Is it just me or have SF vanished?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did the '20 mins' come out of?
She could have just sat on the seat momentarily while passing.

Can you link to any back up of '20 mins'?

I asked a question as to whether posters could see any difference between two hypothetical situations, yet you deflect. Why?

Just answer the question, the relevance or not of the 20 minutes comes later.

blanch152

Mortelaro wrote: »

You need to keep up tbh
The photo's are not a problem

In episodes on bbc one,of eastenders, the announcer used say filmed before social distancing rules came in
Perhaps we need a note under photographs these days too regarding lens's

Right I'm done with this lens topic,just saw the tweet and wanted to post for people in glass houses

I never said the photos were a problem. I just asked the question whether posters thought there was a difference between a five-second photoshoot and a 20 minute coffee and chat close together in terms of social distancing and Covid-19 risk?

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why mention developing photos then?

Just an added point of interest
I was going to also add it was pre smokey coal ban meaning on frosty November nights the cycle in from bellfield to the meetings put soot on your face
There was also a gypsy fortune teller regularly at the door
I Wasn't actually going to add the 2nd piece of information though

Now I'm off, Ciao folks

Mortelaro

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said the photos were a problem. I just asked the question whether posters thought there was a difference between a five-second photoshoot and a 20 minute coffee and chat close together in terms of social distancing and Covid-19 risk?

He has a point
The conversation might have been under 15 minutes and probably was
The only slipshod thing was,they should not have been seen tbh
I mean that as in the not seen in public setting a bad example

It goes on
But less and less so

Right ciao

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said the photos were a problem. I just asked the question whether posters thought there was a difference between a five-second photoshoot and a 20 minute coffee and chat close together in terms of social distancing and Covid-19 risk?

5 second photoshoots?

You haven't been at any photoshoot I have been at so.

Yes, I accept that there is a difference between a 5 sec engagement and a 20 minute one.

So, how long did this engagement take?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

5 second photoshoots?

You haven't been at any photoshoot I have been at so.

Yes, I accept that there is a difference between a 5 sec engagement and a 20 minute one.

So, how long did this engagement take?

Well, that's a start.

You haven't been at any photoshoot since the start of Covid-19, have you?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, that's a start.

You haven't been at any photoshoot since the start of Covid-19, have you?

No. What's your point here?

How do you know the time they spent on the bench. Louise appears to have two cups of coffee in her hand...could have been just passing on her way to the car in the shot. Who knows.

Where did the 20 mins come from?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. What's your point here?

How do you know the time they spent on the bench. Louise appears to have two cups of coffee in her hand...could have been just passing on her way to the car in the shot. Who knows.

Where did the 20 mins come from?

I've never known Louise to talk for less than 20 minutes at a time, going right back to her time in SIPTU.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I've never known Louise to talk for less than 20 minutes at a time, going right back to her time in SIPTU.

So you just invented 20 mins. Very good.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you just invented 20 mins. Very good.

That was a fairly brutal exposure of a fantasist

Kinda suprised he walked right into it


10/10 internetting skills

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you just invented 20 mins. Very good.

Deleted User wrote: »

That was a fairly brutal exposure of a fantasist

Kinda suprised he walked right into it


10/10 internetting skills

Ah here lads, come off it.

Looking very comfortable, relaxed, deep in conversation, that wasn't a quick jump-in for a photo opportunity.

As I said, Louise wasn't known for her brevity back in the union days, unless she was walking out.

Your credibility in comparing the two situations is just completely shot.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah here lads, come off it.

Looking very comfortable, relaxed, deep in conversation, that wasn't a quick jump-in for a photo opportunity.

As I said, Louise wasn't known for her brevity back in the union days, unless she was walking out.

Your credibility in comparing the two situations is just completely shot.

Car waiting...two cups in her hand?

You made up 20 mins hoping it would fly. You are a chancer in other words. Throw a wee bit of male chauvinism and sexism in there too to try and mask it.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah here lads, come off it.

Looking very comfortable, relaxed, deep in conversation, that wasn't a quick jump-in for a photo opportunity.

As I said, Louise wasn't known for her brevity back in the union days, unless she was walking out.

Your credibility in comparing the two situations is just completely shot.

This tweet from the Twitter thread kind of goes along the same line as your own excuses blanch.

https://twitter.com/McDonaghDJ/status/1263437848490971136?s=19

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah here lads, come off it.

Looking very comfortable, relaxed, deep in conversation, that wasn't a quick jump-in for a photo opportunity.

As I said, Louise wasn't known for her brevity back in the union days, unless she was walking out.

Your credibility in comparing the two situations is just completely shot.

As opposed to your credibilty,where you just make sh1t up ??


Like,i know,these are difficuly times for you,but its serious lolcow position to try berate others for laughing at you for making stuff up

piplip87

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sinn-f%C3%A9in-under-fire-over-welfare-cuts-move-1.2435441?mode=amp


So SF Northern Branch are supporting a motion to give more power to Westminster. Once again showing that they are not willing to make hard decisions, they would rather pawn off the responsibility and blame to Westminster.

No doubt next year they will launch a campaign if any welfare cuts are introduced blaming everybody else.

It's clear at this stage SF are not fit to govern. They collapsed the assembly over issues that would be dealt with in Parliament. They managed to keep it closed until Brexit happened so they could wash their hands of it.

How anybody who sees themselves as a Republican can actually vote for a party that hands more power to Westminster to save themselves making tough decisions is beyond me.

FrancieBrady

piplip87 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sinn-f%C3%A9in-under-fire-over-welfare-cuts-move-1.2435441?mode=amp


So SF Northern Branch are supporting a motion to give more power to Westminster. Once again showing that they are not willing to make hard decisions, they would rather pawn off the responsibility and blame to Westminster.

No doubt next year they will launch a campaign if any welfare cuts are introduced blaming everybody else.

It's clear at this stage SF are not fit to govern. They collapsed the assembly over issues that would be dealt with in Parliament. They managed to keep it closed until Brexit happened so they could wash their hands of it.

How anybody who sees themselves as a Republican can actually vote for a party that hands more power to Westminster to save themselves making tough decisions is beyond me.

2015??

a very cool kid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

2015??

While it's a but strange to pull up an old link I guess the point stands....

You can't whinge about "austerity", "workers" and the "tories pulling the strings" when it was your idea to give them the power to make the same cuts.

FrancieBrady

a very cool kid wrote: »

While it's a but strange to pull up an old link I guess the point stands....

You can't whinge about "austerity", "workers" and the "tories pulling the strings" when it was your idea to give them the power to make the same cuts.

Well there has been the passage of time since that...so adjust your date setting and research why they did that.

da_miser

SF if the are smart will take a step back and let FF/FG get on with running the country..............into the ground.
SF will clean up at the next election , they dont have enough TD's to form a government this time, but next time will be different

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well there has been the passage of time since that...so adjust your date setting and research why they did that.

That's a very brief response Francie? Holding?
I'd suggest a follow up email to SFHQ asking for more clarity in the reply
I'd do it myself but I'd say you'd get a faster reply

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's a very brief response Francie? Holding?
I'd suggest a follow up email to SFHQ asking for more clarity in the reply
I'd do it myself but I'd say you'd get a faster reply

efanton covered this yesterday.

Boredom Morte is the problem with me this AM...I could not be arsed researching for people who cannot look at the date line on a newspaper.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

efanton covered this yesterday.

Boredom Morte is the problem with me this AM...I could not be arsed researching for people who cannot look at the date line on a newspaper.

I generally don't go beyond the first line of efanton because of too many inaccuracies
The make up of DCC yesterday being the latest
So when you're rested
I actually didnt know powers were voluntarily either not taken or handed back
The problem with having financial powers is NI is not viable in it's own right

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

I generally don't go beyond the first line of efanton because of too many inaccuracies
The make up of DCC yesterday being the latest
So when you're rested
I actually didnt know powers were voluntarily either not taken or handed back
The problem with having financial powers is NI is not viable in it's own right

Well you may look it up...what efanton wrote - and take it up with him/her.

I accept what he/she said about it and what has been posted here many times about it.

Mortelaro

Mortelaro wrote: »

I generally don't go beyond the first line of efanton because of too many inaccuracies
The make up of DCC yesterday being the latest
So when you're rested
I actually didnt know powers were voluntarily either not taken or handed back
The problem with having financial powers is NI is not viable in it's own right

Iirc it was something along lines of the DUP blocking budgets at the time and stormont being on brink of collaspe,if their wasnt a budget (its a joke of a government anyway,deosnt work)

So to prevent collaspe,westminster handed control to admin the budget,the DUP learned quite alot politically from this exercise and used same blaggarding over next year or 2 to repeatdely block legislation/reform,

Eventually overreaching and,thus insuring stormonts collaspre for years on end, being inevitable outcome over a relatively modest compromise in the end

Mortelaro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Iirc it was something along lines of the DUP blocking budgets at the time and stormont being on brink of collaspe,if their wasnt a budget (its a joke of a government anyway,deosnt work)

So to prevent collaspe,westminster handed control to admin the budget,the DUP learned quite alot politically from this exercise and used same blaggarding over next year or 2 to repeatdely block legislation/reform,

Eventually overreaching and,thus insuring stormonts collaspre for years on end, being inevitable outcome over a relatively modest compromise in the end

That's one way of looking at it
However why was the SDLP against this?

Mortelaro

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it
However why was the SDLP against this?

That is something i have wondered about,iirc they opposed some of budgets aswell

(its like years ago,wasnt living.here then,so im bit off on the details in my memory!)



Though should be asked,why varadkar taught welfare was admin from the 6 counties(personally im not fan of stormont anyway,it deosnt work and has only served to entrench unionism into a needless dogfight)

Edgware

da_miser wrote: »

SF if the are smart will take a step back and let FF/FG get on with running the country..............into the ground.
SF will clean up at the next election , they dont have enough TD's to form a government this time, but next time will be different

And then you woke up

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

And then you woke up

Isn't that the 'nightmare' scenario that FF and FG backbenchers have been giving vent to?

Blueshoe

FF percentage of vote 22.2%
Popular vote 484,320

SF percentage of vote 24.5%
Popular vote 535,595

FF percentage of vote 20.9%
Popular vote 455,584

Gp percentage of vote 7.1%
Popular vote 155,700

Edgware

Blueshoe wrote: »

FF percentage of vote 22.2%
Popular vote 484,320

SF percentage of vote 24.5%
Popular vote 535,595

FF percentage of vote 20.9%
Popular vote 455,584

Gp percentage of vote 7.1%
Popular vote 155,700

Popular vote. Where in the Constitution is that mentioned?