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

Rally For Life!!!

245

Comments

  • #32
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    4500... right.

    Screen_Shot_2013-06-10_at_3.45.07_PM.png

    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153059793119150.1073741835.337495229149&type=3

    FYI, those pictures are from the rally in 2013. Turnout was 25k according to Garda estimates in 2013.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #33
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    SW wrote: »
    FYI, those pictures are from the rally in 2013. Turnout was 25k according to Garda estimates in 2013.

    I thought it was strange seeing as it says Vigil for Life on the picture itself!

    To make things even stranger I cant find those pictures in the link provided (the original rally for life 2015 album, not yours).


  • #34
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    FYI, those pictures are from the rally in 2013. Turnout was 25k according to Garda estimates in 2013.

    2013 aswell?

    11214722_10153060107909150_7053623447537732277_n.jpg?oh=de9f1934ecb7e162f889d1dbcc3dc6b3&oe=5621F758


  • #35
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    Looks no where close to 25k people.


  • #36
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    2013 aswell?
    I'm guessing not since it actually looks closer to the numbers estimated for this years rally, i.e. between 5-8k people.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    amdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    am946745 wrote: »


    We already have laws in place to save a mothers life, we don't need abortion on demand.

    But why not?

    If I want to abort my baby why can't I?


  • #38
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    I'm guessing not since it actually looks closer to the numbers estimated for this years rally, i.e. between 5-8k people.

    were you there?


  • #39
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    were you there?

    Relevance?

    I'm basing the numbers on Garda estimates. Do you dispute their figures?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #40
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    Relevance?

    I'm basing the numbers on Garda estimates. Do you dispute their figures?

    Relevant because I was and you were not. There was a lot more people than during the Dublin Marathon.


  • #41
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    Relevant because I was and you were not. There was a lot more people than during the Dublin Marathon.

    And the Gardai were also there, which is the source I'm using for the attendance. Are you suggesting the Gardai are wrong?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    amdublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    am946745 wrote: »
    Relevant because I was and you were not. There was a lot more people than during the Dublin Marathon.

    In your localised opinion.

    Why do you not just use the gardai figure? Twould be simpler.

    Any hoo it doesn't really matter if 5 people were there or 5k people. It does not change my opinion that other people should not have the right to say what I can do or not do with my body and my baby.


  • #43
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    am946745 wrote: »
    2013 aswell?

    11214722_10153060107909150_7053623447537732277_n.jpg?oh=de9f1934ecb7e162f889d1dbcc3dc6b3&oe=5621F758

    Probably not considering this time the words "Rally for life" are there instead of "vigil for life" and it is actually present in your provided link.

    The first pictures URL:
    https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/news/Screen_Shot_2013-06-10_at_3.45.07_PM.png

    Even says 2013 in the link and lifesitenews have that image used in articles from June 2013.

    The second URL is from facebook
    https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11214722_10153060107909150_7053623447537732277_n.jpg?oh=de9f1934ecb7e162f889d1dbcc3dc6b3&oe=5621F758


  • #44
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    The thing is one of the parties in government (Labour)who will be drafting the legislation does believe that removing the constitutional barriers will aid creating a more liberal regime , so its cheap and not directly related to the proposed referendum but does have a certain logic (I wouldn't say this if Labour weren't in power but their own members have said this in private)
    Eh.. what legislation is this? I haven't heard of any.


  • #45
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Posters continually posting pics now from 2013 rallies and masquerading them as if theh are from 2015. Abd when they are called up on it, thry move on to another point, or ignore it completely.

    At least admit your mistake and move on, otherwise you come off as intentionally trting to mislead people.


  • #46
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    I can settle the debate. The below paragraph confirms the reports I have heard from several of what Gardai actually said. There was no official estimate and thus the RTE figure is spurious. And once again the abortion ideologues have been shown to be lacking in the fact checking department.
    In fairness, the Independent and others acknowledged that there were in excess of 25,000 people there, a simply massive rally in the Irish experience, but other media outlets tried to claim that Gardai said there were only 8000 in attendance.

    One journalist insisted that the Garda Press Office has issued the figure, but when we rang the Garda Press Office they confirmed that they had not issued any estimate for the Rally.

    On the Rally route , several senior Garda acknowledged that the Rally turnout had exceeded the initial expectation of 15,000 people and as the Rally made its way to the Dáil, the estimates of the senior Gardai present was of between 25 and 30,000 people. Looking at the photos of the huge crowd filling O’Connell Street, it would be difficult to disagree with those estimates.

    So, what to make of the journalists’ claims of a Garda estimate of 8,000? It seems likely that the journalist either suggested the number, or they simply made the estimate up. Who knows.
    http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/thank-you-for-making-rally-amazing-and-the-estimates-garda-actually-gave/


  • #47
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    robp wrote: »
    I can settle the debate. The below paragraph confirms the reports I have heard from several of what Gardai actually said. There was no official estimate and thus the RTE figure is spurious. And once again the abortion ideologues have been shown to be lacking in the fact checking department.

    http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/thank-you-for-making-rally-amazing-and-the-estimates-garda-actually-gave/

    From thelifeinstitute............:rolleyes:

    please try harder....


  • #48
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    I can settle the debate. The below paragraph confirms the reports I have heard from several of what Gardai actually said. There was no official estimate and thus the RTE figure is spurious. And once again the abortion ideologues have been shown to be lacking in the fact checking department.

    http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/thank-you-for-making-rally-amazing-and-the-estimates-garda-actually-gave/

    You realise that the link to the Independent article doesn't state anywhere what the Gardai estimates are.

    So, you're essentially claiming that RTE, the Irish Times and Irish Independent made stuff up. (Obviously I'm not including the Irish Independent article submitted by Sarah McDonald who writes for such outlets as, the Irish Independent, the international Catholic weekly The Tablet, Catholic News Service in Washington, the Catholic Times, the Catholic Herald and a number of other publications, such as Catholic Life, the Messenger of St Anthony (international edition) and the Pioneer.)

    The cynic in mean would think she may have purposely dropped any mention of the Garda estimates so as to paint a picture of a 25k attendance with the exclusion of any conflicting data.

    recedite wrote: »
    How can you spout such nonsense? Have you phoned the Garda Press Office yourself to confirm their estimates before making these wild allegations?

    Here's what the Irish Times reported.
    There were wildly varying estimates of the numbers in attendance at the anti-abortion rally, with senior gardaí saying a crowd of around 8,000 descended on Molesworth Street for the final meeting point whereas organisers indicated that the audience size was closer to 30,000.
    Here's what the Irish Independent reported.
    Gardaí estimated the crowd for today's rally at about 5,000 to 8,000. However, organisers insisted that the turnout was significantly higher.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #49
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    SW wrote: »
    You realise that the link to the Independent article doesn't state anywhere what the Gardai estimates are.

    So, you're essentially claiming that RTE, the Irish Times and Irish Independent made stuff up. (Obviously I'm not including the Irish Independent article submitted by Sarah McDonald who writes for such outlets as, the Irish Independent, the international Catholic weekly The Tablet, Catholic News Service in Washington, the Catholic Times, the Catholic Herald and a number of other publications, such as Catholic Life, the Messenger of St Anthony (international edition) and the Pioneer.)

    The cynic in mean would think she may have purposely dropped any mention of the Garda estimates so as to paint a picture of a 25k attendance with the exclusion of any conflicting data.

    No. I am stating that there was no official Garda estimate and I struggle to see one can be constantly referred to without any verification from the Gardai. Journalists don't independently verify sources.


  • #50
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    far more consequential statements are published all the time without any independent fact checking.


  • #51
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    SW wrote: »
    Obviously I'm not including the Irish Independent article submitted by Sarah McDonald who writes for such outlets as, the Irish Independent, the international Catholic weekly The Tablet, Catholic News Service in Washington, the Catholic Times, the Catholic Herald and a number of other publications, such as Catholic Life, the Messenger of St Anthony (international edition) and the Pioneer.

    So... What are you trying to imply here?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    SW wrote: »
    You realise that the link to the Independent article doesn't state anywhere what the Gardai estimates are.

    So, you're essentially claiming that RTE, the Irish Times and Irish Independent made stuff up. (Obviously I'm not including the Irish Independent article submitted by Sarah McDonald who writes for such outlets as, the Irish Independent, the international Catholic weekly The Tablet, Catholic News Service in Washington, the Catholic Times, the Catholic Herald and a number of other publications, such as Catholic Life, the Messenger of St Anthony (international edition) and the Pioneer.)

    The Indo reported 20,000 in a news story not written by McDonald.http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/anger-as-20000-abortion-activists-go-headtohead-31352218.html


  • #53
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    No. I am stating that there was no official Garda estimate and I struggle to see one can be constantly referred to without any verification from the Gardai. Journalists don't independently verify sources.
    So the Gardai have to issue a statement to confirm they said what the Irish Times, RTE and Irish Independent reported them as saying?

    You realise a Garda estimate is a statement (be it formal or informal) from the Gardai.

    If you have a source that shows evidence of the Garda estimate being wrong, feel free to post a link/evidence.
    robp wrote: »
    The Indo reported 20,000 in a news story not written by McDonald.http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/anger-as-20000-abortion-activists-go-headtohead-31352218.html

    An number of 20,000 (from an unattributed source) is more credible than a Garda estimate?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #54
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    SW wrote: »
    So the Gardai have to issue a statement to confirm they said what the Irish Times, RTE and Irish Independent reported them as saying?

    You realise a Garda estimate is a statement (be it formal or informal) from the Gardai.

    If you have a source that shows evidence of the Garda estimate being wrong, feel free to post a link/evidence.
    Right now the Gardai are denying they said that. Why do you think each news source are independently reporting the figure?
    SW wrote: »
    An number of 20,000 (from an unattributed source) is more credible than a Garda estimate?

    If you can't defeat the argument make a straw man. I didn't argue that a number from the Indo carries a lot of weight in itself. But I posted as it demolishes what you implied about figures >10,000 as only attributable to conflicts of interest.


  • #55
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Right now the Gardai are denying they said that. Why do you think each news source are independently reporting the figure?
    They are? Do you have a link/source for that claim?
    If you can't defeat the argument make a straw man. I didn't argue that a number from the Indo carries a lot of weight in itself.
    Didn't say you did. A '?' denotes a question, not a statement.
    But I posted as it demolishes what you implied about figures >10,000 as only attributable to conflicts of interest.
    How exactly does it do that? It doesn't state how the reporter arrived at the 20,000 figure. Did the organisers give her the number, or was it the Gardai or an independent body?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #56
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    SW wrote: »
    They are? Do you have a link/source for that claim?
    See post #46.

    SW wrote: »
    How exactly does it do that? It doesn't state how the reporter arrived at the 20,000 figure. Did the organisers give her the number, or was it the Gardai or an independent body?
    Same applies to the RTE figure.

    We hear the same assertion often. Either the figures are misreported, unreported or we get the Gardai are right wing and untrustworthy line.


  • #57
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    See post #46.
    Cheers for that. Spotted the figure in the article.
    Same applies to the RTE figure.

    We hear the same assertion often. Either the figures are misreported, unreported or we get the Gardai are right wing and untrustworthy line.
    Well it didn't until I re-read the link #46 and RTE/Irish Times/Irish Independent stated it was a Garda estimate. If the other Irish Independent links had stated Garda estimate, then I'd been suspicious of both figures, but it was unattributed.

    So the question then is which figure is wrong (I'll take the report on Life Institute with a pinch of salt seeing as they were involved the organisation of the rally).

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #58
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it to debate the size of the crowd or talk about the actual issue.


  • #59
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    So the Gardai have to issue a statement to confirm they said what the Irish Times, RTE and Irish Independent reported them as saying?

    You realise a Garda estimate is a statement (be it formal or informal) from the Gardai.

    If you have a source that shows evidence of the Garda estimate being wrong, feel free to post a link/evidence.



    An number of 20,000 (from an unattributed source) is more credible than a Garda estimate?

    It clearly bothers you that 20,000 people attended the rally.

    Why?


  • #60
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    It clearly bothers you that 20,000 people attended the rally.

    Why?

    It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm only discussing conflicting numbers regarding attendence.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm only discussing conflicting numbers regarding attendence.

    Your post count suggests otherwise.


Advertisement