Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

Options
1…1617192122…88

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Now they are not against it so much, it would be up for review so what's that now about standards?




    Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?


  • Options
    #543
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Some whataboutery there!!!

    More like facts. Just trying to keep things in perspective :)


  • Options
    #544
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    smurgen wrote: »
    Let's be fair the likes of Dennis O Brien are alot closer to FG than the likes o slab Murphy to SF.

    Really? Denis O'Brien is not a great individual (in any estimation other than his assets). But does he engage in murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence? No. I also think that he is fairly apolitical, or that his political allegiances are temporary and expedient. Although he bought the Sindo, which was for a long time a bit of a Fine Gael mouthpiece, from what I can see he has been actively hostile to the traditional reporters of that paper.
    smurgen wrote: »
    More like facts. Just trying to keep things in perspective :)

    Some actual facts would be appreciated if you have them available. Or at least allude to them if you are afraid that boards would get sued by DOB


  • Options
    #545
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,184 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Really? Denis O'Brien is not a great individual (in any estimation other than his assets). But does he engage in murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence? No. I also think that he is fairly apolitical, or that his political allegiances are temporary and expedient. Although he bought the Sindo, which was for a long time a bit of a Fine Gael mouthpiece, from what I can see he has been actively hostile to the traditional reporters of that paper.



    Some actual facts would be appreciated if you have them available. Or at least allude to them if you are afraid that boards would get sued by DOB

    Who in SF is engaging in this:
    murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence


  • Options
    #546
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?
    I love that sidestep. The answer is that it is the same process, there is just no jury to avoid the risk of them being unduly influenced or threatened. Same due process applies.

    Up to a number of weeks ago they were dead agin it and all for abolition. Clearly that was a pressure point in the media so now it is "up for review". Just a party adjusting its election focus, like all others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,260 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Trotsky actually!

    I see what you mean :)

    Maybe a cross between Trotsky, Himmler & Dev?


  • Options
    #548
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Who in SF is engaging in this:

    Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.


  • Options
    #549
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

    and who was the other one who tortured a man in a garage ?


  • Options
    #550
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,184 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

    You are the fact meister. What is Slab Murphy's involvement with the SF party?

    Not seeking rumour - but facts.


  • Options
    #551
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I love that sidestep. The answer is that it is the same process, there is just no jury to avoid the risk of them being unduly influenced or threatened. Same due process applies.

    Up to a number of weeks ago they were dead agin it and all for abolition. Clearly that was a pressure point in the media so now it is "up for review". Just a party adjusting its election focus, like all others.


    ...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?

    You know why.


  • Options
    #553
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You are the fact meister. What dis Slab Murphy's involvement with the SF party?

    Not seeking rumour - but facts.
    Well there's facts what people sez and facts wot we can find and them statin' the facts is all 'onorable men!


  • Options
    #554
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.
    Nope it doesn't, very specific cases where a risk might exist. These days that also extends to our own Narcos.


  • Options
    #555
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Odhinn wrote: »
    ...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.

    You're spouting shite now, the legislation for the SCC describes very specific offences and situations where the SCC should be used. Not "whatever suits" the state.


  • Options
    #556
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,184 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Nope it doesn't, very specific cases where a risk might exist.

    SF aren't the only ones who have problems with the SCC, Amnesty International have too.


  • Options
    #557
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    You know why.


    Because it suits the state. You'll pardon me if I don't take that as an inviolable process we should slavishly follow.


  • Options
    #558
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    You're spouting shite now, the legislation for the SCC describes very specific offences and situations where the SCC should be used. Not "whatever suits" the state.


    So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.


  • Options
    #559
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    SF aren't the only ones who have problems with the SCC, Amnesty International have too.
    Not as as much of a SF issue as a few weeks ago. So much for solid positions. Nobody really cares what Amnesty thinks anymore. Any port in a storm for them these days.


  • Options
    #560
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

    Not in SF. However FG who are residing over the national broadband plan and it seems their mate DOB has won alot of the subcontracting work through Actavo (Siteserv). The same crowd doing the water meters.he certainly has a way of winning government work!


  • Options
    #561
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.

    You're only after saying it was for whenever it suited the state, now it's "so what?". Can you make your point coherently? It's clearly not for whenever the state wants, it's for terrorism and organised crime cases where the jury is at risk of intimidation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,184 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Not as as much of a SF issue as a few weeks ago. So much for solid positions. Nobody really cares what Amnesty thinks anymore. Any port in a storm for them these days.

    So who gives a **** what anybody might think, we are going to do it anyway.

    That arrogance again.


  • Options
    #563
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Odhinn wrote: »
    So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.
    But only where it suits you to believe that. Would you have the same stance if one of the Kinahan mob was before it, I wonder?


  • Options
    #564
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    You're only after saying it was for whenever it suited the state, now it's "so what?". Can you make your point coherently? It's clearly not for whenever the state wants, it's for terrorism and organised crime cases where the jury is at risk of intimidation.




    But the jury can be at risk in any trial.


  • Options
    #565
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Odhinn wrote: »
    But the jury can be at risk in any trial.

    well when 19 year old anto up for robbing a few cars develops the precident and man power to dissapear bodies to never be found again , then perhaps we'll discuss merging the courts.


  • Options
    #566
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Odhinn wrote: »
    But the jury can be at risk in any trial.

    At higher risk.

    Now can you address the "whenever the state wants" fallacy?


  • Options
    #567
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So who gives a **** what anybody might think, we are going to do it anyway.

    That arrogance again.
    Call it what you will. They are an organisation who once did good work. Nowadays they're in the advocacy game and just fire our "worthy" reports on social issues of their choosing.


  • Options
    #568
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,450 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Slab Murphy is a good republican.

    Now who said that again?


  • Options
    #569
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,668 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Hamsterchops wrote: »
    Let them in at your (our) peril.

    what are you basing that on, considering they've never been in power?

    Dont even mention the north - if either FF or FG could survive a day with the DUP they'd be doing well.

    You're basing your assumption on nothing more than your own opinion. We all have one of those already.


  • Options
    #570
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    At higher risk.

    Now can you address the "whenever the state wants" fallacy?




    According to the state, which is not some neutral actor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    maccored wrote: »
    what are you basing that on, considering they've never been in power?

    Dont even mention the north - if either FF or FG could survive a day with the DUP they'd be doing well.

    You're basing your assumption on nothing more than your own opinion. We all have one of those already.

    I don't have to drink bleach to know drinking bleach is a bad idea.


Advertisement