Martin Ferris in the Irish Times

Spiritoftheseventies

waryeye wrote: »

So Ferris is delighted that they won't be held to account for their other crimes ? ?

Yes another revealing slip by you there Mr Byrne. 'Other crimes' you say? By clear implication any action undertaken by McAuley etc , never mind Adare, falls under the criminal category to you? Does that hold for all the activities of the IRA over that period?
Wonder where you were during the Hunger Strikes when Thatcher's government tried the card of painting all Republican action as `'criminal'?
When it patently was not.
It was politically motivated violence and that has been fully acknowledged by the subsequent releases under the Good Friday Agreement.
The effort to portray Republican violence as criminal was defeated by the self-same hunger strikes and the subsequent rise of Sinn Fein in the North as the majority party representing the Nationalist viewpoint.

But yes. No problem with cold-blooded state killing, via capital punishment and now categorising any IRA activity as 'criminal'.
Interesting. The truth will out. Eventually. You should apply for a job in the Sunday Indo.:o

to quote from times article

Det Garda McCabe was shot three times as he sat in an unmarked Garda car while providing an armed escort for an SDS van delivering cash for social welfare payments.

Det Gda O’Sullivan, who was in the car with Det Gda McCabe, suffered gunshot and shrapnel wounds to his face, arms, chest and legs. The men’s car was rammed from behind before 14 shots were fired by the gang, who were armed with Kalashnikov rifles."

Its pretty damning stuff here. But to my mind the two high case profiles up north are equally galling.
Bottom line is that Shinners will eventually have to draw a line and cut ties with their past.

anonymous_joe

Whenever someone brings up the 'Sinn Féin are not the same as the IRA' argument in boards ever again can we point them to this thread?

I can barely articulate my feelings towards Ferris, I think mindless rage is about as close as I can get to it, but really, these guys are murdering terrorists. They've murdered an innocent guy and they're lauded as heroes by Sinn Féin.

I hope this costs them votes. It's all they care about.

waryeye

Bayviewclose I would have thought it was obvious since the ceasefire and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement that Sinn Fein have drawn a line in the sand and cut their ties to the past.

Decomissioning of arms has been completed and the authorities agree the IRA' such as it was, has been stood down completely. I think I know what incidents you are referring to. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

There has been remarkable progress made in recent years and people are no longer dying every nite of the week in the North. Let's celebrate that fact and all move on. As for Joe in Sandymount's observation, we all have our views on the last 35 years.
No one on this thread, as far as I'm aware, defended the killing of Jerry McCabe or said it was right.

The issue for some of us was it, the release of the prisoners after serving their full sentence, was used as a stick to beat Martin Ferris and by extension the whole republican movement.
But I will say one last time, the war is over. Now let's move on.

anonymous_joe

waryeye wrote: »

Bayviewclose I would have thought it was obvious since the ceasefire and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement that Sinn Fein have drawn a line in the sand and cut their ties to the past.

Decomissioning of arms has been completed and the authorities agree the IRA' such as it was, has been stood down completely. I think I know what incidents you are referring to. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

There has been remarkable progress made in recent years and people are no longer dying every nite of the week in the North. Let's celebrate that fact and all move on. As for Joe in Sandymount's observation, we all have our views on the last 35 years.
No one on this thread, as far as I'm aware, defended the killing of Jerry McCabe or said it was right.

The issue for some of us was it, the release of the prisoners after serving their full sentence, was used as a stick to beat Martin Ferris and by extension the whole republican movement.
But I will say one last time, the war is over. Now let's move on.

But the problem is, we're all delighted teh war is over, but it's extraordinarily offensive (not to mention myopic) of an elected TD to be going and collecting them from prison.

Not only does it offend, but it looks like Sinn Féin and the IRA are still one and the same. They should be distancing themselves from the past, not revelling in it. The IRA, no matter your belief system, did terrible things in Northern Ireland and in the UK. (As did others.) There shouldn't be such hero-worship of those people.

Rebelheart

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But the problem is, we're all delighted teh war is over, but it's extraordinarily offensive (not to mention myopic) of an elected TD to be going and collecting them from prison.

Not only does it offend, but it looks like Sinn Féin and the IRA are still one and the same. They should be distancing themselves from the past, not revelling in it. The IRA, no matter your belief system, did terrible things in Northern Ireland and in the UK. (As did others.) There shouldn't be such hero-worship of those people.

There are, I am absolutely certain, very many people who believe there should not be "hero-worshipping" of "those people", "those people" being all those members of the British forces who have died while defending British power beyond Britain. Yet it happens, on a quotidian basis. Many people have to live with that sight, that offence, and incessant glorification of murder and terror on a scale far larger than anything the IRA's leadership has ever conceived of.

You evidently have your heroes, they evidently have theirs. Some of us have no heroes at all. Let's leave it at that, and move on.

Liam Byrne

waryeye wrote: »

If you Liam Byrne say you weren't wagging your finger at the Martin Ferrises of this country, as I contended, then you surely fooled me:o. You have been berating the man with numerous posts for hours. Standing in judgement of him, his history, his political motivations, the party he represents and his morality. So that's a bit rich.

Guilty - if that's the word - of ONE of the four.

I haven't commented ONCE on his history.
I haven't commented ONCE on his "political motivations"
I haven't commented definitively ONCE on the party he represents

I have judged his morality based on the fact that he views murderers as mates and thinks that it's OK. That's true. I don't think it's OK [ but I'd judge myself and my mates the same, so I'm not being judgemental or inconsistent ] I have - as you put it - "by extension" wondered about the party, since at least Adams & Ferris Jnr have expressed the same views, thereby giving an indication of the possible contempt of the laws of the land being a wider concern than simply Ferris himself.

Again, perfectly understandable - to a neutral.

waryeye wrote: »

You contend the attempted armed robbery by an IRA unit, whether it was a sanctioned operation or not, had nothing to do with the North or the struggle going on there? That flies in the face of any facts I've ever know about the day in Adare? Fund-raising operations for the Republican movement would certainly fall into the above category.

So it WAS a sanctioned operation then ? I'll bow to your superior knowledge. But it flies in the face of what we were told at the time.

And having shot both Gardai, with the money at their mercy, they left it there ?

Genius "fund-raising for the cause" that! :rolleyes:

waryeye wrote: »

As for your attitude to capital punishment, it's crystal clear now that you are in favour of the coldest blooded kind of killing of all.

The cold deliberate taking of a human life as a punishment, as a lesson, a warning to others.

Absolutely.

waryeye wrote: »

It renders much of what you have said previously about 'killing' and 'murder' as absurd.

No. If it's there as a deterrent, then no-one should ever cross the line and it should never be needed. Of course, no-one should cross that line, regardless of the threat of punishment.

But if they decide to do so, then that's THEIR decision. And they should accept the consequences.

Like I can decide to drive at 80mph, and I'm caught, I know for a fact that I'll be fined and get penalty points; so if I do drive at 80mph, that's my call and I accept the consequences.

Like I said, my ideal is that this wouldn't even be required, because murder wouldn't even enter someone's head, but unfortunately that is not the case.

waryeye wrote: »

Capital punishment I would say to you is a form of killing which is much colder than what occurred in Adare that day.

Absolute and sickening bull****. Having a law that's democratically agreed and that's voted for that forbids murder, versus someone taking the law into their own hands, for their own dirty, despicable aims ? Completely and utterly different.

waryeye wrote: »

But I'm sure your mind will find a way to square that circle too :rolleyes:

Ah yes, when in doubt throw in a rolleyes so that the reasonable counter-argument will be thrown into doubt.

I'm happy with my stance, and maybe Ferris is happy with his.

But the fact of the matter is that AS A RESULT OF HIS STANCE, I think he's pathetic and despicable, and has no regard for the views of the bulk of the electorate or the laws of the land.

You're entitled to your opinion; and I'm entitled to mine.

Agree to differ. But don't accuse me of things that I haven't expressed.

And certainly don't view a punishment as equivalent to a cold-blooded killing of a Garda doing his duty on the whim of a gun-toting criminal.

Liam Byrne

waryeye wrote: »

'Other crimes' you say? By clear implication any action undertaken by McAuley etc , never mind Adare, falls under the criminal category to you?

Again, words in my mouth, and this time I've reported it.

waryeye wrote: »

Wonder where you were during the Hunger Strikes when Thatcher's government tried the card of painting all Republican action as `'criminal'?

Irrelevant.

waryeye wrote: »

It was politically motivated violence and that has been fully acknowledged by the subsequent releases under the Good Friday Agreement.

We are talking about ONE example; and example where the scum involved were NOT released. So again, you're deliberately muddying the water and twisting what I've said.

But sure go ahead; anyone with half a brain will see through it.

waryeye wrote: »

.....and now categorising any IRA activity as 'criminal'

Even more misrepresentation. Will you PLEASE stop adding the words "all" and "any" to my sentences in an effort to make them appear unreasonable ?

anonymous_joe

Rebelheart wrote: »

There are, I am absolutely certain, very many people who believe there should not be "hero-worshipping" of "those people", "those people" being all those members of the British forces who have died while defending British power beyond Britain. Yet it happens, on a quotidian basis. Many people have to live with that sight, that offence, and incessant glorification of murder and terror on a scale far larger than anything the IRA's leadership has ever conceived of.

You evidently have your heroes, they evidently have theirs. Some of us have no heroes at all. Let's leave it at that, and move on.

You say we need to move on, my point was simply that it's an extraordinarily bizarre, stupid and unsavoury thing for Sinn Féin to be doing. One of the points of moving on is that you have to turn the other cheek to what others did to you, but you also have to move on from what you did. If Sinn Féin genuinely care for the people of the island of Ireland (if) then this is the last thing they need to do. They need to move on from the IRA, and become a real political party, independant of this kind of action.

And for the record, there's no such country as Britain, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so they had every right to have soldiers in Northern Ireland. What they may have done (and what we know they did do in too many cases) is unacceptable, but it's important to also remember that while the island is Ireland, and Sinn Féin are from that island, they do still have a part to play in leading a burgeoning regional state in Northern Ireland, one with a unionist majority, and that too requires them to try and move on from associating themselves with criminality and terrorism.

themont85

waryeye wrote: »

Seems like some people are very slow to take a point on this thread.
Liam Byrne. I reiterated earlier that Sinn Fein condemned the Jerry McCabe killing and never condoned it. Nor did the IRA sanction it. Again I refer you to the IRA's green book which expressly forbids such actions.

If Sinn Fein/IRA didn't condone the actions of those murderers then why did they continuing state that these men should be released under the GFA?

Were their actions not as no more than a group of thugs robbing a post office completely unrelated to their cause?

If it is in the IRA green book then why did the IRA support these men through various means through trial and their sentance? Why are these men treated like they should be considered 'prisoners of war' and the cause?

If Sinn Fein reiterated their condeming of the murder then why did they (1)Press for early release and (2)have their main man in the south greet them on their release?

Scofflaw

waryeye wrote: »

So Ferris is delighted that they won't be held to account for their other crimes ? ?

Yes another revealing slip by you there Mr Byrne. 'Other crimes' you say? By clear implication any action undertaken by McAuley etc , never mind Adare, falls under the criminal category to you? Does that hold for all the activities of the IRA over that period?
Wonder where you were during the Hunger Strikes when Thatcher's government tried the card of painting all Republican action as `'criminal'?
When it patently was not.
It was politically motivated violence and that has been fully acknowledged by the subsequent releases under the Good Friday Agreement.
The effort to portray Republican violence as criminal was defeated by the self-same hunger strikes and the subsequent rise of Sinn Fein in the North as the majority party representing the Nationalist viewpoint.

But yes. No problem with cold-blooded state killing, via capital punishment and now categorising any IRA activity as 'criminal'.
Interesting. The truth will out. Eventually. You should apply for a job in the Sunday Indo.:o

A little warning, here, waryeye - there's a very low level of tolerance for stirring on NI threads (over and above the annoyance each side feels for the other's entrenched and wrong-headed views). Persistently misrepresenting another poster's opinion - which you are indeed doing here - falls under the definition of 'stirring'. If you continue to stir, rather than debate, or fail to distinguish between the two, then I'll ban you in my usual high-handed and arbitrary fashion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Rebelheart

anonymous_joe wrote: »

You say we need to move on, my point was simply that it's an extraordinarily bizarre, stupid and unsavoury thing for Sinn Féin to be doing. One of the points of moving on is that you have to turn the other cheek to what others did to you, but you also have to move on from what you did. If Sinn Féin genuinely care for the people of the island of Ireland (if) then this is the last thing they need to do. They need to move on from the IRA, and become a real political party, independant of this kind of action.

I have no problem with this, and couldn't really care about it to be honest. I don't and wouldn't vote for Sinn Féin because, among other issues, I believe their euroscepticism is bad for Irish independence. Nevertheless, I object to the notion that SF is unique in "glorifying" violence from its own constituency, that it is somehow a less moral party.

Are all those parties and organisations that glorify (euph.: "honour") the violence (euph.: "military tradition") of the British Empire also expected to move on from this culture of violence? Or is Sinn Féin unique in this respect? I would think that if all these "poppy day" parties "genuinely care" they would not regularly rub the deeds of that empire in the faces of the very many people who are deeply offended by it and what it stands for. What's sauce for the goose ....

anonymous_joe wrote: »

And for the record, there's no such country as Britain, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so they had every right to have soldiers in Northern Ireland.

I'm well aware of what the British have decided to name their state. Nevertheless, by the precise same logic you use here the British had "every right to have soldiers in Ireland" prior to 6 December 1922 when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was the name of their unilaterally declared state. They never had, and never will have, a right to have soldiers on Irish soil. Moral legitimacy to rule doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It's rather more complicated, I'm afraid.

Spiritoftheseventies

To quote from a previous post of L Byrne's.
" I have judged his morality based on the fact that he views murderers as mates and thinks that it's OK. That's true. I don't think it's OK [ but I'd judge myself and my mates the same, so I'm not being judgemental or inconsistent ] I have - as you put it - "by extension" wondered about the party, since at least Adams & Ferris Jnr have expressed the same views, thereby giving an indication of the possible contempt of the laws of the land being a wider concern than simply Ferris himself."

I must call you on this. To say Ferris views the released murderers as his mates just floors your argument. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this crime, at the time Sinn Fein and its Army wing went hand in hand. In effect they served together. He didn't out and out condemn the crime but did he say it was okay. He is asked a question and has to be seen to come out in a language that is acceptable to both SInn Fein and the retired army council.
We cannot judge Sinn Fein on this one incident alone. We can judge them however on the way they dragged their feet on the McCartney and Quinn cases which to me were appalling.
The bottom line is that Sinn Fein is seeing the deeds of their past resurfacing. So they have to deal with that.
And may i repeat again because L Byrne said it and then it was repeated that Ferris never said he was delighted that British authoritiies had decided not to issue outstanding extradition warrants on two members of the gang.
He welcomed the news. Thats putting words into other peoples mouths!

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

Eh, no. I wouldn't vote for a shyster or a con-man, so I'm definitely not voting for someone who tacitly condones murder. Martin Ferris is a convicted gun-runner. I would imagine he had some idea what the guns and explosives he was trying to import would be used for. He obviously empathises with the killers of gardaí.

I wouldn't call him a murderer, but it's equally clear we share almost nothing in terms of moral standards.

Didn't we have an arms trial in the seventies. Or we absolving all the current political parties of their sins. Lets be clear about this. Lets do a bit of a revision here. One former leader of the biggest party on this island and a former taoiseach was involved in the assasination of British agents in 1920. Another former Taoiseach was acquited for attempting to import arms up north in the 1970s.
Point being we cannot discount our history. it is very complex. Sinn Fein Im sure will eventually "FULLY" embrace the democratic system but there needs to be less of the emotive and irrational debate that is going on at the moment. I don't even know how capital punishment got introduced into this debate.
I dont need to tell you what would happen if the state chose to go down that route. Peace process would be in tatters.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sinn Fein Im sure will eventually "FULLY" embrace the democratic system...

...and when they eventually do, I'll begin to consider them a real political party and judge them on the merits of their policies.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and when they eventually do, I'll begin to consider them a real political party and judge them on the merits of their policies.

Yes i agree with that but like i said we had a prominent td down south up on trial for attempting to import arms to the north in the seventies. He was acquited and he later became a taoiseach. Like i said we have a very complex history and as such i think we need to familiarise ourself with it before terms like "capital punishment" our even introduced into this debate.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes i agree with that but like i said we had a prominent td down south up on trial for attempting to import arms to the north in the seventies. He was acquited and he later became a taoiseach.

I wouldn't have voted for him either.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wouldn't have voted for him either.

Yes merely brought it up to illustrate point that it took an established party like FF some time to shake off its historical links with its military past.

anonymous_joe

Rebelheart wrote: »

I have no problem with this, and couldn't really care about it to be honest. I don't and wouldn't vote for Sinn Féin because, among other issues, I believe their euroscepticism is bad for Irish independence. Nevertheless, I object to the notion that SF is unique in "glorifying" violence from its own constituency, that it is somehow a less moral party.

They're not unique in glorifying violence, but you don't see Fianna Fáil sending the lads to pick up terrorists who were robbing post offices for personal enrichment.

And I'd never vote for Sinn Féin because of their laughable economic policies and Euroscepticism first, moral reasons second.

Are all those parties and organisations that glorify (euph.: "honour") the violence (euph.: "military tradition") of the British Empire also expected to move on from this culture of violence? Or is Sinn Féin unique in this respect? I would think that if all these "poppy day" parties "genuinely care" they would not regularly rub the deeds of that empire in the faces of the very many people who are deeply offended by it and what it stands for. What's sauce for the goose ....

Given that during the 19th century, the most represented nationality in the British Army was the Irish, followed by the English and then the Scottish, many of their deeds were carried out by us as much as them. People are often proud of past militarism, because it's safely in the past, no-one would be extolling the virtues of a new war of conquest.

And tbh, the British Empire didn't stand for anything. It's an Empire, just like that of Spain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Turkey and so on. They were not unique in any way, and while we rightly resent what they did to us, anyone else would have done the same thing.

I'm well aware of what the British have decided to name their state. Nevertheless, by the precise same logic you use here the British had "every right to have soldiers in Ireland" prior to 6 December 1922 when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was the name of their unilaterally declared state. They never had, and never will have, a right to have soldiers on Irish soil. Moral legitimacy to rule doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It's rather more complicated, I'm afraid.

Well they conquered us, so basically they did, they were the government of the UK and Ireland. The only right they had was martial prowess, and, to be blunt, that's all that's ever mattered historically. From the Roman Empire up to the British Empire, they were all won by conquest. It's what people did. It's not nice, but those were the rules. I'd wish it was more complicated, but historically it hasn't been.

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

I must call you on this. To say Ferris views the released murderers as his mates just floors your argument.

Fair enough - I have no problem with being queried on things that I did actually say, and actually appreciate the opportunity to respond; in explanation / my defence, they were earlier described as "comrades", and having no point of reference I would have made a distinction between "we operated together" (which I would say if I had worked with someone that I disapproved of) and "comrades".

If that was incorrect, then by all means yourself and anyone reading the thread can replace the word mates with the word comrades.

bayviewclose wrote: »

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this crime, at the time Sinn Fein and its Army wing went hand in hand. In effect they served together.

I deliberately avoided the use of the phrase "served together" above, using "operated together", because of the nature of their actions; but point taken.

However, I cannot see any "rights" to this crime, considering it ended up with someone dead and with the robbers not even managing to "raise funds", so - similar to your calling me on phrasing about - I have to call you on this - there were no "rights" to this crime.

Even at the time, the top level of the IRA disowned the crime, claiming they had nothing to do with it. So it wasn't even part of "the cause", with any possible [sickening to me, but OK to others] chance to add credence / legitmacy to the act.

bayviewclose wrote: »

He didn't out and out condemn the crime but did he say it was okay. He is asked a question and has to be seen to come out in a language that is acceptable to both SInn Fein and the retired army council.

bayviewclose wrote: »

We cannot judge Sinn Fein on this one incident alone. We can judge them however on the way they dragged their feet on the McCartney and Quinn cases which to me were appalling. The bottom line is that Sinn Fein is seeing the deeds of their past resurfacing. So they have to deal with that.

Agreed. That is PRECISELY the issue here; either Ferris should be reprimanded for dragging them into disrepute by "personal" actions, or they need to state why they welcome news that they "welcome" the dimissal of valid extradition orders, and prisoner releases. They should really have no comment, particularly if it was - as we were told - an "UNAUTHORISED OPERATION", against the "Green Book" rules, that had ALREADY dragged SF/IRA into disrepute.

bayviewclose wrote: »

And may i repeat again because L Byrne said it and then it was repeated that Ferris never said he was delighted that British authoritiies had decided not to issue outstanding extradition warrants on two members of the gang.

He welcomed the news. Thats putting words into other peoples mouths!

Seriously! I have absolutely NO objection in correcting / highlighting the possible difference between "comrades" and mates, but if you can explain the difference between "welcoming the news" and "being delighted", then fire away!

I will not misrepresent, so maybe I'll tone it down a little, but at the very, very least surely "I welcome the news" is "I'm happy about it ?

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes merely brought it up to illustrate point that it took an established party like FF some time to shake off its historical links with its military past.

So you agree that they have done so ? When do you reckon, precisely, that they did that ? Let's say 1980, just for argument's sake.

I've been voting since 1988, so I base my potential vote for FF based on their [crap] policies, because it's 30 years since they last shook off its historical links with its military past.

By that logic, considering SF highlighted its links just this week, I might be able to start considering voting for SF somewhere around 2039.

But also bear in mind that I am, in that sentence, making a HUGE allowance in overlooking the fact that I am not of the opinion that there was anything "military" or noble or "cause-related" about the murder in Adare that day.

Even allowing for that, in order for this week to be the deadline, there's a LOT of work to be done to weed out / convince those similar to some who have posted here that this week was the definitive end of it.

Spiritoftheseventies

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair enough - I have no problem with being queried on things that I did actually say, and actually appreciate the opportunity to respond; in explanation / my defence, they were earlier described as "comrades", and having no point of reference I would have made a distinction between "we operated together" (which I would say if I had worked with someone that I disapproved of) and "comrades".

If that was incorrect, then by all means yourself and anyone reading the thread can replace the word mates with the word comrades.



I deliberately avoided the use of the phrase "served together" above, using "operated together", because of the nature of their actions; but point taken.

However, I cannot see any "rights" to this crime, considering it ended up with someone dead and with the robbers not even managing to "raise funds", so - similar to your calling me on phrasing about - I have to call you on this - there were no "rights" to this crime.

Even at the time, the top level of the IRA disowned the crime, claiming they had nothing to do with it. So it wasn't even part of "the cause", with any possible [sickening to me, but OK to others] chance to add credence / legitmacy to the act.





Agreed. That is PRECISELY the issue here; either Ferris should be reprimanded for dragging them into disrepute by "personal" actions, or they need to state why they welcome news that they "welcome" the dimissal of valid extradition orders, and prisoner releases. They should really have no comment, particularly if it was - as we were told - an "UNAUTHORISED OPERATION", against the "Green Book" rules, that had ALREADY dragged SF/IRA into disrepute.



Seriously! I have absolutely NO objection in correcting / highlighting the possible difference between "comrades" and mates, but if you can explain the difference between "welcoming the news" and "being delighted", then fire away!

I will not misrepresent, so maybe I'll tone it down a little, but at the very, very least surely "I welcome the news" is "I'm happy about it ?

Well in fairness the tone of this message is more agreeable but language I think is important.
I would say news was welcome because it says that they know that the British have moved on (partially through circumstance). Were they delighted. Maybe but I think to say delighted would not be a choice word.
End of the day they served their time. I think at this stage they are probably the last strand of prisoners to be released eminating from the period of the troubles.
What needs to be done now is for closure to be achieved on the McCartney and Quinn cases which i think is very important.

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

I would say news was welcome because it says that they know that the British have moved on (partially through circumstance).

Why should the British "move on" from actual crimes committed, though ?

bayviewclose wrote: »

End of the day they served their time.

They did. And while there may have been hands tied in releation to the conviction, we need to accept this.

It was NEVER the issue; the issue that arose this week was Ferris meeting them.

bayviewclose wrote: »

I think at this stage they are probably the last strand of prisoners to be released eminating from the period of the troubles.

Again, this is what GALLS most neutrals; these [ex]prisoners did NOT "eminate from the troubles"; they may have previously been involved in the troubles, but that does NOT give them carte-blanche to commit other crimes without justice being imposed.

Ferris should not have met them if he wants to be taken seriously by neutrals and law-abiding citizens; even most of those who are SF but seem decent enough regarding law and order have had to distance themselves from supporting Ferris and condoning violence [ one or two absolutely sickening exceptions and outrageous comparisons ] , but overall fairly much "I can see why he did it, but he shouldn't have".

And therein is SF's problem; sympathisers and supporters can see why he did it, because of their emotive link towards "former-volunteers-turned-thugs", while neutrals go "WTF", and then question the blinkeredness of that emotive link, and also question SF's bona fide that they didn't think twice about this.

So Ferris, the supporters and SF itself have been damaged in the eyes of neutrals, and that from a barely stable position prior to this fiasco.

bayviewclose wrote: »

What needs to be done now is for closure to be achieved on the McCartney and Quinn cases which i think is very important.

Agreed.

Ciaranpm

I wish those SF cnuts would disappear, Mr Ferris should be removed from public office now. An elected official paid a salary by the govt as td meet man slaughterers(murderers) of an another official representing and defending the state.

if that hateful baxter has any reason to call on an Garda Siochana any time soon i think they might be busy!

Spiritoftheseventies

Ciaranpm wrote: »

I wish those SF cnuts would disappear, Mr Ferris should be removed from public office now. An elected official paid a salary by the govt as td meet man slaughterers(murderers) of an another official representing and defending the state.

if that hateful baxter has any reason to call on an Garda Siochana any time soon i think they might be busy!

think we are trying to get away from this emotive dialogue. wont go over old ground anway.

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

think we are trying to get away from this emotive dialogue. wont go over old ground anway.

Why, though ?

The murder itself was sickening, condemned by all right-thinking people, and the fact that an elected representative saw fit to collect them is a damning indictment of his morals and shows his lack of respect for the Irish people.

So since Ferris triggered that poster's emotions, it's hardly the poster's fault.

Apart from the references to the whole of SF, he's spot on with what he said.

And while I'll cross my fingers and tentatively accept reassurances that not all SF people agree with the murder or Ferris' actions, Ferris, his daughter, McGuinness & Adams have all come down on the wrong side of the request to condemn it - despite it supposedly bringing their organisation into disrepute and being against their rules - so it's definitely more widespread an infection than just Ferris.

Spiritoftheseventies

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why, though ?

The murder itself was sickening, condemned by all right-thinking people, and the fact that an elected representative saw fit to collect them is a damning indictment of his morals and shows his lack of respect for the Irish people.

So since Ferris triggered that poster's emotions, it's hardly the poster's fault.

Apart from the references to the whole of SF, he's spot on with what he said.

And while I'll cross my fingers and tentatively accept reassurances that not all SF people agree with the murder or Ferris' actions, Ferris, his daughter, McGuinness & Adams have all come down on the wrong side of the request to condemn it - despite it supposedly bringing their organisation into disrepute and being against their rules - so it's definitely more widespread an infection than just Ferris.

I don't think strong language needs to be used to make a point. And I'll say it again. The Quinn and McCartney cases are the two high profile cases that will continue to hurt Sinn Fein if they don't like a democratic party and condemn these murders outright.

BrianD

If any other politician went and picked up two murderers and thieves from jail they would ejected from their party and more than likely forced to resign their position as an elected representative. Ferris is a disgrace to democracy and the values of civilised society.

Spiritoftheseventies

BrianD wrote: »

If any other politician went and picked up two murderers and thieves from jail they would ejected from their party and more than likely forced to resign their position as an elected representative. Ferris is a disgrace to democracy and the values of civilised society.

Put it this way. TD's who in course of constituency work plea for early releases if convicted drunk drivers or criminals. Are they equally guilty?

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

Put it this way. TD's who in course of constituency work plea for early releases if convicted drunk drivers or criminals. Are they equally guilty?

How can they be "equally guilty" ? Do they "plea" for a early releases, or do they issue spurious claims that they're "entitled" to early releases ?

Do they pick them up from jail ?

I don't like TDs that plead for scumbags, but I'll judge that on the level it deserves, which is a fair bit ahead of Ferris; definitely unpalatable, but not on the same level.

Plus, if someone had already gotten a lesser sentence due to witness intimidation, I couldn't imagine any TD pleading for a further reduction.

Spiritoftheseventies

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How can they be "equally guilty" ? Do they "plea" for a early releases, or do they issue spurious claims that they're "entitled" to early releases ?

Do they pick them up from jail ?

I don't like TDs that plead for scumbags, but I'll judge that on the level it deserves, which is a fair bit ahead of Ferris; definitely unpalatable, but not on the same level.

Plus, if someone had already gotten a lesser sentence due to witness intimidation, I couldn't imagine any TD pleading for a further reduction.

Never mentioned Witness intimidation and we are going a bit off track here. I think i've said it before but what we need now from SF is movement on the McCartney and Quinn cases which after the "war" had come to an end.