Gerry Adams to announce retirement from President of Sinn Fein

Baralis1

And besides still being present in the wings, most of them have never been held to account for their crimes.

FrancieBrady

Baralis1 wrote: »

Provisional Sinn Fein keep saying the same thing, that the PIRA are gone.
I don't believe that for a second.
Yes, they decommisioned the majority of their weapons.
However, some members took weapons and joined/formed dissident groups.
The rest of the members are still there. Many are members of PSF and many are elected representatives.
I still believe that the army council is still there although not actively engaged in terrorist activities.
They are however still directing their political wing in PSF.
This idea that the PIRA are "gone away" is a complete myth.
The potential is always there for a future conflict as long as the hate that exists in NI is still there. The PIRA members may be a bit older but there are plenty of misguided youngsters to be trained up as active members if needs be.

If they are not involved in 'terrorism' they are entitled to be members of any political party they want.


Can you show any evidence that ML is just a front for these sinister retirees?

Open a new thread on it, dying to see how they manage it.

Baralis1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they are not involved in 'terrorism' they are entitled to be members of any political party they want.


Can you show any evidence that ML is just a front for these sinister retirees?

Open a new thread on it, dying to see how they manage it.

I obviously have no proof but PSF have had the same leader for 34 year and are moving to a new apparently pre-anointed leader now. It's very suspicious that a modern political party has never had a leadership contest or any kind of heave against a leader in 34 years. Very like Zanupf in-fact, who's military eventually removed their 93 year old leader.
Also, there is never any kind of dissent or individual opinion from members who always tow the party line without fail and also never fail to dismiss any kind of criticism of the PIRA who ran a terrorist campaign for 30 years.
I may have no proof but I smell a rat...

FrancieBrady

Baralis1 wrote: »

I obviously have no proof but PSF have had the same leader for 34 year and are moving to a new apparently pre-anointed leader now. It's very suspicious that a modern political party has never had a leadership contest or any kind of heave against a leader in 34 years. Very like Zanupf in-fact, who's military eventually removed their 93 year old leader.
Also, there is never any kind of dissent or individual opinion from members who always tow the party line without fail and also never fail to dismiss any kind of criticism of the PIRA who ran a terrorist campaign for 30 years.
I may have no proof but I smell a rat...

As this relates to Adams I'll comment, what about all those who have left and written their tell tale books and given testimony in the Boston tapes?
They have somebody not towing the line on the 8th and many other shades of opinion.
The Adams McG partnership worked wonders for them why change it? McG us not a year gone and Gerry is going too.
That's what members say. I see no reason to concoct a fantasy about it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this relates to Adams I'll comment, what about all those who have left and written their tell tale books and given testimony in the Boston tapes?
They have somebody not towing the line on the 8th and many other shades of opinion.
The Adams McG partnership worked wonders for them why change it? McG us not a year gone and Gerry is going too.
That's what members say. I see no reason to concoct a fantasy about it.

How do you know what members are saying? I know five or six members of Sinn Fein and all I hear is how wonderful Gerry is and how SF are always doing the right thing etc. No dissent at all.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you know what members are saying? I know five or six members of Sinn Fein and all I hear is how wonderful Gerry is and how SF are always doing the right thing etc. No dissent at all.

Because I listen and not to just what I want to hear either. I know many many more members than you.
The idea that Adams has clung to dictatorial power by force in an organisation like SF is frankly the silliest conspiracy theory in existence in this country.

Practically, have a go at explaining how that worked/works on a daily basis?

Hannibal

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because I listen and not to just what I want to hear either. I know many many more members than you.
The idea that Adams has clung to dictatorial power by force in an organisation like SF is frankly the silliest conspiracy theory in existence in this country.

Practically, have a go at explaining how that worked/works on a daily basis?

It's put our there by other political parties to say SF isn't democratic because it has the same leader. SF have a leadership contest every year, each branch nominates and if it's accepted then each branch has two delegates to vote on it. I don't think anyone has ever gone up against Adams mostly due to the fact that he has big support and they wouldn't succeed.

From a Google search there has been four different vice presidents Phil Flynn, John Joe McGirl, Pat Doherty and Mary Lou then you have the roles of McGuinness which would point to me as collective leadership rather than Adams having complete control.

When compared to the other parties there is a long history of back stabbing and dirty internal politics. This is mostly due to career politicians motivated by money and knowing that if they run as FF or FG there was a good chance of being elected as TD, then once you're there you knife anyone in your party who gets in your way to become a Minister which is where the money is.

Look at Labour, Rabbitte, Gilmore, Quinn, Costello, Howlin and Burton practically knifed a whole party in the back in order for them to get massive pay days in ministerial roles.

SF with their growing electoral success I would imagine are starting to see internal moves from careerists. I would guess a sizeable chunk of the recent bullying cases are internal local politics at work and people manouvering themselves into positions.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because I listen and not to just what I want to hear either. I know many many more members than you.
The idea that Adams has clung to dictatorial power by force in an organisation like SF is frankly the silliest conspiracy theory in existence in this country.

Practically, have a go at explaining how that worked/works on a daily basis?

You're not a member, I'm not a member, you're not even a supporter, and I definitely am not a supporter.

So what you know about what goes inside Sinn Fein is only as good as what I know, it is all anecdotal.

Baralis1

Hannibal wrote: »

It's put our there by other political parties to say SF isn't democratic because it has the same leader. SF have a leadership contest every year, each branch nominates and if it's accepted then each branch has two delegates to vote on it. I don't think anyone has ever gone up against Adams mostly due to the fact that he has big support and they wouldn't succeed.

From a Google search there has been four different vice presidents Phil Flynn, John Joe McGirl, Pat Doherty and Mary Lou then you have the roles of McGuinness which would point to me as collective leadership rather than Adams having complete control.

When compared to the other parties there is a long history of back stabbing and dirty internal politics. This is mostly due to career politicians motivated by money and knowing that if they run as FF or FG there was a good chance of being elected as TD, then once you're there you knife anyone in your party who gets in your way to become a Minister which is where the money is.

Look at Labour, Rabbitte, Gilmore, Quinn, Costello, Howlin and Burton practically knifed a whole party in the back in order for them to get massive pay days in ministerial roles.

SF with their growing electoral success I would imagine are starting to see internal moves from careerists. I would guess a sizeable chunk of the recent bullying cases are internal local politics at work and people manouvering themselves into positions.

Ah yes, there is a thin veneer of democracy but who was seriously going to go up against Adams. He is essentially the mouthpiece of the provisional IRA army council. No branch or member of provisional sinn fein is going to go against the provisional IRA army council.

Hitman3000

Baralis1 wrote:

Ah yes, there is a thin veneer of democracy but who was seriously going to go up against Adams. He is essentially the mouthpiece of the provisional IRA army council. No branch or member of provisional sinn fein is going to go against the provisional IRA army council.

Who's provisional sinn fein? Never heard of them before. Are they a new party?

Baralis1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Who's provisional sinn fein? Never heard of them before. Are they a new party?

The original Sinn Fein ceased to exist in 1970 when it split into Official Sinn Fein and Provisional Sinn Fein. Provisional Sinn Fein try to claim the legacy of the original Sinn Fein party but they are a completely different party and are a disgrace to the legacy of the original Sinn Fein by trying to claim their history and linking it to their 40 year terrorist campaign.

Hitman3000

Baralis1 wrote:

The original Sinn Fein ceased to exist in 1970 when it split into Official Sinn Fein and Provisional Sinn Fein. Provisional Sinn Fein try to claim the legacy of the original Sinn Fein party but they are a completely different party and are a disgrace to the legacy of the original Sinn Fein by trying to claim their history and linking it to their 40 year terrorist campaign.

I have only ever heard of Sinn Fein, is provisional sinn fein just a name you like to use?

Baralis1

Provisional Sinn Fein use the name Sinn Fein to try and claim the legacy and history of the original party. They were originally formed as provisional Sinn Fein. In fact, Fianna Fail are much closer to the original party from the war of independence that was called Sinn Fein. It was really only the republicans in the 6 counties that carried on the Sinn Fein name until the split in 1970.

Hitman3000

Baralis1 wrote:

Provisional Sinn Fein use the name Sinn Fein to try and claim the legacy and history of the original party. They were originally formed as provisional Sinn Fein. In fact, Fianna Fail are much closer to the original party from the war of independence that was called Sinn Fein. It was really only the republicans in the 6 counties that carried on the Sinn Fein name until the split in 1970.

So it's just a name you like to apply. Thanks for clearing that up.

tomwaterford

Baralis1 wrote: »

Provisional Sinn Fein use the name Sinn Fein to try and claim the legacy and history of the original party. They were originally formed as provisional Sinn Fein. In fact, Fianna Fail are much closer to the original party from the war of independence that was called Sinn Fein. It was really only the republicans in the 6 counties that carried on the Sinn Fein name until the split in 1970.

Sinn fein was still active and abstenionist through the 40,50 and 60s??


Provisional sinn fein emerged due to street violence and more or less subsumed sinn fein....

infacta if anything the labour party are probably closer to orginal sinn fein than ff....through a series of splits/almagmation/name changes etc

Baralis1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So it's just a name you like to apply. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's the name they were formed with in 1970. They just like to leave out the word provisional

Baralis1

tomwaterford wrote: »

Sinn fein was still active and abstenionist through the 40,50 and 60s??


Provisional sinn fein emerged due to street violence and more or less subsumed sinn fein....

infacta if anything the labour party are probably closer to orginal sinn fein than ff....through a series of splits/almagmation/name changes etc

The vast majority of Sinn Fein became Fianna Fail in 1927. A much smaller group mostly based in the 6 counties remained as Sinn Fein and remained abstentionist.

tomwaterford

Baralis1 wrote: »

The vast majority of Sinn Fein became Fianna Fail in 1927. A much smaller group mostly based in the 6 counties remained as Sinn Fein and remained abstentionist.

This would explain why I've seen membership cards for sinn fein waterford and tipp members from the 40s-60s

Just because they were abstentionism and not running candidates deosnt mean they ceased to exist??
>>to paraphrase a soon to be retired td....they havnt gone away you know :pac:

They held a similar position to eirigi in the Republic today,small abstenionist but hold a important position on political stage?

Baralis1

tomwaterford wrote: »

This would explain why I've seen membership cards for sinn fein waterford and tipp members from the 40s-60s

Just because they were abstentionism and not running candidates deosnt mean they ceased to exist??
>>to paraphrase a soon to be retired td....they havnt gone away you know :pac:

They held a similar position to eirigi in the Republic today,small abstenionist but hold a important position on political stage?

I didn't say they ceased to exist. And I said that they were mostly based in the 6 counties but not all. They were a small entity in the republic also.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You're not a member, I'm not a member, you're not even a supporter, and I definitely am not a supporter.

So what you know about what goes inside Sinn Fein is only as good as what I know, it is all anecdotal.

Can you explain in practical terms how Adams and McGuinness organised this dictatorship?

I don't need to be a member to notice that there is no visible signs of thwarted leadership bids, silencing of different voices (go to an Ard Fheis some time, I have been to a few) and to notice that they are organised and structured like any other political party or organisation.

So over to you...

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you explain in practical terms how Adams and McGuinness organised this dictatorship?

I don't need to be a member to notice that there is no visible signs of thwarted leadership bids, silencing of different voices (go to an Ard Fheis some time, I have been to a few) and to notice that they are organised and structured like any other political party or organisation.

So over to you...

The Mafia had no such signs either, omerta ruled all.

Can't see any signs coming out of Putin's party in Russia either, a few other examples throughout history of where there were no visible signs.

I find it hard to believe that other than members, journalists and supporters, that someone would be at more than one Ard Fheis, I mean I have been at two different ones from different parties (both over 25 years ago) just for curiousity, but you would want to have bought into the cult of whichever party to go back on a second or third occasion.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The Mafia had no such signs either, omerta ruled all.

Can't see any signs coming out of Putin's party in Russia either, a few other examples throughout history of where there were no visible signs.

I find it hard to believe that other than members, journalists and supporters, that someone would be at more than one Ard Fheis, I mean I have been at two different ones from different parties (both over 25 years ago) just for curiousity, but you would want to have bought into the cult of whichever party to go back on a second or third occasion.

So, no evidence yet again and you are just guessing that there is a dictatorship. Glad we cleared that one up.

My work at one point in time took me to most party conferences, so no conspiracy theory for you there either I'm afraid.
The nearest thing to 'cult' behaviour was at the FF one as it happens. Bertie was a new leader at the time.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, no evidence yet again and you are just guessing that there is a dictatorship. Glad we cleared that one up.

My work at one point in time took me to most party conferences, so no conspiracy theory for you there either I'm afraid.
The nearest thing to 'cult' behaviour was at the FF one as it happens. Bertie was a new leader at the time.

34 years without a challenge is evidence enough. Right up there with Mugabe, a similar kind of character.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

34 years without a challenge is evidence enough. Right up there with Mugabe, a similar kind of character.

Nope, sorry, that means that the party members were happy with the partnership of Adams and McGuinness. That is over for less than a year and Adams is stepping down.

Now can you show in any practical terms how these two secured their leadership by force?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope, sorry, that means that the party members were happy with the partnership of Adams and McGuinness. That is over for less than a year and Adams is stepping down.

Now can you show in any practical terms how these two secured their leadership by force?

You are mixing me up with someone else. I didn't say they secured their leadership by force, I said that they ruled over the party with uno doce una voce, quashing dissension, expelling dissenters (or worse) and generally ensuring that they weren't challenged.

No other political leader in a modern democracy had such a long tenure over their party, except maybe Le Pen in France, another character like Mugabe, who is similar to Adams.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are mixing me up with someone else. I didn't say they secured their leadership by force, I said that they ruled over the party with uno doce una voce, quashing dissension, expelling dissenters (or worse) and generally ensuring that they weren't challenged.

No other political leader in a modern democracy had such a long tenure over their party, except maybe Le Pen in France, another character like Mugabe, who is similar to Adams.

No you 'guessed' that is what they did.
But unfortunately for you SF party membership has grown. So either these people are willing staying in a party that supresses their opinion or they are just joining a party like anyone else would.
There are dissenters in all party's. Where I am from there are two wings of the FG party locally because of infighting.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

34 years without a challenge is evidence enough.

:pac:


Without doubt the weakest most patethic arguement I've ever heard/seen attempted anywhere.....

this isn't your blog,back your arguement up or withdraw it



do you really want people to take yous seriously?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

You are mixing me up with someone else. I didn't say they secured their leadership by force,..........expelling dissenters (or worse)

But it's exactly what weakly attempt to imply and then hide behind saying ohh...I never said that :rolleyes:

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

:pac:


Without doubt the weakest most patethic arguement I've ever heard/seen attempted anywhere.....

this isn't your blog,back your arguement up or withdraw it



do you really want people to take yous seriously?

I said that no other leader (apart from Mugabe and the older Le Pen) have managed to rule their party for as long as Adams, now wait I have forgotten Kim Il Sung, did he last for 34 years?

That is my argument, only megalomaniac dictators last that long.

The prima facie case has been established, over to the defence to provide links to cancel it out.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I said that no other leader (apart from Mugabe and the older Le Pen) have managed to rule their party for as long as Adams, now wait I have forgotten Kim Il Sung, did he last for 34 years?

That is my argument, only megalomaniac dictators last that long.

The prima facie case has been established, over to the defence to provide links to cancel it out.

I have, you just, as usual, read what you want to read.

It's like comparing leaders because they have a penchant for colourful socks.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have, you just, as usual, read what you want to read.

It's like comparing leaders because they have a penchant for colourful socks.

No leader can survive that long without suppressing dissension and creating a closed mindset. That applies as much in business as well as in politics.

https://www.ft.com/content/aee47536-c48f-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0

It is unhealthy, we have had examples in Ireland in the past - DeValera, Ahern and Haughey being three examples, Adams is just another member of that group of bad leaders.

Any luck finding an example of a benevolent long-term leader (apart from the Queen of England?)

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No leader can survive that long without suppressing dissension and creating a closed mindset. That applies as much in business as well as in politics.

https://www.ft.com/content/aee47536-c48f-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0

It is unhealthy, we have had examples in Ireland in the past - DeValera, Ahern and Haughey being three examples, Adams is just another member of that group of bad leaders.

Any luck finding an example of a benevolent long-term leader (apart from the Queen of England?)

We are still waiting for evidence of how they did this on the scale required.

All party's employ the whip to keep dissent in line and will periodically have to get rid of members. FG did with Lucinda, FF did it with the PD founders etc etc.

To do what you suggest - control a island wide party in that way - requires massive organisation, which curiously has not been exposed by anyone.

So it is still over to you....

marienbad

I think the point being made Francie is that if SF are a party just like any other in the democratic world then you would expect to see the exact same stresses and strains and leadership challenges that you do in every other party in history , be they the democrats the republicans the tories labour FF FG Labour etc .

You just don't see that and it gives rise to a specific perception , there is little point in denying it .

I think the abortion issue may just show some cracks .

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are still waiting for evidence of how they did this on the scale required.

All party's employ the whip to keep dissent in line and will periodically have to get rid of members. FG did with Lucinda, FF did it with the PD founders etc etc.

To do what you suggest - control a island wide party in that way - requires massive organisation, which curiously has not been exposed by anyone.

So it is still over to you....

In a small party, the cult of personality will do it.

As a party gets larger, you will see things like say, one quarter of councillors leaving (ring a bell?) with those leaving being demonised by those left behind.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

I think the point being made Francie is that if SF are a party just like any other in the democratic world then you would expect to see the exact same stresses and strains and leadership challenges that you do in every other party in history , be they the democrats the republicans the tories labour FF FG Labour etc .

You just don't see that and it gives rise to a specific perception , there is little point in denying it .

I think the abortion issue may just show some cracks .

I don't doubt that it is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. But having watched them for donkey years I don't see any sign, any sign at all, of a stranglehold on leadership.

It is unusual to have a leadership in place for so long, but they did come through extraordinary times too. And I think it is relevant that onece the partnership broke that Adams decided to go too.

I don't think you would get the send off the two of them got had you ruled with an iron fist. Despite the inferences of some, this isn't North Korea or Zimbabwe.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't doubt that it is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. But having watched them for donkey years I don't see any sign, any sign at all, of a stranglehold on leadership.

It is unusual to have a leadership in place for so long, but they did come through extraordinary times too. And I think it is relevant that onece the partnership broke that Adams decided to go too.

I don't think you would get the send off the two of them got had you ruled with an iron fist. Despite the inferences of some, this isn't North Korea or Zimbabwe.

It is not a conspiracy theory Francie , it is a fact , you just don't see a leader in power for over 30 years in any other democratic party .

And whether you accept it or not it does give rise to certain perceptions

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

It is not a conspiracy theory Francie , it is a fact , you just don't see a leader in power for over 30 years in any other democratic party .

And whether you accept it or not it does give rise to certain perceptions

Yes, that too is true.
But when perception turns into statements of fact you are entitled to ask for reasonable evidence of these facts.

And having watched this party for most of my life, having known many members, I do not see any evidence of a stranglehold on power.

Both leaders got massive send offs. In death, McG got an unprecedented turnout from his community and beyond.
That is not usual for a dictator. Unless you have evidence they were there against their will or in induced trances.
Maybe you do.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that too is true.
But when perception turns into statements of fact you are entitled to ask for reasonable evidence of these facts.

And having watched this party for most of my life, having known many members, I do not see any evidence of a stranglehold on power.

Both leaders got massive send offs. In death, McG got an unprecedented turnout from his community and beyond.
That is not usual for a dictator. Unless you have evidence they were there against their will or in induced trances.
Maybe you do.

It is actually very normal for dictators who are still in power. The likes of Kim Il Sung got huge turnouts from their followers.

flutered

blanch152 wrote: »

It is actually very normal for dictators who are still in power. The likes of Kim Il Sung got huge turnouts from their followers.

comparing n.k. and irl. is beyond comparison

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is actually very normal for dictators who are still in power. The likes of Kim Il Sung got huge turnouts from their followers.

Well, I think this is as good a point to jump off this ludicrous theory as any. Carry on as they say.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that too is true.
But when perception turns into statements of fact you are entitled to ask for reasonable evidence of these facts.

And having watched this party for most of my life, having known many members, I do not see any evidence of a stranglehold on power.

Both leaders got massive send offs. In death, McG got an unprecedented turnout from his community and beyond.
That is not usual for a dictator. Unless you have evidence they were there against their will or in induced trances.
Maybe you do.

The only facts I have given are that GA have been leader over 30 years and that causes a certain perception .

That is simply not debateable

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

The only facts I have given are that GA have been leader over 30 years and that causes a certain perception .

That is simply not debateable

People perceived that the earth was flat once... until they knew better.

Are you buying the Kim Il Sung funeral comparisons?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People perceived that the earth was flat once... until they knew better.

Are you buying the Kim Il Sung funeral comparisons?

You would think that nobody had compared Gerry to Kim before!!!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/gerry-adams-conceit-that-nationalist-suffering-is-somehow-similar-to-slavery-is-absurd-34679473.html

"west Belfast's answer to Kim Jong-Il disgraces himself once again."

OK, I know it was only the son, but Gerry isn't a God yet.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You would think that nobody had compared Gerry to Kim before!!!

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/gerry-adams-conceit-that-nationalist-suffering-is-somehow-similar-to-slavery-is-absurd-34679473.html

"west Belfast's answer to Kim Jong-Il disgraces himself once again."

OK, I know it was only the son, but Gerry isn't a God yet.

Can you do no better than Ellis O Hanlon?

You can compare anybody to anybody, it is when you are asked to show it is a serious comparison that you are having problems.

You were going to show us how those who turned out in their thousands at MMcGs funeral were there by force or duress. Whenever you are ready.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

The only facts I have given are that GA have been leader over 30 years and that causes a certain perception .

That is simply not debateable

are you saying he isnt really democratically voted as president and that SF are lying? Or is it just gossip you're after?

Chips Lovell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Obviously the history and resolution of the troubles is not entirely unrelated to Gerry Adams' career, but it seems to me that this thread is getting off the topic of Gerry Adams resigning. So bring it back on topic please!

Several posts removed for not heeding mod warning re. staying on topic.

blanch152 and Franciebrady: do not post in this thread again.

Thank you

blinding

I am not missing Gerry . It was / is well time for Gerry to retire .

James Brown

blinding wrote: »

I am not missing Gerry . It was / is well time for Gerry to retire .

Agreed. I can see keeping him on due to his popularity, but for FF/FG and the rest to move on from quips about the troubles, he needed to go. Politics in the south must move forward, even if the DUP won't. Hopefully we'll have more viable alternatives as the years progress.

end of the road

i wish mr adams a very long and happy retirement, and i thank him for his service to ireland north and south.

Edward M

end of the road wrote: »

i wish mr adams a very long and happy retirement, and i thank him for his service to ireland north and south.

Me too, I have no bad wish for anyone.
He gave an interesting little soft interview on northern sound radio this morning, the Joe Finnegan show if you want to get it later, I think they put up podcasts later, if they do I'll link it or you can vet it yourself.
Not much in it really, but just one point I picked
up from it.
When questioned on the bullying issue, he said he felt sorry for the members involved in these unfounded allegations of bullying.
Sounds like victim blaming to me.
I tended to draw similarities of the treatment of these alleged victims with Maurice McCabe somehow, given that SF would be so vocal in their condemnation of his treatment, and rightly so BTW, but made him sound a bit of a hypocrite really IMO!