Could Sinn Fein actually run a country ?

Yurt2

piplip87 wrote: »

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

Witnesses were called and names read into the record for the Murphy case.

rob316

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

13 multinationals paid 30% of our total tax income last year through corporation tax alone.

9.6 billion.

Come on, but of perspective at least.

All multinationals pay the 12.5% corporation tax on profits as per law.

Revenue who are one of the most respected departments in the country have stated this is fact.

BTW Sinn Féin only changed their mind on keeping the 12.5% tax a few weeks ago.

Before that they wanted to raise it.

Like abortion, water charges, the bailout, they flip flop when they see an opportunity to be populist.

Our economy is flimsly built on that corporation tax rate. Our "economic growth" is exaggerated as we have a large amount of multinationals here per capita so it will always be higher than other countries.

I am against any measures been made against these companies to extract more tax that will make them consider their operations here. We are a small island, never mind the unemployment it would cause do you have any idea what it would do to the exchequer and our public spending if the corporation tax take drops? I don't think people fully grasp how dependent we are on these companies.

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

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.

Anyone who says 'no smoke without fire' is not fit to sit on a jury and doesn't understand the precepts that underpin the criminal justice system. Like I said, if you get a summons, please say you have a holiday in Santa Ponsa our your cousin Shirley is getting married or something.

TuringBot47

Yurt! wrote: »

Anyone who says 'no smoke without fire' is not fit to sit on a jury and doesn't understand the precepts that underpin the criminal justice system.

Maybe you posted too fast, read my last post.
I understand the criminal system just fine.

There's also a court of appeal after the special criminal court.
It would be interesting to know how many appeals, if any, were successful in the SCC.

Edgware

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.

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!

Have you actually read the Offences against the State Act. It is a Chief Superintendents evidence

handlemaster

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.

Was the reason for this system was brought in as a result of intimidation of victims and witnesses. I'm all for justice and having the power with the people

handlemaster

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.

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!

Has Mary Lou actually stated her oppostion and the grounds she wants to fight against this court ?

sbsquarepants

TuringBot47 wrote: »

There's no smoke without fire.
It's not like a superintendent just saw someone on the street and took a dislike to them.
.

And this sums up exactly what's wrong with the special criminal court.

No smoke without fire, is hardly an acceptable level of proof, that should be self evident ffs!

Have you not noticed and of the garda scandals which have been all over the news for the past few years. You've never heard of the Morris tribunal, Maurice McCabe and so on - the 100m plus in compensation paid out to victims of widespread garda corruption, fabrication of evidence, bare faced lies, malicious rumours etc?

That all passed you by, but you're happy enough to convict on the grounds of "no smoke without fire"

Sweet jesus - i hope you're not registered to vote!

lotta good friends of good republicans in this thread

FrancieBrady

Anybody wondering what Amnesty International's and The ICCL's issues are should track down former President Mary Robinson's essay on the SCC. I can't link it at the moment.

Yurt2

A fairly instructive article on a recent case and the basic problems with the court:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ruling-may-change-way-ira-cases-are-tried-1.4108719?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fruling-may-change-way-ira-cases-are-tried-1.4108719

A judge, doing her job, refused to accept the opinion of the chief superindentant on illegal membership as AGS refused to extrapolate on what the opinon was based on. First time it has happened, and probably will put focus on the point of the court in the first place if judges (quite correctly) start interrogating for normal standards of evidence. The Omagh bombers were aquited on appeal after AGS were found to be tampering with statements. Fairly shocking in that the court is probably used as a substitute for proper police work to secure convictions on extremely serious charges.

"The conviction rate is also helped by a toolbox of extraordinary powers available to the DPP which wouldn’t fly in any other court."

The Nal

To answer the OPs question, no. Proof in the debate last night.

Dyr

TuringBot47 wrote: »

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.

Amazingly, other countries deal with serious crime without having to lower the net for their police forces.

Amazingly, a court that was meant to protect the state against those who sought to undermine it never had anyone from Anglo darken its doors.

TuringBot47

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No smoke without fire, is hardly an acceptable level of proof, that should be self evident ffs!

Sweet jesus - i hope you're not registered to vote!

You've just jumped on a "phrase" I used, nothing more.

I'm not in the Sinn Fein demographic, I'm educated with a job and my own house. No handouts needed and I've no sympathy for terrorists and criminals.

My vote certainly counts.

If I expand upon the "no smoke without fire" phrase I used, I'd expect a chief superintendents opinion to be based on evidence, likely circumstantial evidence that might not otherwise be meet the DPP's requirements but is the best they could get.

Anyways, if you want to side with the criminals and terrorists go ahead.
Just a safety warning, don't smoke your black market imported cigarettes while refueling your car with laundered diesel.

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

If I expand upon the "no smoke without fire" phrase I used, I'd expect a chief superintendents opinion to be based on evidence, likely circumstantial evidence that might not otherwise be meet the DPP's requirements but is the best they could get.

See the IT linked article. The only time in recent memory a SCC judge has asked for corroborating information around their opinion AGS refused to provide it to the court and the case was thrown out. It's quite plain AGS were accustomed using the court as a shortcut as a substitute for police work. If that doesn't raise alarm bells in your head...

You don't have to like terrorists or diesel smugglers to think there needs to be higher standards.

Mortelaro

Yurt! wrote: »

See the IT linked article. The only time in recent memory a SCC judge has asked for corroborating information around their opinion AGS refused to provide it to the court and the case was thrown out. It's quite plain AGS were accustomed using the court as a shortcut as a substitute for police work. If that doesn't raise alarm bells in your head...

You don't have to like terrorists or diesel smugglers to think there needs to be higher standards.

Isn't that a defence you've written there of the SCC
It is Reasonable

gozunda

The Nal wrote: »

To answer the OPs question, no. Proof in the debate last night.

This. SFs policy seemed to be predicated on spending billions with absolute no indication as to where said billions of euros were to be sourced.

I reckon she believes that Ireland can be run much Like NI with someone else coming up with the money.

Someone better tell her.

weldoninhio

friendlyfun wrote: »

A left wing government in Portugal is something of a success story. Don't think you'll see blueshirts mentioning this.

Portugal has, for the first time this century, caught up with the rest of Europe: economic growth last year reached a 17-year high of 2.7 per cent, above the eurozone average of 2.5 per cent. More than 270,000 jobs have been created over the last two years, while unemployment, which peaked at 17 per cent in 2013, fell below 8 per cent in December 2017 for the first time in more than 13 years.
The government has increased state pensions, the minimum wage and public sector pay while cutting taxes and improving welfare benefits for the lowest-paid

Isn't Ireland beating all of the above numbers at the moment, except maybe the job creation?? Yet, you are calling them successful and using them as a stick to beat FF/FG with??

Yurt2

Mortelaro wrote: »

Isn't that a defence you've written there of the SCC
It is Reasonable

It's not a defense of the SCC. Jury trials offer higher standards of justice, congruent with common law norms. The SCC is a 'bolt-on' to the common law tradition that has historically lowered the standard of justice.

bladespin

tabby aspreme wrote: »

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

Would've been handy for a few bankers too.

sbsquarepants

TuringBot47 wrote: »

You've just jumped on a "phrase" I used, nothing more.

The countries justice system should be based on a bit more than a phrase do you not think?

TuringBot47 wrote: »

I'm not in the Sinn Fein demographic, I'm educated with a job and my own house.

That's very condescending.
I'm educated, i have a job, i own a house.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

If I expand upon the "no smoke without fire" phrase I used, I'd expect a chief superintendents opinion to be based on evidence, likely circumstantial evidence that might not otherwise be meet the DPP's requirements but is the best they could get.

Well once you expect it, then i suppose it's as good as true!

Those standards are there for a reason - if the evidence doesn't meet the standards, it's not really evidence now is it. It's opinion.

You may be happy enough to stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la i can't hear you" every time one of the many and varied cases of garda corruption makes the news, but a lot of us are not.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Anyways, if you want to side with the criminals and terrorists go ahead.
Just a safety warning, don't smoke your black market imported cigarettes while refueling your car with laundered diesel.

Wearing a badge doesn't magically transform lies into truth. A liar, is a liar, is a liar. When you put your trust in liars, you may expect bad things to happen.

Yurt2

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Y
I'm educated with a job and my own house. No handouts needed and I've no sympathy for terrorists and criminals.

Oh look, it's another hard working clever boy. Hang on until I fetch some treats for you.

No terrorism for you, atta boy, good boy.

Mortelaro

Yurt! wrote: »

It's not a defense of the SCC. Jury trials offer higher standards of justice, congruent with common law norms. The SCC is a 'bolt-on' to the common law tradition that has historically lowered the standard of justice.

Who in your opinion has been tried by the SCC and is innocent, name them
Let's put a little meat on the bones here

Keyzer

I sincerely hope SF don't get into a position of power - if you think things are bad now, it'll only get worse under SF. They haven't a cobblers when it comes to the economic's of running a country.

sbsquarepants

Mortelaro wrote: »

Who in your opinion has been tried by the SCC and is innocent, name them
Let's put a little meat on the bones here

Nicky Kelly is the one that springs to mind first anyway.

Interesting story below about a man, who had his life and his health destroyed by the special criminal court and the gardai - but sure yea Turingbot, no smoke without fire is a perfectly acceptable standard of proof!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nicky-kelly-still-seeks-answers-for-sallins-train-robbery-arrest-1.2598157

Yurt2

Mortelaro wrote: »

Who in your opinion has been tried by the SCC and is innocent, name them
Let's put a little meat on the bones here

This is very simple.

It's a jury's job to find someone guilty or deliver a not guilty verdict under the rules of evidence. Not me, not you. That's what we all accept as justice and the SCC falls short of that standard.

Mortelaro

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Nicky Kelly is the one that springs to mind first anyway.

His conviction was overturned
Many jury convictions have been overturned
Who convicted by the SCC is in jail or served their time that is innocent in the opinion of the person to whom I first asked the question

FrancieBrady

Keyzer wrote: »

I sincerely hope SF don't get into a position of power - if you think things are bad now, it'll only get worse under SF. They haven't a cobblers when it comes to the economic's of running a country.

People are seriously considering letting somebody who bankrupted this country profoundly, into power.

JohnnyFlash

The hardcore supporter of SF doesn’t give a rats ass about Paul Quinn or McCabe or any of the rest of the victims of the IRA. Some of them probably miss the campaign of terrorism and violence and what it stood for.

Then they get upset when it turns out others do have an issue with a party who up until recently was giving standing ovations to lads who planted bombs that blew up innocent men, women, and children.

Mortelaro

Yurt! wrote: »

This is very simple.

It's a jury's job to find someone guilty or deliver a not guilty verdict under the rules of evidence. Not me, not you. That's what we all accept as justice and the SCC falls short of that standard.

You are not answering the question
Who has the SCC convicted,that failed to be overturned is innocent
That's the standard you and SF need to justify abolishing it
Take your time