An end to criminality?

monument

Nuttzz wrote:

Come on, give me another example.... Bertie is no more gulity than John Burton or Garret FitzGerald who also allowed this practice. Do you want FG to renounce criminality also?

Sure, why not?

Nuttzz wrote:

They shouldnt have been taking that money from the OAPs fair enough, all my grandparents had their books taken off them when they were in care homes so my family would be entitled to compo if this law doesnt pass the supreme court, however the funds would have to come from somewhere, normally its the department at fault that pays for the claims (e.g. the money for the army deafness claims came from the department of defences budget). I would rather the department of health spent the compo that my family would be due on the health services (especially the A&E departments) than take a cent

It's not right, but it's ok? Strange.

BuffyBot wrote:

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.

So now calls for an end to criminality are only allowed if they are aimed at SF, and the IRA. That’s nice.

Earthman wrote:

Theres no way on earth IRA crimes could ever be compared in their blackness to mistakes and mis management.

Have I done so? No, I haven’t.

Earthman wrote:

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

Didn’t the Irish Times poll say that people want the governments to continue negotiating with them?

Cork wrote:

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

Thhis will not be up for any negottiation.

See above.

billy the squid wrote:

"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.

Oh SORRY, but it’s ok now, I have now been informed that the only ‘end to criminality’ one can call for is to SF, and the IRA.

billy the squid wrote:

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.

Yea as I’ve said, it’s ok I didn’t know the saying was a trademark.

billy the squid wrote:

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"

I don’t support the IRA, but you better tell that to Pat Rabbitte, his former party had (at least, before their takeover of Labour) a "military wing".

But you’ll get him to this day (well at least in last week’s Village magazine) denying any past connection to any "military wing", just like SF denies such.

Maybe Pat thinks what his party’s "military wing" was up to (beatings, racketeering, counterfeiting, and murders, according to Vincent Brown) wasn’t criminal?

Or maybe he just did not know.

monument

monument wrote:

Have I done so? No, I haven’t.

Come now monument, more than I see what you were trying to do here...

BuffyBot

So now calls for an end to criminality are only allowed if they are aimed at SF, and the IRA. That’s nice.

I don't think I ever said that now, did I?

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

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

Au contraire, the good gentleman in question not only claims to be a member of Sinn Féin, he claims to have been arrested on foot of such membership (a claim he has become singularly coy about, but far be it from me to call the young gentleman a blatant liar, tut tut).

There seems to be a great degree of dissension in the ranks of "republicanism". We have the FTAs of this world, who claim to be SF party members victimised for their legitimate beliefs (but strangely coy about the details of said victimisation, for some reason) and who refuse to recognise the legitimacy of a state that has taken its place among the nations since the 1940s.

We have the irish1s, who don't claim to be party members, but would be the respectable face of Irish Republicanism (but who find it so very hard to condemn the criminality of murder, and don't seem to know what legiitmate political activities the Left hand is being arrested for in "Free West Waterford").

And then we have the "freedom's jcbs", who live in a mythical republic born out of an intentionally futile 1916 rebellion, ruled over by a military council that no-one voted for and no-one would dare contradict, who haven't the faintest idea what the word "democracy" means, who will blindly follow the edicts of an Army Council that cheerfully murders mothers of ten who have the temerity to refuse to accept their sovereignty.

It's all terribly complicated. Is it any wonder simpletons like me choose the path of least resistance, and offer fealty to a Republic founded on principles of consent, and democracy, and the rule of law?

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

Au contraire, the good gentleman in question not only claims to be a member of Sinn Féin, he claims to have been arrested on foot of such membership (a claim he has become singularly coy about, but far be it from me to call the young gentleman a blatant liar, tut tut).

There seems to be a great degree of dissension in the ranks of "republicanism". We have the FTAs of this world, who claim to be SF party members victimised for their legitimate beliefs (but strangely coy about the details of said victimisation, for some reason) and who refuse to recognise the legitimacy of a state that has taken its place among the nations since the 1940s.

We have the irish1s, who don't claim to be party members, but would be the respectable face of Irish Republicanism (but who find it so very hard to condemn the criminality of murder, and don't seem to know what legiitmate political activities the Left hand is being arrested for in "Free West Waterford").

And then we have the "freedom's jcbs", who live in a mythical republic born out of an intentionally futile 1916 rebellion, ruled over by a military council that no-one voted for and no-one would dare contradict, who haven't the faintest idea what the word "democracy" means, who will blindly follow the edicts of an Army Council that cheerfully murders mothers of ten who have the temerity to refuse to accept their sovereignty.

It's all terribly complicated. Is it any wonder simpletons like me choose the path of least resistance, and offer fealty to a Republic founded on principles of consent, and democracy, and the rule of law?

I have condemned murder here several times Oscar.

Cork

monument wrote:

Maybe Pat thinks what his party’s "military wing" was up to (beatings, racketeering, counterfeiting, and murders, according to Vincent Brown) wasn’t criminal?

Or maybe he just did not know.

Pat Rabbitt has no links to any illeagal or criminal organisations.

Neither has Mr. Rabbitt any problem condemning murder as a crime.

Neither has Rabbitt lobbied for the early release of those who killed Gerry McCabe.

Maybe a politics thread is the last place we should discuss the likes of SF/IRA.

All right-thinking people should categorise the brutal murder of Mrs Mc-Conville as a crime. But not the likes of SF/IRA.

monument

Earthman wrote:

Come now monument, more than I see what you were trying to do here...

More then you presume what I was “trying” to do, but you’re entitled to your view.

I was interested to see if a call for “an end to criminality” in politics would be acceptable, I was not trying to compare the crimes, but the call. Is a call for an end to littering unacceptable, while people are murdering others?

I wasn’t try to compare the crimes, and there was no way I was trying to justify the IRA’s crimes – because I don’t believe in a means of beating/killing innocent people, as the IRA has done, justifies any ends – that was and still is wrong.

oscarBravo wrote:

We have the irish1s, who don't claim to be party members, but would be the respectable face of Irish Republicanism (but who find it so very hard to condemn the criminality of murder, and don't seem to know what legiitmate political activities the Left hand is being arrested for in "Free West Waterford").

Just in case you're somehow trying to bunch me in there to - I, like irish1, have condemned murder more then several times.

Cork wrote:

Pat Rabbitt has no links to any illeagal or criminal organisations.

LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR – I was not trying to say, or imply, Mr Rabbitte had any knowledge of, or involvement with, his former party’s "military wing".

However, on the word of a police officer there was a link between his party and a criminal group. Detective Superintendent Joseph Egan gave evidence in the Proinsias De Rossa libel case in 1999 said the party (which Mr Rabbitte was an member of) was under investigation for criminality in the seventies and eighties, and that money from robberies ended up funding his party.

By the way, the court only found that De Rossa was libelled. It did not find that there was no basis for clams of links to Mr Rabbitte’s former party (which tuck over Labour) and a

Cork wrote:

Neither has Mr. Rabbitt any problem condemning murder as a crime.

Neither has Rabbitt lobbied for the early release of those who killed Gerry McCabe.

Rabbitte, just like SF, has major problems with accepting the links between his former party and people who carried out beatings, racketeering, counterfeiting, robberies, and murders.

billy the squid

Rabbitte, just like SF, has major problems with accepting the links between his former party and people who carried out beatings, racketeering, counterfeiting, robberies, and murders.

are they doing it now. i ask because the word "had" is in your statement, where as if you to replace the word "Rabbitt" with "sinn fein" the word had would become "are"

monument

(there is 'has' in what you quoted)

Do you want us to forget about everything in the past because things are happening now?

I wouldn’t have brought this up in a thread about IRA criminality (unless Pat, or his party was mentioned), but this thread wasn’t supposed to be about IRA criminality.

monument

monument wrote:

but this thread wasn’t supposed to be about IRA criminality.

yes but posters including myself questioned whether what you were describing was criminality at all.
In that respect its fair game to bring all shades of what I would call actual discernable criminality into the discussion to put a perspective on things as well as to debunk your position.

monument

Now you are starting to sound like SF.