Hurrache wrote: » I want to bring up something that got lost in the mire since the debate. Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation. Does anyone know if this is true, or is he clutching at straws of some tenuous link that he's trying to big up? i.e. some community meeting up north on border issues feeding into the broader Good Friday Agreement process that he attended suddenly makes him part of the delegation?
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » Number one spoofer?
Hurrache wrote: » Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation.
Hurrache wrote: » Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation. Does anyone know if this is true, or is he clutching at straws of some tenuous link that he's trying to big up? i.e. some community meeting up north on border issues feeding into the broader Good Friday Agreement process that he attended suddenly makes him part of the delegation?
Peter Casey wrote: I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement.
gmisk wrote: » I think its odd no mention of that on his website (which he seriously needs a web designer to help him with BTW) if he was so heavily involved?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Irish times ... Casey was involved in the peace process after the Good Friday Agreement and has some very interesting views on how Brexit will play out in the North, including the possibility of an independent Ulster. Broadsheet reporting on Morning ireland: I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement. If I read that right, he went to meetings Stateside.
pixelburp wrote: » Sean Gallagher's refusal to appear on that debate betrayed either a staggering arrogance over his own perceived status, or was a pretty epic blunder by his PR team. In theory the logic was sound, if you squint I guess. All the wrong signals were sent out, particularly given his already spotty history with Presidential elections, alongside the obvious question of his contributions in the 7 years since the last campaign. Once again Gallagher has played himself and I'd not be surprised if any new poll shows collapsed support.
nuac wrote: » Both Higgins and Gallagher should take part in all these debates. A no-show shows a lack of respect for the voters, and the tax-payers
_Kaiser_ wrote: » No fan of Higgins to be honest and think he's taking the piss by standing again at this stage... but as with the rest of our political system, the alternatives are so much worse that suddenly he becomes the only real choice for most people.
Sycamore Tree wrote: » I know. 7 years of reflection and he makes a major blunder at the first real hurdle. Idiotic move. Game over.
Matt Barrett wrote: » What's the odds that by chance, of all the people who applied for tickets or were 'randomly' invited, one would be her, the 'comedian' who tried to run?
alaimacerc wrote: » Casey is on Moncrieff. This could be excruuuuuuuuuuuuciating.
blanch152 wrote: » From last week's poll which had him at 70%: "He has over 60% support across most age groups, with 83% support among 18-34-year-olds. His support is also national – with 79% support in Dublin, 70% in the rest of Leinster, 67% in Munster and 63% in Connacht/Ulster." A low turnout in Dublin, and a low-turnout among 18-34 year olds, together with some slippage would at worst see him mid-50s in terms of percentage on the day. He would really need to see the headline number drop well below 60% before we could even think of a second count, and even then, if it dropped that far, more would come out to vote for him, keeping him above 50%. Really hard to see any scenario where he could lose, based on those figures.
alaimacerc wrote: » Of all the people? How many do you reckon are beating down the door?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Well the studio probably seats a couple of hundred? I know with prime Time and that they use to invite students to make up the numbers and invite folk who attended other shows. A lot of people like to be on telly or part of it.
There's 4 million plus in the country and what, six or seven put themselves forward to run?
How likely do you think it was that she was invited unbeknownst to the show?
alaimacerc wrote: » If it's a plot and a conspiracy, how long do you think it'll stay secret in RTE? (Gossippy gadabouts? Them? As if!)
marieholmfan wrote: » A conspiracy against who?
Matt Barrett wrote: » RTE planted the heckler.
alaimacerc wrote: » ... If it's a plot and a conspiracy, how long do you think it'll stay secret in RTE? (Gossippy gadabouts? Them? As if!)
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's simply not believable nor credible that it was random. I know they feed the audience questions to ensure they get some sparkage I believe they planted this person to stir up. It's not a conspiracy. They put a plant in the audience to get the show going.
They put that lad who asked Pat Kenny about his salary in the front row, him only after being interviewed that week elsewhere. They put that limerick chap in the front row of the LLS because he's critical of Frank McCourt's take on Limerick. It's par for the course. In this case, tacky.
marieholmfan wrote: » How do these people succeed. A horse sized duck would be terrifying.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's simply not believable nor credible that it was random.I know they feed the audience questions to ensure they get some sparkage I believe they planted this person to stir up. It's not a conspiracy. They put a plant in the audience to get the show going. They put that lad who asked Pat Kenny about his salary in the front row, him only after being interviewed that week elsewhere. They put that limerick chap in the front row of the LLS because he's critical of Frank McCourt's take on Limerick. It's par for the course. In this case, tacky.
alaimacerc wrote: » Let me see if I've got this right. The questions are all scripted, the interruption was staged, but word of this doesn't get out, due to the infamously Stalinist discipline and security at Montrose. But this is wouldn't be fairly described as a "conspiracy"? Obviously some people are invited on to ask questions, or at least the prep including garnering some that the presenter knows about in advance. I think that's pretty explicit in the format. Indeed, often this happens with pretty well-known people and there's excessive back-and-forth with them, they're just slightly too far down the bill to get floor-directed onto the panel proper. But you're suggesting they're deliberately disrupting their own show. I don't think that passes the smell test for "chance of ever so slightly increasing ratings" vs "people getting fired if word of such antics leaks out".
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » If it was pre arranged then RTE did a piss poor job of it. No shots of Bunty on camera, no clear audio of what she was shouting out. Its hard to believe that if it was a setup they would be that incompetent.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Word doesn't get out? It's par for the course. You submit your questions ahead of time and those chosen are given back, edited on nice little cards. I'm giving you word, you're refusing to accept it is all. These 'randomers' aren't always random. It's how television production works. I'm not here to break the story, only to say in this in stance it was tacky.
RTE planted the heckler.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Well the studio probably seats a couple of hundred? I know with prime Time and that they use to invite students to make up the numbers and invite folk who attended other shows. A lot of people like to be on telly or part of it. There's 4 million plus in the country and what, six or seven put themselves forward to run? How likely do you think it was that she was invited unbeknownst to the show?
blanch152 wrote: » The protest parties liked to populate those programmes as much as possible in the past. For a while RTE tried to screen it a bit better, but there are ways around that.
alaimacerc wrote: » Now you're just "explaining" back to me what I've just said. What I'm expressing skepticism about is your original claim: Are you saying that the producers were party to a scheme to pretend to disrupt the programme, or not? If you're now merely saying she was approved to attend or invited on the basis of possibly asking a question, your above characterisation is sensationalised at best. I'd have anyone writing that as a tabloid headline fired. As I would anyone party to the sort of scheme you originally implied.
