Gerry Adams, Leader of Opposition

Anita M.

Reilly616 wrote: »

No, murder is a very specific crime. One which nobody can be guilty of until they have been proved as such. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat!

Like I stated before: We had murderers before. Forget ye not the distant past where wee little children were brutally worked to the bone and starved under the eye of the clergy...
In my opinion The murderers are the sitting and past elected:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I'd prefer a barking dog over the silent one.

bette

phantom_lord wrote: »

I just don't understand how you continue to espouse the man when you must surely realise that while he may share your republican views he's utterly incapable of the much more important duties required of an elected official in this country and certainly the utterly wrong person to lead an opposition. I actually don't think we've ever had this debate even once, as you seem to just avoid dealing with SFs lack of competency when it comes to actual policy.

What a load of nonsense. The current opposition certainly does not shine and frankly, the only reason they will be sitting on Government benches is because of the total incompetence of the incumbents.

The real opposition was Labour with Gilmore as the master of soundbites and Burton the haranguing sparring partner to the lightweight joker of a minister for finance and breathless enthusiastic delivery of porkies.

Reilly616

nesf wrote: »

There is the crime of murder and the act of murder which are two different things. Similar to how someone can be said to be drink driving and that not meaning they've been convicted for drink driving.

I can only repeat: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

phantom_lord

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

While that's a huge reason it's not the only one.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He's shown he has no idea what's going on economically by being unable to answer the questions put to him about simple arithmetic in the debate the other night. Surely when facing the greatest crisis we've faced you want someone who can at least have a logical solution?

He's shown he has no idea of the basics of things going on in this country. He has shown no legislative competency thus far. Fine he may have achieved things in other areas but that's not what his role is going to be here. You honestly want someone who has shown a complete lack of knowledge of basic areas of this country being the main opposition leader and putting forward sensible alternatives to government proposals? Because sensible proposals are something we see very little from SF. The weakness in their policies is not confined to their economic plans.

nesf

Reilly616 wrote: »

I can only repeat: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

Sure, that's why I warned already in this thread to get people to stop accusing him of things and limit themselves to saying he was suspected of being involved in things.

Reilly616

nesf wrote: »

Sure, that's why I warned already in this thread to get people to stop accusing him of things and limit themselves to saying he was suspected of being involved in things.

It's the only point I was making too. I'm neither for nor againse Adams/SF. I wouldn't consider myself to be in an informed position on the matter, so wouldn't make a call on it.

Balmed Out

Before christmas the us state department wikilinks claimed the Irish government had rock solid evidence that Adams and McGuiness knew beforehand about the Northern bank robbery and that both were on the IRA leadership commitee.

Do ye believe that?

If its true do you think he should be allowed to be a td?

Wolfe Tone

Balmed Out wrote: »

Before christmas the us state department wikilinks claimed the Irish government had rock solid evidence that Adams and McGuiness knew beforehand about the Northern bank robbery and that both were on the IRA leadership commitee.

Do ye believe that?

If its true do you think he should be allowed to be a td?

The memos said Bertie thought Adams knew about it, if they had rock solid evidence they would have done something

Balmed Out

I dont think they would have done anything so as not to destabalise the peace process.


from the independant

Mr Kenny's cable referred to a meeting with a senior Irish government official which focused on Mr Ahern's concerns about the peace process.

The ambassador recorded: "He said that the GOI (government of Ireland) does have 'rock solid evidence' that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery."

Wolfe Tone

So the story is here that Bertie covered up the northern bank robbery?


Thats evidence that they were on the IRA council anyway, not that the IRA did the robbery

Balmed Out

if you accept that do you think he should be allowed to be a td.

Personally I wouldnt mind if he were to leave and denounce them but not otherwise.

crebel81

EithneMasterson wrote: »

Would hate to see Gerry adams get in...................we have had theives liars cheats wimps...................do we really need Murderer to the list

Would you believe anything? If you can add a link that relates to his trial for murder. and that he was convicted and served a sentence I will AGREE with you.

But if you can't than more fool you

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The memos said Bertie thought Adams knew about it, if they had rock solid evidence they would have done something

My view is that they used the Northern Bank robbery as leverage on recognition of the police board, McDowell was supposed to have put pressure on them in that regard.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

My view is that they used the Northern Bank robbery as leverage on recognition of the police board, McDowell was supposed to have put pressure on them in that regard.

Someone could come on and say something totally different and their opinion would have the same weight, as it is just that, an opinion, no fact there

johnmcdnl

Balmed Out wrote: »

If its true do you think he should be allowed to be a td?

why wouldn't he be allowed be a TD no one has ever proven that he was in the IRA to begin with and even if he was well members of the IRA have already been elected to Dáil Eireann...

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Someone could come on and say something totally different and their opinion would have the same weight, as it is just that, an opinion, no fact there

I know that. It's from my recollection of the journalists at the time.

McDowell wanted to use it to put pressure on the IRA. Makes sense tbh and one of the reasons for the SF hatred of him.

Balmed Out

johnmcdnl wrote: »

why wouldn't he be allowed be a TD no one has ever proven that he was in the IRA to begin with and even if he was well members of the IRA have already been elected to Dáil Eireann...

The IRA is an illegal organisation and according to the wikileaks document the Irish government have "rock solid" evidence that hes on the leadership commitee. What members of the provisional ira have been elected to the dail?

puffdragon

There is still time !! We can go on talking about Gerry Adams and letting Fianna Fail distract us and take our eye off the ball while Brian Lennihan does his shady little deals in the background ( anyone seen him lately) or we can stand up for our country and stop the impending payment to the bondholders,

Please stop dwelling on nonsence drummed up by the media who are being funded by FIanna Fail who are worried that their friends in Germany wont get paid, keep your eye on the ball and dont let them devide you, Fine Gael and Labour are also being targeted by Mehole Martin and thats the proof!! anyone who isint on the IMF money train is an enemy!! WAKE UP!!

Whether Gerry is in opposition or not will be irrelevant when we have given our childrens money to the IMF !!

delta720

Reilly616 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

A "murderer" is someone who has been proven guilty, by a court of law, of the crime of murder. You are proposing that Adams is a murderer. I am pointing out that you are wrong and cannot back up your claim by evidence.

Also, an elipsis is a series of three full stops. Go on, educate yourself!

No. A murderer is someone who killed a person with malice intent. A convicted murderer is someone who has sufficient evidence brought against them to be convicted in a court. Just because a murderer doesn't get convicted in court doesn't 'undo' the murder and make the victim come back to life.

By your theory every unsolved murder was not carried out by a murderer?

Gerry Adams may never have killed anyone by his own hand but there can be little doubt given his position in republican circles that he was at least in a position of responsibility where he could have prevented the deaths of other human-beings.

And before all the internet freedom fighters out there start on about growing up as a repressed population in an occupied country, Republicans killed enough innocent catholics to prevent them from ever taking the moral high ground in my view.

Also finally, how ironic SF/Gerry Adams/IRA supporters should be so righteous about providing hard evidence to link Gerry Adams with murders. Where was the evidence that Jean McConville was an informer? Did the IRA hold it's own court, present evidence and allow a defence before it decided she had to die?

You can twist words and say what you like on an internet forum, but the fact is people have died, and Gerry Adam was either involved or else he was/is a puppet Republican for the IRA.

For your benefit I'd also like to include this link as 'evidence', though I'm sure SF supporters are already aware of their position.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4186887.stm

Reilly616

delta720 wrote: »

No. A murderer is someone who killed a person with malice intent. A convicted murderer is someone who has sufficient evidence brought against them to be convicted in a court. Just because a murderer doesn't get convicted in court doesn't 'undo' the murder and make the victim come back to life.

By your theory every unsolved murder was not carried out by a murderer?

:rolleyes: Does no one read entire posts anymore? This has already been done to death (pun not intended). A murderer is not a murderer before they are proven guilty, because in this country, and most, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat). Until then they can only be suspected of murder.

Also, your definition of murder is incorrect. I assume you're thinking of "malice afforethought", but that is outdated, and not the law in this jurisdiction.

takun

Reilly616 wrote: »

:rolleyes: A murderer is not a murderer before they are proven guilty

Let's say someone is murdered and nobody is convicted of carrying out the killing, a not uncommon scenario. Even in the absence of conviction, the fact remains that someone was killed by a person unknown. What term do you use to describe that person?

delta720

Reilly616 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Does no one read entire posts anymore? This has already been done to death (pun not intended). A murderer is not a murderer before they are proven guilty, because in this country, and most, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat). Until then they can only be suspected of murder.

Also, your definition of murder is incorrect. I assume you're thinking of "malice afforethought", but that is outdated, and not the law in this jurisdiction.

Thanks, I know how to use wikipedia myself. Is that the most important thing you could get out of my post?

Reilly616

takun wrote: »

Let's say someone is murdered and nobody is convicted of carrying out the killing, a not uncommon scenario. Even in the absence of conviction, the fact remains that someone was killed by a person unknown. What term do you use to describe that person?

That would depend on the circumstances. But if it was clear that somebody else definately did the killing, then they would most accurately be called the killer. And if the person wasn't unkown, they would personally be the suspected killer/suspected murderer, depending on how much is known about the killing.

But say, you know the man A who killed the woman B by a couple punches to the face, resulting in her falling and cracking her head on the ground. You know he is the killer. But until there is a trial you cannot say that he is a murderer, since it might have been manslaughter for a number of reasons, or it might have been justifiable by self defence, or defence of the home, or it might have been done while legally insane etc. Many such technicalities mean that nobody can be called a murderer until they have been proven as such.

Reilly616

delta720 wrote: »

Thanks, I know how to use wikipedia myself.

What's that got to do with the discussion?

johnmcdnl

Balmed Out wrote: »

The IRA is an illegal organisation and according to the wikileaks document the Irish government have "rock solid" evidence that hes on the leadership commitee. What members of the provisional ira have been elected to the dail?

Martin Ferris is in the Dáíl now..
Kieran Doherty and Paddy Agnew back in 81

that's just off the top of my head

Scotty #

johnmcdnl wrote: »

why wouldn't he be allowed be a TD

Leaving the terrorist/organised crime stuff aside... at a minimum I would like our elected officials to at least LIVE in the state when running for election.

Wolfe Tone

Scotty # wrote: »

Leaving the terrorist/organised crime stuff aside... at a minimum I would like our elected officials to at least LIVE in the state when running for election.

He bought a house in louth

PeterIanStaker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True that, if they had their way we'd be back to barter.

Adrian009

reprazant wrote: »

I know people who have been doing polls for different papers and they say that it is in no way definite.

I was surprised by it as I presumed that he would walk it but no, it looks like it might be a tight one for him.

Same here. Its far from a foregone conclusion that he will take the seat in Louth, which kinda astonished me given the big press its been getting. But then, I read this.

http://fenian32.livejournal.com/5422710.html

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

He bought a house in louth

No, Sinn Fein confirmed that while he would be staying in Louth from time to time, West Belfast (UK) would remain his home.

Adrian009

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Martin Ferris is in the Dáíl now..
Kieran Doherty and Paddy Agnew back in 81

that's just off the top of my head

But I've never understood how an admitted IRA member and convicted gun-runner like Ferris could even run for the Dail in the first place. He has a criminal record; surely that would debar him in other countries?

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

No, Sinn Fein confirmed that while he would be staying in Louth from time to time, West Belfast (UK) would remain his home.

As far as I know he will be staying in louth mostly, of course his home will remain west belfast, its where he is from, I dont see how its even an issue anyway, national issues are whats most important

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

As far as I know he will be staying in louth mostly, of course his home will remain west belfast, its where he is from, I dont see how its even an issue anyway, national issues are whats most important

But he's not even an Irish NATIONAL! He's an Irishman from the UK! Sure as hell its an issue!

Hey, wait up! If he's now a baron, surely he'll have to give up the title if elected to the Dail? After all, we are a republic?

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

But he's not even an Irish NATIONAL! He's an Irishman from the UK! Sure as hell its an issue!

Hey, wait up! If he's now a baron, surely he'll have to give up the title if elected to the Dail? After all, we are a republic?

Ah whats this rubbish the president is from the 6 counties too, problem there? He is as Irish as you or I, I say he has an Irish(southern) passport too.

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ah whats this rubbish the president is from the 6 counties too, problem there? He is as Irish as you or I, I say he has an Irish(southern) passport too.

I know he's Irish, but he's from Northern Ireland, not Ireland. Surely he should at least live here if he's gonna be elected? And seeing as he lives in West Belfast (UK) then why the hell does he have an Irish passport? Since when?

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

I know he's Irish, but he's from Northern Ireland, not Ireland. Surely he should at least live here if he's gonna be elected? And seeing as he lives in West Belfast (UK) then why the hell does he have an Irish passport? Since when?

Whats your opinion on the president being from the north? Everyone on this island is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Whats your opinion on the president being from the north? Everyone on this island is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

Sure, but nobody on this island is entitled to support or condone murder.

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

Sure, but nobody on this island is entitled to support or condone murder.

Guess we will all be condemning the 1916 rebels, Collins etc so?

The Cookie Monster

any person who had blood family living on the island of ireland pre 1920 is entitled to and irish passport, most northern catholics i know, do infact carry british and irish passports.

Just like the grandparent rule the FAI use to tempt players from the north.

3ndahalfof6

Adrian009 wrote: »

I know he's Irish, but he's from Northern Ireland, not Ireland. Surely he should at least live here if he's gonna be elected? And seeing as he lives in West Belfast (UK) then why the hell does he have an Irish passport? Since when?

Its probably just the final stage on the long road to a UNITED IRELAND,

it was going to happen some day.

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Guess we will all be condemning the 1916 rebels, Collins etc so?

If you like, but none of them are canvassing for the 2011 vote.

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

If you like, but none of them are canvassing for the 2011 vote.

FF call themselves "The Republican party" FG harp on about Collins etc

Adrian009

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Its probably just the final stage on the long road to a UNITED IRELAND,

it was going to happen some day.

But what's the point of a united Ireland?

Especially when a united country called Ireland already exists?

Over one hundred years of northern unionism has shown that about a million people in Northern Ireland do not want to join the Irish state. Fair enough, say we. We're in no hurry to shove them in.

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

FF call themselves "The Republican party" FG harp on about Collins etc

I'm not voting for FF, and FG can go on all they want about the Big Fella, but I want to hear their big plans for fixing the economy.

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

I'm not voting for FF, and FG can go on all they want about the Big Fella, but I want to hear their big plans for fixing the economy.

So you have a nice case of double standards then

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So you have a nice case of double standards then

Really? Where?

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

Really? Where?

You dont care how much FG go on about Collins yet have a different standard for SF(who havent even mentioned the IRA as far as I can see)

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You dont care how much FG go on about Collins yet have a different standard for SF(who havent even mentioned the IRA as far as I can see)

What I mean is what I want to hear from FG and every candidate is a good plan for the economy.
If Enda had been a member of an outlawed terrorist organisation or supported it I'd think very carefully about giving him a vote.
But he did neither.
Gerry Adams has consistently supported the IRA, and is believed by most Irish people to have been on the IRA army council. Even if he was not, the fact that he supported an organisation who murdered thousands of Irish people gives me pause about supporting any SF candidate while he is party leader.
I mean, how sick would it be to place a man who supported the mass-murder of Irish people as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Irish people???

Wolfe Tone

Adrian009 wrote: »

What I mean is what I want to hear from FG and every candidate is a good plan for the economy.
If Enda had been a member of an outlawed terrorist organisation or supported it I'd think very carefully about giving him a vote.
But he did neither.
Gerry Adams has consistently supported the IRA, and is believed by most Irish people to have been on the IRA army council. Even if he was not, the fact that he supported an organisation who murdered thousands of Irish people gives me pause about supporting any SF candidate while he is party leader.
I mean, how sick would it be to place a man who supported the mass-murder of Irish people as a REPRESENTATIVE of the Irish people???

Fine, dont vote SF then. I will, and have no problems doing so.

Adrian009

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Fine, dont vote SF then. I will, and have no problems doing so.

Despite the fact that they supported the murder of thousands of our fellow Irish people?