FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

Nobotty wrote: »

I'm not interested in McMurphy bashing either but I think nobody should be discouraging supporting Pieta because of politics
I dont care if Pol pot is on that board
Well actually I do
But you know what I mean
I've no idea how vagina got on the board but she would have had to be proposed and seconded and voted in by the board if its like any voluntary board I've been on

Unsure if intentional or not. :pac:

I'm not discouraging anyone else from adopting the same stance as me, Regina's appointment to the board is baffling and stinks to me - hence why Pieta house is another charity I won't contribute to while failed politicians are shunted to their board.

Anyone else wants to contribute, that's their choice. You haven't pointed out any posts house bashing btw.

McMurphy wrote: »

How in under jaysis is that Pieta house bashing?

I didn't put Regina on their board (which would be my sole reason for refusing to donate to them again)

Pretty bitter really.
Pieta does help a lot of people who need their support and I think using Regina Doherty against them is poor form.
You brought it up the other day, highlighted it and said you wouldn't donate to them because of it, that's expressing a view on a public forum where it could be construed as trying to put a message out agains the charity because you don't like a board member.
Would you not vote for a political party because you didn't like an individual in it even though you thought it was a good party, just to put it in context?

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

How in under jaysis is that Pieta house bashing?

I didn't put Regina on their board (which would be my sole reason for refusing to donate to them again)

I'm not interested in McMurphy bashing either but I think nobody should be discouraging supporting Pieta because of politics
I dont care if Pol pot is on that board
Well actually I do
But you know what I mean
I've no idea how vagina got on the board but she would have had to be proposed and seconded and voted in by the board if its like any voluntary board I've been on

Nobotty wrote: »

You said you weren't going to contribute to them anymore

How in under jaysis is that Pieta house bashing?

I didn't put Regina on their board (which would be my sole reason for refusing to donate to them again)

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

Quote the "Pieta house bashing" please.

You said you weren't going to contribute to them anymore

Isn't regina Doherty the person who had American journalist stopped and cautioned by Gardai at Dublin airport for facebook comments? Probably the last person to care about mental health.

Nobotty wrote: »

Charities are allowed to have full time administrative employees
I'm not comfortable with the Pieta house bashing on these threads

Quote the "Pieta house bashing" please.

Nobotty

Charities are allowed to have full time administrative employees
I'm not comfortable with the Pieta house bashing on these threads

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

It is illegal to pay a fee to a board member of a charity.

How then is pieta house in the 2019 accounts paying 3 employees above 70K per annum,one of them above 90K??

You'd really start to wonder at all what sort of candidates FG have in their ranks at all.

https://twitter.com/Astraea1974/status/1324714620158910471?s=19

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Lads yiz are hilarious.

How so? What are you trying to say? I don't care if Mother Theresa or Eamon DeValera tries to hold Leo to account or show up FF/FG/Greens for backing him, it's doing the state a service.
What's your problem? The issue doesn't matter it's who raises it? Surely that's the joke?

Lads yiz are hilarious.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So far the only resignations lately have been a senator an MLA and party officials over not paying back money they shouldn't have gotten.
And that's the party bringing forward a confidence motion.
Jesus there has to be irony in there.

For not paying back quicker surely? Even if they hadn't, so what?
Let he without sin? Give me a break.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the implication here is that only parties that are squeaky clean can put forward motions of no confidence then there would never be any motions of no confidence.

FG should have done what SF did, realised that there was no excusing what happened and taken action. So also should FF.

They now reap what they sow.

And again, lol OK.

smurgen wrote: »

No irony. They resigned. Leo didn't.

LOL OK.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So far the only resignations lately have been a senator an MLA and party officials over not paying back money they shouldn't have gotten.
And that's the party bringing forward a confidence motion.
Jesus there has to be irony in there.

No irony. They resigned. Leo didn't.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So far the only resignations lately have been a senator an MLA and party officials over not paying back money they shouldn't have gotten.
And that's the party bringing forward a confidence motion.
Jesus there has to be irony in there.

If the implication here is that only parties that are squeaky clean can put forward motions of no confidence then there would never be any motions of no confidence.

FG should have done what SF did, realised that there was no excusing what happened and taken action. So also should FF.

They now reap what they sow.

smurgen wrote: »

I know ya. If they managed to find the time to hire a load of advisors and give themselves a payr rises during the pandemic i'm sure they've enough time to back a crooked politician aswell.

So far the only resignations lately have been a senator an MLA and party officials over not paying back money they shouldn't have gotten.
And that's the party bringing forward a confidence motion.
Jesus there has to be irony in there.

smurgen wrote: »

The same lads that were laughing at the notions of an effective opposition are now doing a Helen Lovejoy won't someone think of the children act lol.

Seen that on the Leo thread last night too, from a poster definitely not on Leo's side.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was waiting for the 'it's in the middle of a pandemic' panic call alright.

I know ya. If they managed to find the time to hire a load of advisors and give themselves a payr rises during the pandemic i'm sure they've enough time to back a crooked politician aswell.

The same lads that were laughing at the notions of an effective opposition are now doing a Helen Lovejoy won't someone think of the children act lol.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The Shinners now proposing a vote of no confidence in the Táiniste.

This in the middle of a pandemic and Brexit.

Pure arse boxing just trying their usual negativity and deflecting the country from its task.

A few sour operators on FF throwing their hats into the negativity swamp.

Wasters with nothing positive to offer.

Lieo should have stood down for the sake of the country. Too busy making anti sf videos during a pandemic. Covid brexit the usual excuses for not dealing with an egotistic head the ball.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The Shinners now proposing a vote of no confidence in the Táiniste.

This in the middle of a pandemic and Brexit.

Pure arse boxing just trying their usual negativity and deflecting the country from its task.

A few sour operators on FF throwing their hats into the negativity swamp.

Wasters with nothing positive to offer.

I was waiting for the 'it's in the middle of a pandemic' panic call alright.

Yurt2

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

The Shinners now proposing a vote of no confidence in the Táiniste.

This in the middle of a pandemic and Brexit.

Pure arse boxing just trying their usual negativity and deflecting the country from its task.

A few sour operators on FF throwing their hats into the negativity swamp.

Wasters with nothing positive to offer.

Lol, you're shook

Mod

1 day ban for breach of threadban