VinLieger wrote: » Well she wasn't as she never used her daughters vaccinations status to push her misguided uninformed anti-vaxx agenda, see how that works? I dont think she has a daughter, and tbh if she did from what ive learned of her im pretty sure she would have done exactly that as well. Francie your a SF apologist, i fully believe there is literally nothing you wouldn't defend them on and you are trying to deflect that onto others by insisting that it's everyone else that has an agenda.
Well she wasn't as she never used her daughters vaccinations status to push her misguided uninformed anti-vaxx agenda, see how that works?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What? When was G O'D asked for her daughter's medical records?
petronius wrote: » Michael D - breaks his promise to run again
petronius wrote: » says he will reveal how he spends the allowance
VinLieger wrote: » Ohhh look playing the "shinner" victim card as usual francie, your victim complex is quite pathetic. People had exactly the same issues with Gemma o doherty and shes not in SF so get over yourself. As far as ni riada's daughter is concerned she opened the door about details regarding her childs vaccination status, its her fault this is a discussion topic. If she had simply never mentioned her child not being vaccinated this wouldnt be an issue at all but she was the one who brought it into the discussion.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Involving your children and the extent of that involvement is your choice. Being asked to publicly reveal medical details of anyone is a sinister move especially when we know that those asking will not be happy with a mere statement in reply. I guess she didn't realise how strident and sinister people will become when in pursuit of a 'shinner'.
expectationlost wrote: » she involved her children
FrancieBrady wrote: » Posting your anonymous daughters medical history on the internet is not the same thing as giving in to a spurious, of no consequence demand for the medical histories of identifiable people in real life. Get a grip with the vain glorious posturing from the high moral ground. Unless you have changed your behaviour on here, you wouldn't believe anything she said anyway, by virtue of the fact she is one of your political boogey persons. The very next thing you would be asking for is written proof that they were vaccinated. She has clearly made her statement fully supporting the vaccine and looking for it's use to be extended. If there is any evidence out there that she is lying, present it. Your demand that her children be involved in this is creepy in the extreme.
blanch152 wrote: » The information was there loud and clear, provided by the HSE unambiguously. The misinformation was also there, spread by conspiracy theorists and unscrupulous scaremongers. A judgement call was needed as to which to believe. Ni Riadh made her judgement call, and while you can try and excuse her membership of the anti-vaxxer club, you certainly cannot deny that she showed dreadful judgement and extremely poor leadership if she was taken in by anti-vaxxers. I am happy to say publicly and have said it publicly to anyone that knows me that I paid for my daughters to be vaccinated at a time when the evidence for the vaccine was clear, before it was freely available and long before Ni Riadh started listening to nutjob conspiracy theorists. I did so because I wanted to be sure they were safe and I have absolutely no regrets about it. If Liadh is the same, surely she can tell the world whether her daughters were vaccinated. Remember, there is an age when you can vaccinate them, and if Ni Riadh followed through on her unscientific analysis a few years ago, it quickly became too late to vaccinate them, and she will be seen as a bad parent for exposing her daughters to the very serious long-term risk of cervical cancer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Information' and the spreading of it in an adequate and responsible way is an ongoing function of any responsible health authority. If you believe the HSE is consistently competent in it's remit then of course you will see any criticism of it's functions as heresy. Carry on with that if you wish. I am satisfied that Ni Riada is no more anti vaxx than you claim yourself to be. I can find no statement she has made that would indicate that. The insidious campaign to immediately portray her as one has failed.
blanch152 wrote: » The HSE had to mount an information campaign in the face of bandwagon-jumping by unscrupulous politicians who played on irrational unscientific fears spread by scaremongers and tried to bash the government on it. The HSE campaign would not have been necessary if stupid politicians like Ni Riadh had shown proper leadership. The need for the information campaign was created by people like Ni Riadh.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I will say what I said at the time, if the information was 'clear' why did the HSE need to mount an information campaign? It was entirely right that a public representative 'represent' concerns about the lack of clear information. It was clear that the 'real' anti vaxxers used insinuation and half truths to sow doubts about 'the scientific evidence'. That is how it works. Some people are so clued in that they don't fall for these tactics but others unfortunately aren't. I would see it as responsible of public reps to call attention to what is happening in real peoples lives.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, our country's leader was associating with an organisation it has been proven covered up many instances of sexual abuse across the world. And who still haven't put their past to right. A leader whose party fought one brave challenger all the way to the highest European court rather than institute safeguarding reform while it was indulging in cheap photo ops with another woman who had alleged abuse. Hypocrisy run riot, but plenty bought it, it seems.
blanch152 wrote: » Are you denying that you said that it was ok for Ni Riadh to express intense concerns about HPV vaccination, at a time when the clear unambiguous scientific evidence was that the HPV vaccination was safe and she was just reflecting the paranoid conspiracy theory scaremongering of anti-vaxxers? There was no lack of information, there was no access issue, there was just conspiracy theory nonsense, a bandwagon that she jumped on. In this case, when the scientific information and advice was 100% clear, "criticising the lack of information" was anti-vaxxer nonsense, and anyone who defends it is the same.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ah the high moral ground again. So no link to me posting a word of anti vaxx statements just some holier than thou posturing about what you did. :rolleyes: The HSE has a function to inform, by their own actions (having to mount an 'information' campaign,) that function was inadequate at a time of intense social media doubt sowing by anti vaxxers. Criticising the lack of information or ease of access to it is not the same as being anti vaxx. Once again you stand accused of trying to start a campaign of mis-information and insinuation about a candidate. Not a candidate I support for this position but I cannot stand this kind of stuff you engage in. So transparent,.
blanch152 wrote: » Anti-vaxxers had spurious unscientific concerns about the vaccine. No reasonable person who had read the evidence had any concerns. You yourself admitted to having the same concerns as anti-vaxxers. Long before that controversy, and before the vaccine was free to young women, I paid for my daughters to be vaccinated for their own safety because I had read the scientific evidence. Anyone who defended the "intense concerns" from around the time Ni Riadh went on the radio is walking in the shoes of an anti-vaxxer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can you post one sentence of my 'full blown anti vaxx' statements? Ni Riada had concerns about the information available at the time, concerns that the HSE obviously share as they mounted a special information campaign to counter claims being made on social media. If you can point to specific anti vaxx statements made by Ni Riada then do so. You have been asked to do this before and disappeared.
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, you referred to NiRiadh going on the radio about "intense concerns". There was no such thing. There was scaremongering by anti-vaxxers who called their own scaremongering "intense concerns". You used the language of anti-vaxxers.
blanch152 wrote: » Very happy to agree that nobody should associate themselves with an organisation that has been accused of covering up sexual abuse and that such organisations should be challenged at all times.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I was posting full blown anti vaxxer material?
FrancieBrady wrote: » There are plenty of our leadership who are willing to ignore what the church did in order to have photo ops with the leaders of the church when they visit. Higgins recognised the good Castro did which is no different to the what Varadkar did when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the RC Church. Complete hypocrisy there tbh blanch.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » If I'm not mistaken. You went from saying she wasn't anti vaxxer to full blown posting anti vaxxer material on this very thread. In defence of her. So I take it that you do think she's anti vaxxer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » seamus wrote: » The reason why SF are aggressively putting forward female candidates is nothing to do with gender equality and all to do with the fact that young women will always have less skeletons in their closet than young men. It's easier to tie a man back to IRA links (even if it was his father or uncle), easier to drag up old photos of them doing something stupid, and you're more likely to be able to find someone who's willing to come out and talk about the time he was 21 and drunkenly creepy to a woman in a bar. You can probably find the same for young female candidates, but these things don't reflect as badly on women as they do on men. The desperate attempt here to make Ni Riada an out and out anti-vaxxer gives the lie to that ^. She's a shinner, she must be stopped at any cost, and any insinuation will do.
seamus wrote: » The reason why SF are aggressively putting forward female candidates is nothing to do with gender equality and all to do with the fact that young women will always have less skeletons in their closet than young men. It's easier to tie a man back to IRA links (even if it was his father or uncle), easier to drag up old photos of them doing something stupid, and you're more likely to be able to find someone who's willing to come out and talk about the time he was 21 and drunkenly creepy to a woman in a bar. You can probably find the same for young female candidates, but these things don't reflect as badly on women as they do on men.
jm08 wrote: » Nothing to do with the behaviour of the US then that the people of Cuba were impoverished? In case you don't know, the US have had an export embargo on Cuba since the early 60s.
blanch152 wrote: » Castro impoverished his people for his ideology. More similar to the former leader of West Belfast than anyone we should look up to. Interesting that you defend totalitarian regimes because they do some good.
seamus wrote: » So unless he makes a large public statement about the fact that he no longer agrees with the FF party line and has formally separated himself from the party, then we have to assume that he's still a FF member.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did 'drive around' or 'still drives around'.
realdanbreen wrote: » Gallagher has had 7 years to ferment in the fact that he was basicly set up and robbed last time out. Not sure what he has dug up on the incumbent but the SF lady better have cleaned out any skeletons that might have been in her cupboard!
utmbuilder wrote: » are we just to take it now that Sean Gallaher is a FF man?
