Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[V for Vendetta]

Right. Uplift time.

Any particular strategy you wish to share with the group?

[jack90210]

Can anyone explain how Harris is saying disability won’t be grounds for abortion but there will be abortion on demand? Is it just a case the baby will be aborted in a different category like socio economic reasons or something?

[Ed]

Can anyone explain how Harris is saying disability won’t be grounds for abortion but there will be abortion on demand? Is it just a case the baby will be aborted in a different category like socio economic reasons or something?

No categories before 12 weeks?

[Solksjaer!]

Any particular strategy you wish to share with the group?

Either that or BOTOX. BOTOX is like renting. Wasting money . Probably going for simple face tuck. Eyes and mouthline. Best guess.

Dunno why I capitalised BOTOX.

[jack90210]

No categories before 12 weeks?

So disability will be grounds for abortion then in the same way “it doesn’t suit” would be.

[The Situation]

Some of the anti Rory Best stuff I've read in recent days is pretty shameful considering it was revealed today he was ordered to attend the trial by senior council. Some people's agendas are so deeply rooted that they can't see the wood from the trees and the rush to judgement is as pertinent an issue as anything these days.

[dobby]

Some of the anti Rory Best stuff I've read in recent days is pretty shameful considering it was revealed today he was ordered to attend the trial by senior council. Some people's agendas are so deeply rooted that they can't see the wood from the trees and the rush to judgement is as pertinent an issue as anything these days.

I made the point elsewhere that whether he was told to attend or not is irrelevant. He was there to support a friend. The lads are currently innocent as they've been convicted of nothing yet. If any of us ever found ourselves facing prison on horrible charges I'm sure we'd like to see a friendly face in court.

People love to be outraged these days.

[The Situation]

I'm sure Hectorjelly will be along to state that senior councils request doesn't compel attendance and we're all rape apologists.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Raoul Duke III]

Any particular strategy you wish to share with the group?

No

[The Situation]

You doing a Chelts comp this year RD?

[Raoul Duke III]

You doing a Chelts comp this year RD?

probably, if you all promise to behave

[jack90210]

So stupid that the owners lift the trophy first in the Super Bowl.

[6starpool]

So disability will be grounds for abortion then in the same way “it doesn’t suit” would be.

It won't be grounds as grounds aren't needed before 12 weeks. Grounds will be needed after that proposed period, and those aren't acceptable grounds.

You love the auld leading questions, don't you Jack, especially when you know the answer.

[jack90210]

It won't be grounds as grounds aren't needed before 12 weeks. Grounds will be needed after that proposed period, and those aren't acceptable grounds.

You love the auld leading questions, don't you Jack, especially when you know the answer.

Have they published a list of will be acceptable?

How long do you estimate it will be before TDs are pressurised to increase the limit to 24 weeks should all this go through <5 years?

A lot of flip flopping going anyway - gone from "Irish women wouldn't have abortions based on Down Syndrome" to "they do, but they don't do it lightly" to "that wont be allowed here (after 12 weeks)" - that's all in less than a week, whatever your view you would have to say its not exactly a solid start to the campaign.

[ArmaniJeans]

How long do you estimate it will be before TDs are pressurised to increase the limit to 24 weeks should all this go through <5 years?

What would be wrong with that? TDs are supposed to represent the will of the people so if enough people want a 24 week limit then they are entitled to put pressure on the TDs to deliver this.
The converse is true also, voters would be perfectly entitled to elect TDs who would go back to a no-abortion situation.

[jack90210]

What would be wrong with that? TDs are supposed to represent the will of the people so if enough people want a 24 week limit then they are entitled to put pressure on the TDs to deliver this.
The converse is true also, voters would be perfectly entitled to elect TDs who would go back to a no-abortion situation.

Sounds like abortion will become a major talking point at every election from now on then rather than something that just comes up once in a generation.

Over 50% of the TDs are against the current proposals anyway.

[V for Vendetta]

So stupid that the owners lift the trophy first in the Super Bowl.

Lol. It’s the most honest thing about it. The man who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Kayroo]

Over 50% of the TDs are against the current proposals anyway.

Source?

Thus far it's very slightly more in favour than against with a sizeable chunk undeclared.

[Strewelpeter]

Sounds like abortion will become a major talking point at every election from now on then rather than something that just comes up once in a generation.

Over 50% of the TDs are against the current proposals anyway.

Actually the opposite is much more likely. Ever since that nasty prick Binchy and his paedophile buddies in the church forced this onto the agenda in the early eighties it has been a recurring nightmare for politicians and electorate alike. Once sensible legislation comes in then the issue will simply disappear because the tiny number of extreme catholic men who want to keep control over women's bodies will have lost the foothold in the constitution they never should have had.

[jack90210]

Source?

Thus far it's very slightly more in favour than against with a sizeable chunk undeclared.

Sorry its 46% against with 19% undeclared and who are more likely to go against repeal otherwise they probably would have said by now.

[6starpool]

Sounds like abortion will become a major talking point at every election from now on then rather than something that just comes up once in a generation.

Over 50% of the TDs are against the current proposals anyway.

Hardly. Is it a big talking point in the UK or anywhere else that it is legal? Also, I'd say more than 50% of MP's in the UK are against Brexit, that doesn't seem to matter.

If the referendum goes ahead and the 8th is repealed, that legislation will be enacted as proposed.

It will be a reasonably close vote though I'd say, probably about 52-55% in favour of repeal I'd say overall.

[jack90210]

Actually the opposite is much more likely. Ever since that nasty prick Binchy and his paedophile buddies in the church forced this onto the agenda in the early eighties it has been a recurring nightmare for politicians and electorate alike. Once sensible legislation comes in then the issue will simply disappear because the tiny number of extreme catholic men who want to keep control over women's bodies will have lost the foothold in the constitution they never should have had.

So I am guessing you are predicting a landslide win for pro-abortion if its only a "tiny" number of men against.

[Emmet]

So I am guessing you are predicting a landslide win for pro-abortion if its only a "tiny" number of men against.

Are people who support the use of amputation in extreme circumstances pro amputation?

.

[jack90210]

.

There were 190,406 abortions in England and Wales in 2016 vs 696,271 live births - thats a very large amount of "extreme circumstances". 38% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were repeat abortions (same % in 2015).

[ArmaniJeans]

Some of the anti Rory Best stuff I've read in recent days is pretty shameful considering it was revealed today he was ordered to attend the trial by senior council.

This is still a bit confusing to me, maybe Kayroo can explain if reading.
It didn't help that the judge never make clear which senior counsel had directed him to attend.

I'd have thought the only reason counsel can 'direct' you to attend is if you are potentially a witness who will give evidence - they can hardly just force someone to be there for a look?
Yet as we know he wasn't called to give evidence.

[NewApproach]

There were 190,406 abortions in England and Wales in 2016 vs 696,271 live births - thats a very large amount of "extreme circumstances". 38% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were repeat abortions (same % in 2015).

Those figures don’t in any way demonstrate that people are “pro-abortion”.

[Emmet]

Just to clarify - I'm not saying it is hysterical to oppose a central authority of outrage merchants dictating social mores, I'm saying it's hysterical to think such an authority exists and is exerting meaningful pressure on corporations.

Hence, I haven't commented on the fact that you are using a wedge argument - I commented that I think your premise is wrong. I would obviously oppose such a cabal if it was a real thing.

In reality what happened here is that F1/darts realised the public mood is shifting, and that while nobody watches them for the walk on girls, the girls are to some extent estranging a growing segment of their audience. If F1/darts' profits depended to the tiniest extent on the walk on girls, they would give the two fingers to the loons on twitter from here till the end of time.

Do the outrage merchants influence public opinion? Probably. Would the companies remove the walk on girls if the public adored them? Probably (definitely) not.

The fact that outrage merchants complained about walk on girls and that the walk on girls were later removed does not imply that the outrage merchants caused the walk on girls to be removed. Public opinion is the patently the driving force, radical elements influencing that public opinion to some extent again is nothing new.

The notion of a cabal of feminazis on twitter forcing powerful corporations to make changes to their detriment against the wishes of the general population is just not credible.

Ironically despite apparently repeating myself, I haven't said (or thought) any of the above.

I haven't suggested at any point any harm is caused by models or promotions people or walk on girls. I certainly haven't said there was anything weird or perverse about any of them.

I haven't actually given any opinion on the morality of having scantily clad women hanging around sports events. For the record I think the walk on girls are pointless and don't add anything to the events they tend to be employed at, but I don't really have much of an opinion on it.

This makes glancing contact at best with anything I was getting at.

I said the the perception of feminazis putting dolly birds out of a job is likely to engender more useful and important discussion on these issues than any attempts to engage the public in a calm debate in the absence of any controversy. The fact that in reality this is not what has happened is inconsequential.

Fears of a central authority of outrage merchants forcing puritanical moral codes down the throats of society at large and dictating practice to powerful corporations along the lines of forcing F1/darts to remove walk on girls is very far fetched.

As always, radical elements on left and right influence public opinion to varying levels, but to confuse that with forcing their own version of puritanism on an unwilling public is foolish.

If you have qualms about the direction in which public opinion is being influenced that's obviously a separate argument, and probably a sign you are getting old.

The central authority in the argument is not a cabal of feminazis, a corporation or or any other, it is quite simply that decisions made upon wholly subjective 'offence-taking' is utterly subjective, un-testable, and therefore can act as an ultimate authority. If you cannot disagree then what they say goes. That is about as ultimate an authority as it gets!

The children in Salem were an example of this.

Odd that you say that the public mood has shifted, yet many of those who've commented have said that they're ambivalent to the presence of the models at the sport. I would wager that the silent majority couldn't give a monkeys about the topic. It is pretty much neither here nor there.

I actually think the point I'm making is very simple and straightforward, but am clearly not doing a good job as there have been many misunderstanding the point / thinking they're debating it when they're not.

I dunno, maybe it will help make it so that people like Laz's buddy will feel less like women are objects, fair game to be raped or groped if their clothes are skimpy or they are attractive enough

What the businesses involved are discarding is a particular type of promotional role that to me looks so anachronistic and reeks of Benny Hill level sleaziness that I'm baffled as to why anyone wants to pick this fight.

Call me back when the vegan mob get public display's of meat outlawed or when something worth defending is threatened.
I think I get where you are coming from and what you fear, maybe not but it sounds like MUTBS.
There are very real and active threats to democracy in the air but I don't think this kind of feminism is any part of them.

Seroulsly WTF?

I just gave an answer, if you don't see its because you can't or don't want to.

There is some weird double-think at play here.

When we consider the woman at the beach vs the woman at the F1, we either grant the 'Ally Pally' guy the ability to contextualise or not. You appear to be 'eating your cake and having it too', suggesting that he is able to see some difference between them being there (their own will vs their employer) when observing them, but not the ability to contextualise that when dealing with other women / not harrassing them / not being a pest/ (I.e - your suggestion is that because he sees a woman at the F1 in not much clothing he now treats women terribly -> but also that when he sees that same woman at the beach, he has the ability to understand that it doesn't speak anything about her other than her clothing choice that day). This cannot be reconciled easily imo.

There is a world of difference between the idea that "promoting/normalising/accepting sexual harassment breeds sexual harassment" and "promoting/normalising/accepting society's normal vision of beauty breeds sexual harassment and a toxic culture of such".

Is the second even remotely true? You and others have argued as if it were so, yet when questioned have suggested that the first premise was actually the ideal you are promoting.

Women cleaning the house in their own time are good.
50s style ads showing that women belong in the kitchen not so much.

In a way I can agree with this. Then I consider that studies about video game violence show that they don't make people more violent. That people are able to understand that fantasy and reality are different, and that what we see on TV is not a a guideline for how to live your life and act. And then even if it did, models on TV looking glamorous are just that. If the F1 stars were abusing / harassing the women and somehow making it look like that was appropriate, then perhaps this argument can hold some water.

But they're not. Are they? (I haven't watched F1 in a long time)

[Flushdraw]

Class response and class goal from Watford after Chelsea got back level

[Emmet]

There were 190,406 abortions in England and Wales in 2016 vs 696,271 live births - thats a very large amount of "extreme circumstances". 38% of abortions in England and Wales in 2016 were repeat abortions (same % in 2015).

This does not answer my question.

If I were in favour of abortion in extreme circumstances, then indeed I must vote to repeal the 8th, given that its placement within the constitution means that the legislature cannot practically permit that happening.

Would you then tag me as 'pro-abortion' given that I would be voting to repeal the 8th amendment?

So I am guessing you are predicting a landslide win for pro-abortion if its only a "tiny" number of men against.

[Kayroo]

This is still a bit confusing to me, maybe Kayroo can explain if reading.
It didn't help that the judge never make clear which senior counsel had directed him to attend.

I'd have thought the only reason counsel can 'direct' you to attend is if you are potentially a witness who will give evidence - they can hardly just force someone to be there for a look?
Yet as we know he wasn't called to give evidence.

It's likely a poor choice of words in the article. Counsel (not council) cannot direct anyone to attend anywhere - only the Court can.

What appears to have happened is that Rory Best was lined up as a potential character witness for the Defendants. If I had to take a guess I would imagine that Counsel for one of the Defendants (not sure if they have one Counsel between them or one each) told Rory Best that it is a good idea to attend and hear the evidence of the complainant so that he isn't just getting in the box and saying "Ah yeah, Paddy's a top lad" to the jury who have just heard two days of horrific evidence about rape and sexual assault. It allows him to give evidence as to the Defendants' character with a fuller picture of what happened according to all parties.

[Raoul Duke III]

You doing a Chelts comp this year RD?

Thread duly opened.

Let's bust the record €2,150 pool for last year, gogogogogogogo

[6starpool]

#prayforchd

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Guest]

I think the lads will get off. Hearing women at the weekend saying because most of her Instagram pics are of her big breasts half out or showing means she made it up is baffling. I’d be shocked if the jurors didn’t google her name and some of them think the same.

[CHDad]

#prayforchd

Been bad for weeks. It's kinda pathetic this cycle we seem to go through in recent years. Play above themselves for a season and win a league then fall apart, new manager wash, rinse, repeat. Disgraceful in the transfer market too. No doubt Courtouis and Hazard will end up in Madrid for zillions. Conte is the man to keep but prob gone very soon.

[Kayroo]

Yeah there's a lot of attempting on the nutter side to say this is about legalising abortion, as opposed to what it is which is about changing it from its place in the constitution to its logical place in legislation - where the will of the people's representatives will decide, as opposed to the will of people's representatives from 40 years ago deciding what is the right way to protect women's health rights and the rights of the unborn in a way that fits modern society.

Legislating in the constitution is fundamentally stupid. You can't put the detail in that you need to get it right and, almost by default, you end up getting it wrong.

[Emmet]

Legislating in the constitution is fundamentally stupid. You can't put the detail in that you need to get it right and, almost by default, you end up getting it wrong.

And to play devil's advocate, if you really do believe that every fertilised egg is a human being, and deserves instantly the right to life, even at the cost of infringement on other's personal rights then the constitution really is a good place to put that.

[6starpool]

Been bad for weeks. It's kinda pathetic this cycle we seem to go through in recent years. Play above themselves for a season and win a league then fall apart, new manager wash, rinse, repeat. Disgraceful in the transfer market too. No doubt Courtouis and Hazard will end up in Madrid for zillions. Conte is the man to keep but prob gone very soon.

It is pretty mad alright. I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone in the next day even. If ye miss out on top 4 (even if ye don't perhaps) Hazard at least will surely be looking to leave.

[CHDad]

It is pretty mad alright. I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone in the next day even. If ye miss out on top 4 (even if ye don't perhaps) Hazard at least will surely be looking to leave.

Hazard will leave unless we splash cash on himself and players. Same with Courtouis. Conte will be gone, he's apparently down to only having the loyalty and support of Azpi and the young lads. If he is gone we've pretty much run out of managers to hire. Future will be interesting especially with the purse strings being tightened with the new stadium

[ArmaniJeans]

Future will be interesting especially with the purse strings being tightened with the new stadium

Re the stadium is the build going ahead next season? (Been asked to organise a family football trip and Wembley worked out well this year so would be handy for me if Chelsea moved there in August)

[CHDad]

Re the stadium is the build going ahead next season? (Been asked to organise a family football trip and Wembley worked out well this year so would be handy for me if Chelsea moved there in August)

Nope, more delays with planning and appeals.

[Mellor]

How long do you estimate it will be before TDs are pressurised to increase the limit to 24 weeks should all this go through <5 years?

Pressured by who. The people?
You get how democracy works right.

A lot of flip flopping going anyway - gone from "Irish women wouldn't have abortions based on Down Syndrome" to "they do, but they don't do it lightly" to "that wont be allowed here (after 12 weeks)" - that's all in less than a week, whatever your view you would have to say its not exactly a solid start to the campaign.

You are equating random public opinion with the "campaign". That's not a good road for you to you go down.

Sorry its 46% against with 19% undeclared and who are more likely to go against repeal otherwise they probably would have said by now.

He asked what the source was? Looks completely made up tbh.

They are miles off the numbers on the IT Tracker

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

I make that breakdown to be 54% in favour of repealing, and 25% against. Leaving 21% undecided. Even if all 21% end up going against (very unlikely), it will pass both the Dáil and Seanad.
It's much close to a 3 way tie on support for current proposals. Although FOR is slightly ahead.

[6starpool]

A moralistic man like Strewelly wouldn't be seen dead associating with such a corrupt, fixed sport I'm sure.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/racing/2018/0205/938576-ihrb-investigate-leopardstown-betting-patterns/

[Raoul Duke III]

hmmm, seems like Trump lost me about 25k today. This is bigly bad and I agree with this lad:

[Emmet]

That is genuinely #FakeNews

Cmon RD3, Trump would not 'Joans'.

[Strewelpeter]

[QUOTE=5starpool;1057134]A moralistic man like Strewelly wouldn't be seen dead associating with such a corrupt, fixed sport I'm sure.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/racing/2018...ting-patterns/[/QUOTE ]

LOL Me

It will be interesting to see where that particular story goes.

[Raoul Duke III]

That is genuinely #FakeNews

Cmon RD3, Trump would not 'Joans'.

Sure he would.

[jack90210]

Pressured by who. The people?
You get how democracy works right.

Yes I do. But I favour direct democracy as much as possible on issues were the ones affected can't lobby for themselves.

You are equating random public opinion with the "campaign". That's not a good road for you to you go down.

Actual statements from Minister Harris actually.

He asked what the source was? Looks completely made up tbh.

They are miles off the numbers on the IT Tracker

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

I make that breakdown to be 54% in favour of repealing, and 25% against. Leaving 21% undecided. Even if all 21% end up going against (very unlikely), it will pass both the Dáil and Seanad.
It's much close to a 3 way tie on support for current proposals. Although FOR is slightly ahead.

Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36562750.html

Edit: The IT data includes Senators who can't do anything really.

[Mellor]

Yes I do. But I favour direct democracy as much as possible on issues were the ones affected can't lobby for themselves.

So you are ok with lobbying for one side, but not for the other side. A bit hypocritical tbh.
But the direct democracy part is interesting. If we proceed to referendum, and the country votes to repeal. Will you accept that direct democracy in in favour of abortion in some form? Or would you want a plebiscite combined with the referendum to vote on an abortion proposal.

Source: https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36562750.html

Edit: The IT data includes Senators who can't do anything really.

The Indo poll on whether they are in favour of the current 12 week proposal, not for/against repeal. I'm sure you understand the difference.
The senators are there for a reason, I'm not sure why you think they can't do anything. But nontheless, I quoted TD only stats. Which contradict what you said.

The Indo and IT have slightly different breakdowns for the proposal btw. Not sure which is up to date. Sein Fein be dropping into the Against/Undecided en mass appears to be a flaw in both.

[Guest]

Sure he would.

It is a fake tweet though . Is this the final reckoning for all the can kicking since the last financial crisis,what a time for it to happen, could be time to stock up on beans

[jack90210]

So you are ok with lobbying for one side, but not for the other side. A bit hypocritical tbh.

Our wires could be crossed here. If your referring to the mother v baby lobby. The baby can't lobby.

But the direct democracy part is interesting. If we proceed to referendum, and the country votes to repeal. Will you accept that direct democracy in in favour of abortion in some form? Or would you want a plebiscite combined with the referendum to vote on an abortion proposal.

I would imagine most people are in favour of abortion in certain circumstances such as those already covered in Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Yes I would agree there should be a direct vote on the actual proposal.

The Indo poll on whether they are in favour of the current 12 week proposal, not for/against repeal. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Yes and I said that in the orginal post to Kayroo.

The senators are there for a reason, I'm not sure why you think they can't do anything.

Are you aware of the role of the Senate in Ireland? They have virtually no legislative power.

But nontheless, I quoted TD only stats. Which contradict what you said.

The Indo and IT have slightly different breakdowns for the proposal btw. Not sure which is up to date. Sein Fein be dropping into the Against/Undecided en mass appears to be a flaw in both.

The IT has 57 TDs saying Yes to 12 weeks by my count which is 36% so I am not sure where you are getting your stats from.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[mdoug]

Go on the fucking eagles!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J9yBi1i0-Y

Would have been some fucking session last night

[CHDad]

Can we get Jack and mellor setup in their own thread?

Ill take one too.

[Mellor]

Can we get Jack and mellor setup in their own thread?

Ill take one too.

But we'd miss you.

And Jack get a bit of stick, but somebody had to rise up to fill the void left by by P&F exit

[CHDad]

But we'd miss you.

And Jack get a bit of stick, but somebody had to rise up to fill the void left by by P&F exit

May aswell announce it now.

P&F and myself are a couple for the last 2 months. We are in love and we hate men. We are quite fond of cats, puppies and 1920s Russian art.

We request you all stop following us and creeping up behind us. We will turn around quick enough and catch yous soon enough.

[Mellor]

Our wires could be crossed here. If your referring to the mother v baby lobby. The baby can't lobby.

I wasn't referring to mother vrs baby in the slightest. I agree that a person who doesn't exist can't lobby.
I was referring to the fact that you appear to have an issue with people who want laws relaxed having influence, yet are happy to pitch the opposite side.

I would imagine most people are in favour of abortion in certain circumstances such as those already covered in Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. Yes I would agree there should be a direct vote on the actual proposal.

I agree it makes sense to vote on the matter, I think it would need to be an unbinding plebiscite rather than a referendum (Kayroo can confirm). I've no issue with people voting against the current proposal or any proposal btw. But I'm not a huge fan of people knowingly misusing the the constitution to protect their interest.

Yes and I said that in the orginal post to Kayroo.

What you actual said was;

Sorry its 46% against with 19% undeclared and who are more likely to go against repeal otherwise they probably would have said by now.

Use of repeal only refer to repealing the 8th.

Are you aware of the role of the Senate in Ireland? They have virtually no legislative power.

Before the referendum proposal is put to the people to vote on it, it needs to be passed by the Dail and the Seanad. That's why they were included.

The IT has 57 TDs saying Yes to 12 weeks by my count which is 36% so I am not sure where you are getting your stats from.

What part of that disagree with what I said?
57 v 50 with 51 undecided. Almost a 3 way tie, with the Yes side is a slightly ahead.

It's close to a 3 way tie on support for current proposals. Although FOR is slightly ahead.

[dobby]

Hazard will leave unless we splash cash on himself and players. Same with Courtouis. Conte will be gone, he's apparently down to only having the loyalty and support of Azpi and the young lads. If he is gone we've pretty much run out of managers to hire. Future will be interesting especially with the purse strings being tightened with the new stadium

Apparently Luis Enrique has been lined up as replacement

[Solksjaer!]

I hate the fucking eagles