Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717125#Comment_122717125

if you think an entity desiring to be in government shouldn’t refer what they view as criminal matters to the Gardaí,those would be your standards not mine
I wouldn’t like to be putting that position forward to the media for scrutiny,nevermind the electorate

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717072#Comment_122717072

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717023#Comment_122717023

There is a statutory duty regarding child protection issues, the references are not the real issue, the fact a suspected ( at the time ) pedophile had got employment in an organisation with access to children is the issue.

Just like what Brian Stanley may or may not have done is not the issue for SF, it's the secret processes it carries on with to hide facts from the public.

Virtually everything to do with Leo was in the public domain, he was entitled to due process which h e got just like Brian Stanley is entitled to. The issue is what made Patrica Ryan resign the internal secrecy of SF. It still operates under a code of Omerta similar to the mafia. That is not the way a democratic political party should operate there should be natural leaks and jockeying for position within the party natural competition and division. That is not the case with SF. It's is a secret organisation controlled by what was previously a terrorist organisation and nothing much about it has changed in 20++ years.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717161#Comment_122717161

Just like what Brian Stanley may or may not have done is not the issue for SF, it's the secret processes it carries on with to hide facts from the public.

Hold on a second. Apparently the process had found that gross misconduct took place and he would have been removed from the party. Which would have been also very public.

Disciplinary processes are secret up to a point to protect the rights of those involved.
If SF had gone public think of the legal recriminations they'd have faced had they gone public.

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717013#Comment_122717013

I'm guessing Finucane junior was shipped in.

You can't have enough sulphur at these occasions.

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717214#Comment_122717214

Now that would be something else!!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717155#Comment_122717155

'what they view' is carrying a lot of weight there.


To give another example from this term of government alone, the potential law breaking around Golfgate and the subsequent Phil Hogan revelations,
SF made a decision that the case involving Stanley needed to be reviewed by the Gardai to see if it 'meets the threshold of criminality'. The Golfgate case immediately needed the same review. So who in either FF or FG or the Greens (the Government) went to the Gardai about it? Did they send a file with what they knew to the Gardai?

If SF had adamantly said they didn't think it was a criminal offence could they drive up to the Aras and collect the chains of office?

Because that seems to be what you are saying here. That all that is required is to deny criminality to keep up your 'standards'.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122715446#Comment_122715446

Lol. That seems to be the vote getter

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716966#Comment_122716966

I am only counting the extreme cases, I have been involved in a large number of disciplinary cases over the years.

Not going to say too much, as I don't want to be identified, but at least three of the summary dismissals were in cases such as McGonagles and the second case. No waiting around for suspension, just gone overnight.

With child abuse, under the Children First Act, 2015, mandated persons must report child abuse to Tusla. Mandated persons include:

"(i) safeguarding officer, child protection officer or other person (howsoever described) who is employed for the purpose of performing the child welfare and protection function of religious, sporting, recreational, cultural, educational and other bodies and organisations offering services to children;"

Sinn Fein must have one of these because of Ogra Sinn Fein.

I am going to ask you and @FrancieBrady the same question. Are you fully satisfied that Sinn Fein have met all their obligations under the Children First Act 2015 as amended?

Dancing around the issue won't do, because I am pretty certain that any normal person out there must have significant doubts about Sinn Fein.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717183#Comment_122717183

The very minute that there is a criminal aspect to an investigation, you call in the Gardai.

You don't wait until the end of the disciplinary process, you don't wait for seven days for people to consider the report, you don't wait until the leader has been briefed, unless, of course, you are Sinn Fein, and you have your alternative courts in place.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717246#Comment_122717246

’what they view’ is usually common sense when you know you are going to face the electorate and are a political party

Isn’t the problem for SF in the Stanley case that there’s a perception the Gardaí were only told so as to prolong the hush hush beyond an election perhaps because losing authority over Stanley risked the dirty linen being aired

Seth Brundle

Mod: just a reminder not to be posting one liners, etc.
This is clearly going to be a contentious thread so maybe remind yourself of the forum charter before posting as bans will be swift!
(two posts deleted)

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717161#Comment_122717161

I completely agree. I don't understand why the BHF don't vet their staff/volunteers through the PSNI. To me that seems like a serious flaw in their processes but that's an issue for them.

Again, you seem to think privacy rights don't exist. SF aren't in a legal position to divulge personal information about their members. I'm not sure why you think they are.

Everything to do with Leo was in the public domain after it was leaked by the media. And then when it was in the public domain FG were happy for Leo to remain as party leader and Taoiseach despite a criminal investigation being carried out. Now we have FG fanboys foaming at the mouth becusse SF didn't remove Stanley as Chair of the PAC. The hypocrisy is comical.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717328#Comment_122717328

'what they view' is just a fairly lame vindication. It's clear yet agin you only hold certain parties fully accountable.

Your perception will not be fully informed if you have blinkers on.

Notmything

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716953#Comment_122716953

On newstalk she intimated that the barrister had nothing to do with sf, or at least that's how it came across.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717347#Comment_122717347

The irony of you saying blinkers

TruthorBust

Mary Lou said that the barrister in the hearing is at arms length. Later she said the barrister is a party member. Those 2 statements are contradictory. Clearly there was a barrister there to give the impression of fairness but that’s about it I think

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717336#Comment_122717336

I have explained this already to you.

Under vetting legislation, only certain posts in certain organisations are required to be vetted. These are posts that involve regular unsupervised contact with children. You cannot vet other posts, the legislation does not allow this.

As a result, where a post involves occasional contact with children, that is usually supervised, employers rely on references. For organisations like BHF, this is a rigorous process, involving a second check with the organisation that the references were properly given, hence the contact with the HR Manager in Sinn Fein. There was a serious failure on Sinn Fein's part in this case, as MLMD has acknowledged, and she has also apologised to BHF, because she knows the fault is 100% on Sinn Fein's side.

It is logistically impossible to vet everyone who might have occasional contact with children, as you would need to vet visitors to schools who give career talks, etc. You trying to shift the blame onto the BHF is a despicable attempt to confuse the issue, something which SF even stopped after the first day.

As for the privacy issues, I have already explained to you that child protection trumps privacy.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717365#Comment_122717365

You opened this up to who is fit to govern.

There are multiple examples of TD's being involved in potentially criminal activity for your contention to be put to the test.

You have failed to provide evidence that FF FG or the Greens went to the Gardai or presented their findings to the Gardai for review of potential criminality - from Covid law breaking to Official Secrets breaches to possible Insurance fraud etc,

There are zero examples of FF FG or the Greens referring matters to the Gardai. Yet they are 'in government'.

Larbre34

I'm aware this conversation still may seem unthinkable for some, but is there any chance that MLMD might no longer be SF leader going into the election?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717385#Comment_122717385

I'm confused here.
Is your contention here that MLMD is responsible for people breaking rules and consequently must resign?

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717290#Comment_122717290

Look if organisations you worked for wanted to ignore legilsation and leave themselves open to claims of unfair dismissal that's their own decision. It doesn't mean every other organisation should ignored employment legislation as well.

Again, you haven't pointed out where in the legislation organisations are allowed pass on a person private information to a potential employer.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717411#Comment_122717411

An amusing stretch,can you give me an example of an internal inquiry involving one of the government parties like this one involved SF where it was necessary to inform the Gardaí ?

Is it your defence of the current SF shambles,that , ah sure everyone is at it? without providing evidence to back up your claim

Have you anyone in mind to accuse of a crime ? Name them so

Introducing the notion of what crimes party members of any party potentially do in their private lives that end up in prosecution is completely irrelevant to what’s going on in SF today

landofthetree

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717416#Comment_122717416

Its too late. Sinn Fein are a busted flush at the next election. The pollster haven't picked up how bad things are for them IMO. They are looking at around 12% of the vote. They will get about 20 seats.

Notmything

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717465#Comment_122717465

Are you saying that being aware someone may have engaged in abusive behaviour towards a minor is personal information and cannot be shared?

Spanish Eyes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717416#Comment_122717416

To me anyway, I always felt that SF leaders are/were puppets of the bearded ones up North. She will stay if told to stay, and will resign if told to do so I reckon.

But to be fair, there is a huge tendency in our political circles to hang on by your fingernails until booted out. Few immediate voluntary resignations seem to happen.

Honestly if I were MLMD I'd have resigned last night and get on with my life unhindered by all this stuff. Leaving accountability for a later date/enquiry etc.

But the new "Leader" will be the same as the former Leader anyway. Told what to do and say, that's my feeling anyway.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717385#Comment_122717385

Again, you haven't pointed out where in the legislation an organisation is allowed contact another employer and pass on private information. Please state the section of the Act, otherwise stop making things up.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717428#Comment_122717428

What are you confused about? My posts are particularly clear, with references to outside documents.

MLMD has failed to manage the party properly. It isn't any one singular situation, it isn't Stanley, it isn't Patricia Ryan, it isn't unknown paedophile, it isn't McMonagle, it is the cumulation of all of those things, it is the cumulation of failed processes and failed procedures, that lead one to the conclusion that MLMD must resign.

Go back a few years, remember the Seamus Marley case, MLMD told the people of Ireland that SF had in place gold-standard, world-class child protection policies and nothing like that would ever happen again. Well, here we are, many years later, with multiple cases of bungled handling of child abuse situations, of hidden secret kangaroo courts, those words of MLMD's look like brazen lies in hindsight.

Peter Flynt

Current events all a side show by Official Ireland - FF, FG and their media lackies.

The reality is that SF will not be in government because of their stances (led by MLMcD) on immigration and woke politics. Their fate has been sealed for a long time now.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717489#Comment_122717489

Basically yes. Why do you think the papers haven't identified the person in the GAA?

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717478#Comment_122717478

Do you really think?

Personally I feel there is a hard floor somewhat higher than that, of fanatics that will vote for them irrespective, as we see with Trump. I still think 30 or so seats is possible for them on that basis.

Will be interesting in any case.

squonk

Lynn Borland should have kept her own counsel over the weekend. Offering her opinion that Stanley should publish the allegation levelled against him and that he was taking half a story. It’s not a good look. While she’s entitled to her opinion, on a wider level it casts doubt on her abilities and the EU parliament is becoming more important as time goes by.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717411#Comment_122717411

There is a huge difference.

In all of those whataboutery cases that you mention, the people involved in them never concluded that there was criminal activity. If I remember correctly, there weren't any prosecutions in relation to the Official Secrets Act either.

In the Stanley case, SF did conclude that there was criminal activity, but failed to refer it to the gardai in a timely manner. What would you say if the successful prosecution of this criminal case has been fatally damaged by that delay? Would you still say that SF have done everything right?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717473#Comment_122717473

You made the assertion about fitness to govern, not me.

Varadkar was under formal criminal investigation for almost a year - indicating there was potential criminality there to be investigated. Did FG hand over a file to the gardai? Or did they wait it out?

Golfgate and Hogan represented an immediate question of lawbreaking - did FG FF or the Greens hand over a file to the Gardai with what they knew about events and ask if it met the threshold for criminality?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717465#Comment_122717465

They didn't ignore employment legislation. You can dismiss summarily overnight for gross misconduct. McGonagle and the hidden paedophile would both fall into that category, and it would seem that Stanley would too. No court would overturn those dismissals.

Your point about GDPR is ridiculous, because that would mean a reference could never be given.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717503#Comment_122717503

So every reference ever given is illegal? Do you see where you are going?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717514#Comment_122717514

SF had in place gold-standard, world-class child protection policies and nothing like that would ever happen again.

And those rules were broken.

I'll ask again, are you saying that a party leader must go if rules are deliberately broken/put aside by someone working for the party or a member or if wrongdoing carried out in secret is uncovered?

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/allison-morris-sinn-fein-may-have-thought-that-the-worst-is-over-it-isnt/a1461088928.html

If you want a really good insight into the minds of those who will defend Sinn Fein until the last, have a read of the last quote in this article:

"One ex-prisoner said: “It’s a non story. We don’t need to change anything — we need to keep doing exactly what we are doing because it is working, that’s what our enemies fear. The only people who need restructuring are you and your mates in the media.”"

That line could have come from any of half-a-dozen posters on here.

maccored

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717521#Comment_122717521

its true though - i'd like to hear the full story on both sides. Brian Stanley was as much a pro Shinner as I have ever met so its concerning he quit. If it was for purely personal issues, then grand, but if it is due to issues higher up then there may be trouble ahead

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717570#Comment_122717570

I didn't say that. Here it is again, what I actually said:

It isn't any one singular situation, it isn't Stanley, it isn't Patricia Ryan, it isn't unknown paedophile, it isn't McMonagle, it is the cumulation of all of those things, it is the cumulation of failed processes and failed procedures, that lead one to the conclusion that MLMD must resign.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717523#Comment_122717523

The point about the other cases is, it's not for a political party to decide if a criminal act has happened or not. That is for the Gardai, the DPP and the courts to decide.

At no 'timely' point where the above involved by FF FG or the Greens in Varadkar's case. Nor in the case of Hogan and the Golfgate people or in the potential insurance fraud case involving Maria Bailey. They were decided on internally, and in the last case, secretly. As far as I know the internal inquiry report was never published.
We also don't know how that internal inquiry was held and by whom.
The gardai may return a verdict of no criminality in Stanley's case but that is for them to decide, which is the proper way to deal with it IMO

maccored

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717587#Comment_122717587

i mean absolutely no offense to you in any way, but you have shown repeatedly you have absolutely no idea how the average shinner thinks so to be offering advice as if you do doesnt really fit

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717543#Comment_122717543

With gross misconduct, you can dismiss the employee immediately as long as you follow a fair procedure. You should investigate the incident and give the employee a chance to respond before deciding to dismiss them.

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds#:~:text=Gross%20misconduct%20can%20include%20things,you%20follow%20a%20fair%20procedure.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717545#Comment_122717545

The majority of large organisations will only provide a reference that states the date the person started their employment and the date the employment ended. Most HR divisions will actively refuse to give any reference beyond as it opens up to many potential risks. Sinn Fein shouldn't have provided a reference. They should have refused, and some companies will also refuse which is generally a clue itself.

However the GAA never requested a reference so SF were never in a position to do that. The notion they csn just ring them up and pass on private information about a former employee to them is ludicrous tbh.

spillit67

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717503#Comment_122717503

Can you tell us how Lynn Boylan was seemingly aware of the story when it was supposed to be a private matter?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717628#Comment_122717628

But Sinn Fein gave references that didn't mention the reason McGonagle resigned. Why did they do that?

You are simultaneously holding the position that Sinn Fein were right not to contact the GAA about the second paedophile because you shouldn't give references, but also that Sinn Fein were right to give a reference to McMonagle without mentioning his child abuse conviction. To say you are all over the place is an understatement.

Quite simply, Sinn Fein had a responsibility under their gold-standard world-class child protection policies to let people know about the abusers within their ranks.

JVince

mlmd has stated clearly that the complaint is not of a criminal nature and that had the complaint been of a “criminal nature” it would have been referred to gardaí immediately and the party “wouldn’t have been near it”.

Yet as soon as B Stanley resigns, it very suddenly became a matter for the gardai?

Are sinn fein abusing garda resources the same way they abuse the defamation legislation to silence people?

maccored

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717644#Comment_122717644

i havent experienced that. what you describe is how the media describes SF - not the actual reality. Though keep thinking whatever you want - none of us actually care very much.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717642#Comment_122717642

McMonagle without mentioning his child abuse conviction.

He didn't have a conviction when the references were sent. He only pleaded guilty recently.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717645#Comment_122717645

mlmd has stated clearly that the complaint is not of a criminal nature and that had the complaint been of a “criminal nature” it would have been referred to gardaí immediately and the party “wouldn’t have been near it”.

You need to stick to what was actually said. It was not initially a complaint of a criminal nature. That came when the 'counter allegation' was made.
What happened then was legal advise was taken, the preliminary report circulated and at that point Stanley cut short the process and the file was then sent to the Gardai.
For all we know the 'counter claim' involving criminality may have come from Stanley himself and it's the original complainant in the frame.
All parties to this, I would imagine, have been legally advised to tread very carefully in what they can publicly reveal until the process concludes.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717682#Comment_122717682

The "counter allegation" was in August. Why wasn't it referred to the Gardai at the time? We all know that it is because Sinn Fein prefer to use their own kangaroo court system and not refer to the gardai. It was only when Stanley resigned that the kangaroo court was abandoned. This mirrors what we know of the Mairia Cahill and Seamus Marley situations, where the kangaroo courts were only abandoned after someone went public. This begs the question about how many kangaroo courts have been held where all parties said nothing?

Aren't we lucky that Stanley can use the privilege of the Dail to tell his side of the story?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716710#Comment_122716710

And are now saying they will not vote SF, yes.