Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

16768707273279

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Leaving aside the Jimmy Saville comments which are, quite frankly shameful on your behalf, in what way is Marcus Rashford profiting from his charity work? If it's that it increases his public profile, leading to sponsorship deals, that's not illegal. Whereas in the case of the Tories giving huge contracts to their mates and not getting what they paid for in return, there are certainly legal questions to be asked there.

    So what inappropriate conduct are you actually accusing Marcus Rashford of? (Again, comparisons to Jimmy Saville are best left out of this discussion, don't you think?)



  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    His response indicates that there's no real basis for an article rather than truth... Yet you've chosen to liken him to Savile...



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "...in what way is Nigel Farage profiting from his charity work? If it's that is increases his public profile, leading to sponsorship deals, that's not illegal".

    I can only imagine the total, unending uproar if I said the above sentence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn




  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anyone who personally profits from charity work, in any way, cannot be said to legitimately care about the cause in question.

    If anything, it demonstrates that this is a political manoeuvre on the part of Rashford.

    Also, my comparison with Jimmy Saville stands. My point is that powerful people cannot be allowed to get away with inappropriate activity (financial, abusive, or any other kind) just because their public persona is associated with charity. I would apply the same principle to the Clintons, for example - who are always hiding behind the charity performed by their organization.

    This isn't controversial, it's pretty damn obvious.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,539 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,386 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    So after seeing that Rashford gives 150% of his earnings to charity, the logical thing for some is to bring a pedo into discussion.



    Just keep on digging eski.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    He's not profiting from charity work though, because that would insinuate he's taking money from charitable donations for himself (like what happened with the Trump Foundation which was legally proven).

    The argument can also be made that increasing his personal profile is a by-product of his charity work rather than the aim, and that any additional money he earns through legal and legitimate sponsorship deals also increases his ability to raise/give more money for charity.

    It remains to be seen how much he actually profitted from his charity work (if any), but you haven't been able to point to any inappropriate activity (financial, abusive, or any other kind) on behalf of Rashford, and your repeated posts trying to tie in Jimmy Saville to the conversation show a complete lack of good faith on your part.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,386 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,539 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The modern right really seems to utter loathe anyone who shows even the tiniest bit of empathy. Funny how Tory politicians never get criticised for making money on the side in dodgy deals and golden handshakes.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As you say, we are yet to read the full report into his activity over the past year or so.

    Call me a cynic, but I generally associate public displays of charity from multimillionaires to be entirely about self-promotion. And it's the easiest thing in the world to do, too - so I'm not surprised it is recommended by PR companies. It's a win-win situation, and most of the public lap it up. Who will criticize those who do charity, after all? And if you're already a multimillionaire, you only have everything to gain by washing this laundry out in public - deliberately, and with self-promotion in mind. The likes of Cheryl Cole and talentless nobodies - such as Joey Essex - have maxed out on this tactic in recent years.

    Most genuinely philanthropic people go about their business, but do not actively seek to raise their public profile (self-interest).

    I find the entire enterprise shady. It's harnessing charity, and the most vulnerable in society, for self-interested reasons. That doesn't mean the charity isn't welcome, of course it is. But that's why it's shady. It means that powerful, psychopathic people can manipulate the situation for their own interests.

    From what is hinted at The Spectator piece, it appears Rashford is no different.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    But it was Marcus Rashford publicly calling out the UK Government and leading public campaigns which forced the UK Government into reversing their own decision and providing meals etc to underprivileged and vulnerable children throughout the UK, to a far, far greater extent than Marcus Rashford himself could ever afford to do privately with his own money. Do you agree?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,916 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    You said


    "Anyone who personally profits from charity work, in any way, cannot be said to legitimately care about the cause in question."



    You have made this accusation without a single shred of evidence, that says quite a lot about you!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,916 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Farage doesn't do charity work, he just claims every penny he can and steals from the taxpayers



    Footage of the Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage bragging about how much money he earns as an MEP for so little work has reemerged on social media.


    This represents four working days and one journey. We're talking about £1,900. It's a good job this.  

    I worked it out that because so much of what you get is after tax that if you used the secretarial allowances to pay your wife on top of all the other games you play I reckon this job in sterling terms is worth over £250,000 a year to you - that is what you would need to earn working for Goldman Sachs or someone like that





  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are you seriously comparing Pepsi, Nike, and Adidas sponsorships with profiting from charitable work?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,916 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    How does he profit from charity work? Do you actually believe that the charity pays him?


    Or is it more a case of

    Company P.R person

    "Rashford is a good guy, people like him, we should see if we can get him on board to promote our products for a fee"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,386 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    You seem to think thats a worse comparison than comparing Rashford to a pedo?


    Why am I not suprised.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Again, you're obfuscating profiting from charitable work (which makes it sound like he's taking money from charity or charitable donations, again like the Trump Foundation was legally proven to have done), with profiting from sponsorship deals based on public profile based on charitable work (charitable work the levels of which wouldn't have been possible without doing so in such a public manner as it was about forcing the government to reverse one of their decisions).

    The question is, are you confusing the two due to not understanding the difference, or are you doing it on purpose?



  • Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You are being too premature. I've said several posts ago that we need to wait and learn of the full extent of what The Spectator is claiming.

    I'm basing my inferences on Rashford's own words, on his Twitter feed, which suggest that something altogether self-interested and underhand was at play.

    The precise details, nobody yet knows.

    In other news, Farage is back tonight at 7pm. Details of guests yet to be announced. Their YouTube Channel is continuing to grow at the same pace, now at 179,000 and set to hit the 200k mark next week.

    And as much as I find Arlene Foster ghastly, she hasn't joined the show as a presenter. She is merely a contributor to Farage's Sunday morning show with the Conservative MP co-presenter.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    But you suggest others are being premature and to wait for the article while you give every indication of already having made your mind up yourself. If you hadn't, you'd at least be holding off on the melange of baseless allegations you've flung out, if not give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Seems to me we're getting a little window here into how gullible folk can be, how easy it is to blow a dog whistle and get the pack to follow. I've often wondered at how the right can get away with the ridiculously transparent and so obviously false lies they trot out with such regular impunity, and it's things like this that help to explain why. It's so easy to target and smear anybody because there is such a big target audience out there who are ready and willing to lap up anything.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,916 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    You say you need to wait to see the spectator article yet you are jumping to conclusions as to what it says


    Here's his tweets, what do you find so suspicious about them?





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Have the spectator still not published their article? was it not due last week?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    You also said the following over your last few posts:

    "Like Rashford, we cannot allow someone to use "charity" as a Trojan horse for other, inappropriate activity."

    "That said, Marcus Rashford's pre-emptive defence on Twitter at least suggests that there is more than a kernel of truth to the allegations."

    "Anyone who personally profits from charity work, in any way, cannot be said to legitimately care about the cause in question. If anything, it demonstrates that this is a political manoeuvre on the part of Rashford."

    "I find the entire enterprise shady. It's harnessing charity, and the most vulnerable in society, for self-interested reasons. That doesn't mean the charity isn't welcome, of course it is. But that's why it's shady. It means that powerful, psychopathic people can manipulate the situation for their own interests. From what is hinted at The Spectator piece, it appears Rashford is no different."


    You've based all of the above on The Spectator saying they have an article coming soon about Rashford (but with no claims of if it's damaging to him, if they have evidence of anything etc), and your own reading of Rashford's tweets which gives no indication of anything untoward. Not to mention your wilful abandon in tossing Jimmy Saville's name into the mix.

    But I'm the one being premature?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,646 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Will be interesting to see Arlenes interactions with Tory Maps given the way they shafted the DUP with the Irish Sea trade border



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Any negative reaction would require Arlene to have some principles. Given she signed that deal with May it is fair to say she doesn't have any.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,110 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    It was due to be published last Wednesday. I had posted about it myself last week, they seem to have taken note of where the wind is blowing and a hiatus has ensued. Which says quite a lot about the strength of their story, it's direction, it's editorial stance and any actual wrongdoing on the part of Rashford IMO.

    If the Spectator believe that there is actual wrongdoing or indeed any public interest in "exposing" Rashford and his popularity with companies seeking high profile endorsement?

    Why have they not published the piece? What reason other than backlash is there for holding off on such an "important" story?

    Those questions aren't directed at you Ohno, rather just a musing as to why the Spectator haven't nailed that uppity footballer to a cross or hoist him by his own petard 😉

    Isn't it almost as if there is no substance to their claims, nothing that no other sportsperson doesn't do? Even if he has donated in excess of 100% of his income...

    How dare he seek the means to donate even more, or to even maximise his own earnings over the course of his short sporting career.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I have a feeling their lawyers sat them down and gave them a talking to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,985 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Either that or they realised "Footballer's charity work raises public profile and leads to sponsorship deals which footballer also uses to increase charity work" didn't have quite the bite they hoped it might.



  • Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Eskimo will stick by his conclusions of they never publish anything I suspect...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    since when did the facts make any difference to their opinion?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement