Is it just me or have SF vanished?

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

What I’m trying to say (probably badly) is SF supporters can’t have it both ways. They were the political wing of a paramilitary organisation. As a political party, although the IRA actions can be vilified in plenty instances, the GFA drew a line under the past. But on the other hand, reprehensible actions by the British should not be forgotten and perpetrators brought to justice, it can’t be a stick to beat them with. For every person who raises the famine, someone else can say enniskillen. Who wins then? Hopefully that makes sense.

Just to be clear, the famine was one of the worst genocides in human history and has had a deep effect on the Irish people. I’ve read articles that genetic studies have shown that has caused a disposition in our dna for poor mental health, higher obesity and heart disease and maternal starvation. Fcucking crazy,

The brits are literally last week,been found to coverup a unit of the SAS killing all males,they encounter, of military age in afganistan,

They are never going to change,

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

The brits are literally last week,been found to coverup a unit of the SAS killing all males,they encounter, of military age in afganistan,

They have zero to offer the world,never have and never will.....we need to get a utd ireland and sever ties with these people

I think someone recently described the GFA a flowchart with the ultimate goal to achieve reunification. It was an excellent description. But to achieve that there must be negotiation politically with Westminster. To achieve that it is not helpful to describe them as Nazis etc. I take your point about Afghanistan cover up (I know nothing about it but taking it as fact) but that’s not our problem. As long as it hasn’t happened here since the GFA, it’s not our issue. They could equally bring up historical IRA actions and then what.

Having studied human rights it is painful to say what I said above but pragmatically, if a United ireland is the goal, sometimes painful actions are required.

If we go down the route of exposing disgusting actions by the British, then just wait for people to vote for an exit. Doing both doesn’t work. In my opinion of course.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

What I’m trying to say (probably badly) is SF supporters can’t have it both ways. They were the political wing of a paramilitary organisation. As a political party, although the IRA actions can be vilified in plenty instances, the GFA drew a line under the past. But on the other hand, reprehensible actions by the British should not be forgotten and perpetrators brought to justice, it can’t be a stick to beat them with. For every person who raises the famine, someone else can say enniskillen. Who wins then? Hopefully that makes sense.

Just to be clear, the famine was one of the worst genocides in human history and has had a deep effect on the Irish people. I’ve read articles that genetic studies have shown that has caused a disposition in our dna for poor mental health, higher obesity and heart disease and maternal starvation. Fcucking crazy,

I wasn't actually drawing parellels, I was pointing out that the 'depths to which humanity could sink' were shown long before the Nazis sank to their depth.

Basically what we need to do is NOT create the circumstances where humans will sink to those depths because there they will go regardless if it is the 1840's, the 1940's or 2040's.

The 'circumstances' for the conflict/war here were created.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't actually drawing parellels, I was pointing out that the 'depths to which humanity could sink' were shown long before the Nazis sank to their depth.

Basically what we need to do is NOT create the circumstances where humans will sink to those depths because there they will go regardless if it is the 1840's, the 1940's or 2040's.

The 'circumstances' for the conflict/war here were created.

I actually only read the posts and took no notice of who wrote them. I actually think parallels were drawn rather than saying the Brits were Nazis. I mean that the famine was a genocide killing millions of Irish perpetrated systematically by the British. Same as the genocide committed by the Germans in WW II.

Is it not more likely that if we raise hatred based on historical actions the circumstances for divisions will lead to conflict where they can happen again. Transitional justice is based on remembering the past but drawing a line to move forward. Rwanda is a great example of this.

It is also the responsibility of people not to keep using the troubles against SF. I was thinking that if people really believe that SF and the IRA are the same and the fact that they are the biggest party here based on the last election and the second biggest party in the North, that means there is a public mandate for the IRA. That is concerning.

blackwhite

joeguevara wrote: »

Before jumping to any conclusion based on a tweet, it is always better to see the reasons why anyone is not in support. Not doing A does not mean that they support B. Usually in cases like this it is because the original vote did not go far enough.

The statement from all of the parties is there for anyone to read - it’s not just “a tweet”.

The only groups not to support it were the extreme right, and the extreme left.

In the space of a week we’ve SF MEPs refusing to condemn Chinese suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and suppression of democracy in Belarus.

Both times these were cross-party initiatives within the EU parliament - not solo runs by one or two groupings.

Throw in their support of Maduro and there’s quite the pattern there

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

The statement from all of the parties is there for anyone to read - it’s not just “a tweet”.

The only groups not to support it were the extreme right, and the extreme left.

In the space of a week we’ve SF MEPs refusing to condemn Chinese suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and suppression of democracy in Belarus.

Both times these were cross-party initiatives within the EU parliament - not solo runs by one or two groupings.

Throw in their support of Maduro and there’s quite the pattern there

They gave a reason for not supporting the Chinese motion. Look it up...it's probably why they didn't support the Belarus motion, although I cannot confirm that.

joeguevara

blackwhite wrote: »

The statement from all of the parties is there for anyone to read - it’s not just “a tweet”.

The only groups not to support it were the extreme right, and the extreme left.

In the space of a week we’ve SF MEPs refusing to condemn Chinese suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and suppression of democracy in Belarus.

Both times these were cross-party initiatives within the EU parliament - not solo runs by one or two groupings.

Throw in their support of Maduro and there’s quite the pattern there

Is it possible that the resolution up for a vote did not go far enough to effectively implement its goal. Abstention does not equate to disagreement. As an analogy, in our Lisbon referendum, when Ireland voted no, it was not because we were against the end goals, but we needed further protections to protect our constitutional interests. An even more relevant example is the Treaty signed by Collins because it’s ‘freedom to achieve freedom’. Were the anti treaty supporters against 26 counties being free or did they want more.

Now, it may be the reason for the abstention was nefarious but until we see the reasons I’m not going to reach a judgment. I do agree, optically it looks bad. After the Hong Kong vote abstention, there should be a clearer upfront published policy.

joeguevara

Also the very core of democracy is that you make your own decision based on your own beliefs. Why have MEPs at all if it’s expected to blanket follow the majority of others. If that is what is expected then it is undemocratic. If you want to disagree with a vote, then it should be based on the reasons. The fact that a blanket tweet lumped the vote of the left and far right together is in of itself disingenuous. Now I’m not saying I know the reasons for the Belarus abstention but I can be certain it wasn’t for the same reasons the far right voted against. The main reason why Brexit is considered a poor outcome is because you have more say and control within the Union. If it is expected to cow tow to what others are doing then what say do MEPs have.

SafeSurfer

In fairness to Sinn Fein they did permit a member to speak to Gardaí for a capital murder trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/brady-investigator-says-witness-who-was-sf-member-wanted-to-contact-party-first-1.4332502

Poor_old_gill

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sinn-f%C3%A9in-witness-consulted-party-over-aaron-brady-case-before-speaking-to-garda%C3%AD-1.4332502?mode=amp

Now that Ferris is retired- who from SF will be collecting this garda killer on his release?

Will it be ‘fashion shoes’ cullinane or ‘white heritage’ holohan?

Superfoods

SafeSurfer wrote: »

In fairness to Sinn Fein they did permit a member to speak to Gardaí for a capital murder trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/brady-investigator-says-witness-who-was-sf-member-wanted-to-contact-party-first-1.4332502

It only took them a few weeks to decide

Poor_old_gill

SafeSurfer wrote: »

In fairness to Sinn Fein they did permit a member to speak to Gardaí for a capital murder trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/brady-investigator-says-witness-who-was-sf-member-wanted-to-contact-party-first-1.4332502

I wonder what they were doing in the time between the request and it being granted?

And FFS - they had to be consulted on giving information in relation to the murder of a Garda?

A mafioso bunch of thugs who clearly think they are above the law

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't actually drawing parellels, I was pointing out that the 'depths to which humanity could sink' were shown long before the Nazis sank to their depth.

Basically what we need to do is NOT create the circumstances where humans will sink to those depths because there they will go regardless if it is the 1840's, the 1940's or 2040's.

The 'circumstances' for the conflict/war here were created.

People in glasshouses etc. If you are looking for depths to which humanity can sink, you don't need to look much further than the people you support and defend all day every day.

blanch152

SafeSurfer wrote: »

In fairness to Sinn Fein they did permit a member to speak to Gardaí for a capital murder trial.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/brady-investigator-says-witness-who-was-sf-member-wanted-to-contact-party-first-1.4332502

That is awful, hard to believe that a political party believes it is above the law in respect of Garda killings in this day and age.

And as for the response from the SF spokesperson, do what I do, not what I say, it is only words. SF and its members have no respect for the rule of law in any state.

FrancieBrady

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

I wonder what they were doing in the time between the request and it being granted?

And FFS - they had to be consulted on giving information in relation to the murder of a Garda?

A mafioso bunch of thugs who clearly think they are above the law

Not hard to work out that the guy was a bit of an idiot.

'The mafiosa bunch of thugs' that did this at the get go? Not very convincing. This seems to indicate that a 'Shinner councillor - 'mafiosa and thug' apparently supplied the break in the case to Gardai.

The break in the case came in February 2017 when the witness contacted Louth Sinn Féin Cllr Antóin Watters through Facebook and told him he had information. Mr Watters put him in touch with Mr Marry.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They gave a reason for not supporting the Chinese motion. Look it up...it's probably why they didn't support the Belarus motion, although I cannot confirm that.

No surprise that Francie will swallow that mealy-mouthed excuse that Chris (SF-don't-do-nepotism) MacManus gave - after all, the party line must not be questioned :rolleyes:
Not wanting to be seen to be on the same side as "former colonial powers" is about as pathetic an excuse that's ever been offered for choosing to instead side with a country that's doing everything in it's power to try and become the world's biggest colonial power.
And of course, they refused to vote to condemn Russia annexing Crimea - seems they like to pick and choose which colonists are good and bad.

SF make a habit of supporting authoritarian regimes that suppress democracy, so long as those authoritarians are from what would have traditionally been a 2nd-World/Eastern Bloc persuasion.

JohnnyFlash

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

I wonder what they were doing in the time between the request and it being granted?

And FFS - they had to be consulted on giving information in relation to the murder of a Garda?

A mafioso bunch of thugs who clearly think they are above the law

It’s one of the clearest examples in recent times of why SF aren’t a normal party. Can you imagine the lads around here if a FG member had to speak to his local TD before giving a statement in the prosecution of a suspect in the murder of a Garda killer?

It’s like Murphy up North having to ask Ted Howell what to do about the cash for ash fiasco. Or Adams knowing his fat brother was a kiddie fiddler and sending him south of the border to work with kids. Or having a SF TD pick up a psychopath Garda killer from prison. Or having a load of knackers bussed up from the ‘Free State’ to attend the funeral of Bobby Storey - another psychopath.

It’s like a criminal organisation to be honest. Repugnant political party. Bravo to the Irish Times for having the integrity and the bravery to continue to shine lights under the slates where most of these people slither and crawl around.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s one of the clearest examples in recent times of why SF aren’t a normal party. Can you imagine the lads around here if a FG member had to speak to his local TD before giving a statement in the prosecution of a suspect in the murder of a Garda killer?

He didn't 'have' to. You are falling for the slant in the story. Again...

The break in the case came in February 2017 when the witness contacted Louth Sinn Féin Cllr Antóin Watters through Facebook and told him he had information. Mr Watters put him in touch with Mr Marry.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

No surprise that Francie will swallow that mealy-mouthed excuse that Chris (SF-don't-do-nepotism) MacManus gave - after all, the party line must not be questioned :rolleyes:
Not wanting to be seen to be on the same side as "former colonial powers" is about as pathetic an excuse that's ever been offered for choosing to instead side with a country that's doing everything in it's power to try and become the world's biggest colonial power.
And of course, they refused to vote to condemn Russia annexing Crimea - seems they like to pick and choose which colonists are good and bad.

SF make a habit of supporting authoritarian regimes that suppress democracy, so long as those authoritarians are from what would have traditionally been a 2nd-World/Eastern Bloc persuasion.

As it happens this 'Shinner Bot' does not agree with them on not backing the two resolutions.
The point was there was a reason for it. And sadly for you it was not 'support' for what the Chinese were doing how so ever you wish to colour it...as usual.

Poor_old_gill

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not hard to work out that the guy was a bit of an idiot.

'The mafiosa bunch of thugs' that did this at the get go? Not very convincing. This seems to indicate that a 'Shinner councillor - 'mafiosa and thug' apparently supplied the break in the case to Gardai.

After the info had been vetted & rehearsed by the party? Why did SF need to be consulted?

What kind of behaviour breeds this culture of fear?
That’s why the mafioso bunch of thugs phrase was used & warranted.

So who is gona collect the party’s latest Garda killer when he is released?

Was that in the job spec you applied for Francie?

FrancieBrady

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

After the info had been vetted & rehearsed by the party? Why did SF need to be consulted?

What kind of behaviour breeds this culture of fear?
That’s why the mafioso bunch of thugs phrase was used & warranted.

So who is gona collect the party’s latest Garda killer when he is released?

Was that in the job spec you applied for Francie?

I think somebody has lost the plot.

Read the story properly...the info is all there if you remove the slanting. Let me 'slant' it another way...are we to thank SF for supplying the break in the case?

The break in the case came in February 2017 when the witness contacted Louth Sinn Féin Cllr Antóin Watters through Facebook and told him he had information. Mr Watters put him in touch with Mr Marry.

Note the date when the SF councillor passed the witness and info to the Gardai...go away and have a think about what that means.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't 'have' to. You are falling for the slant in the story. Again...

But Francie, why did he think it was necessary in the first place?

Given what happened with the murder of McCartney in front of loads of SF members it does give the impression he wanted to check first in case Brady was connected.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But Francie, why did he think it was necessary in the first place?

Given what happened with the murder of McCartney in front of loads of SF members it does give the impression he wanted to check first in case Brady was connected.

How do I know...because he was stupid? Maybe he came from the north were not that long ago nationalists didn't recognise the police because it was a corrupt force that had to be re-named and restructured?

Seems I have to lead you by the nose here...who did the SF councillor on the ground 'consult' or 'feel the need to consult' when he handed Gardai the 'break in the case' in FEBRUARY 2017?


Lads use the brains here before this turns into another blind alley of 'get the shinners'.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do I know...because he was stupid? Maybe he came from the north were not that long ago nationalists didn't recognise the police because it was a corrupt force that had to be re-named and restructured?

Seems I have to lead you by the nose here...who did the SF councillor on the ground 'consult' or 'feel the need to consult' when he handed Gardai the 'break in the case' in FEBRUARY 2017?


Lads use the brains here before this turns into another blind alley of 'get the shinners'.

Francie, I'm not saying SF did anything wrong, him consulting the party first was a strange move and possibly shows a mindset within the party membership when it comes to criminality among those that may have links to Republicanism.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think somebody has lost the plot.

Read the story properly...the info is all there if you remove the slanting. Let me 'slant' it another way...are we to thank SF for supplying the break in the case?



Note the date when the SF councillor passed the witness and info to the Gardai...go away and have a think about what that means.

And from the evidence presented to court

The witness wanted to help but told the detective that, as he was a Sinn Féin member, he was “not sure where he stood” about making an official statement without permission.

The witness wanted to help but told the detective that, as he was a Sinn Féin member, he was “not sure where he stood” about making an official statement without permission, said Mr Marry.

The detective said he went back to Mr Watters for help but the councillor told him it was a matter for the party’s head office.

Really speaks to the culture within the party - membership unsure if they are allowed make statements to Gardaí or not. Elected representatives stating that it's a matter for the party's head office to decide on whether a member can talk to the Gardaí or not. Imagine the outrage from the usual mob on here if any other party had a Councillor behaving like that.

Wonder whether they get permission or not depends on whether the alleged perpetrator is a "good republican."

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

But Francie, why did he think it was necessary in the first place?

Given what happened with the murder of McCartney in front of loads of SF members it does give the impression he wanted to check first in case Brady was connected.

Or the witness knew that Brady was mixed up with on-going criminal activity on the border and contacted his local TD first who advised him to contact the Gardai anyway. It mentions in the article that witnesses were intimidated and that the investigating Garda was surprised that it was a trial by jury and not in the special criminal court.

jh79

jm08 wrote: »

Or the witness knew that Brady was mixed up with on-going criminal activity on the border and contacted his local TD first who advised him to contact the Gardai anyway. It mentions in the article that witnesses were intimidated and that the investigating Garda was surprised that it was a trial by jury and not in the special criminal court.

The article says the witness said he didn't know "where he stood" not that he was afraid. And who the hell is gonna try to intimidate a member of SF anyways !

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tbf they shouldnt have imo....that lad is in jail for murder,and no evidence he pulled the trigger


I certainly would be wary of helping gaurds into future after that carry on,surronding this case and attacks/smearing of anyone who dare point this out

You got your ass handed to you in the main thread for waffle like this, might be best to put down the shovel.

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except i didnt??

Still no sign of any evidence,he pulled the trigger

You did, might need to read back.

A jury disagreed with you, waffling about the guards' "carry on" won't change that.

christy c

[Deleted User] wrote: »

After this carryon...why would anyone help the gaurds?

To take proven scumbag Garda killers like Aaron Brady off the streets.