Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Options
1…5758606263…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    Niallof9
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭Niallof9


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I'd suggest a few posters acquaint themselves with defence solicitors and barristers codes of ethics.

    There isn't much left to go to a totalitarian state if you deny people representation at trial.

    what are you on about solictors can deny whoever they like. also its ignoring the role he played in the MTK saga as well.

    do you never tire of your i'm not a SF supporter nor voted them before but....routine


  • Options
    #1773
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    So you don't like the fact that a fully qualified and successful solicitor is also an MP?

    try to deflect and minimise but the conflict and connection is very clear

    sf supporting crime and supporting criminals

    again


  • Options
    #1774
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    I think it's yourself needs to get a grip.

    Just because somebody in the legal profession is hired to give counsel to a client does not mean they support the activities of that client.

    That would be like saying Micheal O'Higgins SC supports cop killers because he defended Aaron Brady when I'd say there zero chance of that.

    Yes but Michael Higgins SC isn't an MP who is representing victims of heroin dealers whilst endorsing the same heroin dealers and a making a profit on their back.

    As I said at some point you need to decide what you are? Are you supporting your constituents or are you supporting the free state gangsters feeding them with cocaine and heroin?


  • Options
    #1775
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    mynamejeff wrote: »
    try to deflect and minimise but the conflict and connection is very clear

    sf supporting crime and supporting criminals

    again

    He represents clients as a solicitor like every other solicitor.

    He represents constituents as an elected representative like every other elected representative.

    He does both legally and above board and all is declared in accordance with the rules in Westminster.


  • Options
    #1776
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Yes but Michael Higgins SC isn't an MP who is representing victims of heroin dealers whilst endorsing the same heroin dealers and a making a profit on their back.

    As I said at some point you need to decide what you are? Are you supporting your constituents or are you supporting the free state gangsters feeding them with cocaine and heroin?

    Show me where he is endorsing heroin dealers whilst working legitimately as a solicitor because I don't think you're grasping how the whole legal representation thing works.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    He represents clients as a solicitor like every other solicitor.

    He represents constituents as an elected representative like every other elected representative.

    He does both legally and above board and all is declared in accordance with the rules in Westminster.

    This is nonsense.

    I will spell it out for you.

    He is representing the biggest crime syndicate in the 32 counties that is also supplying Belfast and his voters with heroin.

    As I said at some point you need to decide what side you are on.


  • Options
    #1778
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    This is nonsense.

    I will spell it out for you.

    He is representing the biggest crime syndicate in the 32 counties that is also supplying Belfast and his voters with heroin.

    As I said at some point you need to decide what side you are on.

    So by your obscure reasoning these people are not allowed legal representation by a qualified practicing solicitor?


  • Options
    #1779
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    A solicitor is under absolutely no obligation to represent anyone. They can turn them down for any reason.

    It’s funny how the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a human rights issue - a totalitarian state!!!!

    Jaysus.


  • Options
    #1780
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    Show me where he is endorsing heroin dealers whilst working legitimately as a solicitor because I don't think you're grasping how the whole legal representation thing works.

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/finucanes-firm-acted-for-dublin-crime-lord-daniel-kinahan-39609766.html


  • Options
    #1781
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/finucanes-firm-acted-for-dublin-crime-lord-daniel-kinahan-39609766.html

    So if a solicitor represents a criminal he's endorsing them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    A solicitor is under absolutely no obligation to represent anyone. They can turn them down for any reason.

    It’s funny how the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a human rights issue - a totalitarian state!!!!

    Jaysus.

    By the same point a solicitor is under no obligation to turn down a client.

    You're just upset because the named solicitor is also a SF MP and no other reason.


  • Options
    #1783
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    So by your obscure reasoning these people are not allowed legal representation by a qualified practicing solicitor?

    Oh they are entitled to legal rep for sure.

    But the issue ( in case you are struggling with it ) is that in this case the legal rep they have acquired is also representing a 100,000 people in Belfast.

    As i say, you are either supporting drug dealers or you are not. Do you not find it inappropriate that elected MP's are now endorsing and supporting drug dealers who are directly responsible for Belfasts' drug problem?


  • Options
    #1784
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,930 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    A solicitor is under absolutely no obligation to represent anyone. They can turn them down for any reason.

    It’s funny how the usual suspects are trying to turn this into a human rights issue - a totalitarian state!!!!

    Jaysus.

    You were asked before...is Jim O'Callaghan endorsing Gerry Adams by representing him?

    You seem to want to have this both ways.

    A person's right to a solicitor or barrister is sacrosanct imo.

    Unlike the exceptionalist crowd that cuts everyway.


  • Options
    #1785
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I'd suggest a few posters acquaint themselves with defence solicitors and barristers codes of ethics.

    There isn't much left to go to a totalitarian state if you deny people representation at trial.

    I am familiar, barristers represent you at a trial and can't refuse a client just because they dont like the cut of their gib.

    Solicitors are free to refuse to take on clients.

    The bould John chose to take on the Kinahans as clients. Probably a sound business decision, they've lots of money and will keep the meter running, but as a SF MP people are free to draw conclusions about who he does business with.


  • Options
    #1786
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You were asked before...is Jim O'Callaghan endorsing Gerry Adams by representing him?

    You seem to want to have this both ways.

    A person's right to a solicitor or barrister is sacrosanct imo.

    Unlike the exceptionalist crowd that cuts everyway.

    A solicitor is under no obligation to represent a client. Finucane signed the letter himself unless they have another JF working there (Johnny Flash doesn’t).

    A barrister on the other hand......


  • Options
    #1787
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You were asked before...is Jim O'Callaghan endorsing Gerry Adams by representing him?

    You seem to want to have this both ways.

    A person's right to a solicitor or barrister is sacrosanct imo.

    Unlike the exceptionalist crowd that cuts everyway.

    A new low.

    You would swear that the Finucanes' were the last solicitors in Belfast. All he had to do was say " sorry , we cannot accept this engagement" , did they need the few bob? Or was he more worried about losing the thousands in potential fees whilst cooperating with MTK? Greedy enough.

    You either support heroin dealers or you don't.
    How he can look any of his constituents straight in the face after this one I will never know. In fact he is a disgrace to the SF party also. After all the hard work in getting the north Belfast seat he disrespects the work of his comrades by rubbing their faces in it with this.


  • Options
    #1788
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,930 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bambi wrote: »
    I am familiar, barristers represent you at a trial and can't refuse a client just because they dont like the cut of their gib.

    Solicitors are free to refuse to take on clients.

    The bould John chose to take on the Kinahans as clients. Probably a sound business decision, they've lots of money and will keep the meter running, but as a SF MP people are free to draw conclusions about who he does business with.

    Solicitors do this all the time. I fail to see your point.

    Would the Bambi police round up solicitors now?

    You either agree with the principle or you don't, you can't agree with it and then castigate because you have a particular distaste unfortunately.


  • Options
    #1789
    grayzer75
    Registered Users Posts: 973 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Oh they are entitled to legal rep for sure.

    But the issue ( in case you are struggling with it ) is that in this case the legal rep they have acquired is also representing a 100,000 people in Belfast.

    As i say, you are either supporting drug dealers or you are not. Do you not find it inappropriate that elected MP's are now endorsing and supporting drug dealers who are directly responsible for Belfasts' drug problem?

    Sure if the constituents are unhappy with him doing his job as a solicitor they won't elect him next time round.


  • Options
    #1790
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,930 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    A new low.

    You would swear that the Finucanes' were the last solicitors in Belfast. All he had to do was say " sorry , we cannot accept this engagement" , did they need the few bob? Or was he more worried about losing the thousands in potential fees whilst cooperating with MTK? Greedy enough.

    You either support heroin dealers or you don't.
    How he can look any of his constituents straight in the face after this one I will never know. In fact he is a disgrace to the SF party also. After all the hard work in getting the north Belfast seat he disrespects the work of his comrades by rubbing their faces in it with this.

    You'll be burning crosses on his lawn if you keep this up. It's ultra right wing, totalitarian stuff you are getting into here. I'll leave you to it.Stinks to the high heavens tbh.


  • Options
    #1791
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You'll be burning crosses on his lawn if you keep this up. It's ultra right wing, totalitarian stuff you are getting into here. I'll leave you to it.Stinks to the high heavens tbh.

    As i said Francie you either support international crime syndicates or you don't.

    There is no middle ground here, no matter what your beliefs are, or the level of support you have for your " movement".

    In this instance the case is clear.

    Elected Sinn Féin MP John Finucane supports the biggest heroin suppliers in Belfast.

    I hope his afflicted constituents are proud.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Solicitors do this all the time. I fail to see your point.

    Would the Bambi police round up solicitors now?

    You either agree with the principle or you don't, you can't agree with it and then castigate because you have a particular distaste unfortunately.

    Why would you round up solicitors? He's free to represent who he wants and he's free to accept the consequences of that as a politician.

    SF are either taking a moral stand on this or not. Mary Lou specifically named the Kinahans when she was on about drug gangs. Is John F going to sue his party leader for them now?


    The whole thing stinks.


  • Options
    #1793
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,942 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Solicitors do this all the time. I fail to see your point.

    Would the Bambi police round up solicitors now?

    You either agree with the principle or you don't, you can't agree with it and then castigate because you have a particular distaste unfortunately.

    Do you understand the difference between solicitors and barristers when it comes to taking on clients?


  • Options
    #1794
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,930 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    As i said Francie you either support international crime syndicates or you don't.

    There is no middle ground here, no matter what your beliefs are, or the level of support you have for your " movement".

    In this instance the case is clear.

    Elected Sinn Féin MP John Finucane supports the biggest heroin suppliers in Belfast.

    I hope his afflicted constituents are proud.

    It's that kind of thinking that resulted in the murder of solictors in NI and elsewhere.
    You are on very dangerous ground.

    There are certain rights that are inalienable and this one of them.

    If a solicitor or barrister is a supporter of the people he/she represents then we may throw away any pretence we have that we are a democracy

    Not commenting anymore on this dangerous ****e.


  • Options
    #1795
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    grayzer75 wrote: »
    Sure if the constituents are unhappy with him doing his job as a solicitor they won't elect him next time round.

    Thinking about it,this WOULD be my concern
    He has a wafer thin majority, the sdlp didn't stand right?
    If the sdlp stood or some of his vote went alliance on account of this he's gone


  • Options
    #1796
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    The Finucanes are also representing Fat Freddy in his appeal for the murder of Daithi Douglas.

    Some interesting posts in the Gangland Thread on the links between SF and the Kinnahans


  • Options
    #1797
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It's that kind of thinking that resulted in the murder of solictors in NI and elsewhere.
    You are on very dangerous ground.

    There are certain rights that are inalienable and this one of them.

    If a solicitor or barrister is a supporter of the people he/she represents then we may throw away any pretence we have that we are a democracy

    Not commenting anymore on this dangerous ****e.

    It is a simple equation Francie. You are either supporting this country or you aren't?


  • Options
    #1798
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    jh79 wrote: »
    The Finucanes are also representing Fat Freddy in his appeal for the murder of Daithi Douglas.

    Some interesting posts in the Gangland Thread on the links between SF and the Kinnahans

    Getting rid of the special criminal court would be something drug gangs would love to see happen.


  • Options
    #1799
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,942 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    Getting rid of the special criminal court would be something drug gangs would love to see happen.

    Yes, they probably contribute to the Sinn Fein coffers.


  • Options
    #1800
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It's that kind of thinking that resulted in the murder of solictors in NI and elsewhere.
    You are on very dangerous ground.

    There are certain rights that are inalienable and this one of them.

    If a solicitor or barrister is a supporter of the people he/she represents then we may throw away any pretence we have that we are a democracy

    Not commenting anymore on this dangerous ****e.

    lol im not surprised that you aren't commenting anymore but dot worry im sure one of the other well known profiles will be along to do so

    your now equating civil rights representations with representing a criminal organisation ?

    sure they are only trying to make a few pound right ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    jh79 wrote: »
    The Finucanes are also representing Fat Freddy in his appeal for the murder of Daithi Douglas.

    Some interesting posts in the Gangland Thread on the links between SF and the Kinnahans

    For me I would actually have less a problem with this engagement. It does not compromise his integrity and duty of care to his Belfast constituents. As far as I understand this is a judicial review of a free state conviction, it technically has nothing to do with what goes on with his voters or representatives.

    As far as I understand the Irish state is paying for that judicial review via legal aid, I stand to be corrected?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement