Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What's that about? It's about your trifling list not being worth the pixels they're printed on from the auto-condemn brigade.
Did you really link to a dismissal from EVERY political party and EVERY commentator? Wow. Must have been a long list. Funny I can't find it anywhere.

That's a pretty broad 'auto-condemn brigade'.
Again - I haven't linked to anyone.
So, your list of those supporting the SF claim?

1. Tim Pat Coogan
2...

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

So, your list of those supporting the SF claim?

I never claimed to have a list.
YOU claimed "everybody" had dismissed the claim.
You are now oh so predictably looking for some other list as a sad bit of whataboutery when you were called out on your bluster and have zero to back it up.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I never claimed to have a list.
YOU claimed "everybody" had dismissed the claim.
You are now oh so predictably looking for some other list as a sad bit of whataboutery when you were called out on your bluster and have zero to back it up.

Everyone outside SF and their fanboys - yes.
How exactly is providing a list to disprove that contention 'whataboutery'?

I gave you a list of those that dismissed the SF claim - it's pretty much everyone with a stake or commentary in the arena.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim

Just in case you forgot what you said alastair.
Hey, why don't you ask me to hop on one foot or say a tonguetwister as some sort of counterclaim so everybody might forget you said this and have failed miserably to back it up?

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Just in case you forgot what you said alastair.
Hey, why don't you ask me to hop on one foot or say a tonguetwister as some sort of counterclaim so everybody might forget you said this and have failed miserably to back it up?

I've backed up my comment by listing those that dismissed the accusation. It's essentially everyone but the Shinners and their coat-trailers. Now if you want to be pedantic, I'm happy to admit that there's quite a few people oblivious to the whole issue, to Adams, and to Ireland, but within those involved in NI, the consensus outside SF is that their accusation just doesn't hold water.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

I've backed up my comment by listing those that dismissed the accusation. It's essentially everyone but the Shinners and their coat-trailers. Now if you want to be pedantic, I'm happy to admit that there's quite a few people oblivious to the whole issue, to Adams, and to Ireland, but within those involved in NI, the consensus outside SF is that their accusation just doesn't hold water.

It'd be amazing if you found anybody who didn't have something to gain from dismissing SF's claims of police bias, wouldn't it?
So by "everyone" you really do just mean "you and the usual suspects". Sorry about that.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The complaint has nothing to do with the claim of 'political policing'. Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim for the bluster it was. Which is what was under discussion. Just keeping you on topic.

Could you post a link to his two complaints please? I didn't realise they were in the public domain, but you seem to be familiar with them...or are you bluffing again?

marienbad

here is a link, now can we move on please

http://www.internetslang.com/GTFU-meaning-definition.asp

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It'd be amazing if you found anybody who didn't have something to gain from dismissing SF's claims of police bias, wouldn't it?
So by "everyone" you really do just mean "you and the usual suspects". Sorry about that.

So - the 'usual suspects' comprise the two governments, the police themselves, all the other political parties who have been asked, and all journalists (bar Coogan) who have written op-ed pieces? That makes SF a remarkably suspicious party - almost paranoid tbh.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you post a link to his two complaints please? I didn't realise they were in the public domain, but you seem to be familiar with them...or are you bluffing again?

It's a single complaint - he's keeping the second in store, because the ombudsman wouldn't like it. The super-secret complaint relates to some unspecified questions he didn't like. But clearly the SF allegation of 'political policing' relates to the timing of the questioning, and not the nitty gritty of what he was asked - so it appears to be a complaint about something else.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

So - the 'usual suspects' comprise the two governments, the police themselves, all the other political parties who have been asked, and all journalists (bar Coogan) who have written op-ed pieces? That makes SF a remarkably suspicious party - almost paranoid tbh.

So the "usual suspects" comprise the political parties running against SF in a matter of days in a European and local elections and the guys who the claim is against in the first place who of course will deny it?
Compelling alastair, compelling.:D

Scofflaw

marienbad wrote: »

here is a link, now can we move on please

http://www.internetslang.com/GTFU-meaning-definition.asp

While regretting the incivility, I'll echo the overall sentiment. Handbags down, try to have a constructive discussion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So the "usual suspects" comprise the political parties running against SF in a matter of days in a European and local elections and the guys who the claim is against in the first place who of course will deny it?
Compelling alastair, compelling.:D

And the political commentators of course. Everyone except SF themselves, it seems. As I say, that's a remarkably broad set of 'suspects'.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's a single complaint - he's keeping the second in store, because the ombudsman wouldn't like it. The super-secret complaint relates to some unspecified questions he didn't like. But clearly the SF allegation of 'political policing' relates to the timing of the questioning, and not the nitty gritty of what he was asked - so it appears to be a complaint about something else.

So you don't know the nature of the complaint. As I thought, you do a lot of guessing about Gerry Adams.

Scrag

Sinn Fein are the only party with elected members to Europe Westminster Stormont Dail Eireann. Their leader always tops the poll in elections. They have been going longer than any other political party in Ireland. Their role in the 1916 rising is international and their leaders were executed for their beliefs.Their stand on a united Ireland has always been their aim and not just recently. Just watched them all being honoured on TV.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you don't know the nature of the complaint. As I thought, you do a lot of guessing about Gerry Adams.

I'm not guessing at all. SF stated their rationale for the accusation of 'political policing'. It didn't' involve any specific range of questions Adams was asked. So I've no need to guess the nature of the complaint to know it's not what they were alleging was 'political policing'.

alastair

Scrag wrote: »

Their role in the 1916 rising is international and their leaders were executed for their beliefs.

Sinn Fein had no role in 1916. All those executed leaders were from other parties. Most of the other parties have greater justification in claiming a stake in 1916 than SF.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm not guessing at all.

Yes you are. Until we see the complaint it is not possible to say what it refers to, it may very well relate some of the questions to a political bias.
Stop guessing Alastair.

Birroc

I was considering voting for SF this time out, probably not #1 but somewhere down the preferences. It would have been a first for me. I decided not to after the Gerry Adams arrest. It wasn't his arrest that put me off (although I am fairly certain he is lying about his IRA membership), the reason was McGuinness's reaction and veiled threats. I found his comments unbelievable. I really thought he had turned the democratic corner. Seemingly not so my short lived SF love-in has ended. Not sure who to vote for instead...

Dan_Solo

Birroc wrote: »

I was considering voting for SF this time out, probably not #1 but somewhere down the preferences. It would have been a first for me. I decided not to after the Gerry Adams arrest. It wasn't his arrest that put me off (although I am fairly certain he is lying about his IRA membership), the reason was McGuinness's reaction and veiled threats. I found his comments unbelievable. I really thought he had turned the democratic corner. Seemingly not so my short lived SF love-in has ended. Not sure who to vote for instead...

No doubt the whole incident has had that effect on some. SF would claim that was the whole point of the PSNI questioning.
However, from my own anecdotal experience this episode has pushed more people towards SF than away.

Birroc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

However, from my own anecdotal experience this episode has pushed more people towards SF than away.

I would actually think the opposite. I imagine existing SF supporters might be more committed following the arrest, a kind of siege mentality increase in loyalty. But I very much doubt that the incident resulted in any new SF supporters (maybe in the immature 18-24 bracket). Especially again because of the veiled threats the quickly followed the arrest. I think those peace process threats were a mistake and I am surprised that SF hierarchy would be so naïve.
.

Putin

Birroc wrote: »

But I very much doubt that the incident resulted in any new SF supporters (maybe in the immature 18-24 bracket).

Actually you would be very wrong. If my in-laws are a barometer to use, then it looks like SF have picked up some extra votes. And no, they don't belong in the bracket you mentioned. And moving on from your petty condescension. They would ranged within the mid-thirties/mid-forties bracket and all would have been FG/FF voters in the past.

Birroc

Putin wrote: »

Actually you would be very wrong. If my in-laws are a barometer to use, then it looks like SF have picked up some extra votes. And no, they don't belong in the bracket you mentioned. And moving on from your petty condescension. They would ranged within the mid-thirties/mid-forties bracket and all would have been FG/FF voters in the past.

Well time will tell I suppose. I expect SF to get a lift at the Local and General Elections simply because they have not been tarnished in government as yet. A new political party could steal their thunder however.
I don't think it was a "petty condescension", I think we will all agree that at that age we were more inclined to support "freedom fighters" and underdog or extreme parties.

I am curious though, did your in-laws start supporting SF as a direct result of the Adams arrest or were they leaning towards them before that?

alastair

Birroc wrote: »

I think those peace process threats were a mistake and I am surprised that SF hierarchy would be so naïve.

I was surprised as well. SF are normally pretty astute political operators, but that was a car crash. People couldn't help but take note.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

I was surprised as well. SF are normally pretty astute political operators, but that was a car crash. People couldn't help but take note.

And again, only those who were already opposed to SF see it that way. We'll all know come election time.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And again, only those who were already opposed to SF see it that way.

Well, unless you're calling Birroc a liar, that would not appear to be the case.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

Well, unless you're calling Birroc a liar, that would not appear to be the case.

I don't believe his story no.
You don't claim you were considering voting for a party and then call their supporters "immature". It stinks of false pretense.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't believe his story no.
You don't claim you were considering voting for a party and then call their supporters "immature". It stinks of false pretense.

Best of luck with that.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

Best of luck with that.

With what? Having an opinion on his post? Gee, thanks for the good wishes.

Birroc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't believe his story no.
You don't claim you were considering voting for a party and then call their supporters "immature". It stinks of false pretense.

Eh read my post. I was referring to 18-24 year olds only i.e. new voters.
By the way it wasn't a "story", it was a personal opinion.

Birroc

alastair wrote: »

I was surprised as well. SF are normally pretty astute political operators, but that was a car crash. People couldn't help but take note.

Absolutely, they are the best at propaganda/spin and electioneering. They dropped the ball on this one and thus eroded their democratic credentials in doing so. Adams must have been fuming when he heard.

Dan_Solo

Nah, what you said is

Birroc wrote: »

But I very much doubt that the incident resulted in any new SF supporters (maybe in the immature 18-24 bracket).

So you think you'd need to be "immature" to consider SF more strongly after this incident. Of course you were saying that you yourself were considering voting SF... dunno if you're calling yourself immature then or not.

Dan_Solo

Birroc wrote: »

Absolutely, they are the best at propaganda/spin and electioneering.

There it is again. You claim you were considering voting SF and you describe them like this? Totally unbelievable tripe.

Birroc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nah, what you said is

So you think you'd need to be "immature" to consider SF more strongly after this incident. Of course you were saying that you yourself were considering voting SF... dunno if you're calling yourself immature then or not.

No my point was the I think the only new voters that would be attracted to SF because of the Adams arrest would be younger voters (18-24) who would have learned about Adam's past over the coverage since his arrest. They would have thought it "cool" that the SF party leader was arrested because of terrorist/freedom-fighter activities 40 years ago.

And to explain the point further, I think all voters 18-24 are immature no matter who they vote for. They just don't know how the system works or who is who yet.

Birroc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There it is again. You claim you were considering voting SF and you describe them like this? Totally unbelievable tripe.

But it's true.

tayto lover

I am considering voting for Sinn Fein in the upcoming elections. I have never voted for them before.
One of the reasons for this is the cowardice of the other candidates i.e. not one of them have knocked my door and instead seem to be paying young lads to put their election material through my letter box.

If they cannot face the electorate then they don't deserve the votes. The Shinners seem to be the only party actually knocking doors in my area.
I will wait for awhile before deciding to see if the situation changes.

Dan_Solo

tayto lover wrote: »

I am considering voting for Sinn Fein in the upcoming elections. I have never voted for them before.
One of the reasons for this is the cowardice of the other candidates i.e. not one of them have knocked my door and instead seem to be paying young lads to put their election material through my letter box.

But the Adams questioning hasn't swayed you for or against SF?

tayto lover

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the Adams questioning hasn't swayed you for or against SF?

SF would probably benefit by Adams retirement alright.
It beats me why he has not been questioned previously regarding the McConville murder. Unless there is new evidence then it should have happened long ago.

Birroc

tayto lover wrote: »

SF would probably benefit by Adams retirement alright.

Absolutely they would. I feel they will increase their TDs to 20 in the next GE mainly because people are sick of FG, Lab, FF & Greens. But if Mary Lou (or whoever) was party leader I think they would do even better.

Plasid

Only fools with posters up defacing the giro. route...

Banjo String

Plasid wrote: »

Only fools with posters up defacing the giro. route...

Whats this now?

Blowfish

Plasid wrote: »

Only fools with posters up defacing the giro. route...

Not quite true. There were a few Labour ones around, plus Paul Murphy not only left his up, but was standing with a group holding posters in middle of one of the closed roads after handing out leaflets etc.

tayto lover

Blowfish wrote: »

Not quite true. There were a few Labour ones around, plus Paul Murphy not only left his up, but was standing with a group holding posters in middle of one of the closed roads after handing out leaflets etc.

Dead man cycling