The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish Government are responsible for the situation regarding donations made in the North. They were in consultation with the UK under the GFA in drawing up the special dispensation from wider UK regs that NI got.

You portray a free for all scenario up there but there are regulations governing donations. The Irish and British governments agreed to anonymity of donor names because of the possibility of intimidation. We were consulted on it.

As has been said about all the insidious allegations you people make, if you have proof then you need to go to the relevant authorities. You cannot be party to an agreement on a regulatory environment and then pretend it doesn't exist in order to gain political advantage because it suits a particular agenda. It reeks of hypocrisy and the politics of insinuation.

There are regulations, they allow for hiding donations, they allow for large-scale donations from abroad. The Chinese could be financing Sinn Fein for all we know, and you know, there is nothing illegal about that, or about keeping it secret. Your suggestion that people go to the relevant authorities is therefore a complete distraction. It our "insidious" allegations are that Sinn Fein are legitimately receiving money from undesirable sources, where do we go?

SIPO, as I said already, are concerned about the outside influence on Irish politics, particularly that it is unknown.

You also make the mistake of assuming that because you perceive someone as being a government supporter that they are party to the regulatory environment and automatically support everything the government does. I want the regulatory environment in the North changed. It was unacceptable that the DUP could secretly use Russian money to influence Brexit, similarly it is unacceptable that Sinn Fein can use secret money to influence politics down here.

The fact that you are prepared to defend the secret funding of some political parties compromises anything you say about transparency on other issues. Transparency has to start with the funding of political parties.

tikkahunter

Change Please 21 wrote: »

Another great day for Sinn Fein.

Even more votes coming there way now after that show yesterday evening.

Mary Lou will be happy enough to see this go on for another while.

Wonder what the FG video will be this Sunday?

She doesn't want to be in power so don't kid yourself .Far easier to be outraged at everyone bar yourself and stand on the sideline shouting than actually trying to run a country.

blanch152

tikkahunter wrote: »

She doesn't want to be in power so don't kid yourself .Far easier to be outraged at everyone bar yourself and stand on the sideline shouting than actually trying to run a country.

Yeah, we would end up with a coalition of FF, FG, Greens, Labour and the SDs before we could see Mary-Lou putting a coalition together. They are not interested in power to get things done.

tikkahunter

blanch152 wrote: »

Yeah, we would end up with a coalition of FF, FG, Greens, Labour and the SDs before we could see Mary-Lou putting a coalition together. They are not interested in power to get things done.

last election proved that

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There are regulations, they allow for hiding donations, they allow for large-scale donations from abroad. The Chinese could be financing Sinn Fein for all we know, and you know, there is nothing illegal about that, or about keeping it secret. Your suggestion that people go to the relevant authorities is therefore a complete distraction. It our "insidious" allegations are that Sinn Fein are legitimately receiving money from undesirable sources, where do we go?

SIPO, as I said already, are concerned about the outside influence on Irish politics, particularly that it is unknown.

You also make the mistake of assuming that because you perceive someone as being a government supporter that they are party to the regulatory environment and automatically support everything the government does. I want the regulatory environment in the North changed. It was unacceptable that the DUP could secretly use Russian money to influence Brexit, similarly it is unacceptable that Sinn Fein can use secret money to influence politics down here.

The fact that you are prepared to defend the secret funding of some political parties compromises anything you say about transparency on other issues. Transparency has to start with the funding of political parties.

We know where the 4 million came from. It is as transparent as any donation received anywhere.

If you have an issue with the regulatory environment in NI then your ire should be directed at those who imposed or created it. The British and IRISH governments.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time.

If I am aware of dodgy donations or financial impropriety I allow that to influence my vote.
What I will not do is vote based on conspiracy theories and insinuation. A for instance for you:
Several FG members were caught taking bribes for planning influence, I do not infer that all of FG is like that, because I have no evidence of that.
I see plenty of insinuations about SF but I have no evidence that they are breaking the law.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We know where the 4 million came from. It is as transparent as any donation received anywhere.

If you have an issue with the regulatory environment in NI then your ire should be directed at those who imposed or created it. The British and IRISH governments.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time.

If I am aware of dodgy donations or financial impropriety I allow that to influence my vote.
What I will not do is vote based on conspiracy theories and insinuation. A for instance for you:
Several FG members were caught taking bribes for planning influence, I do not infer that all of FG is like that, because I have no evidence of that.
I see plenty of insinuations about SF but I have no evidence that they are breaking the law.

Again, nothing to stop Sinn Fein adopting Southern regulations in relation to transparency and publishing the same information in the North.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, nothing to stop Sinn Fein adopting Southern regulations in relation to transparency and publishing the same information in the North.

Why would they do that when the British and Irish government thought it important enough that they not be required to do it? So much so that they legislated for it?
Again, if there is illegal activity the onus is on the regulatory authorities and law enforcers to take action, not on you or me to insinuate and allege.

So email your local government rep if you have concerns.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

SF giving out about landlords in the Dail, when they own more properties than all other political parties on the entire island of ireland.... COMBINED!!!

Isn't it that they own their own homes (i.e., their constituency offices)?



FFG TDs make personal profits out of owning their own homes.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

There are regulations, they allow for hiding donations, they allow for large-scale donations from abroad. The Chinese could be financing Sinn Fein for all we know, and you know, there is nothing illegal about that, or about keeping it secret. Your suggestion that people go to the relevant authorities is therefore a complete distraction. It our "insidious" allegations are that Sinn Fein are legitimately receiving money from undesirable sources, where do we go?

SIPO, as I said already, are concerned about the outside influence on Irish politics, particularly that it is unknown.

You also make the mistake of assuming that because you perceive someone as being a government supporter that they are party to the regulatory environment and automatically support everything the government does. I want the regulatory environment in the North changed. It was unacceptable that the DUP could secretly use Russian money to influence Brexit, similarly it is unacceptable that Sinn Fein can use secret money to influence politics down here.

The fact that you are prepared to defend the secret funding of some political parties compromises anything you say about transparency on other issues. Transparency has to start with the funding of political parties.

Just another problem caused by partitition that needs to be solved for the island of Ireland.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they do that when the British and Irish government thought it important enough that they not be required to do it? So much so that they legislated for it?
Again, if there is illegal activity the onus is on the regulatory authorities and law enforcers to take action, not on you or me to insinuate and allege.

So email your local government rep if you have concerns.

Not going to get into another pointless back and forth dealing with inconsequential points that avoid the issue, so this is my last word on this.

Sinn Fein claim to be big on transparency. When it comes to their own finances, they are not. We have seen them receiving money illegally from the government in the North, currently being investigated by the PSNI. Reports of those transactions have included reference to money resting in personal accounts. Then there is the money fundraised in North America, not to mention the legacy from the UK to Ireland which was switched to Northern Ireland. A common theme across those issues appears - secrecy, murkiness, a stink of potential corruption.

Hiding behind the British and Irish governments is just another mealy-mouthed excuse. Transparency is in the hands of Sinn Fein, they just don't believe in it.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Clearly! Donations from Trump is OK I guess!



Actually, they are not. SF is not a 32 county all-ireland party anymore, they are a 26+6 county party, as shown in their acceptance of that €4 million euro donation, which would be illegal in the Republic, but legal in the North.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-tells-state-watchdog-uk-rules-apply-to-4m-donation-1.4384246

So, SF are not an all Ireland party, but a partitionist party which has two separate parties both in the south and the north!! :pac:

SF have been skirting fundraising rules for decades now, and it is time they are brought into line, like every other party in the state.

SF are the richest party because they hold dinners in the US for the likes of Donald Trump and move those funds to their 6 county SF party... who then goes on to spend that money in the south.

Highly questionable behaviour.

I don't think there is a problem with these fundraising dinners where SF ''sell'' dinners and individuals 'buy' their dinner, so no one doner is contributing more than the max allowed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Not going to get into another pointless back and forth dealing with inconsequential points that avoid the issue, so this is my last word on this.

Sinn Fein claim to be big on transparency. When it comes to their own finances, they are not. We have seen them receiving money illegally from the government in the North, currently being investigated by the PSNI. Reports of those transactions have included reference to money resting in personal accounts. Then there is the money fundraised in North America, not to mention the legacy from the UK to Ireland which was switched to Northern Ireland. A common theme across those issues appears - secrecy, murkiness, a stink of potential corruption.

Hiding behind the British and Irish governments is just another mealy-mouthed excuse. Transparency is in the hands of Sinn Fein, they just don't believe in it.

No excuse.

Re: the money wrongly lodged to their accounts, I am not sure what more is required regarding transparency or action there. Can you tell us?

The rest is just more insinuation and conspiracy theories from somebody who calls a Garda investigation into allegations against the Tanaiste's self admitted wrongdoing 'frivolous'.
Who touts SIPO concerns as being important in respect of one party but not with regard to another.

Have I missed anything here? Can you tell us why we should be taking your insinuations and allegations seriously?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

We have seen them receiving money illegally from the government in the North.

How can you receive funds "illegally" that have been paid into your account in error by a government department?

grayzer75

McMurphy wrote: »

How can you receive funds "illegally" that have been paid into your account in error by a government department?

It suits the narrative MC, yet FFG paid Goodman €10m too much and not a peep. Hypocrites the whole lot of them.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40079279.html

McMurphy

grayzer75 wrote: »

It suits the narrative MC, yet FFG paid Goodman €10m too much and not a peep. Hypocrites the whole lot of them.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40079279.html

Surely if it was this easy to determine illegality, all one has to do is lodge some money into anyone elses bank account, and say you did it by mistake, and therefore the recipient did something illegal?

I don't think even blanch believes that crap.

grayzer75

McMurphy wrote: »

Surely if it was this easy to determine illegality, all one has to do is lodge some money into anyone elses bank account, and say you did it by mistake, and therefore the recipient did something illegal?

I don't think even blanch believes that crap.

Point scoring is that's about.

As if Dianne Dodds (DUP) would be in cahoots with SF to misdirect money where it shouldn't go. It was administered wrong within Dodds department and sent £30k in error but wasn't returned immediately and heads rolled over it. Matter closed.

Yet the Irish taxpayer will be out of pocket to the tune of €10m as FFG overpaid their buddy Goodman too much and may not be able to get the money back - will Mehole or the Leak ask Goodman to write a cheque for the overpaid €10m?

Bishop of hope

grayzer75 wrote: »

Point scoring is that's about.

As if Dianne Dodds (DUP) would be in cahoots with SF to misdirect money where it shouldn't go. It was administered wrong within Dodds department and sent £30k in error but wasn't returned immediately and heads rolled over it. Matter closed.

Yet the Irish taxpayer will be out of pocket to the tune of €10m as FFG overpaid their buddy Goodman too much and may not be able to get the money back - will Mehole or the Leak ask Goodman to write a cheque for the overpaid €10m?

But at the end of the day SF appointed themselves judge and jury again and forced the resignations.
Now I'd say all resigned would have had a strong case for not resigning, but why did SF force the resignations.
There's a case to be made against them on that too.

grayzer75

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But at the end of the day SF appointed themselves judge and jury again and forced the resignations.
Now I'd say all resigned would have had a strong case for not resigning, but why did SF force the resignations.
There's a case to be made against them on that too.

I presume they were made resign because the optics didn't look good - they should've sought to return the money immediately so it could be used where needed.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But at the end of the day SF appointed themselves judge and jury again and forced the resignations.
Now I'd say all resigned would have had a strong case for not resigning, but why did SF force the resignations.
There's a case to be made against them on that too.

What?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Wtf were they playing at, you can't have it both ways here.
Diane Dodds department made a mistake the other poster claimed, yet SF took it on themselves to force resignations of the receivers of the cash too.
I'd have thought SFs best attack would have been on Dodds department for their error.
So which was wrong, the shinners or the dept?
That's the post I was replying to.

joeguevara

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Wtf were they playing at, you can't have it both ways here.
Diane Dodds department made a mistake the other poster claimed, yet SF took it on themselves to force resignations of the receivers of the cash too.
I'd have thought SFs best attack would have been on Dodds department for their error.
So which was wrong, the shinners or the dept?
That's the post I was replying to.

Sinn Fein in itself did nothing wrong. There was an incorrect payment made. Three Sinn Fein members were wrong in that they did not return the money but in all fairness, based on the information that we have, Sinn Fein cannot be held to account for that. In this instance, I see a political party acting appropriately and quickly.

THe issue with the three members is that it was a BBC investigation that uncovered this and not a voluntary return.

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you see, it is perfectly legal for Sinn Fein to route a donation from Trump through the party's accounts in Northern Ireland and have it kept secret.

Unfortunately, that means that the gardai or the PSNI can do nothing about it.

However, we do know that SIPO are worried about the imbalance, and have called for legislation to bring fairness to the issue North and South. It is not right that every other party in this State abides by strict transparency on donations, while Sinn Fein can trouser millions in the North without saying where it came from, be that legitimate donations from the US, Colombia, Russia or Cuba or illegitimate gains from illegal activities. Without transparency, those questions can be asked. I can't prove they happen, you can't prove that all Sinn Fein fundraising in the North is legitimate and allowed in the South.

hows it legal to accept a donation and keep it secret. they either are breaking the law or they arent. they clearly aren't breaking any laws and if they are then its up to the PSNI in the north to do something about it. Which of course they arent, as the issue here is youve painted yourself into a corner and are now scrabbling to talk your way out of it. That isnt working

Bishop of hope

joeguevara wrote: »

Sinn Fein in itself did nothing wrong. There was an incorrect payment made. Three Sinn Fein members were wrong in that they did not return the money but in all fairness, based on the information that we have, Sinn Fein cannot be held to account for that. In this instance, I see a political party acting appropriately and quickly.

THe issue with the three members is that it was a BBC investigation that uncovered this and not a voluntary return.

The way I see it is they had their Leo leak ready to go and wanted to clean house before it was launched.
If this had been now or earlier I doubt they would have been as quick to kick them out.

maccored

christy c wrote: »

There is no fact, it is your misguided opinion.

Regardless of other parties approach to the pension, it does not make SF's "plan" any less crazy. Sf are so stupid that they think the demographics will look after themselves, why would a party that are not economically illiterate peddle such horse manure?

Don't put words in my mouth about expecting the perfect solution, it's quite pathetic.

its a misguided notion that SF have a ton of money? If thats the case, what are yous giving out about?

By the by - you are the one trying to tell everyone what everyone else is saying here. ive never read a more confused jumble of words than that post above

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Wtf were they playing at, you can't have it both ways here.
Diane Dodds department made a mistake the other poster claimed, yet SF took it on themselves to force resignations of the receivers of the cash too.
I'd have thought SFs best attack would have been on Dodds department for their error.
So which was wrong, the shinners or the dept?
That's the post I was replying to.

They did an investigation when it came to light - those directly responsible in failing to pay it back when they became aware of the error were made resign.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the resignations? They weren't asked to resign for the error in payments, they were asked to resign for not returning it when they became aware of it.

I'm surprised that needs to be clarified tbh.

joeguevara

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The way I see it is they had their Leo leak ready to go and wanted to clean house before it was launched.
If this had been now or earlier I doubt they would have been as quick to kick them out.

Im not sure. Id say it had more to do with the timing of the BBC Nolan Xpose. In this instance, SInn Fein acted swiftly and without impropriety.

christy c

maccored wrote: »

its a misguided notion that SF have a ton of money? If thats the case, what are yous giving out about?

By the by - you are the one trying to tell everyone what everyone else is saying here. ive never read a more confused jumble of words than that post above

No, its a misguided notion that SF are economically literate. Evidenced by their brain dead pension proposal for example.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Wtf were they playing at, you can't have it both ways here.
Diane Dodds department made a mistake the other poster claimed, yet SF took it on themselves to force resignations of the receivers of the cash too.
I'd have thought SFs best attack would have been on Dodds department for their error.
So which was wrong, the shinners or the dept?
That's the post I was replying to.

Both were wrong.


Why does one preclude the other? You are being ridiculous. Nothing to see, so we'll invent a conspiracy to keep a party that did the right thing in the frame and a fug of boogeymen conspiracy.

Bishop of hope

joeguevara wrote: »

Im not sure. Id say it had more to do with the timing of the BBC Nolan Xpose. In this instance, SInn Fein acted swiftly and without impropriety.

One lad reported his wrongful payment months, ago, but it still hadn't been repaid, hence the unelected officials resignation.
The idea that this hadn't been passed on to higher authorities is doubtful in imo.
The Nolan show broke the story sure, but the swift actions were a panic as much as a reaction to those stories to clear the way for Leo's story imo.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Both were wrong.


Why does one preclude the other? You are being ridiculous. Nothing to see

:D:D