Could Sinn Fein actually run a country ?

efanton

smurgen wrote: »

Sure they're all dole scroungers in Sweden don't ya know!

It a brilliant country to visit and from what I can tell a lovely place to live.
Just make sure you have a steady girlfriend or wife, there's not much to do on those long winter nights:D
a night out in the pubs is horrendously expense.

The point that most FG and FF supporter dont get is by providing so much social housing wage demands are not excessive, and even though the Swedish people pay higher tax rates, at the end of the month they still have sufficent money in their pocket to do what ever they want to do because their rents are kept in check.

The philosophy is simple. We will tax you heavily, but as long as you have a nice pocket full of cash at the end of week or month to do with as you wish, you will not mind.

Being that the state controls so much of the housing market, rents and house prices are pretty stable.

Unions are almost obligatory, but if you become unemployed, they pay you a percentage of your last income for a fixed period on top of what the state pays you. Being that nearly all jobs in Sweden are union jobs, wage demands are kept in line, because the unions are able to do collective bargaining but also recognise that if there is a significant rise in unemployment they will get hit heavily hit financially themselves.

I just found it ironic that a FG or FF supporter would use Sweden as a good example of how a country should be run. Everything the FF/FG'ers hate Sweden does.

Loafing Oaf

efanton wrote: »

The big issue is if FF say dont want a coalition with FG, and FG say they dont want a coalition with FF who exactly does want a coalition what are they actually saying to the electorate?
They tell us it wont be a FF/FG coalition, but as usual they are yet again misleading the electorate,

FG haven't said this. Obviously it's not their first choice but they haven't ruled it out. FF on the other hand have but they haven't ruled out accepting FG support to form a minority government...

rob316

Leo said tonight worst case scenario they would support FF for the good of the country. Christ they'd make ya sick.

James Brown

CucaFace wrote: »

I'm not a FF supporter, but can i ask the honest opinion on what do you think FG SF Labour, any other party would have done differently in the 2000's that wouldn't have brought us our financial crisis?

I see the crash as a constant stick to beat FF with, but im absolutely sure things would have ended up in the same mess regardless of which party was in charge.

Do you honestly think SF for example would have been saying 'hey guys we are building too many houses'? Or that they would have been saying 'oh the public sector workers are getting paid too much, lets reduce it'?

Labour were the only party I know of calling for a stop on the sale of public land and housing stock. FF and FG were on song for much of that.
Also what gets lost is we brought a crash on ourselves which was exacerbated by the world crash. Laxed financial regulation and special loans for certain folk Firmly on FF, their friends and a financial system willing to turn a blind eye IMO. We would have suffered but imagine no toxic bank, more public land and likely less need to bail out so many?
FG came in with promises to change the way we do business, other lies and Noonan's 'we took one for the team' with a wink and a smile as both FF and FG suggested it was the general public played a big role in partying or going mad. While the wives of some 'bankrupt' gamblers bought back from NAMA at knock down prices and the Irish f***ing Water and another deal for O'Brien
That's why FF and FG are crony rotten organisations who deserve no quarter IMO.

Yurt2

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Was talking to someone who was in Sweden last week.

No litter on the streets, no j walking, people were leaving their bikes down and just walking off safe they won't be robbed.

The whole country has respect for each other and crime is miniscule.

That's why they don't mind paying high taxes, because its not just going to paying for free houses for wasters.

The whole country works together.

Its time we started looking at the attitude of some of our citizens as well as government.

But noone will dare speak the truth.

What absolutel b*llocks. Don't even know where to start with that one. Pure dribble

Yurt2

Field east wrote: »

So there would be thousands of houses built if Noonan left house prices at 47% below peak and at a time when the gov planned to build 22000 houses over the next 5 years. Builders, of course, would be queuing up to build these houses at that price point.
AGAIN I ask, what would YOU HAVE DONE?

There wouldn't have been a NAMA fire sale of vast housing portfolios to vulture funds for one.

Higher house prices. Deliberate FG policy. OWN IT.

FG logic: For housing to be more affordable it needs to be more expensive.

James Brown

Yurt! wrote: »

There wouldn't have been a NAMA fire sale of vast housing portfolios to vulture funds for one.

Higher house prices. Deliberate FG policy. OWN IT.

Also Noonan likely did alright out of it.
I expect big revelations about that man and his inappropriate behaviour.

swarlb

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Was talking to someone who was in Sweden last week.

No litter on the streets, no j walking, people were leaving their bikes down and just walking off safe they won't be robbed.

The whole country has respect for each other and crime is miniscule.

That's why they don't mind paying high taxes, because its not just going to paying for free houses for wasters.

The whole country works together.

Its time we started looking at the attitude of some of our citizens as well as government.

But noone will dare speak the truth.

Must be a different Sweden to this one...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977

Wanderer78

swarlb wrote:

Must be a different Sweden to this one...

...and different Sweden to the one having an overheated housing market!

handlemaster

Why are Sinn Fein so against the special criminal court that convicts serious criminals?? Surely this is a good process for the people of ireland ? It's even stranger that Mary Lou wnt give the reasons... more shadows

Yurt2

handlemaster wrote: »

Why are Sinn Fein so against the special criminal court that convicts serious criminals?? Surely this is a good process for the people of ireland ? It's even stranger that Mary Lou wnt give the reasons... more shadows

People have ended up with juryless trials on tax issues on the signature of the government appointed Attorney General. In fact, any individual can end up with a juryless trial for any alleged offense on the endorsement of the AG.

A trial in front of a jury of peers is a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system, and the AG is given far too much power with SCC legislation. It's an extremely unusual system in a common law jurisdiction.

Amnesty, the UN, Mary Robinson (in her former capacity of legal chair at TCD) and the Irish Council of Civil Liberties are among its critics - so, it's not just SF that have something to say.

It was conceived as a draconian measure in ww2 as a blunt instrument to as the government of the day were afraid of republican sympathetic juries during 'the emergency'.

*Not a SF member, and undecided voter.

stoneill

I don't think there is that many ATM's to rob to keep the economy going under SF policies. (allegedly)

smurgen

stoneill wrote: »

I don't think there is that many ATM's to rob to keep the economy going under SF policies. (allegedly)

Yawn.come back to us when the government start to tackle insurance fraud.or clamp down on their ministers from commiting it.

Edgware

smelly sock wrote: »

An over priced kip

Obviously you have never been there. It can be expensive but certainly is not a kip

TuringBot47

Yurt! wrote: »

People have ended up with juryless trials on tax issues on the signature of the government appointed Attorney General.

On the flip side, if you were a family man and picked on a jury for a Kinnahan/Hutch trial you'd certainly worry about being involuntarily asked to "stand up" against serious criminals.

I fully see the need for the special criminal court.

TuringBot47

smelly sock wrote: »

An over priced kip

You remind me of Colin Farrell in the film "In Bruges", calling it a shithole.
My sister worked there for years, I've been a couple of times, before they opened the immigration floodgates. It was a lovely place, good transport, clean etc.

Immigration has caused enormous social issues for them, they've been killed by their own kindness.

smurgen

TuringBot47 wrote: »

On the flip side, if you were a family man and picked on a jury for a Kinnahan/Hutch trial you'd certainly worry about being involuntarily asked to "stand up" against serious criminals.

I fully see the need for the special criminal court.

You do know that various international bodies cannot believe we have the special criminal court?that it looks completely off the wall to them? And you do know that the set up is under review at the moment by government? It will probably be disbanded and all those using it as a stick to beat SF with currently will keep their mouths shut.anything to keep the status quo in power.

Edgware

smelly sock wrote: »

An over priced kip

smurgen wrote: »

You do know that various international bodies cannot believe we have the special criminal court?that it looks completely off the wall to them? And you do know that the set up is under review at the moment by government? It will probably be disbanded and all those using it as a stick to beat SF with currently will keep their mouths shut.anything to keep the status quo in power.

It might be under review but certainly won't be abandoned

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

On the flip side, if you were a family man and picked on a jury for a Kinnahan/Hutch trial you'd certainly worry about being involuntarily asked to "stand up" against serious criminals.

I fully see the need for the special criminal court.

Is investing in some one-way screens and blacked out windows for vans too much to ask to protect the integrity of the justice system?

I'd have no difficulty in serving on a jury on such a trial if security precautions were in place as there is in other jurisdictions.

Witnesses are still called before the court and their name read into the record. Why is jury safety a justification for the court and not witness safety? You're not going to find a good answer to this as there isn't one.

The SCC was never conceived as a permanent feature of the justice system, it was a measure to ensure easier conviction of perceived national security threats during 'the emergency'. It's place is in the 1940s.

It has expanded in scope and statutory power to the extent that people have sat before it at as defendants for tax-dodging.

sbsquarepants

handlemaster wrote: »

Why are Sinn Fein so against the special criminal court that convicts serious criminals?? Surely this is a good process for the people of ireland ? It's even stranger that Mary Lou wnt give the reasons... more shadows

It's very much open to abuse, it's technically possible to be convicted solely on the opinion of a superintendent. Take a look at all the recent garda scandals and abuses and tell me again if you are perfectly OK for the word of a superintendent to be treated as if it's sacrosanct.

As has been stated, it's not just Mary Lou who has an issue with it, it's viewed with great suspicion by the likes of amnesty and so on.

If you heard about a court like it in Guatemala or somewhere like that you'd no doubt be shocked by their complete disregard for civil rights!

TuringBot47

smurgen wrote: »

You do know that various international bodies cannot believe we have the special criminal court?that it looks completely off the wall to them?

And do you know that Ireland led the way setting on the Criminal Assets Bureau to target criminals assets, hit them where it hurt.
It was so successful that it internationally recognized as the best approach to tackling crime and the money it generates.
So at least Ireland is taking off the gloves to fight back against serious organised crime and/or terrorism.

smurgen wrote: »

And you do know that the set up is under review at the moment by government? It will probably be disbanded and all those using it as a stick to beat SF with currently will keep their mouths shut.anything to keep the status quo in power.

It's nothing to do with beating SF or keeping anyone in power.

You can't expect ordinary people to sit in a courtroom in front of serious and dangerous criminals likely from their area. As a family man, I'd do anything to excuse myself from such a trial.
Even if a jury were hidden from view, there's always the fear that corrupt gardai can leak the list of jurors to the accused.

When someone says special criminal court to me, I think serious criminals that are a threat to the public, not necessarily going after aging ex-IRA members.
Not that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

tabby aspreme

Is the SCC used regularly for tax Dodgers or just for the like of Slab Murphy

Yurt2

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's very much open to abuse, it's technically possible to be convicted solely on the opinion of a superintendent. Take a look at all the recent garda scandals and abuses and tell me again if you are perfectly OK for the word of a superintendent to be treated as if it's sacrosanct.
!

Indeed, I think I recall that an individual was convicted by the court previously on the strength of evidence that he owned a balaclava and the opinion of the superintendent was that he was a member of an illegal organization. That wouldn't fly in a normal court yet the SCC is empowered by statute to accept an opinion as evidence. Pretty crazy when you think about it.

TuringBot47

Yurt! wrote: »

It has expanded in scope and statutory power to the extent that people have sat before it at as defendants for tax-dodging.

I don't know the details of that case but it was likely because they couldn't get the accused on other charges.

In the same way the only way they could get Al Capone was on tax charges even though every dog on the street knew he was a very serious gangster/criminal.

sbsquarepants

TuringBot47 wrote: »

I don't know the details of that case but it was likely because they couldn't get the accused on other charges.

In the same way the only way they could get Al Capone was on tax charges even though every dog on the street knew he was a very serious gangster/criminal.

You don't see a problem with using state appointed judges to jail people the state dislikes in the absence of evidence?

When an arab government does things like that we call them tyrants and despots!

TuringBot47

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You don't see a problem with using state appointed judges to jail people the state dislikes in the absence of evidence?

I do see a problem with serious criminals making a mockery of the Irish justice system. Too clever to leave a lot of evidence.
Orchestrating executions, money laundering, drugs, etc.

Nobody is accidentally brought up in the special criminal court.
There's no smoke without fire.
It's not like a superintendent just saw someone on the street and took a dislike to them.

So yes, I'm fine with using increased powers to target clear threats against Irish society.

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

I don't know the details of that case but it was likely because they couldn't get the accused on other charges.

In the same way the only way they could get Al Capone was on tax charges even though every dog on the street knew he was a very serious gangster/criminal.

I'm aware, if AGS can't do police work to secure a conviction of serious gravity, I don't think it serves justice for essentially someone who is answerable to the the government (the AG) to proffer charges for tax affairs in what is supposed to be an exceptional court. The SCC is a constitutional workaround where the norms of justice are suspended - to use it willy-nilly for tax offenses is completely bogus. The government has no business being in the middle of deciding the jurisdiction of certain offenses.

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

There's no smoke without fire.

Do us a favour, if you ever get a jury summons, pick up the phone and tell the court you've a family wedding that day or something. You're perversely making a good case for non-jury trials with that post. Strewth.

piplip87

Yurt! wrote: »

People have ended up with juryless trials on tax issues on the signature of the government appointed Attorney General. In fact, any individual can end up with a juryless trial for any alleged offense on the endorsement of the AG.

A trial in front of a jury of peers is a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system, and the AG is given far too much power with SCC legislation. It's an extremely unusual system in a common law jurisdiction.

Amnesty, the UN, Mary Robinson (in her former capacity of legal chair at TCD) and the Irish Council of Civil Liberties are among its critics - so, it's not just SF that have something to say.

It was conceived as a draconian measure in ww2 as a blunt instrument to as the government of the day were afraid of republican sympathetic juries during 'the emergency'.

*Not a SF member, and undecided voter.

Yes but it's quite easy for larger countries to sit there and say the SCC is wrong in fact Ireland is quite a small country, witness protection just wouldn't work, keeping jurors away from defenders associates would be quite hard too.

The SCC is not perfect but it's needed to deal with the gang problem and it was needed to defeat the IRA.

The tax avoidance case you talk about was Slab Murphy in fairness people may be afraid to testify against him

TuringBot47

Yurt! wrote: »

Do us a favour, if you ever get a jury summons, pick up the phone and tell the court you've a family wedding that day or something. You're perversely making a good case for non-jury trials with that post.

And you seem completely unfamiliar with the justice system.
The jury is never made aware of any previous criminal convictions for that very reason.
Also if you know the accused, you would be immediately excused from the case.