am946745 wrote: » 4500... right.https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153059793119150.1073741835.337495229149&type=3
SW wrote: » FYI, those pictures are from the rally in 2013. Turnout was 25k according to Garda estimates in 2013.
am946745 wrote: » 2013 aswell?
am946745 wrote: » We already have laws in place to save a mothers life, we don't need abortion on demand.
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.
am946745 wrote: » were you there?
SW wrote: » Relevance? I'm basing the numbers on Garda estimates. Do you dispute their figures?
am946745 wrote: » Relevant because I was and you were not. There was a lot more people than during the Dublin Marathon.
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)
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.
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/
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.
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.
Gardaí estimated the crowd for today's rally at about 5,000 to 8,000. However, organisers insisted that the turnout was significantly higher.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
SW wrote: » An number of 20,000 (from an unattributed source) is more credible than a Garda estimate?
robp wrote: » Right now the Gardai are denying they said that. Why do you think each news source are independently reporting the figure?
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.
SW wrote: » They are? Do you have a link/source for that claim?
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?
robp wrote: » See post #46.
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.
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?
hinault wrote: » It clearly bothers you that 20,000 people attended the rally. Why?
SW wrote: » It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm only discussing conflicting numbers regarding attendence.
