Martin McGuinness preaching on corrupt politics - pot and kettle

frank9901

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

"Ulster is British" i may be wrong but i always thought britain was an island incorporating some smaller islands,but not including any part of the island of Ireland
i thouht u.k yes British No

ardmacha

NI is a place founded on ethnic cleansing. Many here who fully support that, but now embrace "democracy" because it suits them having achieved the correct proportions on the ground and because running people through with pikes does not go down well with modern international opinion. They then criticise McGuinness as if they had the moral high ground. Hypocrites all.

Ozymandius2011

sparkling sea wrote: »

Everyone who practices corrupt or illegal political practices need to be exposed and I am delighted its appears it is starting to happen here.

First of all fundraising for a political party is perfectly legal provided it is disclosed when required by law, and that no favours are given in return. Secondly, the cheque was cleared before the FF meeting that Morgan was at, which contradicts McGuinness' original account of what happened on the Frontline. Thirdly noone is saying the money ended up in Gallagher's account. Not even McGuinness and Gerry's good friend Hugh Morgan who leased his GE HQ to him (Daily Mail last February report on this) are claiming This.

I think some people equate party funding with "corruption", as if political parties are supposed to survive on air. Someone has to pay for all those posters, and Gallagher never denied being a member of FF until recently.

K-9

Spotlight was pretty good last night. Showed McGuinness interviewed on a walkabout through Derry about 72/73 as a IRA spokesman, fast forward to an interview in the 80's were he denies his membership!

It just supports the idea that he's always been expedient about his membership and the 74 cut off point.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

To be very honest lugha, it'd be a bit like trying to teach web development to a 5 year old. You can believe what you wish, but personally I dont think you have a full understanding of the 'troubles'. certainly not enough to be trying to debate it with people.

I ask a very simple and succinct question. You and the other republican apologists here are singularly unable to answer it. FYI, the question is in bold below if you fancy having another stab at it. (And try to desist from answering a different question that I do not ask)

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it is about cowardice. you refuse to face up to our past and you have demonstrated that you would not rise against an oppressor or invader until you have an election to find out if those that abandoned you 60 years earlier approved of it.

Your attempt to defend the indefensible inevitably fails again. Northern nationalists taking up arms against their oppressors is not what I have issue with.

It is their presumption that they represented all Irish people, including those of us in the South, unoppressed, who through free and fair elections made clear that they did not represent us.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

I ask a very simple and succinct question. You and the other republican apologists here are singularly unable to answer it. FYI, the question is in bold below if you fancy having another stab at it. (And try to desist from answering a different question that I do not ask)



Your attempt to defend the indefensible inevitably fails again. Northern nationalists taking up arms against their oppressors is not what I have issue with.

It is their presumption that they represented all Irish people, including those of us in the South, unoppressed, who through free and fair elections made clear that they did not represent us.

and I will say it once again, in case you missed it the other x amount of times ive answered you. THEY REPRESENTED THOSE WHO NEEDED THEM. No doubt you'll still keep on with the same rubbish stating no-one has answered you.

lugha

maccored wrote: »

and I will say it once again, in case you missed it the other x amount of times ive answered you. THEY REPRESENTED THOSE WHO NEEDED THEM. No doubt you'll still keep on with the same rubbish stating no-one has answered you.

Perhaps, they did. But they also represented some of us that did not need them and most certainly did not want to be represented by them. It is the latter part that I have the problem with.

So no, you have not answered the question. Nor can you. But never mind, neither can anyone else. :P

Ozymandius2011

maccored wrote: »

and I will say it once again, in case you missed it the other x amount of times ive answered you. THEY REPRESENTED THOSE WHO NEEDED THEM. No doubt you'll still keep on with the same rubbish stating no-one has answered you.

The McCabe family would find that comment interesting.

EI_Flyboy

Using housing as a stick to beat SF with is extremely nieve as it's one of the key issues that kicked off the Troubles. Seeing as Lugha objected to having to click on a link, I've put a relevant section here and bolded the most relevant parts for easy consumption of the less engaged.

Housing in Northern Ireland: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/gibson3.htm


2.2 Brief Historical Summary
The plantation of Ulster in the early part of the seventeenth century influenced the distribution of land and power in Northern Ireland in ways which are still evident today. The flight of the earls in 1607 left Ulster without leadership and afforded the English Government the opportunity to solve its problems in what it considered to be one of Ireland's most troublesome areas.

The ideal solution had been known for generations. It was, in a word, plantation... Land was the source of wealth and the basis of power. To take it from the Catholic Irish and give it to the Protestant immigrants would at once weaken resistance to English rule and bring into being a Protestant community sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently powerful, to keep the peace in Ireland. If the Irish would not become Protestant, then Protestants must be brought to Ireland. (Clarke 1967)

In some sense this "plantation" had already occurred. There were close contacts between Scotland and Antrim and Down. Foster (1988) indicates that these counties were already densely Scottish in population.

In many ways the Antrim Coast was closer to the Scottish mainland than to its own hinterland. In theory, the six counties of Armagh, Coleraine, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan and Donegal were to be worked on, producing an ideal pattern of close settlement that would feature urbanisation and segregation. No Irish tenants were to be allowed on the lands taken over by the major "undertakers". (Foster)

Clarke describes the ambitious and systematic plan which provided for the expulsion of many of the native Irish and the creation of a network of new, entirely Protestant communities. Arrangements were made for the renting of land in lots at easy rents for Protestant tenants who would cultivate the land and build defences for the safety of the settlement. Settlers arrived from England and the lowlands of Scotland, bringing their own traditions and ways of life. Primarily arable farmers, they built towns and villages carefully laid out as fortified frontier posts.

The changes which these numerous and socially diversified Protestant newcomers wrought in Ulster were dramatic and far-reaching. A whole new society was created, one which was not only alien to the native traditions of the area, but also different in character from every other part of Ireland. (Clarke 1967)

There were, however, insufficient numbers of settlers to enable the colony to flourish and significant numbers of Irish were permitted to remain to provide labour. Some also remained as tenants and landlords but they were disadvantaged and regarded as disloyal. So despite, for example, the Constitution of the City of Londonderry which states that Londonderry citizens were forbidden to employ the native Irish as servants "in order that the city might not in future be peopled with Irish" they were soon evident in the towns but living in their own areas. Darby (1978) believes that Belfast and many other towns at this time could best be regarded as a collection of rural villages where people stayed with those they knew, and in the areas with which they were familiar.

The second plantation, or Cromwellian settlement, in Ulster was less carefully organised. It provided rather for a transfer of power from Catholics to Protestants and it created a Protestant upper class who owned the land rather than living and working on it.
Foster explains that

what must be grasped from the early seventeenth century is the importance of the plantation idea, with its emphases on segregation and on native unreliability. These attitudes helped Ulster solidify into a different mould. The reliance of the planters upon the Irish, economically, was combined with an obsession about their religious, and therefore political untrustworthiness.

These themes of power, territory, identity and security appear repetitiously in the story of housing in Northern Ireland. The history is complex. Belfast, perhaps, provides an interesting example. By the end of the eighteenth century Belfast was a small commercial centre, largely Presbyterian in composition. Catholics made up less than 10% of the population (Hepburn, 1983). He indicates the various factors combined to make the city attractive and the consequences which followed the new wealth associated with the industrial revolution tempted more Catholics to Belfast. Land was scarce and work could be found as unskilled labourers, navvies and workers in the textile mills. By 1830 the Catholic population had risen to one-third of the city population. Skilled jobs associated with the next phase of industrial development were taken mainly by Protestants. Despite the pressures of the famine the city continued to expand but the proportion of Catholics dropped to one-quarter, a position it has largely held to this day. However competition for jobs and homes often resulted in violence, and this was concentrated in the areas where the workers congregated. Middle class families moved out to the suburbs, leaving the inner city to the workers, who lived side by side in their religious ghettos. This living pattern was reinforced every time there was trouble, as any people living isolated from their group were attacked first. Brett (1986) identifies a pattern of sectarian conflict which resulted in what is to us a painfully familiar series of outcomes such as attacks on premises, burning of homes, eviction of families in 1835, 1845, 1857, 1864, 1872, 1886, 1907, 1922-23 and 1935. He concludes "it is plain that, at any rate in the older parts of Belfast, fear - and well-justified fear - constitutes the principal reason for the segregation of housing on religious lines".

In 1885 the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes found housing conditions in Belfast and Londonderry to be among the best in the United Kingdom. Towards the end of the nineteenth century the period of high economic development was coming to an end and there followed a period "of apathy and stagnation in housing matters which was to last for half a century" (Brett).
The position in the countryside and small towns had not mirrored the growth in housing and standards in the cities. From 1883, grants could be obtained from Government by the rural district councils to build cottages for labourers. Only 634 dwellings including one lodging house were built between 1890 and 1919. (Birrell and Murie 1980) Between 1919 and 1936, 4,300 labourers' cottages were constructed in the six counties outside Belfast. None were built in Co. Fermanagh. In general, conditions were poor, the greatest deficit being the lack of running water. Birrell and Murie indicate that the reluctance of the rural authorities to take advantage of such financial arrangements as existed was related to "a restricted view of need and a preoccupation with the geography of votes". Changes in financial subsidy arrangements contributed to the neglect of public housing in the mid-1930s. Birrell and Murie (1980) suggest that the influence of the "rural agricultural landed element in the Unionist Party" may have influenced Stormont' s preference for building by private enterprise means.
By 1945 the position in England and Wales and that in Northern Ireland had diverged substantially. The damage to housing during the war led to a sense of urgency and in 1943 the housing survey of the Planning Advisory Board,

adopting minimum standards, estimated that 229,500 of the stock of 323,000 dwellings required repair. Immediate needs merited a doubling of the inter-war housing programme. A total of 200,000 dwellings were required to eliminate overcrowding and slums. (Birrell and Murie 1980)

In 1945 the Northern Ireland Housing Trust was established to work in tandem with the local authorities and the private sector to meet the need. Post-war development, however, was slow and the pattern of building in the borough and urban councils was very varied. Of the 36 urban or borough councils, the highest percentage of local authority housing was to be found in the four non-Unionist controlled councils - Ballycastle, Downpatrick, Newry and Strabane. In some areas, building was segregated and in others arranged so that electoral boundaries were not affected.

Discrimination cannot be shown to have existed in a persistent and systematic fashion, but there are sufficient examples of building decisions being based on electoral calculation and of individuals receiving preferential treatment because of their politico-religious affiliations for the discriminatory element in policy to be undeniable. And this discriminatory element carried over into the period of expanded housing activity arising from the new conversion to economic and regional planning in the 1960s. (Birrell and Murie 1980)

Long-simmering discontent came to a head in 1963 when discrimination by a Protestant-dominated council in Co. Tyrone in respect of housing allocation was alleged. Catholics believed that discrimination was widespread and 1964 saw the foundation of the Campaign for Social Justice in Northern Ireland.

The Campaign sought to place issues of discrimination before the Northern Ireland public. In this context, one case in 1968, now known as the Caledon affair, hit the headlines. Austin Currie, a Nationalist Member of Parliament at Stormont, squatted in a house to draw attention to alleged discrimination in respect of housing allocation policy. The house in Caledon, Co. Tyrone, had been allocated to a single Protestant girl while some large Catholic families remained unhoused. Civil rights marches followed together with violence and disturbance. Subsequent investigation by the Cameron Commission, established to consider and investigate "Disturbances in Northern Ireland", defined the first general cause of the disorders in 1969 in the following terms:

A rising sense of continuing injustice and grievance among large sections of the Catholic population in particular in Londonderry and Dungannon in respect of:
(i) the inadequacy of housing provision by certain local authorities;
(ii) unfair methods of allocation of houses built and let by such authorities, in particular refusals and omissions to adopt a points system and (iii) misuse in certain areas of discretionary powers of allocation of houses in order to perpetuate Unionist control of the local authority.

The amount of actual discrimination continues to be in dispute. Rose (1971) in an empirical study found no evidence of systematic discrimination. Individual cases of blatant discrimination were found to exist in both Unionist and Nationalist Councils but it is generally agreed that it was a minority of Councils which operated in this fashion.

Following the Cameron Commission report, the establishment of a new central housing authority was agreed. Among a number of reforms for the Province the new authority would place "need" at the top of its allocation priorities and establish a readily understood allocations scheme based on a points system. These priorities were accepted by the Northern Ireland Housing Trust, and the three Development Commissions as well as the majority of councils. The Housing Executive Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 brought the new Northern Ireland Housing Executive into being in October 1971. Government expectation was that the new body would operate in such a fashion that there would be "an end to allegations about sectarian discrimination in housing allocations" (Singleton 1985).
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established as a "single purpose, efficient and streamlined central housing authority", and by 1973, it had taken over some 155,000 dwellings and

responsibility for the building, management and allocation of all public housing for the local authorities, the Housing Trust and the Development Commissions. (Birrell and Murie)

The context for the early work of the Housing Executive was not auspicious. The "troubles" affected its beginning work in a number of important ways. Tomlinson (1980) indicates that between 1969 and 1974 an estimated 60,000 people, or nearly one-quarter of all households in Belfast moved house. He quotes Darby (1976):

It seems doubtful that anything in the past came even close to the population movements that have taken place since 1969. In August and September of that year more than 3,500 families were forced to leave their homes, 85% of them Catholic. Two years later, during three weeks in August 1971, a further 2,069 recorded families left their homes. Between and after these two periods of exceptional violence, a less spectacular but steady flow of families abandoned their homes from fear or intimidation.., and between 8,000 and 15,000 families in the Greater Belfast area alone.

This population movement in turn had implications for the housing allocations policy. Squatting became a major issue as people sought housing in safe areas and estates became increasingly polarised. Fear and intimidation created boundary issues and territories became even more clearly defined. This then affected the so-called integrated estates where people felt vulnerable and consequently moved. The role of the paramilitary organisations in allocations was also evident. Other factors undermining the activities of the Housing Executive were the intimidation of building contractors, the sectarian basis of some trades and the rent strike. Strong feelings about territory and the underlying debate about the nature of the State strengthened opposition to new building programmes, of which the Poleglass development was a prime example. Brett (1985) himself outlines the struggle for fair policies in respect of some major issues: squatting, segregation and integration, dealing with paramilitary influence, establishment of peace lines, and allegations of imbalance in allocation of housing. He summarises his conviction thus:

I firmly believe that, in the matter of allocation and of the siting of new houses, the Executive since its inception has displayed complete impartiality; and that its work in both fields would stand up to any investigation by any fair-minded observer.

Both Birrell and Murie (1980) and Tomlinson (1980) raise the issue of the relationship of the Housing Executive to the State. Birrell and Murie see the Housing Executive as, to some extent,"overwhelmed by the politico-religious influences upon it":

Currently it is reasonable to regard the Housing Executive as an agent of the Department of the Environment with no independent view of the housing problem... Thus while there is an apparent rationality in the organisation of housing provision, some of the principal features of planning, policy making and implementations are not operated on such an inoffensive, non-political basis as is often represented.

Tomlinson (1980) goes so far as to suggest that the accommodation achieved between class relationships in sectarian territories and the consensual social democratic ideal of the British state is such that

Far from leading to a substantial improvement in working class housing, the evidence of the last decade is that British ideologies in the arena of housing have become a part of the Unionist state.

Housing in the 1980s has been dominated by the Government's increased concern with owner occupation. There has been a decline in the rented property sector, a considerable sale of council property and a rise in private homes for sale. Ogle (1989) identifies the progress in the 1970s and 1980s with most homes "now boasting what are regarded as the standard amenities". There is, however, he reported, a growing problem of disrepair, which he thought might be tackled through the creation of Housing Action Trusts. It would seem that the development of the private rented sector and the ideas associated with tenant participation and consultation form the basis of a direction in which the Housing Executive may play a changed and "enabling" rather than a primary provider role.

If Protestants got burned out of their homes, at least they had homes to get burnt out of. Silly argument Keith.

EI_Flyboy

Whoops, duplication of last post...

Ozymandius2011

El_Flyboy what does Jerry McCabe had to do with the Plantation of Ulster?

lugha

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Using housing as a stick to beat SF with is extremely nieve as it's one of the key issues that kicked off the Troubles. Seeing as Lugha objected to having to click on a link, I've put a relevant section here and bolded the most relevant parts for easy consumption of the less engaged.

Presumably you are not trying to argue that any of this is in any way relevant, at all, whatsoever, to the question I ask?

maccored

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The McCabe family would find that comment interesting.

they'd find it interesting? Oh sorry - you were trying to be funny or something. well done.

The IRA formed in the north as protection for people who needed them. If you dont understand that about your irish history then please either stop while you (think) you are ahead, or go study up on it or something. It does my head in trying to debate issues with people who clearly have a very basic outlook on it.

fishy fishy

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, they did. But they also represented some of us that did not need them and most certainly did not want to be represented by them. It is the latter part that I have the problem with.

So no, you have not answered the question. Nor can you. But never mind, neither can anyone else. :P

they represented the Irish people being downtrodden - if you come into that bracket then fine - if you don't then fine - the choice is yours. If you were living in ignorent bliss as to what was going on because you were so far away then no, they probably were not representing you. However if you were being treated like a dog in your own country, then yes, they were representing you - try to think of it in terms in nelson mandela and what he went through and the names he was called - it might come to light then. When all the politicians were beating each other out of the way to shake his hand, they were not asking what HE did when he was thrown into jail.

its the typical armchair judges that have no idea what they are talking about who would call MMG and SF all the names under the sun, yet would sell their grannies to have met Mandela.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, they did. But they also represented some of us that did not need them and most certainly did not want to be represented by them. It is the latter part that I have the problem with.

So no, you have not answered the question. Nor can you. But never mind, neither can anyone else. :P

people in the north didnt give a flying **** if you didnt want to be represented. they needed help and they got it.

EI_Flyboy

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps, they did. But they also represented some of us that did not need them and most certainly did not want to be represented by them. It is the latter part that I have the problem with.

So no, you have not answered the question. Nor can you. But never mind, neither can anyone else. :P

The answer to that was given to you but you chose to ignore because you have no respect for the law or for the constitution which is the highest law in the land. I showed you how it was the explanation you're so vociferously seeking but seeing as it didn't satisfy your bigoted values you dismissed it. Why don't you take your hatred somewhere else and stop spamming up the thread with your nonsense?

Ozymandius2011

maccored wrote: »

they'd find it interesting? Oh sorry - you were trying to be funny or something. well done.

The IRA formed in the north as protection for people who needed them. If you dont understand that about your irish history then please either stop while you (think) you are ahead, or go study up on it or something. It does my head in trying to debate issues with people who clearly have a very basic outlook on it.

The McCabe family had nothing to do with the North but the IRA murdered him anyway. The Provos are nothing but a terrorist organisation. North-South bodies and powersharing were on the table in 1972 at Sunningdale and they carried on murdering Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter alike, North and South.

maccored

whats your point exactly? everyone knows it was a terrible murder. everyone knows it was against IRA rules. Every knows the SF leadership have repeatedly condemned it - but guess what? these things happen in conflicts. It happened a **** load of people in the north.

so explain to me once again - whats you point?

maccored

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

North-South bodies and powersharing were on the table in 1972 at Sunningdale and they carried on murdering Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter alike, North and South.

As I say, go learn your history if you believe sunningdale and the gfa are the same. its amazing, but i never heard this kind of rubbish until FG started coming out with it.

Ozymandius2011

maccored wrote: »

whats your point exactly? everyone knows it was a terrible murder. everyone knows it was against IRA rules. Every knows the SF leadership have repeatedly condemned it - but guess what? these things happen in conflicts. It happened a **** load of people in the north.

so explain to me once again - whats you point?

They have only condemned it lately. Like Gallagher is being castigated for supposedly not making a big deal of his former FF membership recently. Which is worse murder of being a member of FF?

maccored

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

They have only condemned it lately. Like Gallagher is being castigated for supposedly not making a big deal of his former FF membership recently. Which is worse murder of being a member of FF?

edit - forget it. I think I'll add you to my ignore list.

EI_Flyboy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

El_Flyboy what does Jerry McCabe had to do with the Plantation of Ulster?

His death is a result of the Troubles they caused...? Besides I wasn't addressing you. But if you want my opinion on the death of Det. McCabe, I think his family's loss is tragic, to lose a loved one is a huge sadness that can't truly be understood until it's experienced. To lose a loved one to violence can only be something unimaginable even then. My heart goes out to his family, it really does. Now, in saying that, what I find disgusting and reprehensible is that his death and the deaths of a handfull of others is wheeled out to dirty SF everytime they stick their heads above the parapet. Those families have their pain put out their as propanganda so the whole country can see what bad people SF are so that the main parties can make cheap political gains. Everytime there's any danger of SF gaining support, the media pulls out these deaths to fan the fires of hatred and renews the pain for those families, they're not allowed to forget or forgive, they can't move on because it's expedient for those in charge right now.

The troubles created more than 3,000 Jerry McCabes on both sides, Catholic, Protestant and also the Families of British Army soldiers. They have all put those deaths in the past so the Peace Process can move forward and no more families have to be put through what our media and politicians put Jerry McCabe's family through for their own selfish purposes.

So what is Jerry McCabes death to you, how come it's so important to you to bring it up? Why can't you move on like so many up North have? What's holding you back, have you genuine grief or are you using the grief of others to justify outdated prejudice?

Kess73

maccored wrote: »

they'd find it interesting? Oh sorry - you were trying to be funny or something. well done.

The IRA formed in the north as protection for people who needed them. If you dont understand that about your irish history then please either stop while you (think) you are ahead, or go study up on it or something. It does my head in trying to debate issues with people who clearly have a very basic outlook on it.

Ok If they were formed to protect people in the North, why were they murdering a man like Gerry McCabe in the South? Why did the council of the IRA deny any involvement at first, then change their statement and claim it was an act by individual members acting against their orders.

Then Gerrry Adams came out with his line about how the murder had not been authorised by the council but that the murder had been authorised by a lower ranked but still authorised person.

Seems to me if something is authorised by a person who is in a position to authorise it, then it is official.

Then after all the attempts to distance themselves from the murder, and despite all the claims that it was something done in contravention to actual orders, Sinn Fein still had the gall to lobby for the early release of the criminals involved. Twice they lobbied for the early release of the criminals that they earlier tried to distance themselves from.

Seems a bit rich that one minute they are claiming to have nothing to do with the criminals, then a short while later they are up in arms caliming that under various agreements the poor chaps should be released, and as such claiming the criminals as their own.

EI_Flyboy

Kess73 wrote: »

Ok If they were formed to protect people in the North, why were they murdering a man like Gerry McCabe in the South? Why did the council of the IRA deny any involvement at first, then change their statement and claim it was an act by individual members acting against their orders.

Then Gerrry Adams came out with his line about how the murder had not been authorised by the council but that the murder had been authorised by a lower ranked but still authorised person.

Seems to me if something is authorised by a person who is in a position to authorise it, then it is official.

Then after all the attempts to distance themselves from the murder, and despite all the claims that it was something done in contravention to actual orders, Sinn Fein still had the gall to lobby for the early release of the criminals involved. Twice they lobbied for the early release of the criminals that they earlier tried to distance themselves from.

Seems a bit rich that one minute they are claiming to have nothing to do with the criminals, then a short while later they are up in arms caliming that under various agreements the poor chaps should be released, and as such claiming the criminals as their own.

I think there's a clue in your post as to why SF lobbied for their release. They were acting under orders from a superior who was acting on his own. They lobbied for their release as they lobbied for many others imprisoned for actions stemming from the Troubles. It seems to me that the person you should be directing your ire towards is the lower official who acted on his own.

Kess73

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I think there's a clue in your post as to why SF lobbied for their release. They were acting under orders from a superior who was acting on his own. They lobbied for their release as they lobbied for many others imprisoned for actions stemming from the Troubles. It seems to me that the person you should be directing your ire towards is the lower official who acted on his own.

Why lobby for men that they tried to deny any involvement with at an earlier point though? Surely if these men were acting on orders that went against what the council said, then they were arrested for crime committed that did not stem from the troubles.

Plus the mystery lower official was never handed over.


The IRA and Sinn Fein cannot come out and say that the criminals involved were acting against the will of the council in one breath, and then lobby for their release on the basis they were arrested for actions stemming from the troubles with another breath.

It cannot go both ways. They are either behind the men completely and then argue for their release as the murder was an action that stemmed from the troubles or the murder was on the back of others and had nothing to do with their cause and the Troubles.

By claiming the men were imprisoned for actions stemming from the troubles and lobbying for their releases using the Belfast Agreement and the Good Fridat Agreement, they are taking responsibility for those criminals and by doing that it is as good as saying that the murder was seen as an action stemming from their cause. All it did was make all the mealy mouthing that went on beforehand by the IRA and Sinn Fein about how the murder was not linked to them and how it was not sanctioned etc etc totally worthless.

Ozymandius2011

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

His death is a result of the Troubles they caused...? Besides I wasn't addressing you. But if you want my opinion on the death of Det. McCabe, I think his family's loss is tragic, to lose a loved one is a huge sadness that can't truly be understood until it's experienced. To lose a loved one to violence can only be something unimaginable even then. My heart goes out to his family, it really does. Now, in saying that, what I find disgusting and reprehensible is that his death and the deaths of a handfull of others is wheeled out to dirty SF everytime they stick their heads above the parapet. Those families have their pain put out their as propanganda so the whole country can see what bad people SF are so that the main parties can make cheap political gains. Everytime there's any danger of SF gaining support, the media pulls out these deaths to fan the fires of hatred and renews the pain for those families, they're not allowed to forget or forgive, they can't move on because it's expedient for those in charge right now.

The troubles created more than 3,000 Jerry McCabes on both sides, Catholic, Protestant and also the Families of British Army soldiers. They have all put those deaths in the past so the Peace Process can move forward and no more families have to be put through what our media and politicians put Jerry McCabe's family through for their own selfish purposes.

So what is Jerry McCabes death to you, how come it's so important to you to bring it up? Why can't you move on like so many up North have? What's holding you back, have you genuine grief or are you using the grief of others to justify outdated prejudice?

Jerry McCabe was not oppressing the Northern Catholics. His death was totally unjustifiable and happened during the IRA's so-called 'cessation of military operations'. The PIRA were nothing but a murder gang that usurped the honorable memory of the patriots of 1916 and twisted their legacy to justify murdering free Irish citizens in an unoccupied part of Ireland.

EI_Flyboy

Kess73 wrote: »

Why lobby for men that they tried to deny any involvement with at an earlier point though? Surely if these men were acting on orders that went against what the council said, then they were arrested for crime committed that did not stem from the troubles.

Plus the mystery lower official was never handed over.


The IRA and Sinn Fein cannot come out and say that the criminals involved were acting against the will of the council in one breath, and then lobby for their release on the basis they were arrested for actions stemming from the troubles with another breath.

It cannot go both ways. They are either behind the men completely and then argue for their release as the murder was an action that stemmed from the troubles or the murder was on the back of others and had nothing to do with their cause and the Troubles.

By claiming the men were imprisoned for actions stemming from the troubles and lobbying for their releases using the Belfast Agreement and the Good Fridat Agreement, they are taking responsibility for those criminals and by doing that it is as good as saying that the murder was seen as an action stemming from their cause. All it did was make all the mealy mouthing that went on beforehand by the IRA and Sinn Fein about how the murder was not linked to them and how it was not sanctioned etc etc totally worthless.

If the Troubles had never been, the crime wouldn't have been commited so in that sense it stemmed from the troubles. They can argue it, they did argue it, what's the good in dragging it back up? Peace Process means just that, why don't you join in and find your peace with it?

Kess73

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

If the Troubles had never been, the crime wouldn't have been commited so in that sense it stemmed from the troubles. They can argue it, they did argue it, what's the good in dragging it back up? Peace Process means just that, why don't you join in and find your peace with it?

Ahh so basically them saying a murder is something that stemmed from the troubles is a handy little way of getting a lesser sentence for criminals.

Bit rich to talk of peace process when the murder took place after a failed attempt at an IRA ceasefire. Maybe if people had stuck to wanting peace at that point then there would have been less criminals to lobby for as supposed victims of actions stemming from the Troubles.

As for dragging things up, maybe you should find a way to pass that same message onto Gerry Adams, Martin MG etc., as surely they should be doing the same thing and not talking about things from the past.



EDIT: I am pretty sure we are not going to agree on this though, so rather than than have a long circular debate/arguement, I think I am just going to agree to disagree with you on this topic and let it be.

Godge

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

His death is a result of the Troubles they caused...? Besides I wasn't addressing you. But if you want my opinion on the death of Det. McCabe, I think his family's loss is tragic, to lose a loved one is a huge sadness that can't truly be understood until it's experienced. To lose a loved one to violence can only be something unimaginable even then. My heart goes out to his family, it really does. Now, in saying that, what I find disgusting and reprehensible is that his death and the deaths of a handfull of others is wheeled out to dirty SF everytime they stick their heads above the parapet. Those families have their pain put out their as propanganda so the whole country can see what bad people SF are so that the main parties can make cheap political gains. Everytime there's any danger of SF gaining support, the media pulls out these deaths to fan the fires of hatred and renews the pain for those families, they're not allowed to forget or forgive, they can't move on because it's expedient for those in charge right now.

The troubles created more than 3,000 Jerry McCabes on both sides, Catholic, Protestant and also the Families of British Army soldiers. They have all put those deaths in the past so the Peace Process can move forward and no more families have to be put through what our media and politicians put Jerry McCabe's family through for their own selfish purposes.

So what is Jerry McCabes death to you, how come it's so important to you to bring it up? Why can't you move on like so many up North have? What's holding you back, have you genuine grief or are you using the grief of others to justify outdated prejudice?

The problem with your post is that is was the family of Jean McConville and the children of Private Kelly who were raising the issues during this election campaign and not the politicians. Those families do not want Martin McGuinness as their President and they spoke out.

Secondly, it is extremely hypocritical as a Sinn Fein supporter to criticise the media for what they are supposedly putting the McCabe family through. Who are you to speak for them especially when you support those who knew about the killing of Garda McCabe?

sparkling sea

maccored wrote: »

whats your point exactly? everyone knows it was a terrible murder. everyone knows it was against IRA rules. Every knows the SF leadership have repeatedly condemned it - but guess what? these things happen in conflicts. It happened a **** load of people in the north.

so explain to me once again - whats you point?

I don't know and wouldn't even agree that it was against IRA rules - to me it would appear that so called IRA rules exist in their of existental reality, and people who exist in this reality typically think its fine and that they are full capable, in a God like manner to determine and state how other people interpret the IRA's actions - but that is a mistake and a possible reason as to why they so often get it wrong.

Surely you mean that you assume that everyone knows or believes what you claim to be the truth - but if thats the case why is there so much disagreement?

For instant its widely felt that the IRA and prominent member of SF used the hunger strikes as a means to further their own careers - these scared young men being brain washed into taking their own lives, to advance the political careers of others.

SF and almost every other political party in Ireland have been very specific in the plight and rights of the groups they have chosen to promote.

The Irish Constitution itself expressly discriminates against women - Article 41 of Bunreacht na hEireann specifies the sanctity of the family, organised around women’s care and mens breadwinning, this Article being responsible for among other things , in the past, the slavery of women and children in Magdelene laundries up until the 1990's - in the present, the glass ceiling that exists in many area's including political representation for women.

Anyone can veer off topic and try to make it relevant - any chance we can go back to the orignal topic rather that history lessons which most of us don't seem to need - this is only addressed to the want to be teachers BTW

EI_Flyboy

Kess73 wrote: »

Ahh so basically them saying a murder is something that stemmed from the troubles is a handy little way of getting a lesser sentence for criminals.

Bit rich to talk of peace process when the murder took place after a failed attempt at an IRA ceasefire. Maybe if people had stuck to wanting peace at that point then there would have been less criminals to lobby for as supposed victims of actions stemming from the Troubles.

As for dragging things up, maybe you should find a way to pass that same message onto Gerry Adams, Martin MG etc., as surely they should be doing the same thing and not talking about things from the past.



EDIT: I am pretty sure we are not going to agree on this though, so rather than than have a long circular debate/arguement, I think I am just going to agree to disagree with you on this topic and let it be.

You know, part of politics is to be seen to try tackle issues of relevance to your your supporters. I doubt anyone supported the killing of Det. McCabe but plenty of other people in prison at the time were being released as part of the Peace Process. SF might not have expected to get them released but I'm sure they at least had to be seen to try.

I don't support killing, hatred or bigotry. I do support peace.

This thread is about people having a problem with SF dragging up the past but the what they dragged up happens to be relevant to the Presidential race. I'm not saying McCabe's death is irrelevant, I'm saying it should be dealt with through the Peace Process, not as part of a media circus. I think maybe the families should be directed in more usefull directions to deal with their grief and not wheeled out to be used by self serving politicians and the media. There are many more people out there with relevant problems who are denied this platform, the media picks and chooses who to give air time.

I do respect your right to disagree.

EI_Flyboy

sparkling sea wrote: »

Anyone can veer off topic and try to make it relevant - any chance we can go back to the orignal topic rather that history lessons which most of us don't seem to need - this is only addressed to the want to be teachers BTW

History goes beyond the end of your nose.

lugha

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

The answer to that was given to you but you chose to ignore because you have no respect for the law or for the constitution which is the highest law in the land.

Breathtaking. Absolutely, breathtaking. A poster defending republican fascism talking about the law and the constitution!

And you did not give anything that remotely resembled an answer to my question. You made a spurious argument about constitutional obligation, which even were it valid, in no way gave authority to PIRA to redress any failings you think the Irish government were guilty off.

The moral delinquency on display here is astounding. Certainly it is no easy matter to establish a template for when it is and is not justified to use force for political ends. But surely it is self evidently true, at least if you are a democrat, that if a majority of the people you claim to represent do not authorise the use of violence then it is unquestionably wrong to do so? Happily I think that for the majority, this is a no-brainer.

fishy fishy wrote: »

they represented the Irish people being downtrodden - if you come into that bracket then fine - if you don't then fine - the choice is yours.

Repeat this lie as often as you like, it won’t become true. They were not solely in the business of representing the downtrodden. The had ambitions to change the political structure of this island (which the majority did agree with) but using violence means (which the majority did not and do not agree with). And indeed I did have a choice, at the ballot box. And like the majority of my fellow Irishmen I said no to the gunmen. But they, like the present day dissidents, felt they could ignore the will of the people. Indeed, at one point their arrogance extended to them asserting that they were the legitimate government and army of Ireland.

fishy fishy wrote: »

try to think of it in terms in nelson Mandela …

What a surprise! Here comes Nelson! If you can show, or even argue, that the vast majority of the people he claimed to represent did not actually give him their support, then you have an argument. But you can’t so you don’t.

LordSutch

maccored wrote: »

whats your point exactly? everyone knows it was a terrible murder. everyone knows it was against IRA rules. Every knows the SF leadership have repeatedly condemned it - but guess what? these things happen in conflicts.

Problem being that "at the time" the SF leadership did not condem it, indeed after every single atrocity the PIRA ever comitted the SF leadership refused to condemn them, from Bloody Friday to Enniskillen + every other bomb & murder in between, hence the haterd by so many Irish people towards them . . . . .

Of course nowadays we have the odd retrospective condemnation by McGuinness, but even then, he still cannot bring himself to admit that the killings by the PIRA were MURDERS.

sparkling sea

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

First of all fundraising for a political party is perfectly legal provided it is disclosed when required by law, and that no favours are given in return. Secondly, the cheque was cleared before the FF meeting that Morgan was at, which contradicts McGuinness' original account of what happened on the Frontline. Thirdly noone is saying the money ended up in Gallagher's account. Not even McGuinness and Gerry's good friend Hugh Morgan who leased his GE HQ to him (Daily Mail last February report on this) are claiming This.

I think some people equate party funding with "corruption", as if political parties are supposed to survive on air. Someone has to pay for all those posters, and Gallagher never denied being a member of FF until recently.

Could you read my post number 26 and get back to me?

sparkling sea

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

History goes beyond the end of your nose.

Sad reply - hardly conducive to discussion - sticks and stones and the rest.

Or is it bullyboy tactics??

phog

Kess73 wrote: »

Then after all the attempts to distance themselves from the murder, and despite all the claims that it was something done in contravention to actual orders, Sinn Fein still had the gall to lobby for the early release of the criminals involved. Twice they lobbied for the early release of the criminals that they earlier tried to distance themselves from.

.

SF are notorious in double speak so anything that they do or say should be taken with a large amount of salt. I really cant see how anyone who has seen them operate could think otherwise.

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by Ozymandius2011
First of all fundraising for a political party is perfectly legal provided it is disclosed when required by law, and that no favours are given in return.

Business men give money away for nothing do they, expect no returns. Try getting a fiver back in a store. If you are lucky, you may get a voucher or credit note but not often hard cash. As Vinny put it last night €5000 to have an audience with Biffo, where is the equity in that? What about the man in the street who does not have money to try and get favours? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Patser

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Business men give money away for nothing do they, expect no returns. Try getting a fiver back in a store. If you are lucky, you may get a voucher or credit note but not often hard cash. As Vinny put it last night €5000 to have an audience with Biffo, where is the equity in that? What about the man in the street who does not have money to try and get favours? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Yep business men do give the money towards party's that suit their beliefs and interests. For example, imagine you ran a Sustainable Energy Comapny of some sorts, wouldn't it be in your interest to give some donations to the Green Party, in the hope that when they get in they'll promote Green industries like yours and you'll reap the benefits. It's not a case of the Greens giving you a direct favour.

Similarly 10 years ago, if you were a developer you'd give FF donations because you knew they hadn't a clue on development issues and you'd be able to get away with all sorts of planning. FF weren't directly giving you jobs or favours but it would have suited you, as a developer, down to the ground.

Similar examples would be if you supplied Rich farmers with produce or middle class Dubs with Cappacinos - you'd donate to FG. Large dealer in Celtic jersies - SF. Supplied Angry Placards - ULA. A Trade Union Membership Pin manufacturer - LAbour. And so on.....

maccored

phog wrote: »

SF are notorious in double speak so anything that they do or say should be taken with a large amount of salt. I really cant see how anyone who has seen them operate could think otherwise.

in all honestly - please note, i really am NOT trying to attack the poster ... but really - isnt that a bit paranoid?

Ozymandius2011

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Business men give money away for nothing do they, expect no returns. Try getting a fiver back in a store. If you are lucky, you may get a voucher or credit note but not often hard cash. As Vinny put it last night €5000 to have an audience with Biffo, where is the equity in that? What about the man in the street who does not have money to try and get favours? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

VB also said last night Labour in a previous govt was seeking money for meetings with a Labour Finance Minister.

Patser wrote:

Yep business men do give the money towards party's that suit their beliefs and interests. For example, imagine you ran a Sustainable Energy Comapny of some sorts, wouldn't it be in your interest to give some donations to the Green Party, in the hope that when they get in they'll promote Green industries like yours and you'll reap the benefits. It's not a case of the Greens giving you a direct favour.

Hear Hear. Fcek the begrudgers!

Raffles won't cut it in terms of funding modern election campaigns, putting up posters, billboards, running TV ads etc. So you have to get it somewhere. I think Labour has questions to answer as to its fundraising from the public sector unions who are just as responsible as the property-developers for the crisis in the public-finances through Benchmarking.

maccored

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

VB also said last night Labour in a previous govt was seeking money for meetings with a Labour Finance Minister.Hear Hear. Fcek the begrudgers!

but did whoever organised that attempt to run for president pretending he was a grass roots, voluntary Labour man who had no deep links to a especially corrupt government? Ive no interest in Labour, but I dont think the answer to that would have been 'Yes'.

Fitzerb

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Business men give money away for nothing do they, expect no returns.
Try getting a fiver back in a store. If you are lucky, you may get a voucher or credit note but not
often hard cash. As Vinny put it last night €5000 to have an audience with Biffo, where is the equity i
n that? What about the man in the street who does not have money to try and get favours?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

SF do more fund raising than any other party. I enclose a copy
of an article written by Gerry Adams. I also enclose the link.

Its my view that SF are two faced and must never be trusted.

[HTML]Friends of Sinn Féin in America was established in 1995.
It raises funds for the party. It has done sterling work in that time.
Consequently, leading Shinners have traveled to all corners of the USA
speaking at breakfast, brunch and dinner fundraisers and at many universities.
We have addressed press conferences, met newspaper editorial boards, lobby
groups and politicians at local, state and federal level, as well as the various
Washington administrations under Clinton, Bush and Obama. We have also
engaged with local Irish American communities and briefed them on the
ongoing developments in the peace process.

In New York, the backbone of the fundraising project for Friends of Sinn Féin
is the construction industry, and the police and fire services.
Others, including people who work in the financial district, the law,
the pub and restaurant business, in community organizations
and ordinary working men and women, have also been enormously helpful.
[/HTML]

http://irishecho.com/?p=67554

Hannibal

Fitzerb wrote: »

SF do more fund raising than any other party. I enclose a copy
of an article written by Gerry Adams. I also enclose the link.

Its my view that SF are two faced and must never be trusted.

How does this show Sinn Fein as being two faced? Every political party fundraises, that wasn't the point. The difference with Sean Gallagher is he has lied about his involvement in Fianna Fail and has lied about his involvement in fundraising and this has been proven

Fitzerb

Dotsey wrote: »

How does this show Sinn Fein as being two faced? Every political party fundraises, that wasn't the point. The difference with Sean Gallagher is he has lied about his involvement in Fianna Fail and has lied about his involvement in fundraising and this has been proven

And SF never lied about anything ever...... Are you for real, thats what I called two faced.

gandalf

You know on reflection I reckon Sinn Fein are probably pissed off that one of their "own" paid a party "down here" €5000.00 in a donation. After all any Mafioso operation gets very protective about its own turf.

Hannibal

Fitzerb wrote: »

And SF never lied about anything ever...... Are you for real, thats what I called two faced.

I'm sure they have lied nothing springs off the top of my head but politics is a game of manipulition and FF and FG have proved very successful over the years at spinning the yarn.

Gallagher has been caught out and he's still trying to lie his way out of the hole he's in. It's him and his ilk that destroyed the country through their celtic tiger and big business dealings.

cardwizzard

gandalf wrote: »

You know on reflection I reckon Sinn Fein are probably pissed off that one of their "own" paid a party "down here" €5000.00 in a donation. After all any Mafioso operation gets very protective about its own turf.

Are you calling FF mafia like? Strong words indeed.

EI_Flyboy

Shouting the loudest does not win debates or arguments. This thread has descended into buffoonery.

Sunnyisland

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Shouting the loudest does not win debates or arguments. This thread has descended into buffoonery.

It will be interesting to see the posts/threads when/if MMg does well tomorrow and the reaction from the so many unionists and Fianna gaelers here, especially if Gay the tantrum Mitchel comes 3rd.;)