FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Nobotty

Bowie wrote: »

Now who's guiding the Lilly? Ive said no such thing.
They are protecting the reputation of their parties in covering up. Thats my opinion of it.
Not incompetent but covering their arses. They succeeded in sweeping it under the carpet. Time will tell how well and for how long.
Get off your SF kick will you? You are engaging in the very style of 'debate' you claim to dislike.

Thats a conspiracy theory and you've changed the way you said it but it's still what it is

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

We know it was yes.
Was it complicit is another story though.
Definitely it failed in its protection of human beings involved, but did it know what was going on in there, I'm not sure.
Society in General at the time failed themselves also. The church had too much power.

It was the states fault, that includes society IMO. TBF FF/FG would have supported and covered for the criminality for generations where much of the public would have been unaware.
The only other possibility is that the church was taking babies and selling them under the nose of the state including Garda which isn't credible as documentation would be used and Garda often present, for generations with no authority or health officials visiting or keeping tabs on children. Not credible nor believable.

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

Thats a conspiracy theory and you've changed the way you said it but it's still what it is

You go quote me accusing this government of condoning child abuse or rape so.
You are losing the run of yourself.

Nobotty

Bowie wrote: »

You go quote me accusing this government of condoning child abuse or rape so.
You are losing the run of yourself.

What else is what you said in your last post
I've no time for this nonsense and can't make head or tail of what you're at,or whats your goal with this to be honest and I don't think anyone else does either

Jinglejangle69

Bowie wrote: »

You go quote me accusing this government of condoning child abuse or rape so.
You are losing the run of yourself.

Where's your outrage about children been taken away from their parents by the IRA and SF?

Don't those families and kids deserve justice too?

Cluedo Monopoly

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Where's your outrage about children been taken away from their parents by the IRA and SF?

Don't those families and kids deserve justice too?

Nice. Both threads yeah? I bet you feel good about yourself.

FrancieBrady

Niall Collins revealing the government strategy. Seems to be the stock reaction when in trouble.

https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1320853947062624257

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Now who's guiding the Lilly? Ive said no such thing.
They are protecting the reputation of their parties in covering up. Thats my opinion of it.
Not incompetent but covering their arses. They succeeded in sweeping it under the carpet. Time will tell how well and for how long.
Get off your SF kick will you? You are engaging in the very style of 'debate' you claim to dislike.

You do realise that you have missed the real story?

The Catholic Church have sold out to Denis O’Brien, giving him options on all the old Mother and Baby homes to build new hotels and 5G masts to poison the local population. FG are covering up for him, not for anyone else.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Niall Collins revealing the government strategy. Seems to be the stock reaction when in trouble.

https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed/status/1320853947062624257

The fact that Niall Collins is absolutely correct doesn’t bother you?

blanch152

Nobotty wrote: »

I don’t think there's any need to go OTT here now
What went on in the 20s up to the 90s is not something you can judge by todays standards
If Sinn Féin were the government here in the 1940s,they'd have gone along with it aswell
No politician today condones it
The government handled a matter yet again insensitively
It was a societal problem in the past aided and abetted by the heretics who had control of the Catholic Church and by extension control of political parties here too


What I'm reading here now in this thread is going well beyond over egging of the pudding,gilding the lilly
This government were stupid
Maybe they auto piloted this legislation
But they're still stupid
Not thinking they should have consulted victims prior to legislating and explaining is agregioussly stupid of them

One thing they're not though, is responsible for what went on in the mother and baby homes
Suggesting they are or that they are covering up for it is also stupid IMO

Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump would say.

Several posters on this thread are proving that is correct.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The fact that Niall Collins is absolutely correct doesn’t bother you?

The people objecting are 'nasty and repulsive' people? Really?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The people objecting are 'nasty and repulsive' people? Really?

He didn't say that.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He didn't say that.

That's how it reads to me.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

That's how it reads to me.

The word some is in there.
He is right of course in that as some are at it purely out of political point scoring and that is nasty.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He didn't say that.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The word some is in there.

"Some" meaning those who are posting anything about the controversy in the online campaign he thinks is "replulsive"?

So he did say it? This is progress.

He is right of course in that as some are at it purely out of political point scoring and that is nasty.

Is it as nasty as making completely and utterly spurious homophobic and racism claims for example?

Fann Linn

Those 'nasty' survivors are considering legal action according to this morning's Times.

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

"Some" meaning those who are posting anything about the controversy in the online campaign he thinks is "replulsive"?

So he did say it? This is progress.



Is it as nasty as making completely and utterly spurious homophobic and racism claims for example?

You quoted his email out of context and that is nasty and changing what he said to suit your narrative. Proving Collins point in fact.

If I say there are some nasty people in Ireland for example, I'm right, but it doesn't mean the, Irish people are nasty.
Grow up.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You quoted his email out of context and that is nasty and changing what he said to suit your narrative. Proving Collins point in fact.

If I say there are some nasty people in Ireland for example, I'm right, but it doesn't mean the, Irish people are nasty.
Grow up.

Get. Up. The. Yard.

You said, and I quote.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He didn't say that.

Out of context my backside, here's the whole email, which you obviously didn't read first time, and are now trying to double down on.




Nice to see the Trumpian style posts getting ramped up, though I'll have to deduct a point of you for not posting "fake news, oh boy, fake news".

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You quoted his email out of context and that is nasty and changing what he said to suit your narrative. Proving Collins point in fact.

If I say there are some nasty people in Ireland for example, I'm right, but it doesn't mean the, Irish people are nasty.
Grow up.

Still twisting and bending trying to make this go away Bish? You need to call Ireland 'repulsive' there to get near to what Collins said.

He was just engaging in what people like blanch or Tubridy does...when social media goes against them 'it's a cesspit of hate and bots of some variety or other', when it suits, then it is a source of verification.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still twisting and bending trying to make this go away Bish? You need to call Ireland 'repulsive' there to get near to what Collins said.

He was just engaging in what people like blanch or Tubridy does...when social media goes against them 'it's a cesspit of hate and bots of some variety or other', when it suits, then it is a source of verification.

But none of that changes what he said Francie.
And at least the link in Mcs post above underlines the some in the post, a bit more grace than Mc allowed in his original reply.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But none of that changes what he said Francie.
And at least the link in Mcs post above underlines the some in the post, a bit more grace than Mc allowed in his reply.

So does what he said vindicate the government Bish or is it just a nasty way to deflect attention, blame someone else, in itself?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So does what he said vindicate the government Bish or is it just a nasty way to deflect attention, blame someone else, in itself?

I'm not sure how you mean that.
It looks like a straight forward email explaining his take on the situation and offering a link to explainer to me.
If the recipient took exception to that and felt it needed ridicule that's his take on it.
It wouldn't be mine.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not sure how you mean that.
It looks like a straight forward email explaining his take on the situation and offering a link to explainer to me.
If the recipient took exception to that and felt it needed ridicule that's his take on it.
It wouldn't be mine.

Of course it does. Why would that be news to us, you are inside the circle of wagons after all 'repulsing the repulsive people' online. Nasty work but someone has to do it I suppose.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it does. Why would that be news to us, you are inside the circle of wagons after all 'repulsing the repulsive people' online. Nasty work but someone has to do it I suppose.

Do you accept that there are some nasty people online or not?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Do you accept that there are some nasty people online or not?

Absolutely, lots of them in all shapes and sizes.

I do not accept there is a 'repulsive campaign' around this issue. In actual fact, the campaign, if there is an organised one, is very erudite and fact based if anything. Not to mention deeply deeply sad and distressing too for those most affected.

But...'nasty people in a repulsive campaign criticising us', something something something.

Shocking, like Maryanne, you'd be better off saying nothing Bish than trying to defend it.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely, lots of them in all shapes and sizes.

I do not accept there is a 'repulsive campaign' around this issue. In actual fact, the campaign, if there is an organised one, is very erudite and fact based if anything. Not to mention deeply deeply sad and distressing too for those most affected.

But...'nasty people in a repulsive campaign criticising us', something something something.

Shocking, like Maryanne, you'd be better off saying nothing Bish than trying to defend it.

"Some" Francie. Small word big meaning, don't forget it.

Brendan Bendar

I see Pauli got a bit job done on the ‘office’..... taxpayers expense.

Anyone see the results?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

"Some" Francie. Small word big meaning, don't forget it.

'A repulsive online campaign' of nasty people and trolls and bullies peddling their fake news and lies'

No mention of, or no answer to, the serious, fact based and well communicated conversation taking place online, just woe is me, deflection.

You are defending fairly stock deflection and blame gaming from a member of the government who should know better, and don't forget it.

smurgen

McMurphy wrote: »

Get. Up. The. Yard.

You said, and I quote.



Out of context my backside, here's the whole email, which you obviously didn't read first time, and are now trying to double down on.




Nice to see the Trumpian style posts getting ramped up, though I'll have to deduct a point of you for not posting "fake news, oh boy, fake news".

There's been a feeling of Trump off this new government for awhile now. Terrible to see in Irish politics.

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The people objecting are 'nasty and repulsive' people? Really?

Bishop of hope wrote: »

He didn't say that.

McMurphy wrote: »

That's how it reads to me.

It seems that some people can’t read.

I can’t find where it says: the people objecting are nasty and repulsive.

He does however say that there is a repulsive online campaign and some nasty people are exploiting the situation - that is not anything like saying that the people objecting are nasty and repulsive.

In fact, he does not say anything about the people objecting.