Bank Robbery...

liamo

The IRA's bluff was called by the Irish and UK governments and they've predictably had themselves a little hissy fit. Let me paraphrase their statement in the words of South Park's Cartman : "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Which is one of the reasons many discussion websites have strict rules for the parameter of discussions. You will not be sued but this website could be (I am not talking about this case but in general). A forum I previously frequented was sued in the UK courts for some members making wild allegations about someone. It was settled out of court and very strict rules were put in place by the website owners to ensure it did not happen again.

Are you suggesting that Adams and McGuinness and others would sue Boards.ie??

Why havent they sued the Sunday independent?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Are you suggesting that Adams and McGuinness and others would sue Boards.ie??

No

Did you miss this bit? (I am not talking about this case but in general)

Nuttzz

I wouldnt worry too much about being sued, slab tried to sue the Sunday Times which claimed he was on the Army council and lost, wonder why?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Bollocks. The IRA doesnt see murder as a crime. How can they view bank robbery as a crime when they have committed many bank robberies? Now if they had said

"Progress will not be sustained by the
reinstatment of Thatcherite *wrongimalisation* strategies, which
our ten comrades died defeating on hunger strike in 1981. We
will not betray the courage of the hunger strikers either by
tolerating *wrongimality* within our own ranks or false allegations
of *wrongimality* against our organisation by petty politicians
motivated by selfish interests, instead of the national need for
a successful conclusion to the peace process."

Then Id be a lot more convinced the IRA sees the NIB robbery as a crime - woops sorry, a wrong - and is determined to punish crinimals - woops, wrongimals - in its ranks.

Otherwise its so much bull**** that only their fanboys lap up. Afterall its Mr Adams stated position that it is simply not possible for the IRA to commit a crime, only wrongs.

if it is done for personal gain it is a crime
so a bank robbery to fund the IRA would not be a crime in the eyes of republicans
but a bank robbery to feather your own nest would be a crime
a killing that was part of the conflict would not be a crime
any other killing is a crime in the view of republicans

Villain

Not ONE arrest, not ONE pound recovered, No van or cars recovered and the Taoiseach is able to say to done it, god damn it Bertie give Hugh Orde a ring and tell him who it is so, coz the poor guy needs a hand solving this one.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No

Did you miss this bit? (I am not talking about this case but in general)

You didnt answer the second part...

And uhm would in general not allude to posts here already...

I think this place is safe enough anyway.
When they dont sue the SINDO -they certainly wont be sue-ing here.
I wonder why though??

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

You didnt answer the second part...

Who can answer the 2nd part? Certainly not you or me

And uhm would in general not allude to posts here already...

Look at the post I was replying to:

The concept of presumption of innocence exists only within a court of law. And, yes, within that context it is the right of every citizen. Indeed, it is everybody's right, regardless of their citizenship. Outside of a court of law, you're not entitled to a presumption of innocence, it's up to you to prove that I've slandered or libelled you. Well, IANAL and it may be up to me to prove that there is substance to my allegations, but it's up to you to sue me for slander or libel. Presumption of innocence doesn't come into it.


In general, on public forums, people can go around making wild accusations and/or libel people but they leave the owners of the website open to the possibility of court action. This usually means there are guidelines from the website owners that people should not be libelous to others.

I think this place is safe enough anyway.

From the accusations against SF... probably. There are other times when it won't be (on any topic, not just in Politics or about SF). I remeber a thread was pulled in After Hours because of this.

When they dont sue the SINDO -they certainly wont be sue-ing here.

I never said they would

I wonder why though??

No money to take on the big wig lawyers?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Look at the post I was replying to:

The concept of presumption of innocence exists only within a court of law. And, yes, within that context it is the right of every citizen. Indeed, it is everybody's right, regardless of their citizenship. Outside of a court of law, you're not entitled to a presumption of innocence, it's up to you to prove that I've slandered or libelled you. Well, IANAL and it may be up to me to prove that there is substance to my allegations, but it's up to you to sue me for slander or libel. Presumption of innocence doesn't come into it.


In general, on public forums, people can go around making wild accusations and/or libel people but they leave the owners of the website open to the possibility of court action. This usually means there are guidelines from the website owners that people should not be libelous to others.

Yeah but you are mentioning it in the context of a thread on the Bank Robbery about which Ahern says the Republican leadership has knowledge.
So why mention a case of slander and libel if only to suggest we shouldnt be talking about IRA involvement or the Republican leaderships knowledge of it here...

No money to take on the big wig lawyers?

As you know costs would most likely be awarded to the winner
Now if there not confident of winning...
Well thats another story.

fester

I think it's really irresponsible of Bertie to bundle the IRA and Shin Fein into the same basket regarding the bank robbery. Whatever links there are, at the end of the day Sine Fein are a political party, not a terrorist organisation.

Sine Fein need to be involved if peace is finally to be reached. And they also need to be viewed as separate from the IRA if they're to be given credibility as a party. I think Bertie's attempt to undermine there credibility by suggesting direct links with the bank robbery is anti-productive for the entire peace process.

Of course Bertie could be right about the connections but I see no reason to damage the peace process, at this stage, based on little more than a guess.

billy the squid

sinn fein undermine their own credibility when they repetedly fail to give a straight answer when they are asked a straight question

sinn fein undermine their own credibility when they call murder a "wrong" and not a "crime"

sinn fein have no one to blame for the situation they are in but themselves.

fester

billy the squid wrote:

sinn fein undermine their own credibility when they repetedly fail to give a straight answer when they are asked a straight question

politicians... its to be expected

billy the squid wrote:

sinn fein undermine their own credibility when they call murder a "wrong" and not a "crime"

sinn fein have no one to blame for the situation they are in but themselves.

sure, if they had they're part to play in the robbery. But if they didn't it's damaging for everyone to say that they did. And i see no gain at this stage to make such allegations

billy the squid

sure, if they had they're part to play in the robbery. But if they didn't it's damaging for everyone to say that they did. And i see no gain at this stage to make such allegations

im not referring to their part in any robbery, what I am referring to is your point that other people are out to damage sinn fein's credibility. they are doing a great job of that themselves without anyone elses help.

oscarBravo

fester wrote:

Sine Fein need to be involved if peace is finally to be reached.

Would you still say the same if Sinn Féin were proven to be directly involved in criminal activity? Would you still say the same if Sinn Féin were shown to have knowledge of IRA criminality? Would you still say the same if the IRA were proven to be responsible for the bank robbery, and Sinn Féin didn't sever all ties with them?

Where is the line drawn? At what point do we say "not at this cost"?

fester wrote:

And they also need to be viewed as separate from the IRA if they're to be given credibility as a party.

That's easy - all they have to do is what every other credible political party does, and totally distance themselves from all illegal terrorist organisations.

Or did you mean that they should be given credibility on the basis of pretending that they're not joined at the hip to an illegal army?

jbkenn

fester wrote:

I think it's really irresponsible of Bertie to bundle the IRA and Shin Fein into the same basket regarding the bank robbery. Whatever links there are, at the end of the day Sine Fein are a political party, not a terrorist organisation.

Sine Fein need to be involved if peace is finally to be reached. And they also need to be viewed as separate from the IRA if they're to be given credibility as a party. I think Bertie's attempt to undermine there credibility by suggesting direct links with the bank robbery is anti-productive for the entire peace process.

Of course Bertie could be right about the connections but I see no reason to damage the peace process, at this stage, based on little more than a guess.

Lets be honest here, the only reason Sinn Fein were brought into the process in the first place, was, the perceived ability, because of their links to the PIRA, to deliver a cessation of violence and decommissioning, not because of their political manifesto. The majority nationalist party was the SDLP, thanks to John Hume (whom I emminently respect) and his stature worldwide as an honourable politicion, Sinn Fein capitalised on the opportunity presented to them to increase their share of the vote, with their peace process mantra.

After 7 years they have failed to deliver the PIRA, and, watching their performance on T.V. lately they seem to be attempting to emphasise their status as a political party and distance themselves from links to the PIRA.
If that be the case, then, as a minority party, they have very little to contribute to the process.

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo

jbkenn wrote:

A.
If that be the case, then, as a minority party, they have very little to contribute to the process.

As the largest Nationalist political party in NI and the 2nd largest party in NI, they may beg to differ on that one.

mycroft

fester wrote:

And they also need to be viewed as separate from the IRA if they're to be given credibility as a party. I think Bertie's attempt to undermine there credibility by suggesting direct links with the bank robbery is anti-productive for the entire peace process.

Yeah and you know who can give them that credibility? Sinn Fein.

The fact that senior SFs had been senior members of the IRA is no longer in dispute. Sinn Fein consistently muddy the waters over their relationship with the IRA in very simple ways (like i dunno selling IRA merchandise to give one very minor example)

If Sinn Fein want the credibility you think they need, then they need to earn said credibility.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

As the largest Nationalist political party in NI and the 2nd largest party in NI, they may beg to differ on that one.

Agreed.
However with the "new" policy fo SF distancing themselves from the IRA, I foresee two problems.
(1) if the IRA go back to War, the fact that the"distancing" means that their actions are "independent" means they run the risk of having all those of their prisoners who were released "on licence" being turfed back into prison.
(2) SF cries of fowl if that happens simply wont be listened to and whats more, the negative electoral implications south of the border where most people have a general indifference to the North(except when theres violence) would be stark.

gurramok

jbkenn wrote:

If that be the case, then, as a minority party, they have very little to contribute to the process.

jbkenn

That will do sfa for the north.
the 4 big parties up there have nearly equal share of the vote one way or another
Exclude them if ira return to violence but not now on zero evidence of their involvement in the bank robbery.

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

As the largest Nationalist political party in NI and the 2nd largest party in NI, they may beg to differ on that one.

In the context of the islandwide political allparty support for the GFA and their claim to be an all Ireland party, and, given their support base, they are a minority party, holding disproportionate influence relative to their support base, to the practical exclusion of other parties.
My point is, this was tolerated because of the belief they could deliver the PIRA, which they clearly cannot now do.

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo

And the PDs are not having disproportionate influence?

Whether you like it or not, they have a mandate from the majority of Nationalist opinion in NI to represent them.

Meh

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Whether you like it or not, they have a mandate from the majority of Nationalist opinion in NI to represent them.

SF arguing for majority rule, I thought I'd never see the day.

A Dub in Glasgo

Meh wrote:

SF arguing for majority rule, I thought I'd never see the day.

eh? I am not SF

I am pointing out the fact that they are the largest Nationalist party in NI.

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And the PDs are not having disproportionate influence?

That is a matter of opinion, the fact is that the PD's called "a spade a spade" long before anyone else, and, broke the "dont upset the Peace Process" taboo.

Whether you like it or not, they have a mandate from the majority of Nationalist opinion in NI to represent them.

I accept they have that mandate, but, in an all Ireland context they are still a minority party

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And the PDs are not having disproportionate influence?

Funny you should mention that.
The pd's stood at the last election as part of a government.
The message from both parties in government at the time was they wanted to re-elect the current government.

And what happened-the electorate nearly trebbled the number of pd's in the Dáil and returned the current government.
So given the strong influence that the p.d's had on the outgo-ing government, i guess the electorate weren't at all concerned with the influence of the p.d's on it as they returned it with even more p.d's.

So their influence has been put to the test and the result of that was a passed test.

I didn't vote for them by the way... but like most at the time I was happy enough with the outcome.
That opinion did change for a year or two though-it's verging back to neutral now though, ie I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with them when looking at their record on the whole-things I like-things I dislike.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Funny you should mention that.
The pd's stood at the last election as part of a government.
The message from both parties in government at the time was they wanted to re-elect the current government.

And what happened-the electorate nearly trebbled the number of pd's in the Dáil and returned the current government.
So given the strong influence that the p.d's had on the outgo-ing government, i guess the electorate weren't at all concerned with the influence of the p.d's on it as they returned it with even more p.d's.

So their influence has been put to the test and the result of that was a passed test.

I didn't vote for them by the way... but like most at the time I was happy enough with the outcome.
That opinion did change for a year or two though-it's verging back to neutral now though, ie I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with them when looking at their record on the whole-things I like-things I dislike.

pd vote increased by 0.7%

combined FF/PD vote was 45.5%


so I guess 54.5% of the electorate were concerned

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

combined FF/PD vote was 45.5%

Of first preference votes...
You'd have to factor second, third and other preferences into the equasion to get the real figure and as you know if a person is willing to give a 2nd or 3rd preference, they mustn't be too concerned about pd influence either.

Now it would be reasonable to conclude given that some FF and PD T.D's were elected on transfers from other parties that more than half of the electorate werent concerned enough to change their vote.
As for the others, well lots of them mightnt even have given it a second thought who knows?
Theres certainly not enough fact to determine what their reasons for voting were, but there is to determine that at least half those that voted (plus the evidence of the existance of a very democratic majority of the resulting elected T.D's ) was indicative that there was not much concern.

Remember even to take FF's percentage vote (much as one would disagree with them at times) they obviously have a far far bigger mandate than Sinn Féin further making points regarding PD influence on them (when all is put to a democratic vote) rather moot.

cdebru

yes of first preference

54.5% did not want either FF or the PDs in government as their first choice


and by the way
when i was at school we were told 8 was double 4 not nearly treble it

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

54.5% did not want either FF or the PDs in government as their first choice

...but a substantial number of them were happy enough to give them a lower preference. That's how PR/STV works. What's your point?

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

...but a substantial number of them were happy enough to give them a lower preference. That's how PR/STV works. What's your point?

I know how the system works

i was pointing out the errors in earthmans thread

the PD vote was up 0.7%

the figures are that the majority of people did not favour a return of the government as their first choice
they did not get a ringing endorsement considering how poor the alternative was
michael noonan and ruari quinn

as for transfers these are given for various reasons geography etc