 8th referendum as it doesn't have an effect on anyone else. Which I think is a ridiculous statement.

Hotblack Desiato

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The buses to the best of my knowledge were private buses which were hired. A bus pass wouldn't have been any use.

So were the passengers paying, or someone else?

Who paid for all those professionally printed placards?

The whole question of how the anti-choice campaign is funded has never been answered.

For a pro-choice march, it's turn up at your own expense and hold up your homemade bit of cardboard.

Alf Veedersane

OU812 wrote: »

It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form

So what's the cut-off age for people to vote in any election that effects other, younger people?

People ten years older than me could have an adverse impact on the last ten years of my life with their different ideas and opinions. Let's set that as the cut off....my age +10 years

gctest50

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

...............

People ten years older than me could have an adverse impact on the last ten years of my life with their different ideas and opinions. ........

Abortion is a special case though ?

If say 5 women i know went off and had an abortion next month - it would have no adverse impact on you or any of those marching in that video

Alf Veedersane

gctest50 wrote: »

Abortion is a special case though ?

If say 5 women i know went off and had an abortion next month - it would have no adverse impact on you or any of those marching in that video

So who gets to vote then in this new brand of 'democracy'?

Love2love

OU812 wrote: »

It's an unfortunate truth but the majority of those people will be dead in the next 30 years and as they're past childbearing years, they could unduly influence a referendum which will never affect them In any way shape or form.



No, because they're of childbearing age with the potential to have children.






Not the same thing at all. Gay people having the right to marriage is a matter of treating people equally.

Ok so let me get this straight, you can vote for gay marriage because it's a vote for equality but older people are not allowed to vote to keep the 8th (ironically one of the arguments for the pro-life movement is that every life is equal) on the basis they are no longer able to procreate even though as you've had a vasectomy and are no longer able to procreate?

gctest50

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So who gets to vote then in this new brand of 'democracy'?

It shouldn't even have to go to a vote - it's a medical thing between a woman and her doctor

Unless you think they can't be trusted not to be rushing to form a queue for 11th hour abortions

What next - a vote on whether women getting tubal ligation should be legal cos you know potential life n every egg is sacred or something

Alf Veedersane

gctest50 wrote: »

It shouldn't even have to go to a vote - it's a medical thing between a woman and her doctor

Unless you think they can't be trusted not to be rushing to form a queue for 11th hour abortions

To get to that point, there has to be a vote though.

lazybones32

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who paid for all those professionally printed placards?

The whole question of how the anti-choice campaign is funded has never been answered.

I have donated money and will donate in the future. I also intend on donating to the Iona Institute.

If you suspect something illegal is happening in the financing of the Pro-Life movements, it is your civic duty to report it to the Gardai.

Academic

I’m strongly pro-choice and always have been, but I’m disturbed by the suggestion that some Irish citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote in a national referendum. Any referendum.

freshpopcorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So were the passengers paying, or someone else?

Who paid for all those professionally printed placards?

The whole question of how the anti-choice campaign is funded has never been answered.

For a pro-choice march, it's turn up at your own expense and hold up your homemade bit of cardboard.

Making an educated guess. Well I suppose the Rally For Life shop has a few things on their website. You probably can make donations to IONA an Youth Defense as well. Local pariah also probably paid for stuff. Buses were free to the best of my knowledge. They seemed to be organised by local parishes or even charitable donations might have being made of signs/buses.