'GAA Athletes for a No Vote'

[Jinxy]

Not endorsing a vote either way = not getting actively involved.
Endorsing a vote = getting actively involved.
Just to be clear, I voted yes in the same-sex marriage referendum, and will be voting yes in the upcoming referendum so it's not about which side they came down on.
It's the principle and the precedent that I'm primarily interested in.
Lets say the GPA put the issue of endorsing the upcoming referendum to a vote and it came back 50:50 or even 60:40 against.
Would they report that?

Why not? I see no reason why they shouldn't or wouldn't. There's a  line between publishing the results of a poll that overwhelmingly  back one side in the upcoming election and taking using a GAA pitch without the owners's permission to declare support for any side in this referendum. I'll probably vote like you when he time comes but that's not the reason I object to Mickey's antics. The cynical use of children to push any agenda in any election of any sort is beyond the pale for me.

It would make them look bad, that's why.
This is all hypothetical, but it's a bit like people being hugely in favour of free speech unless the person speaking disagrees with them.
Look at the abuse Ger Brennan got for endorsing a 'No' vote in the same sex marriage referendum.
Now imagine instead of one individual, it was a players association drawing the ire of every self-righteous clown on social media.
The GPA's 'commercial partners' would have to take on extra staff to handle all the phone calls demanding they disassociate themselves.
My argument is, why set the precedent?
If you were advising them Lar, knowing that they took a position on the last referendum, would you say it was a good move to take a position on this referendum?

NO, I'd tell them to shut the f**k up and stay outa it!
I never meant to imply that the GPA was right in publicly endorsing one side or the other.
I thought we were comparing the lengths both parties went to get their respective messages across to the public and here I feel Mickey & Co. went away beyond the bonds of acceptable behaviour.

It's bad enough that this shower should use a GAA ground, without the club's permission, to promote their message but to use children in a cynical way to do this is wholly unacceptable by any standard.

I think we agree on all of this, Lar but it raises the broader question of direct/indirect GAA involvement in issues like this, and 'social' vs. 'political' positions.
Whether individuals or groups are in breach of the rules is one issue.
Then you have individuals or groups who are not in breach of the rules but may inadvertently drag the wider association into the debate.
I think the wisest option is to stay out of these things altogether or make it abundantly clear that you are representing yourself and not the whole lot of us.
We're GAA people so we know where the dividing line is, but for the average man/woman on the street it's not that simple.
They might see 'GAA', 'GPA' or even the word 'Gaelic' and assume the associated position of that specific group is the 'official' position.
The reason I focus on the GPA, is that they are well within their rights (seemingly) to support a 'Yes' or 'No' vote, but should they?
For me, there is limited potential upside and significant potential downside to endorsing either position.

[BennyCake]

Harte used the GAA name to promote their stance. Had he done it as an individual, there wouldn't have been half the coverage. He knows that. He ain't stupid.

He also knows he severely bent the rules, but if his campaign helps win the vote, he won't care. If there's a fine/suspension later, he won't care. His job will have been a success.

It won't have been the first time he chucked the rulebook out the window.

[AQMP]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

[Farrandeelin]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

[Lar Naparka]

Harte used the GAA name to promote their stance. Had he done it as an individual, there wouldn't have been half the coverage. He knows that. He ain't stupid.

He also knows he severely bent the rules, but if his campaign helps win the vote, he won't care. If there's a fine/suspension later, he won't care. His job will have been a success.

It won't have been the first time he chucked the rulebook out the window.

That's more or less my view also.
I do accept what Jinxy is saying and the GPA, as a body, should not get involved but on a scale of 1 to 10, where degrees of culpability are concerned, I'd put the GPA about 5 but I'd give Mickey & Co the full 10.

[Jinxy]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

Terry Prone, Eamon Dunphy, Bibi Baskin & Brush Shiels.

[trueblue1234]

Harte used the GAA name to promote their stance. Had he done it as an individual, there wouldn't have been half the coverage. He knows that. He ain't stupid.

He also knows he severely bent the rules, but if his campaign helps win the vote, he won't care. If there's a fine/suspension later, he won't care. His job will have been a success.

It won't have been the first time he chucked the rulebook out the window.

That's more or less my view also.
I do accept what Jinxy is saying and the GPA, as a body, should not get involved but on a scale of 1 to 10, where degrees of culpability are concerned, I'd put the GPA about 5 but I'd give Mickey & Co the full 10.

I find that strange. Both made political statements and used their grouping within the GAA as a position to highlight their stance. Ignoring the right or wrong of the statements each are making, they both are equally culpable in using the GAA name in a political position.

[macdanger2]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

Terry Prone, Eamon Dunphy, Bibi Baskin & Brush Shiels.

Dana will not be happy

[AZOffaly]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

Terry Prone, Eamon Dunphy, Bibi Baskin & Brush Shiels.

Dana will not be happy

She is doing a song.

[Jinxy]

She's doing a duet with Peter Ustinov.

[BennyCake]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

Probably Sinead O'Connor - on the Yes side obviously.

[sid waddell]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

I'd imagine there will be a couple of reasonable people to whom facts are important and who have thought through the issues in a calm and considered manner on the Yes side, and a couple of backward, shouting, lying ignoramuses to whom facts are irrelevant on the No side.

[omaghjoe]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

I'd imagine there will be a couple of reasonable people to whom facts are important and who have thought through the issues in a calm and considered manner on the Yes side, and a couple of backward, shouting, lying ignoramuses to whom facts are irrelevant on the No side.

A Various selection of facts are important on the Yes side, like they are on the No side,

I suspect tho that for many on both sides appearing to be associated or disassociated with a certain ideology and castigating those with a different opinion is more important than looking at the subject and forming your own opinion based on logically applying your own principles.

[Syferus]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

I'd imagine there will be a couple of reasonable people to whom facts are important and who have thought through the issues in a calm and considered manner on the Yes side, and a couple of backward, shouting, lying ignoramuses to whom facts are irrelevant on the No side.

A Various selection of facts are important on the Yes side, like they are on the No side,

I suspect tho that for many on both sides appearing to be associated or disassociated with a certain ideology and castigating those with a different opinion is more important than looking at the subject and forming your own opinion based on logically applying your own principles.

Err, yet more attempted false equivalences on GAABoard. I can assure you the Yes side are far more worried about women having control over their own bodies than they are what the other side thinks. To suggest otherwise is frankly insulting.

[omaghjoe]

There is a Referendum debate on Late late Show tonight shud be interesting

Oh f**k, please...no

Wonder who'll be on it?

I'd imagine there will be a couple of reasonable people to whom facts are important and who have thought through the issues in a calm and considered manner on the Yes side, and a couple of backward, shouting, lying ignoramuses to whom facts are irrelevant on the No side.

A Various selection of facts are important on the Yes side, like they are on the No side,

I suspect tho that for many on both sides appearing to be associated or disassociated with a certain ideology and castigating those with a different opinion is more important than looking at the subject and forming your own opinion based on logically applying your own principles.

Err, yet more attempted false equivalences on GAABoard. I can assure you the Yes side are far more worried about women having control over their own bodies than they are what the other side thinks. To suggest otherwise is franklyin insulting.

Im sure you would never resort to ad hominen Syerfus ...oh hang on.... you don't but .... you just did?

It also seems that what your saying is the right to choose for a woman supersedes the right to life for a child, is that right?