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

Fann Linn

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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....

The SF proposed Insurance(Restriction on Differential Pricing and Profiling)Bill 2021 has our full support. It will stop insurance companies profiling loyal consumers and fleecing them for auto renewal. Central Bank highlighted it. It’s a rip-off practice. Vote the Bill in!

As quoted from Consumers Association of Ireland this evening.

Huff and Puff however according to Govt acolytes.

Ireland2021

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

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.

You do know people read Boards before deciding to join

From all the nonsense ive been reading on and off this year, id said id give my opinion

Isnt what this place is for?

I agree with your comment "
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" Most of them are pro Government no matter what happens.

blanch152

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

I noticed that, it is quite often that way.

Sometimes there are amusing gifs and twitter links instead.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I noticed that, it is quite often that way.

Sometimes there are amusing gifs and twitter links instead.

Yeah, talking about the poster, right?

hatrickpatrick

markodaly wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

Remind me which question I didn't answer? Because I honestly feel my post was extremely comprehensive. What specifically do you want me to answer?

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.

We do know this. And I have condemned attacks against civilians repeatedly on this thread. Repeatedly. That's why I do not consider myself in any way an IRA supporter. As soon as the IRA began intentionally targeting civilians, they lost my support. I can't speak for anyone else. Had they stuck entirely to attacking state operators, however, they would retain my 100% support, as the Northern Irish state pre-GFA was a rogue, apartheid-esque state with zero democratic legitimacy.

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.

I don't. I have never justified the targeting of civilians. What I said what that in terms of moral equivalence, the reasons behind such actions do result in a hierarchy of right and wrong, and what the British side was fighting for automatically makes literally any action they took in Northern Ireland more immoral than the IRA's, because the very goal they were fighting for - subjugation of half the population, was itself fundamentally wrong and evil. What the IRA was fighting for was not.

That's the only different. Beyond that, I have repeatedly condemned the targeting of civilians on both sides. Repeatedly. All my comment here means is that I have sympathy at least for the motivation behind one side's behaviour, and zero sympathy for the other.

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?

There are not. There are absolutely no qualifications whatsoever. The entire apparatus of the Northern Irish state between partition and the GFA was undemocratic, vile, and evil. Every single person who willingly participated in the operation of that illegitimate state - politicians, officials, police, etc - was essentially a co-conspirator in a fundamentally immoral subjugation of the Irish population and therefore a valid target for violent resistance.

This does not justify, and never has justified, the murder of civilians. Ever. And I have never attempted to do so. I am merely restricting the definition of "civilian" to people who were not directly involved in enforcing the illegitimate rule of an undemocratic government in that region. Cops do not count. The British Army does not count. Loyalist activists and politicians do not count. As far as I'm concerned, if you analogise the government of Northern Ireland at that time to a criminal gang, then RICO-style all of them were guilty of the offence of undemocratically oppressing a demographic of the people. It doesn't matter who specifically fired the bullets, anyone who provided any kind of support whatsoever to the government was helping to uphold a rogue, undemocratic, illegitimate regime.

Again, I apply the same criteria to any oppressive regime anywhere in the world at any point in history, so I am absolutely not the hypocrite you are trying to paint me as.

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.

These two motivations are one and the same. Why do you think they cared whether Northern Ireland was part of a United Ireland or its own independent state? Do you honestly believe that tens of thousands of people participated in a dangerous, violent conflict purely because they had a moral issue with some vague notion of principle?

Why do you think Irish people fought to overthrow the British in what became the Republic? Again, do you honestly think it was just a principle thing? No, it was practically, life on the ground as an ordinary citizen under British rule was hellish, because the British government's policies here were discriminatory and inflicted widespread misery on huge swathes of the population.

Do you think such a massive swathe of people would have cared about Northern Ireland's status issue had there been equal rights, and no systemic discrimination? Sure, some would have. In reality, most people are far more concerned about everyday quality of life. Everyday quality of life for the Nationalist side was sh!te in pre-GFA Northern Ireland because the government intentionally ensured that the Loyalists got all the jobs, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc etc etc - and ensured that Nationalists couldn't even meaningfully attempt to change this at the ballot box, as is the norm in a functioning democracy.

The vast majority of people wouldn't have given a sh!t about the entirely philosophical issue of the region's status if the situation of actually living there hadn't been this way.

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!

And that's why, as I keep saying, I'm not an IRA supporter and I never have been. I am simply stating that of the two sides, the British side had absolutely zero justification while the IRA did have some.

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

And yet I've never said that they were. You are once again conflating my arguments with those of other posters. What I have argued is that absolutely nothing the Republican side ever did is morally equivalent to anything the British side ever did, the British side are automatically worse because their aim was fundamentally evil in nature.

Enforcing the rule of an undemocratic and illegitimate government on an unwilling population is, in my view, honestly literally the worst type of crime against humanity. What you're failing to understand about my stance is that I am not suggesting that other crimes against humanity aren't immoral and evil. I'm merely stating that in my view, oppressing a population by enforcing an illegitimate government's rule over them will always be at the very top of the list in terms of which actions are more or less immoral than others.

So just to recap: I have never justified, and indeed have repeatedly condemned, the targeting of civilians. I simply refuse to count members of the RUC, officials and members of the illegitimate 1922-1998 Northern Irish Government, and members of the British Army as civilians. That seems to be where we differ.

McMurphy

This is awkward....

Consumer group calls on TDs to ban dual pricing of insurance

THE Consumers’ Association has called on TDs to give full support to a private members’ bill to ban discriminatory dual pricing of insurance products.

The Consumers’ Association of Ireland (CAI) said dual pricing was hitting the vulnerable, such as older drivers.

Research has found that older drivers are paying three times as much for their motor insurance cover as younger drivers.

The second stage of a Sinn Féin bill to ban the practice is due to be debated in the Dáil tomorrow

Wasn't there a long discussion list of lies going on in this thread yesterday about the above?

Furthermore, the article goes on...

Sinn Féin finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty, who produced the Bill, said the practice affects millions of policyholders, costing many customers hundreds of euro a year on their car and home insurance.
A Central Bank report in December gave an example of a customer being charged €312 for a home insurance policy.

Another customer who has a similar insurance risk profile, and had been with the insurer for nine years, was charged €473.

Mr Doherty said: “It is time to end the insurance rip-off and reduce prices for customers.

Nothing about free insurance, nothing about petitions, and the article appears the very next morning. Jeez.

Brendan Bendar

Sean Fleming doesn’t agree requires detailed report from Central Bank.

Lot more to it than Big Pearses effort.

Let’s do it right this time, not a half-baked dogs dinner.

CrazyFather1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

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

According to Minister of State with responsibility for insurance Sean Fleming, the issue of dual pricing is far more complex than Sinn Féin's bill indicates.

Mr Fleming said the proposed legislation "will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price ... and will prevent people who have a joint insurance policy for a house and car insurance from getting a discount because discounts will be banned because it's a different price.

"This legislation prohibits overcharging and equally it prohibits undercharging but Sinn Féin is not making that point clear," he said.

Looks like another half assed Huff&puff bill. F**k me he is working on this since 2009 according to him and took 8-9 months to write it and I could have told him after 5 mins that is the one issue he has to guard against

Also as I posted CBOI are against it and have a report coming out in September this year. Just seems Huff&puff getting something out, anything out, so they are in news and nothing for the good of the Irish people.

If this is an indication of what they would be like if they actually got into government it is a very very worrying sign. Very incompetent, especially when you are ignoring the regulator.

Fann Linn

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

According to Minister of State with responsibility for insurance Sean Fleming, the issue of dual pricing is far more complex than Sinn Féin's bill indicates.

Mr Fleming said the proposed legislation "will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price ... and will prevent people who have a joint insurance policy for a house and car insurance from getting a discount because discounts will be banned because it's a different price.

"This legislation prohibits overcharging and equally it prohibits undercharging but Sinn Féin is not making that point clear," he said.

Looks like another half assed Huff&puff bill. F**k me he is working on this since 2009 according to him and took 8-9 months to write it and I could have told him after 5 mins that is the one issue he has to guard against

Also as I posted CBOI are against it and have a report coming out in September this year. Just seem Huff&puff getting something out so they are in news and nothing for the good of the Irish people.

Grand.

smurgen

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

According to Minister of State with responsibility for insurance Sean Fleming, the issue of dual pricing is far more complex than Sinn Féin's bill indicates.

Mr Fleming said the proposed legislation "will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price ... and will prevent people who have a joint insurance policy for a house and car insurance from getting a discount because discounts will be banned because it's a different price.

"This legislation prohibits overcharging and equally it prohibits undercharging but Sinn Féin is not making that point clear," he said.

Looks like another half assed Huff&puff bill. F**k me he is working on this since 2009 according to him and took 8-9 months to write it and I could have told him after 5 mins that is the one issue he has to guard against

Also as I posted CBOI are against it and have a report coming out in September this year. Just seems Huff&puff getting something out, anything out, so they are in news and nothing for the good of the Irish people.

If this is an indication of what they would be like if they actually got into government it is a very very worrying sign. Very incompetent, especially when you are ignoring the regulator.

"will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price" Where in the legislation does it say prices by insurance companies can not be reduced?

CrazyFather1

Fann Linn wrote: »

The SF proposed Insurance(Restriction on Differential Pricing and Profiling)Bill 2021 has our full support. It will stop insurance companies profiling loyal consumers and fleecing them for auto renewal. Central Bank highlighted it. It’s a rip-off practice. Vote the Bill in!

As quoted from Consumers Association of Ireland this evening.

Huff and Puff however according to Govt acolytes.

This is what CBOI have said.

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.

This half assed approach will only hurt customers and not help them. It will give the insurance companies the legal right to give zero discount to anyone. How the hell is that going to help?

CrazyFather1

smurgen wrote: »

"will prevent the insurance company from reducing the price" Where in the legislation does it say prices by insurance companies can not be reduced?

Have you read it? I asked for a link yesterday and yet to see it.

CBOI and the Minister have read it and both say it has a huge flaw in it. I take the opinion of CBOI as they are the regulator and that is their job. CBOI have already said dual pricing is an issue and they are looking to resolve. If that is the case why are they not supporting the Huff&puff bill? unless it is the standard disaster that is associated with Huff&puff

I could have called this anyway, its half assed, the government cannot support so they will vote it out. Huff&puff will be all over the TV ranting and raving the government are screwing the public blah blah blah. Meanwhile the government and CBOI actually do this properly. Sound about right?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.
You said,



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.



and



and


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.

Mark. Nobody. Gives. A. ****.

I don’t believe in a UI at all and I’d vote for SF if they ever had policies I agreed with.

The wokes are voting SF. The young. The people stuck in rent traps. They care about local issues. The bickering on here is of no relevance.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Mark. Nobody. Gives. A. ****.

I don’t believe in a UI at all and I’d vote for SF if they ever had policies I agreed with.

The wokes are voting SF. The young. The people stuck in rent traps. They care about local issues. The bickering on here is of no relevance.

I still say we need to split the thread into a historical IRA thread and a current SF thread to solve this problem. It keeps oscillating back and forth which is hugely frustrating.

smurgen

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

Have you read it? I asked for a link yesterday and yet to see it.

CBOI and the Minister have read it and both say it has a huge flaw in it. I take the opinion of CBOI as they are the regulator and that is their job. CBOI have already said dual pricing is an issue and they are looking to resolve. If that is the case why are they not supporting the Huff&puff bill? unless it is the standard disaster that is associated with Huff&puff

I could have called this anyway, its half assed, the government cannot support so they will vote it out. Huff&puff will be all over the TV ranting and raving the government are screwing the public blah blah blah. Meanwhile the government and CBOI actually do this properly. Sound about right?

No I haven't read it. That's why I asked you. I have my car insurance coming up soon. Will the government propose amendments and 'get it done properly' in time? What has prevented them from taking action until now?

Brendan Bendar

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I still say we need to split the thread into a historical IRA thread and a current SF thread to solve this problem. It keeps oscillating back and forth which is hugely frustrating.

Would not agree, IRA input is far too ‘current’ and some might say still there in the make up and members of SF as very recent events have proved.

They are intrinsically linked.

Bishop of hope

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I still say we need to split the thread into a historical IRA thread and a current SF thread to solve this problem. It keeps oscillating back and forth which is hugely frustrating.

Might be fair comment and a good point, if you go on the other political threads and do the same regarding FF/FG etc.
Where do you draw the line, is it 10 years, is it a hundred years?
SF are pretty good at dredging up everybody else's history.
I'm surprised at yourself for suggesting it.
It's nearly as bad as picking out who and what you want discussed at any given time, it's attempting censorship is it not?

I think it's a bit of an ask to put a statute of limitations in place for a discussion of a party's links with modern terrorism lads

As long as they sing ra songs when elected, we might agree to keep it in the frame of reference, eh?

agreed that constant harping to it isn't necessarily useful, before anyone suggests any rule changes we'll all sign up to codes of practice on how we post about all the parties, each having their own little list of no-nos

How dye think that would eh go

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

be the change you want to see in the world and dont always blame someone else


When was last time,likes of albert reyolds,bertie ahearn or john burton etc come about for discussion on ffg??


At some point,you must realise the troubles are over with quarter of a century,and imo not current affairs (the fact history forum bans all discussion on it,is a joke too)

While the GFA is used as a threat for political gain, by either in the north, it is relevant.
Maybe you don't know it, but there is still politically motivated violence in NI and ongoing threat. Some of the people involved if not involved with SF now were before.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

be the change you want to see in the world and dont always blame someone else


When was last time,likes of albert reyolds,bertie ahearn or john burton etc come about for discussion on ffg??


At some point,you must realise the troubles are over with quarter of a century,and imo not current affairs (the fact history forum bans all discussion on it,is a joke too)

When you have party spokespeople in prominent roles expressing support for terrorist organisations and party leaders attending and supporting the funerals of known terrorists, then its not time ,bro, in fact it’s a long way from the time.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

be the change you want to see in the world and dont always blame someone else


When was last time,likes of albert reyolds,bertie ahearn or john burton etc come about for discussion on ffg??


At some point,you must realise the troubles are over with quarter of a century,and imo not current affairs (the fact history forum bans all discussion on it,is a joke too)

The problem with SF that some prominent members of the IRA continued with criminality after the GFA. SF by their actions seem to be ok with this criminality and seem to have a misplaced loyalty with these people.

nigeldaniel

Car insurance and insurance in general is a very complex issue. Doherty and a good number of Sf up and down the country have jumped on the Insurance bandwagon to appraise their support base. They {Sf] know well how complex and tricky the matter is but will never admit to this as it will upset the votes in the bank. Populists are only interested in getting pats on the back and getting their supporters 'blood up'
On other matters and see with amusement that the Sf media machine is still working hard at running their own preferential polls that return, surprise surprise, Sf are the most popular party and MLD is the most popular leader results.
In the passed, Sf were obsessed with Berty and now they appear to be obsessing over Leo.

CrazyFather1

smurgen wrote: »

No I haven't read it. That's why I asked you. I have my car insurance coming up soon. Will the government propose amendments and 'get it done properly' in time? What has prevented them from taking action until now?

As per my post above CBOI are currently doing an investigation which will be released later this year. September.
The issue with insurance is going on years now, personally I would prefer to get it done once and right. Based on the comments on this bill it is only going to hurt the consumer.

According to the statement, I have car, house etc insurance up. Now I ring around and beat all the companies down and get extra discount if I give them all my policies.

If this is introduced they will have to give me the exact same price for each policy as everyone else gets. So bundling the insurance together will give me no discount. If they do then they are breaking the law but giving dual pricing. This is fairly f**king basic and he has missed it.

What does this mean for farmers/small business? are they affected? because they will have insurance policies bundled with everything and get a huge discount, do they lose out?

Pearse said he talked to CBOI in 2009 and continues to be in contact with them, if this is the case why is he bringing this bill when CBOI doesn't support it?

CrazyFather1

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Car insurance and insurance in general is a very complex issue. Doherty and a good number of Sf up and down the country have jumped on the Insurance bandwagon to appraise their support base. They {Sf] know well how complex and tricky the matter is but will never admit to this as it will upset the votes in the bank. Populists are only interested in getting pats on the back and getting their supporters 'blood up'
On other matters and see with amusement that the Sf media machine is still working hard at running their own preferential polls that return, surprise surprise, Sf are the most popular party and MLD is the most popular leader results.
In the passed, Sf were obsessed with Berty and now they appear to be obsessing over Leo.

Release a video with zero information on it, just a load of waffle. When you look under the covers its a pile of poo. But the issue is they know the "hundreds" on social media don't bother their arse looking under the cover. Just lap it up and shout & roar.

Based on what I have read so far the government will have to reject this proposal and wait for CBOI who are the regulator. So expect the usual out roaring on social media later on today about how the government are screwing people. Cue comments about Bertie, Denis O'Brien etc etc etc

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Surely then,this would be relevent to a discussion on saoradh or similar organisations


Like free to.discuss the links with shinners,but they are imo tenous at best and come across as last desperate conspiracy theory throw of the dice??


Theres plenty to critise/discuss em on in realm of current affairs without leaning back 20 plus years or resorting to conspiracy theories imo

As I said, stinks of attempted censorship and trying to shut down discussion on an area SF would like to present only the good things they have done or been involved in.
Trouble is they have lads elected that still put the up da ra chant out when it suits them.
Tiochaidh ar lá and all that comrade?

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

but this "terrorism" is a quarter of a century ago....is it really relevent to current affairs?

Read the post, a chara, the expressions of support were as recent as one year ago.

The people who expressed it made it relevant, they ensured by their idiotic behaviour that it would remain relevant.

And they are still there!!!

CrazyFather1

Deleted User wrote: »

but this "terrorism" is a quarter of a century ago....is it really relevent to current affairs?


One of people who lead the escape from brooksborugh (sean south attack) died last year and was widely remembered/tweeted by members of all the political parties.....and in normal times,would likely have had a near state funeral

So are you saying because the Mother & Baby homes happened years ago they are irrelevant?

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like free to discuss it...but is relevent as current affairs,what happened 25 plus years ago??

It just screams as desperation and unable to find flaws in policy so just starting pointing backwards,while country moves forward



The thcaigh ar la (was gonna rereg as tiochaidh ar blaa ) is somewhat relevent tbf and i personally dont see the harm in it,

if people are gonna label yous scum/terrorist,may as well own it and revel in it,

So it's relevant after all!
Might as well own it, but too cute to come out and do that:).

smurgen

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Car insurance and insurance in general is a very complex issue. Doherty and a good number of Sf up and down the country have jumped on the Insurance bandwagon to appraise their support base. They {Sf] know well how complex and tricky the matter is but will never admit to this as it will upset the votes in the bank. Populists are only interested in getting pats on the back and getting their supporters 'blood up'
On other matters and see with amusement that the Sf media machine is still working hard at running their own preferential polls that return, surprise surprise, Sf are the most popular party and MLD is the most popular leader results.
In the passed, Sf were obsessed with Berty and now they appear to be obsessing over Leo.

You seem to be conflating alot of different things that have nothing to do with one another. I can see why you think car insurance is such a difficult concept.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As I said, stinks of attempted censorship and trying to shut down discussion on an area SF would like to present only the good things they have done or been involved in.
Trouble is they have lads elected that still put the up da ra chant out when it suits them.
Tiochaidh ar lá and all that comrade?

Tiochaidh Ar Lá is a political slogan. It's funny when people get upset about it's use.