So Michael D IS running again!

jm08 wrote: »

Yes, I think she made a mistake mentioning her daughter who is a child.

Grand so, then we're agreed on that point. If she'd not done that, then none of this would be an issue. But it's not clear that she agrees, which is rather more to the point.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Grand so, then we're agreed on that point. If she'd not done that, then none of this would be an issue. But it's not clear that she agrees, which is rather more to the point.

She is supporting it publicly now. That is all you need to know. You have no right to know her daughter's medical history.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Yet Emma said: The mother of five from Co. Kerry, said: ‘Regarding the vaccine, it’s a personal choice for every family. Whatever they choose is the right one.’

https://extra.ie/2018/10/05/news/irish-news/emma-mhic-mhathuna-liadh-ni-riada

Its interesting that only extra.ie is quoting Emma's thoughts on Sinn Fein.

From what I can see, the problem is that you and others like you are just using this as a weapon to attack Sinn Fein and Liaidh.

For the record, I won't be voting for Liaidh. I just think that it is up to Liaidh and her daughter whether her daughter's medical records are discussed in public and this continued questioning about whether the child was vaccinated or not is as Emma says, the business of the child's family not the general public.

Did you even read the article I posted earlier?

https://extra.ie/2018/10/08/news/politics/emma-mhic-mhathuna-sinn-fein

"Ms Mhic Mhathúna told Extra.ie: ‘Using myself and Vicky’s name in the campaign isn’t on and she needs to focus on Ireland and not use us to gain brownie points, especially when she’s so secretive about her own family."

"Emma Mhic Mhathúna’s final political message was for Sinn Féin’s Presidential candidate – denouncing her ambiguity on the life-saving HPV vaccine."

It is time for Liadh to come clean and stop playing politics with a serious issue. "Do what I say, not what I do" is obviously a favourite of hers.

jm08 wrote: »

If anyone should apologise, its the people who persist in request private information about her daughter's medical history. That is private as far as I am concerned and its despictable to hound her with requests for that information.

ITYM formerly private information. She's the one that made it public. Why is she not the despicable one here, rather than the person "hounding" (SF press pack word bingo again) her for an update on that exact same matter?

She probably didn't realise that some people would use it as a stick to beat herself and Sinn Fein with.

She probably just thought there was a few cheap teenage-sex moral panic and "vax-skep" votes in it, sure. Which is precisely the problem with her doing it.

If a politician -- any politician -- raises a matter -- any matter -- publicly, then it's entirely legitimate for journalists to ask them questions about that. If they're going to say "no, that's private, away with your sinister hounding!", then at an utter minimum they should be prepared to eat some humble pie and and say "my bad, I brought it up when I shouldn't have, I want to apologise for having done so, and draw a line under the matter now".

Instead, we get "no I never" bluff and bluster, attempting to play the victim, and SF supporters dutifully doing the same.

jm08 wrote: »

She is supporting it publicly now. That is all you need to know. You have no right to know her daughter's medical history.

You seem to be stuck on that particular talking point. Feel free to move on from it any time you like, and address any of the points actually being made.

alaimacerc wrote: »

ITYM formerly private information. She's the one that made it public. Why is she not the despicable one here, rather than the person "hounding" (SF press pack word bingo again) her for an update on that exact same matter?

She probably just thought there was a few cheap teenage-sex moral panic and "vax-skep" votes in it, sure. Which is precisely the problem with her doing it.

If a politician -- any politician -- raises a matter -- any matter -- publicly, then it's entirely legitimate for journalists to ask them questions about that. If they're going to say "no, that's private, away with your sinister hounding!", then at an utter minimum they should be prepared to eat some humble pie and and say "my bad, I brought it up when I shouldn't have, I want to apologise for having done so, and draw a line under the matter now".

Instead, we get "no I never" bluff and bluster, attempting to play the victim, and SF supporters dutifully doing the same.

Re the word bingo: did you ever stop to think that people call things sinister because they are or that people are hounding children for their medical records because that is what it is - hounding.

hotmail.com

Edgware wrote:

When no sign of a mention of Sinn Fein on the posters?

I believe this is the tradition, so that they come across as a president for all the people.

No one is going to vote for a candidate because they didn't use posters. Big error by the 4 candidates not to use posters. That's if they genuinely wanted to have any sort of chance of winning.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Re the word bingo: did you ever stop to think that people call things sinister because they are or that people are hounding children for their medical records because that is what it is - hounding.

No, I obviously I've been discussing this for page after page, but never "stopped to think" whether the bland and variety-of-language-challenged, nothing to see here, shut and go away, silencing tactics were somehow right all along. I mean, that couldn't possibly have been been a rhetorical question, deployed in order to restate that exact same line yet again.

Good grief. The party line is one thing people, but there are thesauruses all over the internet. For free, like.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, I obviously I've been discussing this for page after page, but never "stopped to think" whether the bland and variety-of-language-challenged, nothing to see here, shut and go away, silencing tactics were somehow right all along. I mean, that couldn't possibly have been been a rhetorical question, deployed in order to restate that exact same line yet again.

Good grief. The party line is one thing people, but there are thesauruses all over the internet. For free, like.

Hilarious. You guys pretend that you want answers when in fact all you want are the answers that prove your own theories.

I'm spouting the 'party line' when I have said I have nothing to do with the party.
It will be the same even if Ni Riada divulges her daughters medical history, 'we don't believe you, you are an anti vaxxer, because we say so'.

Any new Shinner words in the above?

hotmail.com wrote: »

I believe this is the tradition, so that they come across as a president for all the people.

Dunno about tradition: memory fades, so I just tried googling. Lots of posters with party colours, logos (Labour's rose, notably), and yes, with the party name too (for example, Gay Mitchell from '11).

But to be fair... Thus far, I don't see any of Martin McGuinness' from last time with "Sinn Fein" on them. So maybe it is somewhat odd that something's being made of the same party doing the same thing again this time.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm spouting the 'party line' when I have said I have nothing to do with the party.

Nothing but a few votes and many thousand posts on t'internet, at any rate.

It will be the same even if Ni Riada divulges her daughters medical history, 'we don't believe you, you are an anti vaxxer, because we say so'.

Good of you to tell us what you surmise -- or at least, impute -- people think and will do. Be better still if you paid some mind to what they actually said, all the same.

Any new Shinner words in the above?

Pretty much the same set text. Keep saying "divulge her daughter's medical history", and variations on that theme. At all costs avoid any mention of the candidate in question having already done this. The better to portray it as a scandalous demand on the part of others.

Hotblack Desiato

jm08 wrote: »

There was a lot of talk and concern around that time about the side effects of the vaccine.

There was a lot of nonsense floating about at the time; she chose to publicly encourage the peddlers of nonsense and made it look like she believed them (whether she did or not isn't really here or there)

I agree that she probably should have not said that she stopped her daughter from having the second vaccine because of concerns, but I think its the way it happened.

She's embarrassed about it now, but that's as it should be. She chose to jump onto a bandwagon at the time thinking it'd be some harmless publicity for herself.

No, you do not have a right to know her daughter's medical history.

Ni Riadi is encouraging and supporting the use of the vaccine now. That should be enough of an answer.

She brought it up in the first place. Maybe she's being a total hypocrite by now promoting a vaccine she didn't allow her daughter to receive. Or maybe she did, so not a hypocrite but still guilty of a bad error of judgement at the time by going public about her daughter's vaccination status.

blanch152 wrote: »

Did you even read the article I posted earlier?

https://extra.ie/2018/10/08/news/politics/emma-mhic-mhathuna-sinn-fein

"Ms Mhic Mhathúna told Extra.ie: ‘Using myself and Vicky’s name in the campaign isn’t on and she needs to focus on Ireland and not use us to gain brownie points, especially when she’s so secretive about her own family."

"Emma Mhic Mhathúna’s final political message was for Sinn F’s Presidential candidate – denouncing her ambiguity on the life-saving HPV vaccine."

It is time for Liadh to come clean and stop playing politics with a serious issue. "Do what I say, not what I do" is obviously a favourite of hers.

I did comment. I said that extra.ie seems to be the only media outlet with this. I've done a search so I really don't know what Emma means when she says that Ni Riada and Sinn Fein are using their name because I haven't seen or heard Ni Riada use their name. The only reference to Sinn Fein that I have found is Emma praising Mary Lou for standing up for her other than this one.

So, I'd appreciate you giving me a link to where Ni Riada is using their names.

Ni Riada can't do what she says to prove that she supports the vaccine. Only her daughter can do that.

You keep dismissing her daughter's rights in this. That is wrong.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Nothing but a few votes and many thousand posts on t'internet, at any rate.

Good of you to tell us what you surmise -- or at least, impute -- people think and will do. Be better still if you paid some mind to what they actually said, all the same.

Pretty much the same set text. Keep saying "divulge her daughter's medical history", and variations on that theme. At all costs avoid any mention of the candidate in question having already done this. The better to portray it as a scandalous demand on the part of others.

So, in effect, as I said, you will just believe what you want to believe. Figures.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There was a lot of nonsense floating about at the time; she chose to publicly encourage the peddlers of nonsense and made it look like she believed them (whether she did or not isn't really here or there)

So, no chance at all that she was genuinely worried about it like Emma was?

She's embarrassed about it now, but that's as it should be. She chose to jump onto a bandwagon at the time thinking it'd be some harmless publicity for herself.

Bearing in mind that she actually had a child involved, I don't really think she was jumping on a bandwagon. The only people jumping on a bandwagon here are the people demanding to know if her daughter has received the vaccine which is none of your business. Its her daughter's business.

She brought it up in the first place. Maybe she's being a total hypocrite by now promoting a vaccine she didn't allow her daughter to receive. Or maybe she did, so not a hypocrite but still guilty of a bad error of judgement at the time by going public about her daughter's vaccination status.

Well, I suppose when you have a child involved, you might have to declare an interest so that people would not accuse you of jumping on a bandwagon like some of you seem to be doing here.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You seem to be stuck on that particular talking point. Feel free to move on from it any time you like, and address any of the points actually being made.

It is my one and only point. None of you have a right to demand to hear her daughter's medical history.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There was a lot of nonsense floating about at the time; she chose to publicly encourage the peddlers of nonsense and made it look like she believed them (whether she did or not isn't really here or there)

She's embarrassed about it now, but that's as it should be. She chose to jump onto a bandwagon at the time thinking it'd be some harmless publicity for herself.

She brought it up in the first place. Maybe she's being a total hypocrite by now promoting a vaccine she didn't allow her daughter to receive. Or maybe she did, so not a hypocrite but still guilty of a bad error of judgement at the time by going public about her daughter's vaccination status.

And once again you are totally wrong and clearly are taking your lead from the controversy whipped up by the 'anyone but a Shinner' crew.
She did not 'make it look like she believed them' she talked about her doubts and inability to find clear info.

Take some time to read the transcripts of what she said.

expectationlost

surely if you can't get a loan from a bank then a loan from an individual is worth more then just the loan figure and a standard interest rate

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She did not 'make it look like she believed them' she talked about her doubts and inability to find clear info.

Whatever her motive was, she naively contributed to the climate of FUD surrounding the vaccine, vaccination rates dropped and lives will be lost as a result.

Saying that anyone unhappy about this is due to some 'anyone but SF' syndrome is a load of nonsense.

blanch152

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There was a lot of nonsense floating about at the time; she chose to publicly encourage the peddlers of nonsense and made it look like she believed them (whether she did or not isn't really here or there)

She's embarrassed about it now, but that's as it should be. She chose to jump onto a bandwagon at the time thinking it'd be some harmless publicity for herself.

She brought it up in the first place. Maybe she's being a total hypocrite by now promoting a vaccine she didn't allow her daughter to receive. Or maybe she did, so not a hypocrite but still guilty of a bad error of judgement at the time by going public about her daughter's vaccination status.

That is the problem for her. Either way, she is an idiot.

I really hope that she did get the vaccination for her daughter as people like Vicky Phelan and Emma Mhic Mathuna would have benefitted from that vaccine had it been available when they were young.

I hope that none of the posters on here who said they had doubts were stupid enough to deny their daughters the vaccine.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a huge difference between mentioning your daughters in an interview and revealing their medical histories...

That's shockingly disingenuous. She didn't just "mention" her daughters; she specifically stated that she hadn't had them vaccinated. Nobody is asking her to reveal anything more than what she has already volunteered.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

she naively contributed to the climate of FUD surrounding the vaccine, vaccination rates dropped and lives will be lost as a result.

Factually wrong and very revealing again.
Vaccination uptake had already fallen from a high of 87% to 50% before Ni Riada did the interview in Sept. 2016. Within a year, after the HSE was spurred to launch a renewed awareness campaign, it had risen back up again to 61%.

Why did the HSE let it fall from 87% to 50% before taking action? And what were the raft of public representatives supposed to do - stay silent?

You have demonstrated clearly over a number of factually incorrect posts that you yourself are getting info from very dodgy sources.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's shockingly disingenuous. She didn't just "mention" her daughters; she specifically stated that she hadn't had them vaccinated. Nobody is asking her to reveal anything more than what she has already volunteered.

This is also factually wrong. Her eldest daughter had the vaccination and Ni Riada received a letter giving 24 hours notice about her 2nd daughter's vaccination when there was a lot of confusion around.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Her eldest daughter had the vaccination and Ni Riada received a letter giving 24 hours notice about her 2nd daughter's vaccination when there was a lot of confusion around.

How do you know? Could it possibly be that, when it suited her, she was happy to discuss her daughters' medical histories?

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know? Could it possibly be that, when it suited her, she was happy to discuss her daughters' medical histories?

How do I know what?

She says she was on the programme as a 'mother'. Of course she was going to mention her daughter's.

She has the right as a politician to keep her daughter's out of it, as any politician has.
That is why I and others think it is sinister to be trying to involve them against their will and their mother's.
Had she not made a clear and precise statement on the vaccine you guys might have a point.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Factually wrong and very revealing again.
Vaccination uptake had already fallen from a high of 87% to 50% before Ni Riada did the interview in Sept. 2016. Within a year, after the HSE was spurred to launch a renewed awareness campaign, it had risen back up again to 61%.

Why did the HSE let it fall from 87% to 50% before taking action? And what were the raft of public representatives supposed to do - stay silent?

You have demonstrated clearly over a number of factually incorrect posts that you yourself are getting info from very dodgy sources.

Link to health data please.

It is significant that you stated percentages without producing any evidence.