Sinn Féin-A responsible thread for adults.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

Funny that you can pull the wool over your eyes about the motives and 'actual effects' of other established parties policies but you can't when it comes to Sinn Fein. Thankfully others are facing up to their myopia and can change their minds and allegiances. :rolleyes:

There's no current member of any other party who has engaged either directly or indirectly in terrorism.

Or situations, incidents, pub brawls, disappeared, and spectaculars in Gerry Adams speak

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

There's no current member of any other party who has engaged either directly or indirectly in terrorism.

Or situations, incidents, pub brawls, disappeared, and spectaculars in Gerry Adams speak

^ ^ The onesided partitionist on the high moral ground again. :rolleyes: The environment created on this island was a nasty one. But the fact is the republic would not have been able to write a constitution or form a government if that criteria had been applied.
Time for you to grow up politically if you want this country to normalise.

Laminations

gerryo777 wrote: »

Although their ideas are different from FG/FF/Lab, who's to say that their way wouldn't work.

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Economists.

Show me one of them that has gotten it right in the last 5 or 6 years.:rolleyes:

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

^ ^ The onesided partitionist on the high moral ground again. :rolleyes: The environment created on this island was a nasty one.

Other than 'one-sided' that's pretty accurate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But the fact is the republic would not have been able to write a constitution or form a government if that criteria had been applied.

Er.. no. Presumably you don't mean 'the republic' as such (as the constitution came before the republic - not the other way round) but something more abstract (Irish nationalists?).

Am I to assume you are going as far back as 1916 (for some reason threads on Sinn Fein tend to do so... cannot think of any legitimate reason for them to do so, mind you). If you are, then the answer is again probably 'no'; but by this stage it would be so off-topic as to require a thread of its own (again).

Happyman42 wrote: »

Time for you to grow up politically if you want this country to normalise.

Again you should probably be a bit more clear. Do you mean normalise the budget vis-a-vis public dept reduction and viable means of repaying the country's loans? (Although I doubt you mean this - partcualrly in relation to SF of all parties! )

You might mean 'normalise' in terms of peace (well, we essentially already have that...) or normalise in terms of reconciliation and unification... or possibly normalise our relationship specifically and uniquely with the party of Sinn Fein?

The problem is, for all of SF's supporters saying that people should move on (including victims' families...) that Sinn Fein itself refuses to do so (as per the 1916 thing above, and so on). Perhaps 'moving' on or... normalising... is a one way street? :pac:

Crooked Jack

Laminations wrote: »

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Wrong. A number of highly respected economists have backed SF's policies. I've seen a few of them speak about them, such as at the Uniting Ireland conference in Newry. Difficult to misquote someone when they're standing up in front of you talking.

There is this general belief among some people that SF's economic policies dont add up but when you probe further and ask what policies they take issue with they cant answer because they dont know any policies. Never bothered to look them up. They just heard someone on RTE say it and decided that was that.

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Other than 'one-sided' that's pretty accurate.




Er.. no. Presumably you don't mean 'the republic' as such (as the constitution came before the republic - not the other way round) but something more abstract (Irish nationalists?).

Am I to assume you are going as far back as 1916 (for some reason threads on Sinn Fein tend to do so... cannot think of any legitimate reason for them to do so, mind you). If you are, then the answer is again probably 'no'; but by this stage it would be so off-topic as to require a thread of its own (again).

I'm going back to the foundation of this State by men and women who engaged in violence to achieve their aims. The same State where you now sit on the high moral ground, cowardly condemming one side to the political wilderness, (which is, funnily enough, the same type of wilderness the founders of this state left them in to begin with)
Time for you to take some responsibility as a citizen, it is not for you to proscribe a significant and growing mandated political party.

Again you should probably be a bit more clear. Do you mean normalise the budget vis-a-vis public dept reduction and viable means of repaying the country's loans? (Although I doubt you mean this - partcualrly in relation to SF of all parties! )

You might mean 'normalise' in terms of peace (well, we essentially already have that...) or normalise in terms of reconciliation and unification... or possibly normalise our relationship specifically and uniquely with the party of Sinn Fein?

The problem is, for all of SF's supporters saying that people should move on (including victims' families...) that Sinn Fein itself refuses to do so (as per the 1916 thing above, and so on). Perhaps 'moving' on or... normalising... is a one way street? :pac:

More semantics to pathetically avoid the real issues. You'll be correcting my spelling next.:rolleyes:

junder

Dotsey wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Wishful thinking , if sinn fein can't capitalise on mistakes made by the mainstream party what hope have they when things stabilise, bolting the door when the horse had bolted springs to mind, only hope sinn fein have is another major crisis in the 'Republic'

SF are capitalising on mistakes, their vote share and representation levels have risen steadily over the last ten years or so and no amount of spin can dispute these facts.

Please don't correct my posts, I am led to
Believe that I have atleast a modicum of free speech on this site

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm going back to the foundation of this State by men and women who engaged in violence to achieve their aims. The same State where you now sit on the high moral ground, cowardly condemming one side to the political wilderness, (which is, funnily enough, the same type of wilderness the founders of this state left them in to begin with)
Time for you to take some responsibility as a citizen, it is not for you to proscribe a significant and growing mandated political party.

Oh... so you were going back a hundred years. Not that it's much of a surprise.

It's a different and complicated discussion, for numerous reasons. It makes it too difficult to discuss what is at hand - not to mention the fact that it is anachronistic and contradictory (on the grounds that you are telling me to 'get with the times', as it were, before you yourself fall back upon Michael Collins et al)

Not that I'm saying that that subject doesn't have merit - just that it's difficult to discuss it in these circumstances (although I've already mentioned how Fianna Fail separated itself from Sinn Fein 2 and Fine Gael separated itself from both SF2 and CnG)

Happyman42 wrote: »

More semantics to pathetically avoid the real issues. You'll be correcting my spelling next.:rolleyes:

No.. you still haven't said what you meant. As you haven't clarified I will assume that I was also right with the 'moving on' interpretation; which again nicely contradicts your above position whereby you predicate your argument on events that are not in living memory.

You could make a valid argument from either position, but not both, realistically. If I were you I would stick with the 'moving on' mantra, as SF6 can actually point to work that they have done in relation to the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning, etc.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh... so you were going back a hundred years. Not that it's much of a surprise.

It's a different and complicated discussion, for numerous reasons. It makes it too difficult to discuss what is at hand - not to mention the fact that it is anachronistic and contradictory (on the grounds that you are telling me to 'get with the times', as it were, before you yourself fall back upon Michael Collins et al)

Not that I'm saying that that subject doesn't have merit - just that it's difficult to discuss it in these circumstances (although I've already mentioned how Fianna Fail separated itself from Sinn Fein 2 and Fine Gael separated itself from both SF2 and CnG)





No.. you still haven't said what you meant. As you haven't clarified I will assume that I was also right with the 'moving on' interpretation; which again nicely contradicts your above position whereby you predicate your argument on events that are not in living memory.

You could make a valid argument from either position, but not both, realistically. If I were you I would stick with the 'moving on' mantra, as SF6 can actually point to work that they have done in relation to the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning, etc.

You are the one sitting comfortably in a state founded upon violence, pontificating about the rights of a politically mandated party to govern. SF have long separated themselves from violence as a means to an end. Nobody is saying move on,(what does that mean anyway?) what we are saying is 'be honest'.
Which is something partitionists can't be, because to be a partitionist in this particular state is to be a hypocrite.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are the one sitting comfortably in a state founded upon violence, pontificating about the rights of a politically mandated party to govern.

That much is correct.

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF have long separated themselves from violence as a means to an end.

SF has separated itself from violence as a means to an end, sure. But what does that really mean? That today planting bombs will win them less political concessions than engaging in politics? Okay, I'll even take that (with reservations) but my issue is the manner in which such a pragmatic decision seems to be nothing more than... pragmatic. Every time any issue comes up in relation to SF so too do some reference to the Troubles, or 1916, or 800 years of oppression (you have done your bit mentioning the War of Independence and 1916 above). It makes it seem that if they again felt that using armalites instead of pamphlets would be more appropriate, that they would have few qualms about doing so.

Even today there is a hullabaloo about whether or not the Deputy First Minister of NI will shake hands with his head of state - presumably to do with the Troubles or whatever.

I'll accept to a certain extent that SF has to play the nationalist card for the sake of its constituents - but I believe that the sentiment is entirely sincere.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody is saying move on,(what does that mean anyway?) what we are saying is 'be honest'.

I believe you did so above. Certainly it is normal for republican politicians to highlight the act of forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, moving with the present, etc. as part of the peace process. This is, in fact, used as a rebuttal for claims of lack of honesty on their part (do you remember the recent presidential contest?) Generally it is argued that the peace process should take precedence over the raking up of unpleasant details about the Troubles be it honest or not. Again your argument is eating itself.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is something partitionists can't be, because to be a partitionist in this particular state is to be a hypocrite.

Hypocrite? How hypocrite? It would be hypocritical if one said that you believed in a united Ireland and then did not pursue it in any way... or the converse; said that you believed in partition but then attempted to dismantle it. De Valera could be argued to be hypocritical in his handling of the Treaty, and in terms of his actions as Taoiseach.

Are... are you even making any arguments any more?

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

That much is correct.

That's all you need to say, I will leave you to your semantics so. Thankfully, as already pointed out, as SF inevitably grow so also will your 'politcal' breed decline.

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Wrong. A number of highly respected economists have backed SF's policies. I've seen a few of them speak about them, such as at the Uniting Ireland conference in Newry. Difficult to misquote someone when they're standing up in front of you talking.

Who would these be?

There is this general belief among some people that SF's economic policies dont add up but when you probe further and ask what policies they take issue with they cant answer because they dont know any policies. Never bothered to look them up. They just heard someone on RTE say it and decided that was that.

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Well I read their last budget submission and it seems to consist of something for everybody in the audience if your on welfare, low or medium wages, all mostly paid by those on over 100k.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Show me one of them that has gotten it right in the last 5 or 6 years.:rolleyes:

It's not about economists getting it right or wrong, it's about them using tried and tested methods to make predictions- with some rationale and evidence. It's like a homeopath arguing that scientists have gotten things wrong in the past. So what, it's about the rigorous scientific method vs. some unsupported belief in the memory of water.

Now economics isn't a science but when SF drop the ball on this front with their fanciful populist ideas they demonstrate their unsuitability to run a country. And when their proposals in the south betray their policies/behaviour in the north they show themselves to be hypocrites.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm also baffled when people can say with 100% assurance that SF's policies, which have never been tried here, wouldnt work and then go and defend FF or FG policies which have been shown to be a catastrophic failure.
Seems odd to me to opt for what you know doesnt work as opposed to trying something new. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Apart from the initial decisions that made private debt sovereign and bearing in mind that most of our debt doesn't relate to the banks, what policies are you referring to that 'don't work'? Again it's about the rationale for an economic policy/prediction. When it comes to such serious matters it is safer to take the position that 'policies that have never been tried' wouldn't work, rather than believing they would without any evidence. Yeah maybe if you want to take a punt and couldn't care less whether the result could mean all wealth and investment flees the country, then you can take that risk. SF seem to plan to run the country on bluster, bluff and hope.

Oh and I'd also like to know who these economists were who stood before you at your summer camp.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

It's not about economists getting it right or wrong, it's about them using tried and tested methods to make predictions- with some rationale and evidence. It's like a homeopath arguing that scientists have gotten things wrong in the past. So what, it's about the rigorous scientific method vs. some unsupported belief in the memory of water.

Now economics isn't a science but when SF drop the ball on this front with their fanciful populist ideas they demonstrate their unsuitability to run a country. And when their proposals in the south betray their policies/behaviour in the north they show themselves to be hypocrites.

Ah right! What you are trying to say is, political parties shouldn't promise things they can't deliver or be populist? Very good! Let's try that system then. :rolleyes:

gerryo777

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists. :rolleyes:

What I mean by that is they have faith in our country and will stand up for our country.:rolleyes:

FF/FG/Lab seem content to allow Europe dictate the shape and future of Ireland.

I want to be seen as Irish first and part of Europe.

FF/FG/Lab seem to want us to be seen as just European.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah right! What you are trying to say is, political parties shouldn't promise things they can't deliver or be populist? Very good! Let's try that system then. :rolleyes:

Bravo. You got it. Political paties shouldn't try to be populist - maybe we'll allow them a few populist policies but their entire act shouldn't be pandering to the crowds. If you missed it, that kind of politics gave us the big fake boom we've all experienced burst in our faces.

Patrick Cleburne

Hell, even the unionist parties have traditionally supported the notion of a united Ireland (albeit within the United Kingdom).

The Protestants of Ulster only demand one thing and that is to be left alone.

All we ask is to be let alone. - Jefferson Davis

gerryo777

Laminations wrote: »

Economists. For a start. SF had to misquote them to fake support.

Jesus, Imagine a politician doing such a thing.:D

Laminations

Oh and what exactly about the current government is particularly populist?

gerryo777

RandomName2 wrote: »

as per the 1916 thing

The 1916 'thing'?

gerryo777

Laminations wrote: »

Apart from the initial decisions that made private debt sovereign and bearing in mind that most of our debt doesn't relate to the banks, what policies are you referring to that 'don't work'? Again it's about the rationale for an economic policy/prediction. When it comes to such serious matters it is safer to take the position that 'policies that have never been tried' wouldn't work, rather than believing they would without any evidence. Yeah maybe if you want to take a punt and couldn't care less whether the result could mean all wealth and investment flees the country, then you can take that risk. SF seem to plan to run the country on bluster, bluff and hope.

Oh and I'd also like to know who these economists were who stood before you at your summer camp.

Do you think all economic decisions were made post september/october 2008?

BTW, this country is being run on bluster, bluff and hope if you haven't noticed.

gerryo777

Laminations wrote: »

Oh and what exactly about the current government is particularly populist?

Na, you've got it wrong.

The populist crap comes out in the run up to elections, the more populist your policy's are, the more votes you get.
This is how FG/Lab got such a majority.

After the election the populist crap goes out the window for about 4 years until the run in to the next election starts.

It's Irish politics at it's finest.

Got it now?

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

Bravo. You got it. Political paties shouldn't try to be populist - maybe we'll allow them a few populist policies but their entire act shouldn't be pandering to the crowds. If you missed it, that kind of politics gave us the big fake boom we've all experienced burst in our faces.

Very good.
Now go look up the word 'socialist', if only to prepare yourself for the future.
SF are the only real socialist choice we have. They deserve the chance to implement their policies when the people decide to elect them to office.

Personally I believe socialism won't work on it's own, but by jesus do we need a more fair government. I look forward to them sharing power in the near future.

RandomName2

gerryo777 wrote: »

The 1916 'thing'?

I'm suspecting you didn't understand my post.

The 'thing' was Happyman's reference... something along the lines of 'how can you not condone violence when you are yourself knee deep in the blood righteously spilled by your predecessors?'

gerryo777 wrote: »

What I mean by that is they have faith in our country and will stand up for our country.:rolleyes:

FF/FG/Lab seem content to allow Europe dictate the shape and future of Ireland.

I want to be seen as Irish first and part of Europe.

FF/FG/Lab seem to want us to be seen as just European.

I can't argue with much of that.

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

Very good.
Now go look up the word 'socialist', if only to prepare yourself for the future.
SF are the only real socialist choice we have.

As opposed to the ... em... Socialist Party?

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

As opposed to the ... em... Socialist Party?

You do know what the function of a capital letter is?

gerryo777

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do know what the function of a capital letter is?

He/she did that earlier when I posted about SF being a party that believed in the country of Ireland, as in has faith in Ireland, came back with 'Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists,:rolleyes:'

Your saying SF are a socialist party and he comes back with 'The Socialist Party'.

Bit of trolling going on......

RandomName2

gerryo777 wrote: »

He/she did that earlier when I posted about SF being a party that believed in the country of Ireland, as in has faith in Ireland, came back with 'Hard put to find anyone who doesn't believe Ireland exists,:rolleyes:'

Sigh... I suppose humour in a thread about SF was always going to be a lead balloon.

gerryo777 wrote: »

Your saying SF are a socialist party and he comes back with 'The Socialist Party'.

Bit of trolling going on......

I would be somewhat tempted to agree with you, except it is against the forum charter to accuse other posters of trolling.

He says: SF only socialist option
I say: what about the Socialists?
He says: ah but socialists and Socialists are different. (the ASCII values are not the same)

Happyman has not identified his positions, nor backed up his arguments. He has contradicted himself several times and has subsequently abandoned his thread of argument altogether.

As the conversation sounds more like a sales-pitch for SF, I am consequently bowing out. :pac:

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

He says: SF only socialist option
I say: what about the Socialists?
He says: ah but socialists and Socialists are different. (the ASCII values are not the same)

Happyman has not identified his positions, nor backed up his arguments. He has contradicted himself several times and has subsequently abandoned his thread of argument altogether.

Try as hard as you wish, but I said none of the above, I deliberately didn't use a capital 'S'. You deliberately used what you wanted it to mean to drag the thread further off topic to avoid the issues.

As the conversation sounds more like a sales-pitch for SF, I am consequently bowing out. :pac:

It's quite obvious that your hate for SF clouds anything sensible you might have to say about politics. Maybe it's best you bow out.

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

Who would these be?

Well there were a few at that partiualr event, cant remember them all but for my money the best speaker was Dr Conor Patterson. here's a bit about him.

http://www.nmea.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=33

also of interest is this article. I think it's good because it takes an outsiders point of view and is therefor less emotive. It's from New Economic Perspectives, a group of professional economists, legal scholars, and financial market practitioners.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/sinn-fein-emerges-as-the-only-honest-and-economically-literate-irish-party.html

and just in case you think that's a hack job, here's a bit about the authors.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/about.html

K-9 wrote: »

Well I read their last budget submission and it seems to consist of something for everybody in the audience if your on welfare, low or medium wages, all mostly paid by those on over 100k.

WHAT?!?!!? The scurrilous bastards. Dont they know there are millionaires out there who cant afford to put fuel in their yachts.

Chucky the tree

Crooked Jack wrote: »

also of interest is this article. I think it's good because it takes an outsiders point of view and is therefor less emotive. It's from New Economic Perspectives, a group of professional economists, legal scholars, and financial market practitioners.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/sinn-fein-emerges-as-the-only-honest-and-economically-literate-irish-party.html

and just in case you think that's a hack job, here's a bit about the authors.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/about.html

Or less informative since it's from an outsider.

Crooked Jack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Or less informative since it's from an outsider.

More informative i felt because they're totally impartial and not just trying to defend the stance of one political party or another. It's purely about the economics.

Chucky the tree

Crooked Jack wrote: »

More informative i felt because they're totally impartial and not just trying to defend the stance of one political party or another. It's purely about the economics.

Obviously you felt he was more informative. Considering the article mentions absolutely nothing in detail about SF's economic policies or why they are good then it's clearly not purely about the economics. The article is about having a rant at neo libralism and how terrible austerity is, pretty much complete fluff tbh.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Can folks dial back on the sniping, personal digs, and face-palming? Thanks.

Crooked Jack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Obviously you felt he was more informative. Considering the article mentions absolutely nothing in detail about SF's economic policies or why they are good then it's clearly not purely about the economics. The article is about having a rant at neo libralism and how terrible austerity is, pretty much complete fluff tbh.

The article was an overview of the position of all the parties. It's hardly going to go into detail about each and every one of each party's economic policies as it would be a million pages long. If you want details on some of Sinn Fein's economic policies I suggest you try their website.
To be honest I just think you dont like the fact that the usually reliable "sinn fein's economic policies are rubbish" defence is slowly but surely being eroded.
You'll forgive me if I put more stock in the word of this guy -

"William K. Black, J.D., Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Bill Black has testified before the Senate Agricultural Committee on the regulation of financial derivatives and House Governance Committee on the regulation of executive compensation. He was interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS, which went viral. He gave an invited lecture at UCLA’s Hammer Institute which, when the video was posted on the web, drew so many “hits” that it crashed the UCLA server. He appeared extensively in Michael Moore’s most recent documentary: “Capitalism: A Love Story.” He was featured in the Obama campaign release discussing Senator McCain’s role in the “Keating Five.” (Bill took the notes of that meeting that led to the Senate Ethics investigation of the Keating Five. His testimony was highly critical of all five Senators’ actions.) He is a frequent guest on local, national, and international television and radio and is quoted as an expert by the national and international print media nearly every week. He was the subject of featured interviews in Newsweek, Barron’s, and Village Voice."

- than some bitter boards ranter.

Chucky the tree

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The article was an overview of the position of all the parties. It's hardly going to go into detail about each and every one of each party's economic policies as it would be a million pages long. If you want details on some of Sinn Fein's economic policies I suggest you try their website.
To be honest I just think you dont like the fact that the usually reliable "sinn fein's economic policies are rubbish" defence is slowly but surely being eroded.
You'll forgive me if I put more stock in the word of this guy -

"William K. Black, J.D., Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Bill Black has testified before the Senate Agricultural Committee on the regulation of financial derivatives and House Governance Committee on the regulation of executive compensation. He was interviewed by Bill Moyers on PBS, which went viral. He gave an invited lecture at UCLA’s Hammer Institute which, when the video was posted on the web, drew so many “hits” that it crashed the UCLA server. He appeared extensively in Michael Moore’s most recent documentary: “Capitalism: A Love Story.” He was featured in the Obama campaign release discussing Senator McCain’s role in the “Keating Five.” (Bill took the notes of that meeting that led to the Senate Ethics investigation of the Keating Five. His testimony was highly critical of all five Senators’ actions.) He is a frequent guest on local, national, and international television and radio and is quoted as an expert by the national and international print media nearly every week. He was the subject of featured interviews in Newsweek, Barron’s, and Village Voice."

- than some bitter boards ranter.

I have tried there website and read there policies plenty of times, I think they are a joke. I've no idea if this guy even read SF policies or any of the other parties policies. Maybe he simply going on the soundbites he picked up from radio and newspapers. I honestly don't care which economist likes or doesn't like SF's economic policies, I can read them myself and come to my own conclusions.

Also if the guy has appeared significantly in a Michael Moore movie then I'd seriously question how impartial or balanced that person is.

purplepanda

Nodin wrote: »

It's not a "proposal". Everyone in the North is entitled to an Irish passport.

So SF propose that only Irish passport holders in NI get a vote, why not extend the "franchise" to all citizens on the NI electoral register then?

After all all those potential voters actually do live in Ireland, & it would be wrong & undemocratic to deny them voting rights :pac:

junder

It's seems Connor murphy has been found guilty of discrimantion after sll


Department of Regional Development discriminated against candidate

The Department of Regional Development has lost a religious discrimination case at an industrial tribunal.

It found evidence by Sinn Fein's Conor Murphy "implausible and lacking credibility".

The case was brought by Alan Lennon, a Protestant overlooked for the post of chairman of NI Water.

Deciding Mr Lennon was discriminated against, the tribunal believe Mr Murphy - minister at the time - also broke the code of practice for appointments.

In March 2011, Mr Murphy appointed a Catholic as chairman, Sean Hogan, ahead of four others shortlisted after interview, all of them Protestants.

According to the tribunal, Mr Hogan was selected because "he was not from a Protestant background and because he was known to the minister and his (then Sinn Fein) ministerial colleagues", Michelle Gildernew and Caitriona Ruane, who were consulted about the appointment.

The BBC has seen the 26-page decision issued to those involved.

It concluded: "The tribunal is in considerable doubt as to whether the merit principle was adhered to by the minister and whether Mr Hogan was the best candidate."

It also said Mr Murphy had added new criteria to the selection process "in order to secure Mr Hogan's appointment", something it viewed as a breach of the code and procedures for appointments.

The tribunal disputed Mr Murphy's claim he was unaware of the religion of the candidates.

'Material bias'
"In the reality of the political and religious environment in Northern Ireland, the tribunal finds the minister's evidence is implausible and lacks credibility."

The tribunal also said that during Mr Murphy's time as DRD minister - between 2007-2011, there was "a material bias against the appointment of candidates from a Protestant background".

The findings added: "The tribunal is concerned that Dr (Malcolm) McKibbin as permanent secretary with DRD and currently head of the NI Civil Service was not more aware of the situation."

The tribunal rejected Mr Lennon's claim there was also political discrimination, saying there was "a paucity of evidence".

Mr Lennon's case was assisted by the Equality Commission.

Its chief executive Evelyn Collins said: "We supported this case because it is our view that the standards of fairness and non-discrimination that we expect in employment situations should apply equally to all public appointments.

"A key part of this is the requirement for a sufficient degree of transparency and accountability in the process to assure people that selection is based on merit and that, if unlawful discrimination occurs, it can be challenged."

The DRD said in a short statement it would take time to consider the ruling.

In a statement Mr Murphy said: "I absolutely refute any allegation of discrimination against Alan Lennon on religious grounds.

"I stand over all of the appointments I made as the regional development minister and adhered to all the set criteria for such appointments.

"The department have six weeks to decide whether to appeal this ruling. Having read the ruling myself I would be urging the department to utilise the appeals process."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18526303

fasttalkerchat

junder wrote: »

It's seems Connor murphy has been found guilty of discrimantion after sll


Department of Regional Development discriminated against candidate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18526303

Doubt there's much too it. If there was an unfair selection they would have said that they discriminated on the basis that they knew the candidate. Instead they rejected all discrimination.

poeticseraphim

If the economy continues to expand as current figures (VERY NEW FIGURES I WILL ADMIT) sugggest and if the EU deal does change the game for Ireland...we see Bond yields continue to drop (they are under 5% huge drop) will this make it difficult for Sinn Féin to attack what the Govt has done as it is having benefits.

Unemployment figures have dropped slightly and if bond yields even stay stable for the summer we have turned a corner..(touch wood)..

And the debt terms appear to have changed..

I am going out on a limb here and am going to suggest that SF support may be in fact quite shallow and a knee jerk reaction to the crisis.

And as we come out of it a lot will support will fall away.

Ok cards on the table I consider myself a social democrat i favour health services for all and edutaion through direct taxation ...however i favour a free market economy..

Sinn Féin favour a state gas company a state IT company we are all going to work for the state...this strategy did not work for bertie

Their policy is rhetoric

If we go into recovery and we have lets say one or two tough budgets then an easier one and we begin to see an end to austerity, i think they will lose a lot of support.

I suppose i am centre left healthcare welfare education from taxation and i am prepared to pay realistic taxation needed for that (as in similar rates to some other EU countries) however i could never vote for Sinn Féin. Beyond moral reasons . They seem to think running an economy is like organising a balance sheet...so long as it all adds up they are doing it right..i think it is because of their experience in a highly subsidised economy in the north. You have to turn profits ..growth and an ecomomy needs teeth and competivess to do that and mobility. Recession is part of a healthy economy.

Another thing the economy is already too full of ideology from both the right and left....it needs objectivity. There are sometimes when higher taxes might pay off there are sometimes when they may not.

One huge mistake is the idea that you can use stimulus to grow a real economy or parts of it..you can't ..you can fake it..thats what happened with the property sector ..subsidies overfuelled it along with lax banking regulation fuelled by the govts desire for tax revenue ..to put back into subsidising the property sector....Sinn Féin wants to do the same thing....yu can invest in infrastructure but it's supply and demand ..you cant supply the demand or fake demand...especially in a high tax economy (which i support) but you have to allow industries to contract as there is not a market ...

As for green energy...at the moment that is something you pour money into..it's not something you get money out of..it will be some time i suspect before this changes...there is a lot of protectionism regarding non green energy sources and stopping this would perhaps harm the economy..it is difficult to make it proffitable beyond a small industry

Not to mention with a SF govt i actually think it would harm our reputation abroad politically and investment wise...

They are not social democrats ..they are socialists

The pension reserve fund is almost empty..to be honest the only other funding now is private pensions which has been listed by Adams as a possible source of funds...and this WOULD KILL OUR REPUTATAION WITH IVESTORS ABROAD..it sends the message that the Govt does not respect private property rights and no one would feel their investments were safe and it would mean borrowing would again become dearer for us and we would end up paying more interest...

as i social emocrat i believe in the right to private property ..funding through taxation fine..


Do people think Sinn Féin will lose a lot of support in the recovery?

Sad to think that they have something invested in Irelands crisis..but then all opositions do..but it says a lot about their rhetoric...plus the fact that it is clear from their rhetoric and policies that they don't believe they will get into power either...

I think SF peaked too soon...who knows

Happyman42

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I think SF peaked too soon...who knows

I admire your optimism, but what is plainly evident through all of this crisis is that our systems of governance have to change and change fundamentally.
The new and growing by the minute scandal emerging in Barclays has already sparked off a tribunal and will further highlight how greed has overpowered even the most earnest intent of those that govern us.
I don't think pure socialism is the answer but we certainly need to ensure that fairness and equality are enshrined in our government. SF are a credible socialist party and have worked hard at community level to get where they are. I can only see that continuing. They will continue to attract those who want a fairer system.

laoch na mona

purplepanda wrote: »

So SF propose that only Irish passport holders in NI get a vote, why not extend the "franchise" to all citizens on the NI electoral register then?

After all all those potential voters actually do live in Ireland, & it would be wrong & undemocratic to deny them voting rights :pac:

unless they identify themselves as irish (i.e have a passport) why should they get a say in who runs the country

Laminations

laoch na mona wrote: »

unless they identify themselves as irish (i.e have a passport) why should they get a say in who runs the country

So all Irish passport holders, anywhere in the world should have a vote? or just the ones in NI?

fasttalkerchat

laoch na mona wrote: »

unless they identify themselves as irish (i.e have a passport) why should they get a say in who runs the country

I think that anyone who lives in Ireland (the island of Ireland) has a vested interest in the running of the country. Equally decisions made in Stormount will affect people over the border especially in terms of transport, tourism and fisheries.

Laminations

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I think that anyone who lives in Ireland (the island of Ireland) has a vested interest in the running of the country. Equally decisions made in Stormount will affect people over the border especially in terms of transport, tourism and fisheries.

You are confusing 'island' and 'country'. Seeing as we share this island with Britain, should we be allowed vote for British parliament as we have a vested interest in what happens on this island??

fasttalkerchat

Laminations wrote: »

You are confusing 'island' and 'country'. Seeing as we share this island with Britain, should we be allowed vote for British parliament as we have a vested interest in what happens on this island??

What happens in the British parliament has little relevance to anyone in the republic. One thing that does interest me from Westminster is that they control our corporation tax rate so I would like to see that devolved.

junder

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

junder wrote: »

It's seems Connor murphy has been found guilty of discrimantion after sll


Department of Regional Development discriminated against candidate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18526303

Doubt there's much too it. If there was an unfair selection they would have said that they discriminated on the basis that they knew the candidate. Instead they rejected all discrimination.

An entire department found guilty of discrimantion, the sinn fein Minister has been accused of effectively lieing to cover up this discrimination, but you doubt there is much to it

junder

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

You are confusing 'island' and 'country'. Seeing as we share this island with Britain, should we be allowed vote for British parliament as we have a vested interest in what happens on this island??

What happens in the British parliament has little relevance to anyone in the republic. One thing that does interest me from Westminster is that they control our corporation tax rate so I would like to see that devolved.

What happens in the dail has little relevance to me

fasttalkerchat

junder wrote: »

What happens in the dail has little relevance to me

That will be the case for a lot of people, especially if you live and work in the north-east. Feel free to not vote.