Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - easytiger95

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 77
31
GAA Discussion / Re: Power struggle within Croke Park?
« on: July 02, 2018, 05:31:03 PM »
Also Jinxy, just with regard to Slattery, one of the critical parts of the risk analysis here would have been not only capacity, but how many were expected to turn up. Whilst it was completely out of order for Ned Quinn to suggest Football Factory scenes would ensue if people didn't get tickets, it is completely valid to have a concern that a certain amount of people will travel without them and factor that in to any safety plan.

32
GAA Discussion / Re: Power struggle within Croke Park?
« on: July 02, 2018, 05:22:19 PM »
Not really.
We've had the Slattery report which has resulted in reduced capacity in grounds like St. Conleth's.
With the capacity reduced, it is safe to hold games

Absolutely, as was proved on Saturday evening. My point is that this was first and foremost a communications failure (for which Kildare County Board must take some responsibility as well as the CCCC), that such a mistake should not lead to people's reputations being traduced (which has certainly happened) and lastly, I would far rather have someone on the CCCC make such a mistake ten times, than countenance the one time where they let it go and rely on the famed docility of GAA fans, only for someone to be seriously injured or worse.

Making that mistake does not automatically mean you are out of touch with the grassroots. I think the pitchfork and torches element to this is completely overdone (not by yourself BTW Jinxy) and I think it is a proxy fight for other issues such as the Sky deal. Of which there was an awful amount of buffoonish stuff said earlier on in the week.

There was enough inaccuracy and misinformation to go round on both sides during the last week.


33
GAA Discussion / Re: Power struggle within Croke Park?
« on: July 02, 2018, 02:49:37 PM »
Can I just say, whilst I support Kildare's right to play at home, and I'm glad the match went off without a hitch, it is the job of these committees to anticipate risk. The big fear in Croke Park is not that Sky doesn't get the fixture it wants or that they don't sell enough tickets for the All Ireland series - it is that a person or people will be seriously injured whilst on GAA property.

We already know why they stamped out pitch invasions in Croke Park - because every eejit who turned his ankle hopping a barrier was suing the organisation and getting paid. That is not Peter McKenna's money, or Feargal McGill's - that is your money, my money, every member's money.

Worse than that, what happens if a catastrophe occurs in a small stadium with narrow access in front of the stand (which I believe was the case in St. Conleth's)? Or in the Hyde, where there is only one point of egress from the main stand?

The complacency (smugness??) of GAA fans in this respect is hard to credit. We jump on the nearest high horse at the merest suggestion of fan trouble, but events like the Bradford city fire happened because of a dropped cigarette. Crushes and stampedes can happen from someone tripping up in the wrong place, it doesn't take battalion charges of hooligans or hordes of ticketless zombies outside.

So what prevents these events happening? Most of us would like to pat each other on the back and say, well, GAA fans are different from every other sport. The real reason is committees like the CCCC and those who sit on it, making hard decisions and getting very little thanks for it.

They are allowed to get ones wrong (which I think they did in this case, more through poor communications than anything else). But if I'm on a committee and I'm tasked with making decisions where, if the wrong move is made, it could end up with a fan ending up injured, paralysed or dead, you're damn sure I'll stay on the side of caution. Because I don't see anyone else lining up to make those decisions.

And they certainly don't deserve to be portrayed as some sort of aristocratic elite by Madame Gulliotine herself, Ewan McKenna. The same sort of rabble rousing, know nothing, populist crap that is giving nothing to the world but dementia.

Rant over.

34
GAA Discussion / Re: Kildare v Mayo AI Qualifier Round 3
« on: June 26, 2018, 02:40:47 PM »
I believe Leitrim and Monaghan have offered to play at Croker instead so Sky still get their double header at the one venue.

Tyrone lost home advantage in 2001 and 2002 to Armagh who went on to win Sam.
Can we ask for a reply of that one now too?

It is not being driven by Sky.

35
General discussion / Re: No Country for Women - RTE1
« on: June 22, 2018, 10:06:53 AM »
Saw the documentary, it was a really great piece of work, I think.

I loved the approach of using Lavinia Kerwick, not as a narrator or as a guide, but more of a witness to the horrors she and others endured.

Well worth watching the next instalments.

36
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: June 20, 2018, 06:43:00 PM »
I wonder did Trump let Whitey know before this U-turn?

It really is a problem for these Trump apologists - how much Nazi is too much Nazi?

And now Donald Trump is too much Nazi for ...Trump, Donald J!!!

Whitey left holding the swastika covered bag.

A lesson learned by many of his sub contractors...Donald is never left holding the bag.

Hilarious.

But not.


37
GAA Discussion / Re: Concerned Gaels
« on: June 20, 2018, 09:51:16 AM »
HQ need to stand their ground on this one. A very small but very loud minority support this politicising of the games. It remains incredibly distasteful to me that these people use the Palestinian cause as a prop to further their own selfish ends.

If anyone wants to pretend that all but a few of these people have any real interest in their plights and it isnít yet another attempt to try to wind up unionists in the north, cop on. Creating divisions rather than trying to bridge them, even in sport.

Just shut up. Please. Shut up and take time to read and understand the sentiments of the people not only in Ulster, but across Ireland  right now.

Choices:

a) allow every politically attuned member of our Association to use the GAA as a vehicle for promoting their politics, and therefore inevitably over time generate negative publicity and infighting.

Or

b) remain politically neutral and concentrate on football and hurling.

ó-

Those who would choose to follow a) are narrow minded, myopic fools.
Spot on.

It is quite difficult ground though guys. Instinctively I'm an option B man - I think it is hugely important for the GAA to maintain at least an appearance of political neutrality, and I spoke out quite vehemently when pro-life GAA members tried to imply that the organisation itself supported that cause. I don't think Concerned Gaels have stepped over that line.

However, as someone who followed and supported the actions taken by Colin Kaepernick and his compatriots in the NFL, the right to protest by athletes should never be taken for granted.

So perhaps the way I thread the needle is that I am hugely opposed that an organisation like the GAA be co-opted by political causes, when it is ostensibly a sporting organisation (and its survival and prosperity in all 32 counties will depend on it appealing to a diverse population).

But I am not opposed to individual athletes or supporters taking a stand or protesting, providing that it is clear that it is a personal stance they are taking or that they are not trying to represent the GAA itself.

That said, it would be a different matter if the GAA were operating in an international sphere. The IRFU did not cover itself in glory during the apartheid years, and I do think that the situation in Palestine at the moment amounts to a form of apartheid.

It is a very difficult line to walk.

38
General discussion / Re: Time for a post-catholic Ireland
« on: June 01, 2018, 05:32:37 PM »
Not if the church considers all persons to be equal. Seems a bit inconsistent.

39
General discussion / Re: Time for a post-catholic Ireland
« on: June 01, 2018, 05:18:09 PM »
Iceman, I don't think it is fair to label all criticism of the Catholic church as hate filled.

Speaking as an agnostic, I think a reformed church could well get me back through the doors at least a couple of times a year. I don't hate the Catholic Church as a concept, but I do reserve the right to strongly criticize those who have shaped its message and behaviour, which, for hundreds of years, I believe to be the antithesis of Christ's teachings in the New Testament.

But whilst the Church may be eternal, its teachings are not. A couple of years back, during the marriage equality debate, I think I listed some of the many times that the Church has changed its doctrine both in terms of theology and on social issues.

It could well happen again, especially under this Pope. We live in hope.

I agree that the doctrine can appear to rigid sometime and is somewhat contradictory at times, but using faith as a basis it is built up from there and is reasonably logical.

And we know it can change however it must be inline with some of the basic tenents of the faith. We are constantly discovering new things our lives are a constant search for truth and morality so I think it is fair to say that our understanding of right and wrong can evolve also.
We used to believe slavery was fine for example, probably justified in terms of introducing slaves to civilization, feed and watering them, provided them with security etc etc and they contributing by provided much needed labour. Now however we see slavery as fundamental wrong and that all persons are equal

So I assume from that we an expect an evolution on teaching around homosexuality? If all persons are equal, as you say.

40
General discussion / Re: Time for a post-catholic Ireland
« on: June 01, 2018, 04:29:57 PM »
Iceman, I don't think it is fair to label all criticism of the Catholic church as hate filled.

Speaking as an agnostic, I think a reformed church could well get me back through the doors at least a couple of times a year. I don't hate the Catholic Church as a concept, but I do reserve the right to strongly criticize those who have shaped its message and behaviour, which, for hundreds of years, I believe to be the antithesis of Christ's teachings in the New Testament.

But whilst the Church may be eternal, its teachings are not. A couple of years back, during the marriage equality debate, I think I listed some of the many times that the Church has changed its doctrine both in terms of theology and on social issues.

It could well happen again, especially under this Pope. We live in hope.

41
General discussion / Re: Time for a post-catholic Ireland
« on: June 01, 2018, 11:59:06 AM »
I always remember my Grandmother talking about this, the same people who contribute nothing to the Church contributions, are the same people complaining when the Priest can't find an available date for a wedding or a Christening. You don't want to christen children then don't. Its simples. But I will make the point that whenever something drastic happens in life 99% of the time the local Priest is called and he offers a sympathetic/guiding ear, so be careful what ye wish for.

I got married last week in a civil ceremony in a perfectly nice location. Our officiant was a mate of mine who got "ordained" in something like the "Universal Life Church" that meets the bare minimum legal standard to let people become ministers to perform civil ceremonies. You fill out a form, pay a small fee, send it off, and they send you a certificate saying you're a minister. So at our ceremony we had it set up exactly as we wanted and there was no mention of Jesus or God or any of that crew. He signed the paperwork and we filed it with the county. Job done. No need for a big elaborate mass or a church or any of that nonsense.

What's the story in Ireland for people that want civil ceremonies? Is there a limited number of places where you can go to host them?

Congratulations Eamonn, well done.

I've been to a few civil ceremonies, and I don't think there is any restriction, as long as the owner of the venue is ok with it.

42
General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll
« on: May 30, 2018, 01:05:44 AM »

Re the point in the Telegraph, there are plenty of common sense proposals for gun controls put forward in America in the aftermath of school shootings, which don't involve blanket bans - background checks, ban on high capacity magazines, bio locks on guns - and guess what? The NRA opposes them all.

There have been plenty of common sense proposals to deal with crisis pregnancies over the years - more and better non-religious sex education, easier availability for contraception, the morning after pill etc - of which the current legislation is just one more example. And guess what? The No side does what the No sides does - it says No.

Having abortion available does not make it compulsory. The No campaigners would be far better employed looking at these other solutions and joining with the Yes side to make their availability a deal breaker.

We didn't vote for abortion, we voted for the choice. If the other services mentioned above make abortion less necessary, than you would have 100% of the population behind you.

I'm not sure who exactly opposed easier availability for contraception, the morning after pill etc, but even if they did they would presumably be in a minority. Yet, somehow, none of these things were done, in order to create more demand for abortion on demand.
You're really not sure who opposed these things? Let me give you some clues- they were led by guys who wore black, carried bibles and managed to have the 8th amendment inserted into our constitution on a 2-1 majority. I'm no statistician but that is the opposite of a minority. That was in 1983.

People were still getting arrested in the early 90s for buying condoms at the Virgin Megastore. Homosexuals were being arrested for expressing their sexuality. Teenage rape victims were being escorted off ferries by guards.

It took two refererendums a decade apart to get divorce. They campaigned against the right to travel and information, stood against marraige equality and the protection of life during pregnancy act.

They refused to confront the torture and rape factories known as industrial  schools.They stood against and delayed, even as their majority slipped away in the new century, every attempt to live up to the ideals of a secular fraternal republic.

They and their craw thumping proxies in the establishment did all this, even as mass graves of toddlers turned up under "mother and childrens" homes, detritus they gave no thought to, as they painted their placards on their way to their next pro-life march. If i read your post correctly, am I to believe that they didn't do these things, block these paths, destroy these lives on the altar of absolutism?

The progress we see in our society came from the sacrifice of generations of activists who saw that monolith in 1983 and knew the weight of it would crush our country- with women and children first.

I'm all for being gracious in triumph, but that doesn't extend to being asked to indulge in a malign collective amnesia about what religious conservatives did to our country over decades.

For you to offer that theory displays ignorance that is either baffling or wilful. I have some memory of that time and i won't indulge it. No has meant what it has alwayds meant- No. Only if they abandon their absolutism.can we work for what we all should want- abortions becoming increasingly rare in a atmosphere of respect and care for women.

Yet they were outside the Dail today with graphic pictures of foetuses 6 feet high. Colour me sceptical.

43
General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll
« on: May 29, 2018, 01:50:52 PM »
reading through the last couple of pages its easy to see this was more about anti-church sentiment for many than any win for "progress" or "women's rights"
nobody won on the yes side. There is no victory in abortion. I read this in the telegraph over the weekend and thought it a very succinct point:
Quote
When there is a school shooting in America there are two responses - those who want to ban guns and those who want to arm everyone. Most here are appalled at the idea that more guns is the solution.
The idea that easier abortion is the solution to crisis pregnancy is just as appalling.

I talked to a good friend of mine from Armagh up in NY a couple of weekends back. He had a conversion in his late 20s and is now a missionary priest. He said Ireland was going through a purification. I hope he is right. I don't know if people get the magnitude of this vote or even care. God have mercy on us all

Re the point in the Telegraph, there are plenty of common sense proposals for gun controls put forward in America in the aftermath of school shootings, which don't involve blanket bans - background checks, ban on high capacity magazines, bio locks on guns - and guess what? The NRA opposes them all.

There have been plenty of common sense proposals to deal with crisis pregnancies over the years - more and better non-religious sex education, easier availability for contraception, the morning after pill etc - of which the current legislation is just one more example. And guess what? The No side does what the No sides does - it says No.

Having abortion available does not make it compulsory. The No campaigners would be far better employed looking at these other solutions and joining with the Yes side to make their availability a deal breaker.

We didn't vote for abortion, we voted for the choice. If the other services mentioned above make abortion less necessary, than you would have 100% of the population behind you.

44
General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll
« on: May 28, 2018, 03:33:16 PM »
I thought the danger with current usage of abortion pills here was twofold- as they were ordered online, you couldn't be 100 percent sure that the pills were as the packaging described, and that people could not visit their GP to check if they were vulnerable to side effects before they purchased them.
Both those dangers are removed once GPs can prescribe and pharmacists can dispense. So a large majority of pre 12 weeks abortion would be dealt with through home care and monitoring.

45
General discussion / Re: Eighth Amendment poll
« on: May 28, 2018, 11:09:50 AM »
Fine Gael has had a progressive wing always, epitomised by Garret Fitzgerald's term as leader.

Social liberals seem to be on the ascendant now within the party. Now if they could just do something about their economic policy, dump the neo-liberal market worshipping and move towards a more social democratic model.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 77