The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

Especially when such noise can put innocent people in danger or damage a person’s reputation. Fine if a reputation can’t be damaged further but no place in a legitimate discussion.but as I said there is a real issue here that is probably going to be a very interesting talking point.

Agreed. But can't be opinion based. Its dangerous to pick and choose who's reputation is fair game for hear say. Best practice is to give opinions rather than guessing or suggesting 'facts'.

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

Thats opinion based. Dangerous to pick and choose who's reputation us fair game for hear say. Best practice is to give opinions rather than guessing or suggesting 'facts'.

I meant to post hearsay. Or opinions on hearsay is equally dangerous.

But in this instance there is no denying that jf has been representing a particular person (who has no convictions) and sending many letters demanding cease and desist orders to many media publications. He has also been representing (no issue) many connected parties in different cases. On the other hand, MLM has publicly called the same individual a scourge on society. How is it possible that such a dichotomy can exist. And as some posters have said, could jf send a cease and desist order to his party leader.

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

I meant to post hearsay. Or opinions on hearsay is equally dangerous.

But in this instance there is no denying that jf has been representing a particular person (who has no convictions) and sending many letters demanding cease and desist orders to many media publications. He has also been representing (no issue) many connected parties in different cases. On the other hand, MLM has publicly called the same individual a scourge on society. How is it possible that such a dichotomy can exist. And as some posters have said, could jf send a cease and desist order to his party leader.

He's doing his job by the sounds. What MLM says is irrelevant surely?
Getting back to your earlier posts, why are you bringing it up in this thread? If anything you seem to be claiming he's going against SF by doing his job? Up to the client what steps if any are pursued.

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

He's doing his job by the sounds. What MLM says is irrelevant surely?

I hold the legal system in the highest esteem and nothing more so than the presumption of innocence. Everyone deserves the best representation and no one should be judged or discriminated.

But I have turned down clients that I was uncomfortable representing. As a senior member of a party he does have an obligation to the public. It is a difficult one but I think it is too easy to dismiss it as doing a job.

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

I hold the legal system in the highest esteem and nothing more so than the presumption of innocence. Everyone deserves the best representation and no one should be judged or discriminated.

But I have turned down clients that I was uncomfortable representing. As a senior member of a party he does have an obligation to the public. It is a difficult one but I think it is too easy to dismiss it as doing a job.

No its not. He could very easily be being professional. Is your point he's disagreeing with MLMD and if so what has it to do with SF?
Should he be turning down clients based on what SF think? Would that not be sone kind or professional conflict?
Can you clarify the point you are making?

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

No its not. He could very easily be being professional. Is your point he's disagreeing with MLMD and if so what has it to do with SF?
Should he be turning down clients based on what SF think? Would that not be sone kind or professional conflict?
Can you clarify the point you are making?

The point I am making is that I don’t have any issue with a person getting the best legal representation. I have had represented many clients for serious crimes with no issue.

But I’m not a public representative and the person in question is not a regular type of client. It is not as simple as separating work. How can he discuss policy on gangs or violence while reprenting alleged perpetrators. Do you really believe that it is reasonable?

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

The point I am making is that I don’t have any issue with a person getting the best legal representation. I have had represented many clients for serious crimes with no issue.

But I’m not a public representative and the person in question is not a regular type of client. It is not as simple as separating work. How can he discuss policy on gangs or violence while reprenting alleged perpetrators. Do you really believe that it is reasonable?

I think the law and law makers should try to avoid bringing in personal biases.
Either people are able to avail of the same representation or they are not.
IMO, he sounds like an impartial person when it comes to his legal career.
Not a bad trait for a public representative.
I think you are in the wrong thread, maybe a legal ethics forum?

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

I think the law and law makers should try to avoid bringing in personal biases.
Either people are able to avail of the same representation or they are not.
IMO, he sounds like an impartial person when it comes to his legal career.
Not a bad trait for a public representative.
I think you are in the wrong thread, maybe a legal ethics forum?

Its nothing to do with ethics though and nothing to do with a lawyer representing a client and honesty I am unsure if it’s an issue or not. In a thread that I posted in earlier this evening (the posts are in unpopular opinion thread) I outlined the importance of the presumption of innocence and the fact that clients can not be discriminated against. No person should be judged or ridiculed. Even if someone is found guilty, I never have any ill feelings against them and hate people looking down on anyone.

But I think it’s an interesting scenario that has presented itself. Firstly the representation in question is not a criminal matter but a civil cease and desist. And it’s the complete opposite view of the party leader who in essence has done the same thing as the letters are requested to cease. If it’s not something that people think is a public issue, then it would be interesting to know why. If you read the interview from Barry McGuigan and how he has outlined the effect on young people, sport, everything, it is bizarre that nothing is really being said.

But seeing as so much is discussed here that bares no relevance to the present day and is mainly history, how can something so current and relevant be disregarded. As I said earlier, if it is not really something that warrants it, I won’t raise it again.

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

Its nothing to do with ethics though and nothing to do with a lawyer representing a client and honesty I am unsure if it’s an issue or not. In a thread that I posted in earlier this evening (the posts are in unpopular opinion thread) I outlined the importance of the presumption of innocence and the fact that clients can not be discriminated against. No person should be judged or ridiculed. Even if someone is found guilty, I never have any ill feelings against them and hate people looking down on anyone.

But I think it’s an interesting scenario that has presented itself. Firstly the representation in question is not a criminal matter but a civil cease and desist. And it’s the complete opposite view of the party leader who in essence has done the same thing as the letters are requested to cease. If it’s not something that people think is a public issue, then it would be interesting to know why. If you read the interview from Barry McGuigan and how he has outlined the effect on young people, sport, everything, it is bizarre that nothing is really being said.

But seeing as so much is discussed here that bares no relevance to the present day and is mainly history, how can something so current and relevant be disregarded. As I said earlier, if it is not really something that warrants it, I won’t raise it again.

I agree its interesting but I don't see how it pertains to Sinn Fein other than a professional legal person is representing a client the party leader doesn't like. Its unlikely there is a party policy written around treating a specific individual different than others.
O'Callaghan, a senior FF'er represented Adams, who FF don't seem to think highly of and i don't recall anyone seriously accusing O'Callaghan of being compromised. This is even less of an issue as the client isn't in a rival party. He's a private individual.

joeguevara

Bowie wrote: »

I agree its interesting but I don't see how it pertains to Sinn Fein other than a professional legal person is representing a client the party leader doesn't like. Its unlikely there is a party policy written around treating a specific individual different than others.
O'Callaghan, a senior FF'er represented Adams, who FF don't seem to think highly of and i don't recall anyone seriously accusing O'Callaghan of being compromised. This is even less of an issue as the client isn't in a rival party. He's a private individual.

As has been said on the FGFF thread many times, actions of other parties should be discussed in the relevant threads. I don’t know that much about the ocallaghan Gerry assisnce so can’t comment really.

But Gerry can’t be compared in any way to the case at hand. I was thinking about the fact that I reckon it is inevitable that SF will be in the next government, more than likely in a coalition. As probably the most experienced and respected legal person in the party, John could be the special adviser on legal matters and justice and if the time comes for a UI, the Minister for Justice. No better person. But on the other hand, if he has a close relationship with someone who the Gardai, CAB, FIU, Interpol and US federal agencies have outlined as a public enemy (not my opinion as presumption of innocence) then it must be a party concern and a public concern. Under what way could there be a relationship with the law enforcement units if this happens. Also legislation is drafted with such individuals in mind (aml, CFt etc) the optics are tainted at best.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So they will attempt to change the constitution first then ask a Yes or No question?????

We had this debate a few times where you were schooled on this outcome.

So, let us remind you again what are the possibilities.

There will either be a few votes or one vote.

If there is one vote, it will be a vote on the whole package.
The question of a UI and ALL the constitutional changes required to make it work.
This I would argue would be the most likely scenario, as it will prevent us doing a Brexit on it.
We get to vote for a UI and the anthem, the flag, taxes, devolution, etc..etc.. all in one go.

The other scenario involves multiple votes.
First voting on the 'idea' that is a UI. The fairtale vote so to speak.

Then hammer out a deal with the UK and other stakeholders..
Then vote AGAIN on the final deal.

There may be even more than two votes required.

The danger, of course, is that we vote for the 'idea' of a UI but when confronted with the reality of it (costs, the status of the monarch, commonwealth, flag, anthem, health system, pensions... etc..etc...), we may say 'No".

So there are the options.

Anyone who thinks there is some easy 3rd way that requires little consent from the people are selling you snake oil like UKIP did for the British public.
That is why some of the last people one should listen to are, SF when it comes to the question of a UI, as they are the UKIP of Ireland when it comes to this question. They will say, and lie about anything to try and convince people.

jh79

The issue with John and British SF is that they gave MTK the red carpet treatment for the Conlon fight when he was mayor. MTK fights are banned in the Republic. John, Janice, MLD and MON all took selfies and the like with MTK members.

Not long after Irish SF is claiming the man behind MTK is the scourge of Ireland .

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd imagine that councillor thinks it is. There is after all many opinions on Zoos and ethics as there is around circuses.

Not much of an All-Island party if SF UK and SF Ireland can't even agree on the status of Zoos. :D:D

joeguevara

jh79 wrote: »

The issue with John and British SF is that they gave MTK the red carpet treatment for the Conlon fight when he was mayor. MTK fights are banned in the Republic. John, Janice, MLD and MON all took selfies and the like with MTK members.

Not long after Irish SF is claiming the man behind MTK is the scourge of Ireland .

I don’t think that is the issue really. At the time MTK was and to a large degree a boxing academy that has world class boxers. It is backed with a formidable force like Matthew macklin. Also had great Irish boxers. Not sure the timings of the Irish ban But was a strange thing.

The issue is the current situation with the Irish boxing and the fact that it is basically being ruined by criminality. Whatever the ownership structure, the amount of mtk boxers that are in prison is Bizarre.

Barry McGuigan has been quite open about the effect that it has had and how his life has been destroyed.

It was clear in the recent court case the truth and some of the questions and accusations brought by jf to blacken his name was abhorrent

Now that is not the person being discussed but frampton was poached and joined mtk and is a pawn. But I don’t think it is possible to separate a job and being a senior sf mp and possible minister. Even if someone has the law and presumption of innocence at heart, it has to be tempered with the possibility of impact on countless people and the current gang situation that is al over Europe.

IAmTheReign

jm08 wrote: »

Councillors were mislead (i.e., lied to) by a coalition of the willing of FG, FF, Labour & Greens.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/55390

You know that's talking about a completely different proposal right? It has nothing to do with the deal they voted down this week. That's about a proposal to develop land in O'Devany Gardenas by Bartra in 2019. The deal they just voted no to was a proposal by Glenveagh to develop land on Oscar Traynor Road. Both of these proposals included the original requirement that the development be split 50% private, 30% social & 20% affordable, that Sinn Fein pushed for in the development plan in 2017.

So to be clear, in 2017 when they were the largest party in DCC and held the council housing mandate they pushed through a deal for a private developer to develop public lands, which included a split of 50% private, 30% social & 20% affordable.

Then in 2019, after they lost half their seats objected to a proposal from Bartra because it didn't included an option to purchase property from developers to use as affordable rentals, despite this not being a requirement in the original plan they pushed for.

Then in 2020, object to a deal from Glenveagh despite the fact it did include the option for the council to purchase property from the developer for use as affordable rentals.

They do this all the while complaining that enough housing isn't getting built and claiming they'll be able to manage it better when they're in charge.

jh79

joeguevara wrote: »

I don’t think that is the issue really. At the time MTK was and to a large degree a boxing academy that has world class boxers. It is backed with a formidable force like Matthew macklin. Also had great Irish boxers. Not sure the timings of the Irish ban But was a strange thing.

The issue is the current situation with the Irish boxing and the fact that it is basically being ruined by criminality. Whatever the ownership structure, the amount of mtk boxers that are in prison is Bizarre.

Barry McGuigan has been quite open about the effect that it has had and how his life has been destroyed.

It was clear in the recent court case the truth and some of the questions and accusations brought by jf to blacken his name was abhorrent

Now that is not the person being discussed but frampton was poached and joined mtk and is a pawn. But I don’t think it is possible to separate a job and being a senior sf mp and possible minister. Even if someone has the law and presumption of innocence at heart, it has to be tempered with the possibility of impact on countless people and the current gang situation that is al over Europe.

The Conlon fight was after the Recency attack, that's why MTK fights were banned in the Republic. Katie Taylor can't fight in the Republic either over safety fears. At the time everyone knew what MTK were about. British SF can't claim ignorance on who they were promoting.

This deserves scrutiny because of the influence SF might have in the future. SF opposition to the SCC only benefits two types of people, major drug lords and republicans involved in criminality.

joeguevara

jh79 wrote: »

The Conlon fight was after the Recency attack, that's why MTK fights were banned in the Republic. Katie Taylor can't fight in the Republic either over safety fears. At the time everyone knew what MTK were about. British SF can't claim ignorance on who they were promoting.

This deserves scrutiny because of the influence SF might have in the future. SF opposition to the SCC only benefits two types of people, major drug lords and republicans involved in criminality.

I was just being cautious on what is the point of discussion. Any ban in the republic is based on security intelligence but has not been proven in a court. Also there are counter arguments and theories that could be used to make any discussion moot. Katie is also irrelevant as it is a different issue.

If the public facts and knowledge is the only thing that is in play, it is enough to be discussed and considered, in my opinion. Obviously I’m not trying to steer or stop anything.

jh79

joeguevara wrote: »

I was just being cautious on what is the point of discussion. Any ban in the republic is based on security intelligence but has not been proven in a court. Also there are counter arguments and theories that could be used to make any discussion moot. Katie is also irrelevant as it is a different issue.

If the public facts and knowledge is the only thing that is in play, it is enough to be discussed and considered, in my opinion. Obviously I’m not trying to steer or stop anything.

On a side note, as a legal professional what's your opinion on the Special Criminal Court and SF's opposition to it?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

We had this debate a few times where you were schooled on this outcome.

So, let us remind you again what are the possibilities.

There will either be a few votes or one vote.

If there is one vote, it will be a vote on the whole package.
The question of a UI and ALL the constitutional changes required to make it work.
This I would argue would be the most likely scenario, as it will prevent us doing a Brexit on it.
We get to vote for a UI and the anthem, the flag, taxes, devolution, etc..etc.. all in one go.

The other scenario involves multiple votes.
First voting on the 'idea' that is a UI. The fairtale vote so to speak.

Then hammer out a deal with the UK and other stakeholders..
Then vote AGAIN on the final deal.

There may be even more than two votes required.

The danger, of course, is that we vote for the 'idea' of a UI but when confronted with the reality of it (costs, the status of the monarch, commonwealth, flag, anthem, health system, pensions... etc..etc...), we may say 'No".

So there are the options.

Anyone who thinks there is some easy 3rd way that requires little consent from the people are selling you snake oil like UKIP did for the British public.
That is why some of the last people one should listen to are, SF when it comes to the question of a UI, as they are the UKIP of Ireland when it comes to this question. They will say, and lie about anything to try and convince people.

So you can link to this as set way of doing things?

Or is this just another example of you arrogantly stating that it's your way or no way?

I think it is absurd to imagine a scenario where we would vote for unification and then because we could not agree a clause or a detail the whole idea is shelved.
How irresponsible and destabilising would that be? All those who didn't want a UI would have to do is fail to agree some of the detail and the referendum would be moot.

As usual you don't think these things through.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Not much of an All-Island party if SF UK and SF Ireland can't even agree on the status of Zoos. :D:D

Are we saying there is no variance in opinion (As this is, there is no party policy on it that I can see) across other parties on the island?
That a FG councillor in Monaghan might have a different belief to one in Blackrock?

Is that what you are saying?

It is quite possible to be against the ethics of something but believe that jobs are more important for the moment. If it isn't why haven't the Greens brought the power supply industry to a full stop?

As usual Mark, you don't think these things through.

jh79

So this is SF new document on the economic aspects of unification. Nothing new in it. Can't see it having much of an impact.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/Economic_Benefits_of_a_United_Ireland.pdf

Solutionking

jh79 wrote: »

So this is SF new document on the economic aspects of unification. Nothing new in it. Can't see it having much of an impact.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/Economic_Benefits_of_a_United_Ireland.pdf

It won't have much impact because it is a bunch of lies. Maybe some of the SF minions will believe it but for the rest of the World we can see exactly what it is.

Based on that document it has some benefits to the people in the North, none in the South, but then all the export from the North will stop, which I have already said will quickly shut down thousands of jobs overnight. No discussion on what would happen to the 40% odd of people working for the UK government, what happens to them when they are all fired? Even the pensions statement is about Scotland, nothing about Northern Ireland. So that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Really do the SF supporters on here believe this tripe?

Brendan Bendar

Solutionking wrote: »

It won't have much impact because it is a bunch of lies. Maybe some of the SF minions will believe it but for the rest of the World we can see exactly what it is.

Based on that document it has some benefits to the people in the North, none in the South, but then all the export from the North will stop, which I have already said will quickly shut down thousands of jobs overnight. No discussion on what would happen to the 40% odd of people working for the UK government, what happens to them when they are all fired? Even the pensions statement is about Scotland, nothing about Northern Ireland. So that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Really do the SF supporters on here believe this tripe?

They’d believe anything King, mostly because it doesn’t affect them, nicely snuggled in under the radar.

No thought given as you say to those folk who don’t want a UI, like the roughly 50% Unionist population of NI.

Eamon. Dunphy interviewed a leading Unionist recently on the Stand and I can tell you he was not a fan of the South.

Worth a listen to.

Solutionking

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

They’d believe anything King, mostly because it doesn’t affect them, nicely snuggled in under the radar.

No thought given as you say to those folk who don’t want a UI, like the roughly 50% Unionist population of NI.

Eamon. Dunphy interviewed a leading Unionist recently on the Stand and I can tell you he was not a fan of the South.

Worth a listen to.

Must listen to it. Apart from the Nordies hating it, why would any decent politician put their name to that "document". it's a joke of a thing. Shocking if people actually believe that BS....

Now of course I expect the crew to land in 100% defending it as the best document ever. But really, come on now

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you can link to this as set way of doing things?

Or is this just another example of you arrogantly stating that it's your way or no way?

I think it is absurd to imagine a scenario where we would vote for unification and then because we could not agree a clause or a detail the whole idea is shelved.
How irresponsible and destabilising would that be? All those who didn't want a UI would have to do is fail to agree some of the detail and the referendum would be moot.

As usual you don't think these things through.

The Irish Government have been arguing for the last few years that the UK should do exactly that. As have the SNP and parts of Labour in the UK. In fact, you have also probably called on the UK government to abandon Brexit at some point in the last few years. I know I have.

blanch152

Solutionking wrote: »

It won't have much impact because it is a bunch of lies. Maybe some of the SF minions will believe it but for the rest of the World we can see exactly what it is.

Based on that document it has some benefits to the people in the North, none in the South, but then all the export from the North will stop, which I have already said will quickly shut down thousands of jobs overnight. No discussion on what would happen to the 40% odd of people working for the UK government, what happens to them when they are all fired? Even the pensions statement is about Scotland, nothing about Northern Ireland. So that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Really do the SF supporters on here believe this tripe?

The second sentence in the document reads as

" British rule in Ireland and the denial to the people of Ireland of our right to self-government remains at the core of our divisions and difficulties."

What self-indulgent, self-centred, weak tripe is that?

I will read on but my god, what an awful start to the document.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The Irish Government have been arguing for the last few years that the UK should do exactly that. As have the SNP and parts of Labour in the UK. In fact, you have also probably called on the UK government to abandon Brexit at some point in the last few years. I know I have.

Remember that time Colum Eastwood galloped off to Westminster to disagree with and thereby stop Brexit? How'd he get on?

jh79

Looks like the Storey funeral controversy isn't going away any time soon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55015307

Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neill has agreed to participate in a police investigation into the funeral of senior IRA figure Bobby Storey, five months after the controversy began.

The PSNI said that letters received from the legal representatives of those they wish to speak to "confirmed their intention to participate". Ms O'Neill said she was "available to talk to them whenever they're ready". Police had written to Ms O'Neill and 23 other people on 18 September. But two months passed before the police received confirmation from them. On Friday, Ms O'Neill said she had "done everything" she needed to do in line with the PSNI investigation. She said the PSNI contacted her in mid-September and she "immediately responded". The PSNI told the BBC's Nolan Show it received the letters on Wednesday and that it was "anticipated these interviews will take place in due course".

James Brown

joeguevara wrote: »

As has been said on the FGFF thread many times, actions of other parties should be discussed in the relevant threads. I don’t know that much about the ocallaghan Gerry assisnce so can’t comment really.

But Gerry can’t be compared in any way to the case at hand. I was thinking about the fact that I reckon it is inevitable that SF will be in the next government, more than likely in a coalition. As probably the most experienced and respected legal person in the party, John could be the special adviser on legal matters and justice and if the time comes for a UI, the Minister for Justice. No better person. But on the other hand, if he has a close relationship with someone who the Gardai, CAB, FIU, Interpol and US federal agencies have outlined as a public enemy (not my opinion as presumption of innocence) then it must be a party concern and a public concern. Under what way could there be a relationship with the law enforcement units if this happens. Also legislation is drafted with such individuals in mind (aml, CFt etc) the optics are tainted at best.

I'm not comparing FF to SF or vice versa, it's a fair comparison of the situation regardless of the parties involved. I have no interest in discussing FF beyond what I already have. If I knew of other politicians who practised law with clients viewed as different etc. from their party I would cite them too.
Again, a legal professional is representing a private individual linked to organised crime. It happens all the time. It's allowed and expected in law. I don't know why you have it raised here.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Not much of an All-Island party if SF UK and SF Ireland can't even agree on the status of Zoos. :D:D

Was is not more about putting a discussion on medical cards for people/terminally ill on the back burner to discuss the Zoo? But sure smiley face smiley face.