The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't what I am saying. It is not about directing canvassing.

I am saying that Sinn Fein if they got into power could use this database in much more nefarious ways and treat citizens differently on the basis of it. We know Sinn Fein are not to be trusted, and the potential harm that they can do with such a database is huge.

Ha ha ha...why would they need anything for nefarious purposes if they were in power and had access to all the data they want?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ha ha ha...why would they need anything for nefarious purposes if they were in power and had access to all the data they want?

You might want to read up on the separation between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. There isn’t data just flowing around for any member of a political party to just casually flick through while sitting on the can.

Basic stuff for any party to understand, even one who doesn’t actually recognise the legitimacy of the Irish State or its constitution.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You might want to read up on the separation between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. There isn’t data just flowing around for any member of a political party to just casually flick through while sitting on the can.

Basic stuff for any party to understand, even one who doesn’t actually recognise the legitimacy of the Irish State or its constitution.

Why would a 'nefarious' party pay any attention to all that
They want to control you Doc..get with the prgramme..they will stop at nothing.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't what I am saying. It is not about directing canvassing.

I am saying that Sinn Fein if they got into power could use this database in much more nefarious ways and treat citizens differently on the basis of it. We know Sinn Fein are not to be trusted, and the potential harm that they can do with such a database is huge.

I'm not trying to defend SF here by the way, I've been openly critical of any data scraping they've done and I've submitted a SAR to find out exactly what they're holding on me. I fully stand behind them being penalised to the full extent of the law for any GDPR breaches.....but surely you have to realise that the hyperbole of describing this as a bigger threat to democracy than the Cambridge Analytica scandal just betrays your own inability to discuss SF objectively and totally undermines the legitimate and deserved criticism they should receive by enabling those who support them to just handwave it away by piling it in with this sort of ridiculousness.

SF look like they've probably been taking liberties with what data they're allowed to hold onto to give them a canvassing advantage, that's what is happening. Inventing hypothetical things that you think they could or might do with precisely zero evidence (or indeed, along with the rest of us, still unsure what data they're actually holding and therefore whether these nefarious schemes are even hypothetically possible with the data they hold) to describe it as a bigger threat to democracy than an ACTUAL attempt to influence one of the biggest political occurrences in Western Europe in a generation, and the election of one of the most controversial presidents in US history.....that's unhinged, Blanch!

Take a step back and reassess, please! Saying that Cambridge Analytica did something worse doesn't make what SF may have done alright and one could certainly make an argument that as a political party, SF should be held to a higher standard than a private company.....but come on, let's have at least a modicum of perspective here.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't what I am saying. It is not about directing canvassing.

I am saying that Sinn Fein if they got into power could use this database in much more nefarious ways and treat citizens differently on the basis of it. We know Sinn Fein are not to be trusted, and the potential harm that they can do with such a database is huge.

And people who are paranoid about how parties might use voter intention information about them (and I respect that many are justifiably concerned abouit this) should simply choose not to share that information publicly. That's the part that's causing me to scratch my head. If you post something up on the clear internet, as opposed to a DM or whatever, you are fundamentally relinquishing control of that information and sending it into the wild.

If I was worried that FF or FG might use the fact that I f*cking hate both parties to discriminate against me for something like social welfare, my kids getting a school place, my healthcare, etc, then I simply wouldn't publicly post how I feel about them. That's why we have secret ballots at election time, FFS.

What you're failing to understand is that there's no hacking going on here or anything like that. This is information which people are choosing to share. Fundamentally, I do not believe that you have a right to complain about who has information once you've chosen to share it in public.

To give you an analogy: if I was having an affair and I wanted to talk to a friend about it, I'd call them or text them. I certainly wouldn't put it up as a Facebook status, or have a loud conversation about it down the local pub. If I did, and that information found its way back to my wife, do you honestly think I'd have grounds to claim it was "private" information? If it got back to her because someone overheard me shouting about it in the pub, or because she literally read it from my Facebook status?

That's what I don't get about any of this, and yes, I apply the same thing to Cambridge Analytica. People have a choice about how much they share in public. If you choose to share something in public, you can't complain when people you don't want knowing about it see it along with people you do want to know about it. If it's that kind of information, that's where you put down the f*cking laptop and make a phone call or send a text message. Social media is not the appropriate forum for that, and trying to re-engineer the workings of the internet to force it into becoming that, through blunt instruments like GDPR, is absolutely ridiculous.

If someone gets burned because they shared something in public, they're an idiot. The rest of us shouldn't have our own internet use curtailed because some people are idiots.

It’s hilarious to see supposed left-wingers defend the use of data harvesting for commercial reasons.

The hoops that must involve.

Fionn1952

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s hilarious to see supposed left-wingers defend the use of data harvesting for commercial reasons.

The hoops that must involve.

I haven't seen many defending it, bar the poster before you. Are you counting posts like my own (saying that perhaps describing it as a greater threat to democracy than the CA scandal is somewhat exaggerated/hyperbolic) as defending SF here?

Because I sure as sh*t don't want SF, any other political party or any private company utilising my data for purposes they don't have permission to use it for. The post above yours falls apart completely when held up to very basic scrutiny; I may well provide data to a party or a company for an explicitly defined purpose, that shouldn't (and indeed legally doesn't) allow them to use this data for whatever other whim catches their fancy. This isn't about, 'kid gloves' being applied, it is about informed consent.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And people who are paranoid about how parties might use voter intention information about them (and I respect that many are justifiably concerned abouit this) should simply choose not to share that information publicly. That's the part that's causing me to scratch my head. If you post something up on the clear internet, as opposed to a DM or whatever, you are fundamentally relinquishing control of that information and sending it into the wild.

If I was worried that FF or FG might use the fact that I f*cking hate both parties to discriminate against me for something like social welfare, my kids getting a school place, my healthcare, etc, then I simply wouldn't publicly post how I feel about them. That's why we have secret ballots at election time, FFS.

What you're failing to understand is that there's no hacking going on here or anything like that. This is information which people are choosing to share. Fundamentally, I do not believe that you have a right to complain about who has information once you've chosen to share it in public.

To give you an analogy: if I was having an affair and I wanted to talk to a friend about it, I'd call them or text them. I certainly wouldn't put it up as a Facebook status, or have a loud conversation about it down the local pub. If I did, and that information found its way back to my wife, do you honestly think I'd have grounds to claim it was "private" information? If it got back to her because someone overheard me shouting about it in the pub, or because she literally read it from my Facebook status?

That's what I don't get about any of this, and yes, I apply the same thing to Cambridge Analytica. People have a choice about how much they share in public. If you choose to share something in public, you can't complain when people you don't want knowing about it see it along with people you do want to know about it. If it's that kind of information, that's where you put down the f*cking laptop and make a phone call or send a text message. Social media is not the appropriate forum for that, and trying to re-engineer the workings of the internet to force it into becoming that, through blunt instruments like GDPR, is absolutely ridiculous.

If someone gets burned because they shared something in public, they're an idiot. The rest of us shouldn't have our own internet use curtailed because some people are idiots.

This is not information that people are choosing to share.

If I slam the door on any SF canvassers and get recorded in their database as unlikely to vote for SF, that is not information I am choosing to share.

Brendan Bendar

blanch152 wrote: »

This is not information that people are choosing to share.

If I slam the door on any SF canvassers and get recorded in their database as unlikely to vote for SF, that is not information I am choosing to share.

I don’t generally read walls of text, but I feel your response is spot on there.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

This is not information that people are choosing to share.

If I slam the door on any SF canvassers and get recorded in their database as unlikely to vote for SF, that is not information I am choosing to share.

Its not just your information, its also the SF canvasser who got the door slammed in his face by you. He has every right to share what happened to him.

jm08 wrote: »

Its not just your information, its also the SF canvasser who got the door slammed in his face by you. He has every right to share what happened to him.

He can record that in Dublin West he had a door slammed in his face. Anything further that might identify me is not allowed under GDPR. That is where Sinn Fein have a huge problem.

Fionn1952

jm08 wrote: »

Its not just your information, its also the SF canvasser who got the door slammed in his face by you. He has every right to share what happened to him.

The address/name/car reg in the driveway/any other information which could be used to identify Blanch would be Blanch's personal data. The SF canvasser cannot just assume the right to record the personal data of a constituent without permission and specified purpose.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I don’t generally read walls of text, but I feel your response is spot on there.

Big picture sort of fella are ya, Brendan? C Suite material no doubt. Shït or get off the pot kind of dude.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

He can record that in Dublin West he had a door slammed in his face. Anything further that might identify me is not allowed under GDPR. That is where Sinn Fein have a huge problem.

And thas, as far as I'm concerned, is total bullsh!t. Idealistic bullsh!t from the EU which has fundamentally undermined the internet and had massive, most likely entirely unintended, consequences for businesses and public bodies alike.

Barring very, very few specific circumstances, such as doctor-patient confidentiality, attorney client privilege, confessional sacrosanctity, etc, any interaction you have with another person is within both your power and the person you interacted with, to share, record, or talk about any way they see fit. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits of this for the general everyday functioning of society and human interaction outweigh the drawbacks by orders of magnitude. That's why I oppose the unimaginably draconian aspects of GDPR.

And to answer another post above, you're using the phrase "data harvesting" as if this is private information being shared in secret behind closed doors between corporations. That is literally not what's happening here, at all.

FYI, if you wondered why Tinder removed the "friends in common" feature which many people found very useful in vetting potential dates, it's because the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica "scandal" caused Facebook to massively restrict the information apps could request access to. That's the price we pay for a bunch of idiots in America deciding whether to vote for Trump or Clinton based on sh!t some random stranger posted on the internet. It's ridiculous.

Obviously most here don't agree with me on this but there you go. Maybe we should create a breakaway internet for those who understand basic concepts such as public information sharing and what that entails, and everyone else can play on the baby-proofed internet for idiots we've created in the wake of the "scandal" that is, quite literally, political parties using information people have chosen to share to decide who to bother spending money canvassing? Because I highly doubt I'm the only one who finds all this data protection gone mad stuff incredibly annoying.

I'm all for data protection when it comes to private info. Harvesting of information from emails, text messages, DMs on Facebook Messenger / Instagram / Twitter, etc - the kind of stuff Edward Snowden exposed in the mid-2010s - that kind of stuff is absolutely unacceptable and I'd be the first to be extremely angry about it.

Using information people have chosen to put into the wild to build social and market profiles? That's entirely different. People chose to share the information and in doing so, they knew full well that it would no longer be private.

When you send an email, a text message, or a DM on a one-to-one basis, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you put up a Facebook or Twitter status, you have no such expectation. It's the difference between one-on-one communication and "broadcasting" or "publishing", as far as I'm concerned. And the post-2016 moral panic over this is, in my view, a childish lashing out by people who weren't tech savvy enough to leverage these modern marketing tools as well as their opposition did. Nothing more, nothing less. I apply that to the Democrats in the US despite despising the Republicans more than possibly anyone on this forum. I apply it to FG vs SF, equally.

Anyone listening to The Northern Bank Job on BBC4? I presume it's also available wherever you get your podcasts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m000tsjy

Really excellent stuff, and pulls no punches. Names Bobby Storey as being the mastermind behind it. You also forget the impact the robbery had on people - one woman who was kidnapped believed she was going to be shot in the head.

Highly recommended, and to paraphrase Gerry - they haven't gone away you know.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And thas, as far as I'm concerned, is total bullsh!t. Idealistic bullsh!t from the EU which has fundamentally undermined the internet and had massive, most likely entirely unintended, consequences for businesses and public bodies alike.

Barring very, very few specific circumstances, such as doctor-patient confidentiality, attorney client privilege, confessional sacrosanctity, etc, any interaction you have with another person is within both your power and the person you interacted with, to share, record, or talk about any way they see fit. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits of this for the general everyday functioning of society and human interaction outweigh the drawbacks by orders of magnitude. That's why I oppose the unimaginably draconian aspects of GDPR.

And to answer another post above, you're using the phrase "data harvesting" as if this is private information being shared in secret behind closed doors between corporations. That is literally not what's happening here, at all.

FYI, if you wondered why Tinder removed the "friends in common" feature which many people found very useful in vetting potential dates, it's because the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica "scandal" caused Facebook to massively restrict the information apps could request access to. That's the price we pay for a bunch of idiots in America deciding whether to vote for Trump or Clinton based on sh!t some random stranger posted on the internet. It's ridiculous.

Obviously most here don't agree with me on this but there you go. Maybe we should create a breakaway internet for those who understand basic concepts such as public information sharing and what that entails, and everyone else can play on the baby-proofed internet for idiots we've created in the wake of the "scandal" that is, quite literally, political parties using information people have chosen to share to decide who to bother spending money canvassing? Because I highly doubt I'm the only one who finds all this data protection gone mad stuff incredibly annoying.

I'm all for data protection when it comes to private info. Harvesting of information from emails, text messages, DMs on Facebook Messenger / Instagram / Twitter, etc - the kind of stuff Edward Snowden exposed in the mid-2010s - that kind of stuff is absolutely unacceptable and I'd be the first to be extremely angry about it.

Using information people have chosen to put into the wild to build social and market profiles? That's entirely different. People chose to share the information and in doing so, they knew full well that it would no longer be private.

When you send an email, a text message, or a DM on a one-to-one basis, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you put up a Facebook or Twitter status, you have no such expectation. It's the difference between one-on-one communication and "broadcasting" or "publishing", as far as I'm concerned. And the post-2016 moral panic over this is, in my view, a childish lashing out by people who weren't tech savvy enough to leverage these modern marketing tools as well as their opposition did. Nothing more, nothing less. I apply that to the Democrats in the US despite despising the Republicans more than possibly anyone on this forum. I apply it to FG vs SF, equally.

No offence, but no one is going to read all that. It's like multiquoting. It's a relic of a different era when people sat down at their PC, not quickly browsed on their phone.

Deleted User wrote: »

No offence, but no one is going to read all that. It's like multiquoting. It's a relic of a different era when people sat down at their PC, not quickly browsed on their phone.

'Some' are not going to read that. Very presumptive post for which there is no need. Just scroll past maybe Doc? Works for me.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And thas, as far as I'm concerned, is total bullsh!t. Idealistic bullsh!t from the EU which has fundamentally undermined the internet and had massive, most likely entirely unintended, consequences for businesses and public bodies alike.

The EU has a track record of making stupid mistakes when it comes to the Internet. Its own .eu ccTLD was supposed to be a replacement/alternative for .com in the European Union. It was given to the Belgian ccTLD registry to run and they did not have the experience or the employees necessary to deal with what was going to be one of the largest top level domains in the European Union. When it launched, the ccTLD was speculated to Hell and back by non-EU registrants. For the first few years, it was a joke and it is one of the reasons that people started registering more domain names in their own country's ccTLDs. It took about ten years for most of the problem registrations to wash out of the .eu ccTLD. However, it only represents 5% or less of domain names registered in each EU country level market.

Then there is the Cookie Law that was introduced by clueless people who thought that they were making things better.

The GDPR is just another in a long line of Stasi-minded fúckwittery from people who just didn't understand its effects on the Internet. It is why the US has search engines like Google and Bing while the EU backed "official" search engine, Quaero, (a Franco-German venture) crashed and burned.

FYI, if you wondered why Tinder removed the "friends in common" feature which many people found very useful in vetting potential dates, it's because the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica "scandal" caused Facebook to massively restrict the information apps could request access to.

It is a basic Social Network graph. FB and others can still do it. The new friends suggestions probably use some similar algorithms.

I'm all for data protection when it comes to private info. Harvesting of information from emails, text messages, DMs on Facebook Messenger / Instagram / Twitter, etc - the kind of stuff Edward Snowden exposed in the mid-2010s - that kind of stuff is absolutely unacceptable and I'd be the first to be extremely angry about it.

The funny thing is that people still believe there is such a thing as privacy on the Internet. The problem is that the idea that there is such a thing as privacy on a network that was fundamentally designed for surveillance is the product of "technology" journalists who neither understand technology or the business of technology. People seem to have only realised that if they are not paying for something then they are the product. But in reality, most don't care as long as they can use FB, WhatsApp, Tinder, Linkedin etc. Privacy is a commodity that people trade.

And what happened when the Snowden revelations were covered by the ant farm of the mainstream media? A temporary outrage from the bien pensants over their morning soy lattes followed by a return to checking Twitter, Facebook and other Social Media to express their outrage. In other words, a great big 'Meh!'.

When you send an email, a text message, or a DM on a one-to-one basis, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

No, you don't. As an example, people use Gmail for e-mail. It has PPC advertising. The content of the e-mails and other data about the user are analysed to target the advertising that the user sees with their e-mail. E-mails, texts and DMs pass through servers and networks that are not owned by those in the conversation.

And the post-2016 moral panic over this is, in my view, a childish lashing out by people who weren't tech savvy enough to leverage these modern marketing tools as well as their opposition did. Nothing more, nothing less.

This started out as a story that was being used to knock SF. The FGers gleefully pushed it as it distracted from the criminal investigation into Varadkar leaking a confidential document to his friend. But then the Oireachtas Housing Committee decided to examine the online activities of all parties. FG has form. It has a leader who wanted to create bots to comment favourably on FG policies and stories.

What CA did was a bit more complex than some of the non-technical "technology" journalist coverage suggests. There's a book by one of the main players, Christopher Wylie ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wylie ), called "Mindfúck" that is worth reading on the subject. It was psychographic marketing applied to politics but with a very nasty twist in that it targeted people who could change the minds of others in their networks. The Stone Age version would be the targeting by marketers of Social Media "influencers", product reviewers and opinion columnists in newspapers. At least the FGers haven't tried to blame Putin and the Russians for all this but the comments about the Serbian Facebook account manager were quite normal for their propaganda efforts against SF.

Regards...jmcc

It's absolutely great to see other journalists and members of the press gallery calling out SF and their online army for the abuse and intimidation being thrown at journalists for simply doing their job.

https://twitter.com/leeofthemail/status/1384918861913415683?s=20

Thanked by journalists from Virgin Media, The Mail on Sunday, The Independent, The Irish Times, The Sunday Independent, The Irish Sun. Also thanked by various TDs, Senators and Councillors from other parties.

Intimidating journalists is an affront to democracy, and SF need to call in their dogs of war.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's absolutely great to see other journalists and members of the press gallery calling out SF and their online army for the abuse and intimidation being thrown at journalists for simply doing their job.

https://twitter.com/leeofthemail/status/1384918861913415683?s=20

Thanked by journalists from Virgin Media, The Mail on Sunday, The Independent, The Irish Times, The Sunday Independent, The Irish Sun. Also thanked by various TDs, Senators and Councillors from other parties.

Intimidating journalists is an affront to democracy, and SF need to call in their dogs of war.

I don't see reputable journalists of the highest quality from publications like An Phravda joining in the condemnation. It must be fake news.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And thas, as far as I'm concerned, is total bullsh!t. Idealistic bullsh!t from the EU which has fundamentally undermined the internet and had massive, most likely entirely unintended, consequences for businesses and public bodies alike.

Barring very, very few specific circumstances, such as doctor-patient confidentiality, attorney client privilege, confessional sacrosanctity, etc, any interaction you have with another person is within both your power and the person you interacted with, to share, record, or talk about any way they see fit. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits of this for the general everyday functioning of society and human interaction outweigh the drawbacks by orders of magnitude. That's why I oppose the unimaginably draconian aspects of GDPR.

And to answer another post above, you're using the phrase "data harvesting" as if this is private information being shared in secret behind closed doors between corporations. That is literally not what's happening here, at all.

FYI, if you wondered why Tinder removed the "friends in common" feature which many people found very useful in vetting potential dates, it's because the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica "scandal" caused Facebook to massively restrict the information apps could request access to. That's the price we pay for a bunch of idiots in America deciding whether to vote for Trump or Clinton based on sh!t some random stranger posted on the internet. It's ridiculous.

Obviously most here don't agree with me on this but there you go. Maybe we should create a breakaway internet for those who understand basic concepts such as public information sharing and what that entails, and everyone else can play on the baby-proofed internet for idiots we've created in the wake of the "scandal" that is, quite literally, political parties using information people have chosen to share to decide who to bother spending money canvassing? Because I highly doubt I'm the only one who finds all this data protection gone mad stuff incredibly annoying.

I'm all for data protection when it comes to private info. Harvesting of information from emails, text messages, DMs on Facebook Messenger / Instagram / Twitter, etc - the kind of stuff Edward Snowden exposed in the mid-2010s - that kind of stuff is absolutely unacceptable and I'd be the first to be extremely angry about it.

Using information people have chosen to put into the wild to build social and market profiles? That's entirely different. People chose to share the information and in doing so, they knew full well that it would no longer be private.

When you send an email, a text message, or a DM on a one-to-one basis, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you put up a Facebook or Twitter status, you have no such expectation. It's the difference between one-on-one communication and "broadcasting" or "publishing", as far as I'm concerned. And the post-2016 moral panic over this is, in my view, a childish lashing out by people who weren't tech savvy enough to leverage these modern marketing tools as well as their opposition did. Nothing more, nothing less. I apply that to the Democrats in the US despite despising the Republicans more than possibly anyone on this forum. I apply it to FG vs SF, equally.

You can have your opinion that it is complete bullsh!t, but if SF do that, they break the law.

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone who has designed and maintained DB's in the past I pissed my self laughing reading this nonsense.

It could have been worse. You might have been laughing at some of my jokes.

The database explanation above is, as stated, a simple one. Now we all may not have your particular expertise at creating and maintaining databases but a hypothetical SF database would be quite simple and small compared to other types.

The main problem that SF would have had is with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data. There have been issues with this in the past and there is always advertising in the run-up to an election or referendum to get people to check or update their information on the electoral register.

With the referenda of recent years, there was a considerable "home to vote" element that may have left again after voting and would not be voters in Local or General Elections. Some parties, such as Labour, may have hoped that this transient "issues" vote as it had championed some of the referenda. The effect also hit FG on a smaller scale. This issues may not be immediately apparent.

Regard...jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

It could have been worse. You might have been laughing at some of my jokes.

The database explanation above is, as stated, a simple one. Now we all may not have your particular expertise at creating and maintaining databases but a hypothetical SF database would be quite simple and small compared to other types.

The main problem that SF would have had is with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data. There have been issues with this in the past and there is always advertising in the run-up to an election or referendum to get people to check or update their information on the electoral register.

With the referenda of recent years, there was a considerable "home to vote" element that may have left again after voting and would not be voters in Local or General Elections. Some parties, such as Labour, may have hoped that this transient "issues" vote as it had championed some of the referenda. The effect also hit FG on a smaller scale. This issues may not be immediately apparent.

Regard...jmcc

Sinn Fein don't have a problem with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data, they actually exploit that and are responsible for much of the inaccuracy.

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't have a problem with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data, they actually exploit that and are responsible for much of the inaccuracy.

We are gonna get to see what all parties are doing. That's a great outcome from this.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't have a problem with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data, they actually exploit that and are responsible for much of the inaccuracy.

say what? Sinn Fein are responsible for much of the inaccuracy of electoral register data? you'll have to give a lot more detail on that. with sources. really good sources.

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein don't have a problem with the quality and accuracy of the electoral register data, they actually exploit that and are responsible for much of the inaccuracy.

The quality of the electoral register is an issue for all parties. There has been an unwillingness to deal with it by FFG, by FG/Labour, by FF/Greens/PDs etc.

Regards...jmcc

Dyr

jmcc wrote: »

The quality of the electoral register is an issue for all parties. There has been an unwillingness to deal with it by FFG, by FG/Labour, by FF/Greens/PDs etc.

Regards...jmcc

You have a go at certain candidates when they're out canvassing and you may find yourself missing from the register.

The register and the backwards way its managed is one of the greatest testimonies to the gombeenism that runs this country.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's absolutely great to see other journalists and members of the press gallery calling out SF and their online army for the abuse and intimidation being thrown at journalists for simply doing their job.

https://twitter.com/leeofthemail/status/1384918861913415683?s=20

Thanked by journalists from Virgin Media, The Mail on Sunday, The Independent, The Irish Times, The Sunday Independent, The Irish Sun. Also thanked by various TDs, Senators and Councillors from other parties.

Intimidating journalists is an affront to democracy, and SF need to call in their dogs of war.

The wider journalism community have really rowed in behind this tweet, and in wider support for their colleague Philip Ryan. Good to see a growing number of politicians liking it as well.

Some of the SF supporter and and/or pirate flag accounts just can't help themselves can they?

https://twitter.com/ruxon87/status/1384962794970308611?s=20

https://twitter.com/0novi_sub_sole/status/1384941437121409024?s=20

Deleted User wrote: »

The wider journalism community have really rowed in behind this tweet, and in wider support for their colleague Philip Ryan. Good to see a growing number of politicians liking it as well.

Some of the SF supporter and and/or pirate flag accounts just can't help themselves can they?

https://twitter.com/ruxon87/status/1384962794970308611?s=20

https://twitter.com/0novi_sub_sole/status/1384941437121409024?s=20

Not sure what is funnier your man's reaction to a fairly obvious 'backfire' cartoon or the other guy looking for Mary Lou to do something about it. People are abusive across the spectrum of social media.