starkid wrote: » I'd imagine FF and FG probably have done the same or something like it. But thats not the story here. In a year where SF's central hidden backbone in places like Felons has been questioned, where the database has been uncovered, and now with the fake pollsters in the history, its hardly surprising to see the critics out. Thats your angle and your story. its hardly one thing ffs.
I can't answer for all but I've direct experience or knowledge of three including the two largest centre left parties FF & FG and they have used this approach to private polling for a very long time. I am sure there are some differences of emphasis and process but it's common.
blanch152 wrote: » The ballot paper referenced by Ryan appears to be from the Meath East by-election of 2013, 8 years ago. An interesting angle to take though, that because laws and society were different then, we should apply different standards now. However, it is only 8 years ago, not like comparing 1921 to 1971. However, if any of that information is on the Abu database, then we are talking really serious breaches.
FrancieBrady wrote: » My reaction is at all times honest. Every one of these things turns into a pile of rubbish it seems to me..SF caught doing what they all do in some form. Try and see beyond the agendas. FG/FF and the political establishment are under threat- the purpose of this stuff is to make you the ordinary voter to feel 'under threat'.
guy2231 wrote: » The indo really are getting desperate now aren't they, all these years of using innocent victims to further their agenda has worn thin.
starkid wrote: » ok lets pretend transparency was only related to this incident and not the other stuff. its not silly. its dishonest, underhanded and hypocrtical. jesus christ man its some bloke with zero evidence. so his word is gospel? as i;ve said its most likely it is true but until he has evidence its meaningless. unfortunately for sf its not just about this. handwaving, gtfo with that stupid analogy. its part of a larger story which i've outlined.if it was isolated, yeah fair enough. but its not. you're beyond help. as a longtime lurker i just get baffled by your line of thought. changing like the wind, reacting to whatever bs SF pull that week.
blanch152 wrote: » Wow, just wow. Sinn Fein campaigners are allowed lie to people because people would not give personal information to them if they knew who they were. Do you understand how many ways this breaches Data Protection legislation? We are heading towards criminal behaviour. If this is true, the DPC may have to call in the Gardai.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Lack of transparency? This was printed in a handbook handed out to people, viewable to anyone who came across a copy as Ryan has. I am not a bit desperate - I have already voiced my opinion on this- it's silly, as anonymous accounts are silly ways of doing things. Write off other people, random or otherwise, commenting on this...that is the very definition of handwaving.
Beta Ray Bill wrote: » Sinn Féin are getting so clever. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are being left behind. They're pulling in large amounts of data (across the board, not just surveys), and must have some serious data analysis engineers at the back. Government can't get away with anything without SF catching them out and bringing it to the public attention. They are definitely getting help from somewhere/someone. This is not the Sinn Fein from 10 years ago. I actually don't think it matters that they got caught doing this, they'll argue that they wanted to know "what people really think" We are in the information age, and SF seem to have all the Info (They're nearly corporate in their implementation of it). The rest haven't a clue.
zoobizoo wrote: » Gaslighting at its finest. Using language like 'silly' - no, it's not silly, so stop trying to downplay what is a serious matter. It's dishonest. It's underhand. It's deceitful. It's Sinn Fein all over.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Could somebody explain what the great travesty is about this? Other than a kind of silly way to gather info that polling companies do all the time. There are explicit instructions to not put info with named people in the booklet. Silly carry on from the Shinners if it is true.
Finty Lemon wrote: » "Sinn Féin provided party members with fake ID badges and instructions on how to misrepresent themselves as pollsters to survey households before and during elections. An internal training manual reveals how activists were given detailed instructions on how to pose as researchers working for a polling company to covertly question voters. The 77-page document set out how Sinn Féin members should ask voters about their intentions under the guise of the “Irish Market Research Agency” (IMRA), which does not exist." Did the council sanction this? Who sits on it? How does one get elected to it? Who is it accountable to? Most importantly, is it gender balanced?
starkid wrote: » eh so what? he's a political nobody in reality and he's provided zero evidence apart from his own anecdotal meanderings. come back to me when either you or some twitter person has evidence. for a non SF supporter you sure are desperate as well as persistent in their defence. do you ever take a day off? I'll admit its not the biggest crime. The issue however has to be taken as part of a wider context which i've outlines. Critics like myself say SF has a lack of transparancy as well as clear tie ins to an outside organisation. Then on top of that you have the database, and then this. And finally we know SF would be the first to cry foul on anything like this. Leo the leak stuff a prime example. The posh boys in SF live in some very thin glassed houses.
jm08 wrote: » I see on twitter that this is from 10 years ago, so irrelevant under todays laws.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Hardly a 'random lad'. Is the CEO @Sluamor. Chairman 2019-21 @isme_ie Business & Biodiversity Advisory Board European Commission a 'random lad'? Sorry to burst the bubble here starkid, but all info that emerges here is relevant.
blanch152 wrote: » Desperately searching Twitter for some nonentity to quote in defence of Sinn Fein.
starkid wrote: » ah yes some random lad with zero evidence is the proof we need. Christ almighty.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is this going to be another backfire when it is revealed they all have issues with doing the same thing...like being GDPR compliant or favouring anonymous accounts to big them up? This guy doesn't look like a Shinner to me.https://twitter.com/rosspmccarthy/status/1402541261052129280
jm08 wrote: » And there you have just announced why it is necessary because some people would not respond or not give truthful answers if they know who is looking for the information. I frequently get surveyed on all sorts of stuff where I haven't a clue as to who is going to get this information other than its for someone doing research on a general sector such as insurance. I am not told which company it is for. The important thing is that you do not have to answer if you don't want to.
seamus wrote: » If this was FFFG, the opposition would be screaming blue murder and calling for resignations. It may not be that big an issue if they did it correctly. This kind of polling does go on all the time, the pollster will say that they're carrying out research on behalf of x,y,z and provides the individual with a data protection statement before asking them if they agree with their data being shared. So if they did this, then it's likely not an issue. "Hi, we're with the IMRA carrying out research on behalf of Sinn Féin.." etc. But if they didn't say this and they did ask for consent to share data with Sinn Fein, then they could find themselves in pretty serious sh1t.
