The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

ive not claimed to be an expert anywhere....so.calm down

Looks obvious to me,the hse are liable and not admitting so....same as everything else in this state,blame everyone else all the time

Ffg promised noone would have to go through court to get payment,yet here we are




People are allowed fcuk up and get things wrong,its a part of life....its the refusal to accept responsibility and always blame everyone else is pure tedious and never ending......nothing ever changes here,the way,they.carryon

Is this the thirtieth post youve made today about it in the SF thread?

Strange tactic tho.

I mean in the govt thread it would be a reach imo but twould at least be relevant.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Just went back to check and be sure

Francie ole buddy, twas you addressed me unbidden demanding i answer for the lies of two other posters.

Dont puff yer chest up at me as if i called you out of nowhere - go and link to step one if you want to retrace the discussion, not the follow up posts as suits you.

But as i said already, lets move fwd with a new understanding and a constructive discussion towards a bright tomorrow hereon

That was your first engagement with me...to deride me FOR NOT commenting on somebody else's post. Your previous effort was an engagement with nobody in particular.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Thanks for the post, apart from having a go at a poster what was the point of it?

As you said you want to discuss the insurance what do you think of the video and what Pearse is proposing?

I already provided a list of factual points I'd like to discuss on this several posts back, which you didn't feel like responding to.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That was your first engagement with me...to deride me FOR NOT commenting on somebody else's post. Your previous effort was an engagement with nobody in particular.

Honestly this is impossible

Are you genuinely differentiating between my first interaction with you, vs yours with me?!

Thats sophistry of the most nonsensical sort

I made a general point about the thread, you responded asking me specifically about the liary posts i didnt make, i responded asking you about a nonsense post you didnt make.

Its all there in print Francie. Im genuinely confused by what you are claiming here but i wont be taking a backward step on it.

Id suggest you clarify or drop the point but unless im very much mistaken (and apologies to thread) you're on the wrong track here completely.

Ireland2021

This thread always gets busy when FFG have ****ed up.
So far since last Tues
- 2nd in command in the middle of a criminal investigation
- same gob****e telling us we could be in beer gardens by the summer, ministers coming out saying that wont happen after he said it
- Minister for Health tryna to block Journos into press conference
- Norma giving hope for schools back in March, cabinet not knowing a thing about it

CrazyFather1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I already provided a list of factual points I'd like to discuss on this several posts back, which you didn't feel like responding to.

These?
Not a single one is about the insurance proposal Pearse has put forward and if it is good/bad/indifferent?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Factual matters I'd like to discuss;

1) Did Pearse Doherty create, post, mention or advertise a petition regarding the insurance sector?

2) Did Pearse Doherty at any stage promise or imply free insurance would be on the table?

3) How does Pearse Doherty acknowledging and discussing the issue on social media differ from the aforementioned Tweet from Leo Varadkar acknowledging and discussing the issue (and as a sidebar, by earlier standards does Varadkar's tweet also count as him promising free insurance?)

4) What government position has Pearse Doherty held?

5) When was Pearse Doherty last a member of the Seanad?


That would do for a start on the old factual matters.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

These?
Not a single one is about the insurance proposal Pearse has put forward and if it is good/bad/indifferent?

Just to clarify before moving on, despite asking me what factual matters I wished to discuss regarding the insurance topic, you're not going to answer the questions that directly concern your own contributions to the topic?

It's fine if you won't and I'll move on if that's the case, but I just wanted to clarify that you were actively choosing not to.

CrazyFather1

Ireland2021 wrote: »

This thread always gets busy when FFG have ****ed up.
So far since last Tues
- 2nd in command in the middle of a criminal investigation
- same gob****e telling us we could be in beer gardens by the summer, ministers coming out saying that wont happen after he said it
- Minister for Health tryna to block Journos into press conference
- Norma giving hope for schools back in March, cabinet not knowing a thing about it

It is great you are so up to speed with the trend of posting on boards after 20 posts. Personally I have new myself, here since start of year and I have no idea how to read what the hell is going on.

You should be warned, a few poster here have a huge issue with what topics can and can't be discussed on each thread, you will find them constantly in other threads correcting people.

FrancieBrady

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly this is impossible

Are you genuinely differentiating between my first interaction with you, vs yours with me?!

Thats sophistry of the most nonsensical sort

I made a general point about the thread, you responded asking me specifically about the liary posts i didnt make, i responded asking you about a nonsense post you didnt make.

Its all there in print Francie. Im genuinely confused by what you are claiming here but i wont be taking a backward step on it.

Id suggest you clarify or drop the point but unless im very much mistaken (and apologies to thread) you're on the wrong track here completely.

Your first engagement with me was to deride me for not commenting on somebody elses post. My first engagement with you was to contradict what YOU said, not to deride you for something you didn't say

Own it. Done with you now.

CrazyFather1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Just to clarify before moving on, despite asking me what factual matters I wished to discuss regarding the insurance topic, you're not going to answer the questions that directly concern your own contributions to the topic?

It's fine if you won't and I'll move on if that's the case, but I just wanted to clarify that you were actively choosing not to.

Have you any idea about the insurance proposal by Pearse?
I ask because at the moment sorry but you just seem to want to rant & rave about something which I already confirmed was a bit of humour.

I'm just confused because you said you want to discuss "factual details" which to me would mean the benefits of the proposal. I think that would be a fair assumption to make

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your first engagement with me was to deride me for not commenting on somebody elses post. My first engagement with you was to contradict what YOU said, not to deride you for something you didn't say

Own it. Done with you now.

I've pointed out that this is incorrect Francie

My last word on it also, the posts are there. We move on.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Have you any idea about the insurance proposal by Pearse?
I ask because at the moment sorry but you just seem to want to rant & rave about something which I already confirmed was a bit of humour.

I'm just confused because you said you want to discuss "factual details" which to me would mean the benefits of the proposal. I think that would be a fair assumption to make

Those are the only factual statements you've made.

Like I said, happy to move on if you say you're not willing to address the statements you made as facts.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Im honestly falling between naming the woman,or not.....

Its vile the way people on boards use victims for political gain/footballs,and she deosnt seem to be seeking out attention

(also dont want people to google the person and end up on this website)

But that young woman,similar age to myself,who settled out of court,with hse still denying liability,settled courtcase on feb 3rd this year,

i dont think a state should be dragging them,through court and make no apolgies for saying so and dont believe this issue,should be forgotten about either.


If your wrong/fcuk up,be an adult and admit so,accept responsibilitys its basic part of life,dont drag terminal patients through the courts

Not all cervical cancers are identical to the Morrissey case.

You seem to have the same incorrect understanding of screening processes as much of the ignorant opposition parties.

https://www.thejournal.ie/cervical-breast-bowel-cancer-screenings-5240409-Oct2020/

"An interval cancer is one that is diagnosed in a person who has been screened previously. While they are uncommon, they show how every screening programme has limitations, and cannot detect every case of cancer."

We should only pay out where there has been proven misconduct.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

We should pay out on them all.....why are we paying out millions and not admitting liability


Looks obvious to me,its ffg tactic to drag all them through the courts,in hope some will give up and save few quid in case apple needs help with another court case



If your in the wrong,as state is here,own up and accept responsibility....its immoral to drag those women through court....what good is it achieving?

This is pure opposition party populist nonsense..

We should pay out when in the wrong..

If not in the wrong, then liability should not be conceded..

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

We should pay out on them all.....why are we paying out millions and not admitting liability


Looks obvious to me,its ffg tactic to drag all them through the courts,in hope some will give up and save few quid in case apple needs help with another court case



If your in the wrong,as state is here,own up and accept responsibility....its immoral to drag those women through court....what good is it achieving?

You need to read this article to get up with the facts.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/confusion-over-cervical-cancer-screening-needs-to-be-resolved-once-and-for-all-1.4433326

"Yet while properly implemented screening programmes that achieve high coverage are successful and cost effective, they are complex, and imperfect. No screening programme in the world detects all cervical cancer precursors.

As Ireland has discovered, false negatives do occur. This is a real tragedy for each and every woman who subsequently develops cancer. But it is not a negligence."

"Using current technology false negative reports will continue to happen here, and in every other country’s cervical screening programme, without necessarily there being anyone to blame. This doesn’t negate the need to tackle a case of negligence or other malpractice if and when it occurs."


The way that this issue has been used by opposition politicians and posters on here in a politically charged way has been a disgrace. There are women who have been led to believe that their cancer was caused by negligence when that wasn't the case. If their suffering wasn't bad enough, the reckless simplicity in the way that you and others talk about this has caused unnecessary pain.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are we paying out so?

Without admitting liability,just looks to me,like an abdication of responsibility to me

Yes. I get this

I suppose it’s down to mediation and compromise..

That’s life..

James Brown

walshb wrote: »

Yes. I get this

I suppose it’s down to mediation and compromise..

That’s life..

...and death seemingly.

CrazyFather1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Those are the only factual statements you've made.

Like I said, happy to move on if you say you're not willing to address the statements you made as facts.

It's ok mate, it seems you don't know about it.
Don't worry, Pearse is going to sort it out, based on the progress so far you can expect to get insurance reduction sometime around 2040, all thanks to Huff&Puff.

Great success.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

It's ok mate, it seems you don't know about it.
Don't worry, Pearse is going to sort it out, based on the progress so far you can expect to get insurance reduction sometime around 2040, all thanks to Huff&Puff.

Great success.

He isn't even looking for a reduction never mind blanch and yours lie about him promising free insurance.
He is looking to introduce legislation to stop shady cartel style practice and price gouging by insurance operators.
FG FF and the Greens won't vote for it of course but will probably steal the idea and let Leo introduce it as his in a few months.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

It's ok mate, it seems you don't know about it.
Don't worry, Pearse is going to sort it out, based on the progress so far you can expect to get insurance reduction sometime around 2040, all thanks to Huff&Puff.

Great success.

Ah right, so the basis of your argument so far has been, 'SF haven't actually done anything except bluster and say things that aren't true'......and your response has been to bluster and say things that aren't true.....then refuse to answer anything when questioned on the lies you told.

If you have any questions for me, I'm all ears. I haven't refused to answer anything, that's all on you buddy.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He isn't even looking for a reduction never mind blanch and yours lie about him promising free insurance.
He is looking to introduce legislation to stop shady cartel style practice and price gouging by insurance operators.
FG FF and the Greens won't vote for it of course but will probably steal the idea and let Leo introduce it as his in a few months.

It's called humour.

So let me get this straight
He complained, according to him, to the Central Bank in 2009 about insurance
Talked about in 2019 again
Then says he spent 8-9 months on this submission. A real man of action :-)

So he wants to ban dual pricing. Which more or less means people won't be able to drive the benefit of switching insurance and bringing the price down.

Fairly easy to find the following: Responding to the Sinn Féin move, Ms Rowland(CBOI) said that any action needed to be “finely calibrated” to ensure that consumers would not lose out, and that the best way to achieve this was to let this “detailed piece of work to proceed”.

According to its plan for the insurance sector, published last week, the regulator is expected to publish its final report in September 2021, with the Government taking appropriate action by the end of the following year.

All this will do is drive up the price of insurance if implemented incorrect as rightly called out by the Central Bank. Instead of having the ability to ring around and drive the price down you now won't have that option.

Sounds to me like a bit of a half assed approach after f**king around for over 10 years. I don't see the actual detail anywhere to read but I am sure you can find?

McMurphy

It started with a claim about "petition on Facebook", when that got knocked on its hole for the obvious spoof it was, the claim "was that they muddled up a petition and a hashtag".

Quicky moved on to "Doherty promising to offer free insurance", and uploading videos promising same "all the time" when that couldn't be backed up, after repeated requests, they claim "they are just a misunderstood comedian, trying to inject a bit of humour into the thread".

It then moved on to Doherty, "being in government, in 2019". Eh, no he wasn't.

Pivots to "well he was in Seannad in 2019, sure that's the same as being in government". Eh no he wasn't, and no it isn't.


There's a word for that kind of carry-on on these threads.

It's also acting the complete and utter wear out and WUM.

CrazyFather1

McMurphy wrote: »

It started with a claim about "petition on Facebook", when that got knocked on its hole for the obvious spoof it was, the claim "was that they muddled up a petition and a hashtag".

Quicky moved on to "Doherty promising to offer free insurance", and uploading videos promising same "all the time" when that couldn't be backed up, after repeated requests, they claim "they are just a misunderstood comedian, trying to inject a bit of humour into the thread".

It then moved on to Doherty, "being in government, in 2019". Eh, no he wasn't.

Pivots to "well he was in Seannad in 2019, sure that's the same as being in government". Eh no he wasn't, and no it isn't.


There's a word for that kind of carry-on on these threads.

It's also acting the complete and utter wear out and WUM.

It's amazing how every post you put up is about the poster and not about the topic. It's ok, thanks for all the help earlier....cheers bud

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

It's amazing how every post you put up is about the poster and not about the topic. It's ok, thanks for all the help earlier....cheers bud

Literally every single piece of that post is about a claim that has been made on this thread....mostly by you.

Your backpedalling is getting desperate. If his post isn't on topic, how the hell was it on topic when you introduced it to the discussion?!

Are you just outright trolling or can you not see the hypocrisy!?

McMurphy

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

It's amazing how every post you put up is about the poster and not about the topic. It's ok, thanks for all the help earlier....cheers bud

The post is 100% factual about posts contained in this very thread, it's literally about "topics" introduced into the thread, the fact they were all lies/posted to goad is neither here nor there tbh.



Oh and you're welcome. Don't mention it.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Another post, more comments about me. Quick suggestion, read back over every post you have made today and can you point me to one question/point you have made about the benefit/negative of the insurance proposal from Pearse? thanks mate

Sure thing, I'll happily start answering your questions when you answer the ones I put to you.

Since we can just make up our own facts, I can just claim that I provided a full break down and analysis of the insurance proposal Pearse Doherty made.

Even if we go with the premise that I've added nothing of value to the thread (I'd dispute whether pointing out blatant lies is of zero value, but let's just go with it for now), at least I haven't polluted it with a mixture of lies and a complete lack of understanding of our civic structure.

Edit: I see you have since deleted your post, so I presume you've seen the error of your ways and are happy to accept that pointing our your tapestry of lies and misunderstanding does add value.

CrazyFather1

Seems to be a lot of people very interested in shutting down the conversation on the insurance bill.
Would suggest two things
1. Nobody knows anything about it
2. You know it is terrible

Which one is it? answers on postcard

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In what universe does literally a single word of what I posted imply that it's fair game for innocent civilians to be murdered? Jesus f*cking Christ.

EDIT: Y'know what f*ck it, I'm reposting the entire thing here so you can easily pick out specifically where I justified attacks against civilians. Hint: You can't, because I didn't. I did, however, justify attacks against the illegitimate government and its enforcers. Seems fairly unlikely there were any kids among the government officials or RUC leaderships, given that one generally has to be an adult in order to apply for such work :pac:

You didn't answer my question.
You said,

It's a very black and white issue in my opinion. Corrupt state, undemocratic state, brutal state = violent resistance being entirely justified from those being oppressed. Again, no ifs, no buts. No qualification

We know the PIRA murdered, butchered and killed hundreds of innocent civilians, men, women and children. Take Warrington for example, where a 3-year-old toddler was blown up by a PIRA bomb when he was out shopping for a mothers day card.

You think that is 100% justified because the PIRA were fighting the Ulster State and the British Military to get a UI. Again, you said.

It's a very black and white issue in my opinion.

and

Corrupt state, undemocratic state, brutal state = violent resistance being entirely justified

and

Again, no ifs, no buts. No qualification

Added emphasis on no qualification.

Or maybe, just maybe you are wrong, there are some if's and but's and qualifications, lots and lots of them?

One has to remember what the PIRA were fighting for. They were not fighting for the civil rights of Nationalists and Catholics, they were fighting to overthrow the NI state and force a unilateral withdrawal of Britain from Northern Ireland, something even today has not happened. They did this without any political mandate but saw themselves fit enough and justified (to use your words) to just go ahead and kill people for a political aim. The tactics were discriminatory and killed more Catholics and Nationalists then the British Army or the Northern Ireland security forces did combined!

Sean Macstiofain, chief of staff of the PIRA, 1972.

That is why people have a problem with the notion and revisionist history that "PIRA" were the good guys.

FrancieBrady

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

It's called humour.

So let me get this straight
He complained, according to him, to the Central Bank in 2009 about insurance
Talked about in 2019 again
Then says he spent 8-9 months on this submission. A real man of action :-)

So he wants to ban dual pricing. Which more or less means people won't be able to drive the benefit of switching insurance and bringing the price down.

Fairly easy to find the following: Responding to the Sinn Féin move, Ms Rowland(CBOI) said that any action needed to be “finely calibrated” to ensure that consumers would not lose out, and that the best way to achieve this was to let this “detailed piece of work to proceed”.

According to its plan for the insurance sector, published last week, the regulator is expected to publish its final report in September 2021, with the Government taking appropriate action by the end of the following year.

All this will do is drive up the price of insurance if implemented incorrect as rightly called out by the Central Bank. Instead of having the ability to ring around and drive the price down you now won't have that option.

Sounds to me like a bit of a half assed approach after f**king around for over 10 years. I don't see the actual detail anywhere to read but I am sure you can find?

So now he wants to have people pay more for insurance?

What a joke of a discussion you have made of this, alright.

Fionn1952

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of people very interested in shutting down the conversation on the insurance bill.
Would suggest two things
1. Nobody knows anything about it
2. You know it is terrible

Which one is it? answers on postcard

3) No one has actually raised a factual criticism of Pearse's insurance bill, a few posters have outright lied about what he has said and got their knickers in a twist when their lies were pointed out and they're now desperately backpedalling....