Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

For a second time then. Source.

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rijksoverheid.nl%2Fbestanden%2Fdocumenten-en-publicaties%2Frapporten%2F2012%2F10%2F04%2Fremuneration-of-medical-specialists%2Fremuneration-of-medical-specialists.pdf&ei=2pzyUIbWOsKS0QX204DwDw&usg=AFQjCNH71RC3ZassvV2JHDC4IvjK_oGOnA&sig2=i09h8t3Il3DceyO1afjHlg

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CE4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rijksoverheid.nl%2Fbestanden%2Fdocumenten-en-publicaties%2Frapporten%2F2012%2F10%2F04%2Fremuneration-of-medical-specialists%2Fremuneration-of-medical-specialists.pdf&ei=2pzyUIbWOsKS0QX204DwDw&usg=AFQjCNH71RC3ZassvV2JHDC4IvjK_oGOnA&sig2=i09h8t3Il3DceyO1afjHlg

Ah, so you got the 157k from the table of "self employed specialists"
Now, one more time: what is the public sector consultant salary?

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All of them believe it it time to stop the if it's not FF it must be FG cycle. All of them believe different standards are being applied and different sets of criteria at at play.

I am not particularly worried about the idea that SF will get in as part of a coalition. I would prefer that they don't get in while the IRA crowd are still in charge, but it won't be the end of the world.

The people who will be horrified are the people who vote them in, when they have to compromise so as to get some of their agenda implemented. Take any Gilmour speech from this Government and imagine Mary Lou giving it, that's what it'll be like.

But with less dissension in the SF ranks, because, well, you know.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not particularly worried about the idea that SF will get in as part of a coalition. I would prefer that they don't get in while the IRA crowd are still in charge, but it won't be the end of the world.

The people who will be horrified are the people who vote them in, when they have to compromise so as to get some of their agenda implemented. Take any Gilmour speech from this Government and imagine Mary Lou giving it, that's what it'll be like.

But with less dissension in the SF ranks, because, well, you know.

because they will get kicked out of the party as happens in the other parties (*coff* Lucinda *coff*) ? You surely cannot be suggesting they will be...made to disappear....:eek:

Do I want an SF government now?

Sweetest divine no.

I want a left-wing candidate from a left-wing party or alliance which I feel has a chance of possibly forming a coalition government and I cannot bring myself to vote for Kathleen Lynch again.

Dan_Solo

Haha, you think SF will bend over as far as Labour do every last time for a bit of power? Unlikely.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, so you got the 157k from the table of "self employed specialists"
Now, one more time: what is the public sector consultant salary?

If you want to focus on fully publicly salaried German consultants - then the average salary is €121,097 in 2009 - again above the maximum allowed here.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

If you want to focus on fully publicly salaried German consultants - then the average salary is €121,097 in 2009 - again above the maximum allowed here.

Not clever enough wording I'm afraid.
That's the minimum starting salary for a new consultant in Ireland. Not the average for an Irish consultant.

So anyway, now you've convinced me that Irish consultants are pitifully underpaid McJob slaves, why would there be a problem with a 100k salary cap then? Sure that's about all they're getting anyway, right? Right?

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

IF it is 'standard practice' why wasn't Shatter arrested and taken to the station in handcuffs?

Because you either buy Shatter's story that he was waved on after he explained about his asthma - in which case the Guard was at fault for using their discretion after that right had been removed, or you buy the Guard's statement, that Shatter invoked Dail privilege, in which case she couldn't stop him. In either case - it doesn't apply to Daly's experience.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think the fact that a police force leaked news of the arrest and handcuffing of a member of parliament during the same time period that she also happened to be quite vocal in her questioning of some of their 'standard practices (and justifiably critical as it turned out) is a strawman than my time would be better served walking my dogs .

It's a strawman because I never disputed anything other than her arrest was normal procedure under the circumstances.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not clever enough wording I'm afraid.
That's the minimum starting salary for a new consultant in Ireland. Not the average for an Irish consultant.

That's above the maximum salary for a consultancy position in Ireland.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So anyway, now you've convinced me that Irish consultants are pitifully underpaid McJob slaves, why would there be a problem with a 100k salary cap then? Sure that's about all they're getting anyway, right? Right?

The SF policy is a levy on income over €100,000, which would take in quite a few doctors asides from consultants - and I'll repeat what I already stated - I'm not comfortable with emptying the coffers of our doctors to usher in those prepared to work to a discount.

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

That's above the maximum salary for a consultancy position in Ireland.


The SF policy is a levy on income over €100,000, which would take in quite a few doctors asides from consultants - and I'll repeat what I already stated - I'm not comfortable with emptying the coffers of our doctors to usher in those prepared to work to a discount.

What makes MDs so privileged?

ardmacha

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haha, you think SF will bend over as far as Labour do every last time for a bit of power? Unlikely.

As Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said on TV yesterday, Labour lacked the conviction to stand up to FG, but SF are a party of conviction.

The next leaders of these parties, Mary-Lou and Joan, are practically indistinguishable.

Dan_Solo

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-consultants-pay-grievances-1.1677906
Mistake or lie?
Turns out the maximum public only salary in Ireland is 192k. Who would have guessed it was 70k higher than he consultant salary apologists are quoting!

Dan_Solo

ardmacha wrote: »

As Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said on TV yesterday, Labour lacked the conviction to stand up to FG, but SF are a party of conviction.

The next leaders of these parties, Mary-Lou and Joan, are practically indistinguishable.

If only the consultants in Ireland weren't so expensive you might be able to afford an eye test?

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Failed to register a reading' = nothing to register or Not working correctly.
If the former = no charge.
If the latter = go to station and repeat test.

Why was it necessary she was handcuffed?

Do you intent to disregard the leaks and accessing of the pulse system? Do you wish to explain why Alan Shatter was not arrested and handcuffed when he really did refuse to give a breathalyser test?


No...no politics in Irish policing. None at all at all.

Why is everything reduced to 'whataboutery' ? Can not both be wrong ?

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-consultants-pay-grievances-1.1677906
Mistake or lie?
Turns out the maximum public only salary in Ireland is 192k. Who would have guessed it was 70k higher than he consultant salary apologists are quoting!

That's because it's a heritage salary - as the article makes clear. Note also the difficulty they have in filling the position - which is open to all those Germans and French etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

marienbad wrote: »

Why is everything reduced to 'whataboutery' ? Can not both be wrong ?

Yes.

And both should be treated equally.
Made it large in case you missed all the other times I said it.

If there is evidence to try Adams - then try him.

The British government knows the names of those involved in Bloody Sunday - lets see the PNSI try them too.

Let's see arrests made for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - the Barron Report stated it was of the opinion collusion with members of the RUC had taken place. I doubt if they would have made that statement if they didn't have a fairly good idea of who was involved, yet..no one has been asked to pop in to the PNSI for a wee chat about all of that...

If Daly's arrest is 'standard procedure' than the exact same thing should have happened to Shatter.

Did you miss the many many posts where I said a big part of my problem is the application of double standards?

marienbad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes.

And both should be treated equally.
Made it large in case you missed all the other times I said it.

If there is evidence to try Adams - then try him.

The British government knows the names of those involved in Bloody Sunday - lets see the PNSI try them too.

Let's see arrests made for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - the Barron Report stated it was of the opinion collusion with members of the RUC had taken place. I doubt if they would have made that statement if they didn't have a fairly good idea of who was involved, yet..no one has been asked to pop in to the PNSI for a wee chat about all of that...

If Daly's arrest is 'standard procedure' than the exact same thing should have happened to Shatter.

Did you miss the many many posts where I said a big part of my problem is the application of double standards?

This is just more whataboutery , any issue can be dismissed using this technique.

You can find double standards for virtually anything , why not take each case on its merits and measure against the mean we consider reasonable .

Daly had drink taken, drove down a one way street, ( I think) and couldn't give a test. What do you think should have happened ? Can you answer that without reference to anything else ?

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

That's because it's a heritage salary - as the article makes clear. Note also the difficulty they have in filling the position - which is open to all those Germans and French etc.

Thanks for your data showing us that Irish consultant starting salaries are the same as average German consultant salaries.
Doubt that's what you were trying to show us mind you.
You do know Germany isn't flat broke like Ireland is?
Now, how many Irish consultants are on this "heritage" salary? Yet you quote the starting salary as if it is the average? I wonder why?

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

Why is everything reduced to 'whataboutery' ? Can not both be wrong ?

Why is it that people throw around the word "whataboutery" as if it had some magical debating ability to defeat all arguments. The fallacy of appeal to worse problems is exactly as it name implies, deflecting an argument by appealing to a perceived more important, but largely unrelated problem. For example, in response to people complaining about poverty levels in Ireland, saying "but what about the starving babies in Africa".

The issue of police bias north and south of the border in Ireland is extremely relevant to the question of whether Sein Fein are "bad", the subject of the thread, as public opinion is largely derived from PR statements from the police forces that the public read in the media. Anyone who thinks the former RUC and at least significant elements within the PSNI are unbiased has close to zero knowledge of the Northern Ireland conflict. It is the equivalent of saying that the SAP treated all citizens of South Africa equally during apartheid.

The "holier than thou" attitude from some segments in the Republic towards the Northern Ireland conflict is truly sickening, and nothing worse than the hypocrisy as Bann has pointed out of the old "good" IRA versus the new "bad" IRA. As an example, distasteful as this incident was, Jean McConville was murdered because the IRA, possibly or even probably incorrectly, believed she was an informer. The faux outrage from some segments in the Republic is rank hypocrisy, given that their own heroes of the war of independence were burying Protestants in bog holes in west Cork for similar perceived or real activities.

This is not whataboutery, it is comparing like with like. Whether people like it or not, or find it distasteful or not, informers are a guerrilla army's most serious threat, not the military forces they are fighting. The IRA, like any guerrilla army, could only continue to wage war if they eliminated all informers from their community, while also maintaining a critical mass of support among their community, a challenging balance to put it mildly. Ultimately they failed in this effort, as more than anything else it was informers within the IRA's own ranks that lead to the lasting ceasefire.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

Why is it that people throw around the word "whataboutery" as if it had some magical debating ability to defeat all arguments. The fallacy of appeal to worse problems is exactly as it name implies, deflecting an argument by appealing to a perceived more important, but largely unrelated problem. For example, in response to people complaining about poverty levels in Ireland, saying "but what about the starving babies in Africa".

The issue of police bias north and south of the border in Ireland is extremely relevant to the question of whether Sein Fein are "bad", the subject of the thread, as it is largely the PR statements from the police forces that people read in the media. Anyone who thinks the former RUC and at least significant elements within the PSNI are unbiased has close to zero knowledge of the Northern Ireland conflict. It is the equivalent of saying that the SAP treated all citizens of South Africa equally during apartheid.

Except that the claim was that the McGuinness statement about 'reflecting' on continued support for policing, and urging calm 'until' a charge might be issued, was no worse than Shatter blabbing about Wallace's mobile phone caution. That's a clear instance of whataboutery.

nagirrac wrote: »

The "holier than thou" attitude from some segments in the Republic towards the Northern Ireland conflict is truly sickening, and nothing worse than the hypocrisy as Bann has pointed out of the old "good" IRA versus the new "bad" IRA. Jean McConville was murdered because the IRA, possibly or even probably incorrectly, believed she was an informer. The faux outrage from some segments in the Republic is rank hypocrisy, given that their own heroes of the war of independence were burying Protestants in bog holes in west Cork for similar perceived or real activities.

All that presupposes that A. There's any "holier than thou" at play, and B. That people claim any of those west cork brigades as heroes. Personally I've no time for either of them. At a pinch however, there's at least some mandate for the war of independence, whereas the Provos never established any mandate - bar the one they invented for themselves.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

All that presupposes that A. There's any "holier than thou" at play, and B. That people claim any of those west cork brigades as heroes. Personally I've no time for either of them. At a pinch however, there's at least some mandate for the war of independence, whereas the Provos never established any mandate - bar the one they invented for themselves.

So exactly the same as the mandate that Pearse had in 1916. i.e. none.
Whataboutery then, eh?

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So exactly the same as the mandate that Pearse had in 1916. i.e. none.
Whataboutery then, eh?

No argument there. Pearse had no mandate. I wouldn't claim otherwise.

Dan_Solo

alastair wrote: »

No argument there. Pearse had no mandate. I wouldn't claim otherwise.

So why are you saying there was a mandate for the war of independence? Don't remember there being a vote on that across the UK and Ireland.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

All that presupposes that A. There's any "holier than thou" at play, and B. That people claim any of those west cork brigades as heroes. Personally I've no time for either of them. At a pinch however, there's at least some mandate for the war of independence, whereas the Provos never established any mandate - bar the one they invented for themselves.

The IRA in 1919 and the PIRA had the same mandate or lack of mandate depending on how you view the circumstances. If a population are being treated unfairly and unjustly they have the right to protest to demand equal rights. Whether violence is justified in seeking such rights is really the only topic worthy of historical discussion, and that largely depends on the reaction of the state. The war of Independence could have been averted if the British recognized the results of the all Ireland 1918 election and moved to establish at a minimum Home Rule. The Northern Ireland conflict could easily have been avoided if the British insisted that all citizens of the UK were treated equally under the law, they had 47 years to do so and failed utterly and callously.

It can be argued, and indeed I would make this argument, that the minority in Northern Ireland had more justification in taking up arms given the violent response of the state to their original peaceful demands for civil rights. The war of Independence was a preemptive war, the PIRA campaign was a reactive war. There is a difference, which again many in the Republic do not perceive or want to perceive.

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

Except that the claim was that the McGuinness statement about 'reflecting' on continued support for policing, and urging calm 'until' a charge might be issued, was no worse than Shatter blabbing about Wallace's mobile phone caution. That's a clear instance of whataboutery.


All that presupposes that A. There's any "holier than thou" at play, and B. That people claim any of those west cork brigades as heroes. Personally I've no time for either of them. At a pinch however, there's at least some mandate for the war of independence, whereas the Provos never established any mandate - bar the one they invented for themselves.

Sure, There is no similarity.

In one case a deputy First Minister made statement that the political party he is a member of was considering whether they may withdraw support for the police. A stupid, ill advised, step backwards but nothing more than an empty threat as it turns out.

In the other case the Commissioner of police passed on a piece of confidential information about a democratically elected member of parliament (who like the arrested Daly was also being critical of the police) to the Minister for Justice who then used that information publicly in an attempt to discredit this elected critic and in doing so broke the law.

The latter is by far worse.

The connection is alleged political interference in policing.

alastair

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So why are you saying there was a mandate for the war of independence? Don't remember there being a vote on that across the UK and Ireland.

The 1918 elections?

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

The IRA in 1919 and the PIRA had the same mandate or lack of mandate depending on how you view the circumstances.

If you choose to ignore the 1918 election results - sure. But why would you do that? The Provos had no such mandate - ever.

I'm personally of the view that the 1918 results should not have mandated a campaign of violence, but recognize that this is a minority view.

oscarBravo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In one case a deputy First Minister made statement that the political party he is a member of was considering whether they may withdraw support for the police. A stupid, ill advised, step backwards but nothing more than an empty threat as it turns out.

How do you know?

How do you know that the PSNI didn't feel pressured into releasing Adams without charge, because of the potential threat to the stability of Northern Ireland's society posed by the deputy first minister making his party's support for policing conditional on the "right" behaviour from the police?

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

The 1918 elections?

War of Independence began in 1916.

If the 'old' IRA could avail of a retrospective mandate due to SF candidates being elected to parliament (and then refusing to attend that parliament, preferring to set up their own not legally recognised Dáil) then why can't the 'new' IRA get a retrospective mandate due to SF candidates being elected to parliament (and then refusing to go but eventually agreeing to become part of a legally recognised power sharing assembly) ?