Could Sinn Fein actually run a country ?

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What body or organisation in Ireland thats not associated with the IRA or gangland criminality has an issue with the SCC ?

Irish Council of Civil Liberties, Amnesty, UN, Various legal scholars.

Does that answer make you happy or sad?

maccored

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Anyway, Sinn Feins deep roots in terrorism and criminality are only one aspect of many of why they should not be in government.

Cant wait to see you back that line up ....

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What body or organisation in Ireland thats not associated with the IRA or gangland criminality has an issue with the SCC ?

Mary Robinson and the ICCL

Plumbthedepths

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What body or organisation in Ireland thats not associated with the IRA or gangland criminality has an issue with the SCC ?

https://www.thejournal.ie/ge16-election-2016-ireland-fact-check-special-criminal-court-2594422-Feb2016/

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mary Robinson and the ICCL

She can be your star debater at the referendum campaign
It's the only way to not make this policy look like a concession to the Army council rather than sneak it in riding the wave of a protest vote on other matters
I believe a question to abolish it would resoundly fail in the current environment

Finty Lemon

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're right i suppose,

I mean it's not as if they live here, have kids in school, get sick and need treatment or need to breathe air like the rest of us:rolleyes:

Indeed. Some of them do have kids. And some of the newer faces are probably sincere as individuals.

The bigger point is that the issues outlined are really only means to the greater end for SF. Look at how they handled the marriage equality issue. Labour to be fair made all the running on this when it wasn't popular. Then at the last minute Adams et al roll in replete with rainbow scarves and flags to claim some of the spoils. The fact that it was a red flag issue for the DUP made it more appealing still.

Finty Lemon

maccored wrote: »

as are you going by this post

I have sat through enough SF cumann meetings in my time to know that everything, and I mean everything, is viewed through this single prism

Eric Cartman

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/ge16-election-2016-ireland-fact-check-special-criminal-court-2594422-Feb2016/

Ok, thats interesting. I think we’d have a long way to go reforming other courts, processes and toughening sentences before we could even talk about getting rid of the SCC or the offences against the state act and that doesnt seem to feature in any SF manifesto or debate about the topic.

smurgen

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.

So why wasn't the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick brought to the SCC? Why couldn't they catch him on a minor charge like tax?

Plumbthedepths

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok, thats interesting. I think we’d have a long way to go reforming other courts, processes and toughening sentences before we could even talk about getting rid of the SCC or the offences against the state act and that doesnt seem to feature in any SF manifesto or debate about the topic.

Just showing that the objection to the SCC is not solely a SF issue, despite the contention by many that it is.

marieholmfan

Finty Lemon wrote: »

I have sat through enough SF cumann meetings in my time to know that everything, and I mean everything, is viewed through this single prism

But you got woke.
So brave!
Do you have a newsletter?

Mortelaro

smurgen wrote: »

So why wasn't the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick brought to the SCC? Why couldn't they catch him on a minor charge like tax?

No evidence?
You're surely not advocating trumped up charges now when your whole premise (without proving it ) is that the SCC is trumped up charges
That would be quality bedding straw

James Brown

stoneill wrote: »

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

Plenty of sweet deals for pals if FG get back in, after broadband of course.
Billions squandered but yeah you got jokes

marieholmfan

Mortelaro wrote: »

No evidence?
You're surely not advocating trumped up charges now when your whole premise (without proving it ) is that the SCC is trumped up charges
That would be quality bedding straw

What's sauce for the IRA goose is sauce for the Maple 10 gander.

liuqirae

Surprised to see the extent to which Sinn Fein have surged in the polls. To me they are a little like the UK independence party. They are suddenly pro Eu, marriage equality, etc, but I don't really buy it.

I hope no one goes into government with Sinn Fein. I totally approve of how they have changed, but I take it with a grain of salt. Also appreciate the situation that Northern Nationalists found themselves in, but we don't need our state to get dragged into a squabble mentality about that. And I say squabble very euphemistically there.

maccored

wow - lots of 'new' posters with small post numbers getting involved (well, only two).

Get Real

smurgen wrote: »

So why wasn't the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick brought to the SCC? Why couldn't they catch him on a minor charge like tax?

Because the special criminal court deals with specific scheduled offences. Tax offences aren't on the list.

Tax offences are also hard to prove, as there are methods that are used in the financial system on a daily basis that are perfectly legal, yet ethically questionable.

smurgen

Mortelaro wrote: »

No evidence?
You're surely not advocating trumped up charges now when your whole premise (without proving it ) is that the SCC is trumped up charges
That would be quality bedding straw

Plenty of evidence against Sean Fitzpatrick. The case was allowed fall apart. He and his cronies helped bring down the economy and induced the government to bail out the banks. They have damaged Irish society for generations to come.

suicide_circus

to anyone with strong reservations about SF i say this;

If (when) they form part of the next government and they succeed, great! The country will see significant improvement on housing and social inequity etc.

If (when) they form part of the next government and they don't succeed, it will put an end their professional opposition anti everything magic money tree politics for a while at least.

win win.

liuqirae

suicide_circus wrote: »

to anyone with strong reservations about SF i say this;

If (when) they form part of the next government and they succeed, great! The country will see significant improvement on housing and social inequity etc.

If (when) they form part of the next government and they don't succeed, it will put an end their professional opposition anti everything magic money tree politics for a while at least.

win win.

Sinn fein say those things because they are popular. The failure there is on behalf of FG and FF who should already be doing those things. The established parties are basically too capitalistic. And are opening the door to who knows what. Hey maybe Sinn Fein would be fine. I doubt it though.

Im in cork south central and voting for Coveney. I don't like FG at all - far to let them eat cake attitude - But I think he is a bona fida representative. Id vote for Sinn fein, except I don't actually belive them. In addition they do not fully accept the constitution of the state. And they have a recent history of.... emm.. gang warfare.

We have a delicate yet currently positive negotiation with the UK, going to trust the continuation of that to sinn fein? Pulease...

If Sinn Fein follow though in the vote I am thinking it could result in the first ever FF FG coalition.

smurgen

Mortelaro wrote: »

No evidence?
You're surely not advocating trumped up charges now when your whole premise (without proving it ) is that the SCC is trumped up charges
That would be quality bedding straw

Are you sure of the evidence in the Sean Fitzpatrick case?you do know theyre refusing to reveal the evidence right?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/full-report-on-anglo-trial-collapse-may-never-be-made-public-1.3853762

Mortelaro

smurgen wrote: »

Plenty of evidence against Sean Fitzpatrick. The case was allowed fall apart. He and his cronies helped bring down the economy and induced the government to bail out the banks. They have damaged Irish society for generations to come.

You were talking about specific tax charges that don't exist and of course a role the SCC doesn't have
I was asking that you surely weren't looking to create trumped up tax charges
No need to list his parts in the crash

Yurt2

Get Real wrote: »

Because the special criminal court deals with specific scheduled offences. Tax offences aren't on the list.

Tax offences are also hard to prove, as there are methods that are used in the financial system on a daily basis that are perfectly legal, yet ethically questionable.

Not correct. There is provision in legislation for alleged offenses other than the original scheduled offenses that the court was ostensibly intended for (terrorism etc) to be directed to the jurisdiction of the SCC at the behest of the Attorney General. It's how the Murphy case ended up there, bog standard tax offenses. An abuse of process in many people's eyes.

It's one of the major problems of the court IMO.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/MorwennaConiam/status/1225029428989788160

maccored

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MorwennaConiam/status/1225029428989788160

From the article:

Investors seem reassured

smurgen

maccored wrote: »

From the article:

Investors in doing their job shocker.

suicide_circus

^^^^ reassured because they're only running 42 candidates?

Geuze

suicide_circus wrote: »

to anyone with strong reservations about SF i say this;

If (when) they form part of the next government and they succeed, great! The country will see significant improvement on housing and social inequity etc.

If (when) they form part of the next government and they don't succeed, it will put an end their professional opposition anti everything magic money tree politics for a while at least.

win win.

Yes, one part of me would like to see SF in Govt, and explain how they plan to spend an extra 22bn over five years, and raise just 1.4 bn net new taxes.

maccored

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^ reassured because they're only running 42 candidates?

Doesnt say that - did you read it?

sbsquarepants

Mortelaro wrote: »

No evidence?
You're surely not advocating trumped up charges now when your whole premise (without proving it ) is that the SCC is trumped up charges
That would be quality bedding straw

Sure why would we need evidence, we all know he's guilty! :rolleyes:

Yurt! wrote: »

Not correct. There is provision in legislation for alleged offenses other than the original scheduled offenses that the court was ostensibly intended for (terrorism etc) to be directed to the jurisdiction of the SCC at the behest of the Attorney General. It's how the Murphy case ended up there, bog standard tax offenses. An abuse of process in many people's eyes.

It's one of the major problems of the court IMO.

Process, burden of proof etc - These things only need apply to people we like!