An end to criminality?

Villain

Earthman wrote:

When did they know it was illegal, from what point?

They knew for years, thats why the Pensioners that questioned the process were allowed to keep their pension. This is the main argument that is being argued in the courts at the moment after the President reffered it.

They knew it was illegal, the Attorney General told them it was but they still took the money!!

irish1

irish1 wrote:

They knew it was illegal, the Attorney General told them it was but they still took the money!!

Who knew this,the health boards,the hospitals or the td's?
Oh and SF have had a presence in the Dáil for years now, did they mention it over those years or was it just recently when it came to their attention?


By the way while we are being this silly,I propose that all posters who are reading this while they are working should turn themselves into the law straight away as they are stealing from their employer...

The issue thats current at the moment is actual discernable criminality not governmental or bureocratic mismanagement and mistakes.
Ordinary people look on the two differently.

Villain

LOL

Earthman's debating rules:

1:Bash SF
2:Bash SF some more
3:Bash SF some more.......

Come on Earthman, there is loads of threads in which you can bash SF. The Government knew it was illegal because as I stated already the Attorney General told them, it's their responsiblity to enform the Dept. Of Health and thus stop the process. Articles in the press pointed out that evidence showed the " Health Boards and the Department of Heath had received many warnings that that they were acting illegally by making deductions from the pensions of those in nursing home care."

I'm not being silly I'm pointing out that the President has reffered the bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality, and the main argument taking place is in relation to how the process was not applied to people who contested it because the people who were taking the money knew it was illegal. The clause which prevents retrospective claims for the recovery of pension deductions is very worrying in my mind.

If it turned out that the governent was knowingly taking over 80% of your income illegal, you'd be pi**ed off and then if they tried to pass a bill to ensure you couldn't get it back you'd be really pi**ed off.

This was a criminal act knowingly carried out under the supervision of the Government.

I'm not comparing this to anything that happens up North, I' speaking of an issue in this state in it's own context.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

LOL

Earthman's debating rules:

1:Bash SF
2:Bash SF some more
3:Bash SF some more.......

Well you are an SF supporter aren't you? The point I was merely making was that an extension of what Monument was saying was that all T.D's were duplicitous in this including SF T.D's for not bringing it up.

Of course they weren't duplicitous to stealing the money if they merely didnt know,if it was merely mismanagement or if they thought it was legal to charge them at the time based on the information they were working on at the time.
Ultimately the courts will decide on the constitutionality of what they are now trying to do.

This was a criminal act knowingly carried out under the supervision of the Government.

Really? where is your evidence and can we not wait for the courts to rule in the matter. I notice you say under the supervision of the government when you should really say under everybodies supervision-every t.D including your own.

Heck I voted for some of these T.D's maybe I'm a criminal aswell even though like them I probably didn't know...

Now what was that forum suggestion made here a while ago?? ah yes the tin foil hat forum... if we build it , they will come.....

Of course if you want to run with a by now tired sob sob they're bashing SF again angle to what I was pointing out well... go ahead you have no grounds for what you say in relation to me anyway :rolleyes:

gurramok

Earthman wrote:

The issue thats current at the moment is actual discernable criminality not governmental or bureocratic mismanagement and mistakes.
Ordinary people look on the two differently.

I find it criminal that the govt encourages crime in areas I frequent by decreasing the garda presence in the local garda station while increasing\maintaining garda presence in other more affluent areas of the city.
McDowell assigned armed patrols for a few weeks as a stop-gap measure but alas the situation has spiralled out of control. Crime has still shot up.
If the terror from crime gangs happens in his own local constituency, the crime rate would not be tolerated for sure.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Really? where is your evidence and can we not wait for the courts to rule in the matter. I notice you say under the supervision of the government when you should really say under everybodies supervision-every t.D including your own.

Heck I voted for some of these T.D's maybe I'm a criminal aswell even though like them I probably didn't know...

Now what was that forum suggestion made here a while ago?? ah yes the tin foil hat forum... if we build it , they will come.....

Try actually reading my posts, I have said a few times that the attorney General informed the Government and the Dept. of Health work under the supervision of it's Minister and the Taoiseach. THEY KNEW

Earthman wrote:

Of course if you want to run with a by now tired sob sob they're bashing SF again angle to what I was pointing out well... go ahead you have no grounds for what you say in relation to me anyway :rolleyes:

LOL I have never ran away from a discussion in my life, so you can keep you childish "sob sob" remarks to yourself. The point I was making is that you can't seem to discuss anything here without bashing SF.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Try actually reading my posts, I have said a few times that the attorney General informed the Government and the Dept. of Health work under the supervision of it's Minister and the Taoiseach. THEY KNEW

Perhaps you could read mine,I asked when they knew...
Also bear in mind that the attorney General gives an opinion not a legal declaration, its up to the courts to determine/test the latter.
Which AG gave the opinion and why didnt his predecessors give it?
Has the government been taken to law over this matter(which is different to the new legislation being tested) and has there been a determination of criminal guilt on anything??
I'll put another question to you while I'm at it, did any of the pensioners who questioned this, inform their local T.D's at the time(not recently now but say the first few who got the charges stopped)?
The other thing I'll ask is, what was going on at the monthly heath board meetings on which most parties would have had representatives? Was the extra funding needed to cover the expenses of the few who did question the pension deductions ever discussed or was it being swept under a convenient layer of managment paperwork somewhere?

Jeepers for a man that keeps coming on here defending Adams and mcGuinness from accusations that they are on the Army council, you're quick to determine guilt here when (a) all politicians are in the same boat on this one and (b) theres no evidence to suggest that a cabinet, any cabinet decided that this is against the law but we'll do it anyway.

LOL I have never ran away from a discussion in my life, so you can keep you childish "sob sob" remarks to yourself. The point I was making is that you can't seem to discuss anything here without bashing SF.

Where did I bash SF,I brought up a valid point, they were in the Dáil, they had constituents and probably party members who were in these hospitals, why didn't they investigate it??
I put it to you that like other Dáil members they were caught on the hop.
Thats not bashing them, thats a comment that I made thats all.

You seem very sensitive.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Perhaps you could read mine,I asked when they knew...
Also bear in mind that the attorney General gives an opinion not a legal declaration, its up to the courts to determine/test the latter.
Which AG gave the opinion and why didnt his predecessors give it?
Has the government been taken to law over this matter(which is different to the new legislation being tested) and has there been a determination of criminal guilt on anything??
I'll put another question to you while I'm at it, did any of the pensioners who questioned this, inform their local T.D's at the time(not recently now but say the first few who got the charges stopped)?
The other thing I'll ask is, what was going on at the monthly heath board meetings on which most parties would have had representatives? Was the extra funding needed to cover the expenses of the few who did question the pension deductions ever discussed or was it being swept under a convenient layer of managment paperwork somewhere?

Well I can't get a definite date but the current Ombudsman published a document stating

My predecessor as Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, during his term of Office received a considerable number of complaints about the issue of nursing home charges and subventions. In 2001 he published a Report of an investigation into the issues arising from these complaints entitled Nursing Home Subventions.

The full document is here http://ombudsman.gov.ie/24ba_156.htm

Earthman wrote:

Jeepers for a man that keeps coming on here defending Adams and mcGuinness from accusations that they are on the Army council, you're quick to determine guilt here when (a) all politicians are in the same boat on this one and (b) theres no evidence to suggest that a cabinet, any cabinet decided that this is against the law but we'll do it anyway.


Where did I bash SF,I brought up a valid point, they were in the Dáil, they had constituents and probably party members who were in these hospitals, why didn't they investigate it??
I put it to you that like other Dáil members they were caught on the hop.
Thats not bashing them, thats a comment that I made thats all.

You seem very sensitive.

You should go down to the Dail some day and you might realise there is more than Sinn Fein sitting on the opposition side, because you you haven't mentioned 1 other single party. I agree if SF knew this was going on and said nothing they were wrong, but they only have 5 TD's where as FG and Labour have a hell of a lot more. You see you can't defend the Government without giving out about SF. Open your eyes man and realise SF aren't the only party around here, it really is getting a little silly the way you can't discuss anything in this forum without bringing up SF.

BuffyBot

Hmm..I think the reason SF were brought into this, was because of the none too subtle starting point of this thread, spoofing the calls for an end to IRA criminality etc.

It just goes to show though, doesn't it. SF is being trumpeted as the honest, anti-corruption party, yet the best reasoning that has been given is that "well, no one else said anything" - that's comforting..

irish1

irish1 wrote:

You see you can't defend the Government without giving out about SF. Open your eyes man and realise SF aren't the only party around here, it really is getting a little silly the way you can't discuss anything in this forum without bringing up SF.

Where was I defending the government ? Did I say they were right?

I agree with Buffybot.
The thread title was being mischievious and in a non too subtle way.
By the way while I'm on the subject,twas interesting that a SF supporter would want to try and invent criminality here in this thread when all the while they are disassociating themselves from having anything to do with IRA criminality.
The fact that both you and monument felt the need to go down this shakey road is another Gaffe as it makes it look like the invention of the crime is soley for the purpose of saying the pot and the kettle are black.Ye shouldn't be doing that as from a presentation point of view, it looks bad-just a little advice

Theres no way on earth IRA crimes could ever be compared in their blackness to mistakes and mis management.
Corruption is a more serious crime but at least there are tribunals in place for dealing with that whereas the IRA and UVF etc got away literally with murder.

I merely mentioned SF because from his posts I took monument as an SF supporter and I know you are... yet you singled out the government parties when SF could have read the ombudsmans report, when FG could have raised a stink.
None did at the time-why? Because there a concensus of non interest.

Villain

But I'm discussing this topic and this topic only, I have discussed Sinn Fein and the IRA in many many threads. I just think people should try and deal with the topic at hand, no matter who the thread starter is. Neither myself or momument have made any comparisons to IRA criminality. So to put it simply, just deal with the topic at hand.

Last Sunday I started 2 threads, " Have you all lost marbles" and "Ray Burkes fate to be decided" and threebeards started another thread "Ray Burke Jailed".

Now Ray Burke made History on Monday by becomming the first former Minister to be jailed and between the two threads relating to him there was 51 Replies and 818 views.

The thread titled "Have you all lost your marbles" currently has 90 replies and 1,317 views. People here would rather discuss SF than the corruption and jailing of a Former Minister for Justice!

irish1

irish1 wrote:

But I'm discussing this topic and this topic only, I have discussed Sinn Fein and the IRA in many many threads. I just think people should try and deal with the topic at hand, no matter who the thread starter is.

Ah come on now-Monument and yourself called this a crime-judge and jury and you call examining and comparing this to real crimes not sticking to the topic??
You expect people like myself not to ask why you want to see convictions or at least arrests before you'll concede IRA members who " may also be SF members coincidently" are actually carrying out criminal acts yet you will be judge and jury on what you think suits your arguments to be described as criminal??

It's called asking for a modicum of consistency between threads and its very much on topic to examine what is and isnt a crime and who is involved in that crime in this thread given what the thread alledges.

The thread titled "Have you all lost your marbles" currently has 90 replies and 1,317 views. People here would rather discuss SF than the corruption and jailing of a Former Minister for Justice!

Perhaps thats because they feel that the likes of the IRA and the UVF etc got away with murder against the wishes of the people of Ireland and that they are being féted by their political associates.
The same people swallowed bitter pills and gave them a chance via the GFA, to clean up their act yet they refuse.
A lot of people who are non alligned to political parties and therefore fair game to any party looking for their vote would have been disgusted by the carry on of SF describing the abduction and murder of Jean McConville as not being a crime for instance.
Those are thorny subjects and of course they are going to haunt SF supporters.

Villain

I think SF are an easy target thats why, and people here would just rather give out about something than discuss the politics of this nation, and examine the past, present and future of our Government.

By the way I don't see many threads about the UVF and other Unionist groups that you rightly say have got away with murder.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

By the way I don't see many threads about the UVF and other Unionist groups that you rightly say have got away with murder.

Thats probably because they dont stand for election down here or have a party that venorates their wrong doings standing for election down here.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

I think SF are an easy target thats why, and people here would just rather give out about something than discuss the politics of this nation, and examine the past, present and future of our Government.

No maybe its because they are tied at the waist to a criminal organisation and alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

gandalf wrote:

No maybe its because they are tied at the waist to a criminal organisation and alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in :rolleyes:

Is standing for election not a de facto recognition?

Cork

irish1 wrote:

I think SF are an easy target

It was elected public representatives who were the targets of survallance.

SF has some hard choices to make - Do they see their future in politics or not?

Both governments have left the door open for them - But IRA criminality has got to end. I think Adams & friends have got the message.

Villain

Cork wrote:

It was elected public representatives who were the targets of survallance.

SF has some hard choices to make - Do they see their future in politics or not?

Both governments have left the door open for them - But IRA criminality has got to end. I think Adams & friends have got the message.

Thanks again Cork for a great post that is right on topic!

Gandalf, can you back up your claim that

alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Thats probably because they dont stand for election down here or have a party that venorates their wrong doings standing for election down here.

Does that make their actions any less criminal?

Winning Hand

Necromancer wrote:

Is standing for election not a de facto recognition?

If that was the criteria for recognition then surely by standing for parliamentary elections SF recognise the authority the british have over Northern Ireland?

Cork

There was a very interesting Article in the Examiner about IRA continued criminality.

“We brought it to the attention of the Sinn Féin people there that we monitored closely the pattern of the punishment beatings stopping when the political process required it and resuming when the political process was in abeyance.”

link

SF have now excluded themselves from the Peace Process untill they comitt themselves 100% to democratic politics.

But the Peace Process has to continue in their absense - they hold no veto to political progress on this island. But IRA criminality has to end no metter what.

The Criminal Assets Bureau, Gardai, revenue etc should get what ever resources they require to put the likes of the IRA out of business.

billy the squid

"An End to criminality" is a term being bandied about in relation to Northern Ireland. monument should have known this when he chose to use the title in this thread. what did you expect to happen. By using the title you were comparing the government to members of Sinn fein. it is only natural that the discussion should refer to sinn fein.

The point being made was that it is a bit hypocritical for people to call members of the government criminals when the party they support refuses to apologise for acts of its "military wing"

Villain

Cork, seriously can you actually discuss a topic without typing the same thing everyday??

I mean you jump into every thread that has a mention of SF and spout the same thing over and over.

AS for excluding SF, you go up to the Nationlist areas in the North and tell them that SF are been excluded from the peace process and see what happens. Let me say this as clear as I can:

Without Sinn Fein there is NO Peace Process, they represent the Majority of Nationlists

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Does that make their actions any less criminal?

Well it doesnt make the actions of the peoples front of judea less criminal either.
People as you know talk about and question what is relevant to them and about what is topical.

Gandalf, can you back up your claim that alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in

I'd imagine you'd find plenty of evidence in that bulletin board FTA linked to in the links thread and probably where Gandalf is coming from, given that they made their presence and views known to this board recently...

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Well it doesnt make the actions of the peoples front of judea less criminal either.
People as you know talk about and question what is relevant to them and about what is topical.


I'd imagine you'd find plenty of evidence in that bulletin board FTA linked to in the links thread and probably where Gandalf is coming from, given that they made their presence and views known to this board recently...

They may be supporters who hold that view, but Gandalf also said members, and I can assure you Sinn Fein's party policy doesn't include a refusal to recognise the state that they are standing for election in!

oscarBravo

FTA69, who claims to be a Sinn Féin member, has stated here that he does not recognise the legitimacy of the state's police and defence forces. He can't even bring himself to recognise that what he calls the "Free State" is actually the Republic of Ireland.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

AS for excluding SF, you go up to the Nationlist areas in the North and tell them that SF are been excluded from the peace process and see what happens. Without Sinn Fein there is NO Peace Process, they represent the Majority of Nationlists

Well they didnt during the IRA campaign... so what are you implying ? That sanctions against SF would mean a return to violence?
Are you implying that would be popular among nationalists?
Whats your basis for that?


One thing worth noting.
I heard Albert Reynolds interviewed on the last word during the week and he reckoned that Adams and McGuinness didn't have as much say with the IRA anymore and that renegades within it were keeping them out of the loop.

He further said that he thought McGuinnes was looking increasingly worried and dis-sheveled(or words to that effect) when he's been appearing on TV lately. He basically said he's a worried man because hard liners within the IRA aren't playing ball.

If thats the case and I strongly suspect it is, then it doesnt bode well

gandalf

LOL I suppose we should also believe Sinn Fein when they say they are not linked directly with the IRA as well :rolleyes:

I based my statement on the reponses of Sinn Fein supporters in numerous threads on this board.

Imho at this stage no one can believe a word that oozes from the Sinn Fein leadership or cronies. They are now even more tainted by the robbery and re-newed punishment beatings and no more anaemic denials will persuade the majority that they are committed to entering normal politics until they disband their little mafia organisation.

Until then they are fair game and no lenght of trying to deflect the situation will hide the fact they are a front for murderers, thieves, smugglers and thugs.

Villain

OscarBravo, FTA69 is not a typical SF supporter, he is an IRA supporter who supports SF when it suits him.

Earthman, I never mentioned Violence, I simply meant the Nationlists would not be happy to see the party they voted for excluded from talks. They voted for SF so they could bring about equality in the north through peaceful means.

As for Alberts comments, yes there is sections within the IRA that fed up with the peace process and there could be anotehr split, that is why we have to get all parties back into talks so they can broker a deal that will see an end to all IRA activities.

Gandalf, your basing your statement on a few supporters in a forum, thats not ideal to say the least, and you can believe what you like SF are interested in Peace and Peace only, as for the IRA well there own people.

Cork

irish1 wrote:

get all parties back into talks so they can broker a deal that will see an end to all IRA activities.

Before SF can re-enter talks with both soveriegn governments - such criminality has got to end.

Thhis will not be up for any negottiation.

Without Sinn Fein there is NO Peace Process, they represent the Majority of Nationlists

How is SF support a mandate for IRA criminality?

SF & their buddies in the IRA hold no veto over the Peace Process.