Put up or shut up

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Don't be so silly-if you were to apply that then politicians couldnt say anything at all about any other politician even straight after the election because theres another one in 5 years.
As I say, more than two years out from an election seems a pretty strange time fo the big 3 parties to be singing this particular tune-if their motive is to damage SF.
They could for instance start saying in public that Ahern is on the take because its FF form for to be on the take.
Ahern would never sue as too many of his peers/general public think the same...

They're hardly great stomping grounds for SF though are they? so to follow your theory I would think it even more extraordinary than I do allready if Ahern decided to bring up all this SF knowledge of the robbery business just to help FF campaign chances against SF in those two constituencies.

As I said it's more than likely a lot more to do with how píssed off he is at what he believes is an SF breach of faith in that he believes they knew of the robbery plans whilst negotiations on a new agreement up north were on-going.

Politics is always about the next the election, the point I was trying to make was more so about the Dail motion than Bertie's comments, I think Enda Kenny brought that motion to get some media attention in regard to FG standing up to SF. You see SF may not have a chance in these by-elections but FG certainly do and if they were to lose Brutons seat to FF it would be a big blow and vice versa in relation to FF and Mr McCreevy's seat.

You see when it comes to polling day the public's perception is very important, and they have seen a lot of Bertie and other government members in the media recently because of the Northern issues. So I think Mr Kenny was getting some good PR before he launches his party into the by-election further evidence of this is his decision to move the writ for the by-election this week.

Earthman wrote:

Of course people think SF should still be involved in negotiations regarding Government in NI based on their mandate alone there.
With 47% thinking the IRA did the robbery vs 19% thinking they didnt, thats 2 and a half times more people convinced that they did than thinking that they didnt. Now with the majority of Dáil deputies singing from the same hymm sheet as Ahern as regards views on SF knowledge of it, then one would suggest from that the importance of SF being seen to take moves to counter the opinion.

Only 47% believe the IRA carried out the robbery! hardly a overwhelming majority given that the Leader of the state is so sure! and that poll was taken before the IRA's official statement denied it's involvment.

Don't ever take it for granted what the public believe.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Politics is always about the next the election, the point I was trying to make was more so about the Dail motion than Bertie's comments, I think Enda Kenny brought that motion to get some media attention in regard to FG standing up to SF. You see SF may not have a chance in these by-elections but FG certainly do and if they were to lose Brutons seat to FF it would be a big blow and vice versa in relation to FF and Mr McCreevy's seat.

Theres a major flaw in what you just posted.
FG and SF votes don't transfer to each other-thay are by and large two completely different mindsets.
I think you will know already what most Republicans think of FG, certainly any that I know refer to them as the southern unionists

As regards Meath, well by elections are tricky territory for governments at the best of times-especially with quota's and stv's.
Given that FF have had to select a new candidate in that constituency after some *cough* problems with the other one,I doubt FG are too worried about facing them.

I dont know who stands the best chance in Kildare to be honest but again the stv in a by-election doesnt favour FF given that each party has but one candidate and the eleimination of one of the other two parties wouldnt tend to favour FF given the closer relationships between FG and Labour recently.

Only 47% believe the IRA carried out the robbery! hardly a overwhelming majority given that the Leader of the state is so sure! and that poll was taken before the IRA's official statement denied it's involvment.

47% is a whopping amount of the electorate to be convinced enough even before any Dáil debate to say they believe it.
It's easier to say 19% is a tiny amount not to believe it.
I doubt many voters put much credence in an IRA statement given their record .

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I posted LOL, being sarcastic, I am talking about the current situation not about the past, IMO it is wrong to ignore the justice because of fear. Our Justice system should be above fear.

I can see you're not following my thoughts, perhaps Im not being clear or perhaps you dont know what you are saying i.e. giving conditioned responses.

What you said: oh come on/as if/be real . The idea that the IRA is getting special treatment/a blind eye turned to it/ getting away with criminality is laughable/absurd. That was the message/meaning/intention/arguement of your post.

I didn't change my argument, I said I don't believe the IRA will return to war, that doesn'ty mean there is any threat.

You are making no sense.
When you origionally made the "LOL..." post you didnt say there was no threat, your point was that it was absurd that threats would be appeased. I told you, because I saw you were backing into a corner, not to start saying now that there was no threat to go back to war; because thats not relavant. You then said you dont believe the IRA will return to war. Dont change the arguement.
I also told you not to begin the debate of wheather or not ignoring Juctice because of fear is right or wrong and thats exactly what you've done.

You are trying to ignore and deflect the points I am making to you because you dont want to give the answer which by this stange we both know. You acknowledge that the IRA has been getting special treatment and deep down you approve because you feel supportive and sympathetic to the cause.

I think most of that trust is gone anyway because of Bertie's statments to the media

You are suggesting that Bertie is making cheap political shots. You have no idea the work and sacrifice Bertie as put into the process. He travelled from his mothers funeral straight to talks, the rise of SF hurts FF more than any other party, he has made comments publically expressing opinions repugnant to him but because he knows it to be in the better good. Mr Aherns commitment to the peace process is beyond reproach and I think you acknowledge this.

by arresting Gerry and allowing due process to take place Gerry would be able to respond and defend himself and then the Justice system could decide whether or not to confict. Because remember he would have to be found guilty before he could be sent to jail.

You are deliberatly giving false representation.
Ive explained more than once that
A)Bertie has not accused Adams of a criminal offene
B)Adams could easily be gotten on a membership charge

I believe Jutice is more important, criminalty has to be tackled now, I don't believe the government's should wait until the IRA has decommisioned before it tackles crime.

Its not asking for decomissioning now its looking for decriminalization!

If you could just do two easy things irish1.
Admit that the security forces have turned a blind eye on the IRA for the sake of the peace process and that Ahern has not accused Adams of commiting a crime.
Both those things are true, if you have evidence to the contrary present it. Im not looking to interpret the facts just to establish them

Stabshauptmann

Earthman wrote:

But the Sunday indo did and continues to do so-wheres that law suit gone?

The first time the Sunday indo said that they quoted paisley who said it under privilage in westminister, and since then its perfectly legal for them to say it as much as they like since it was in the public domain.

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

Eh, and some people to threated the families of the two bank employees.
Its obvious the gang had up to date information from someone on the inside.
When I saw one of the bank employees on the telly, with an ear-ring in his ear,( the Glasgow Celtic supporter ), and who could hardly put two words together properly, I realised how standards had slipped in banking. I remember the time it was a respectable carreer when you left school. I am not saying this particular guy was the inside guy - it could just as easily have been a Rangers fellow with an ear-ring from the Shankhill employed in the bank.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again: Your posts frequently contain sectaian comments and Im not happy with it. I know the charter says dont attack the poster attack the post but incitment to hatred is illegal and thus taken for granted that you dont make racist comments and innuendo.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

I can see you're not following my thoughts, perhaps Im not being clear or perhaps you dont know what you are saying i.e. giving conditioned responses.

What you said: oh come on/as if/be real . The idea that the IRA is getting special treatment/a blind eye turned to it/ getting away with criminality is laughable/absurd. That was the message/meaning/intention/arguement of your post.

NO NO what I thought was laughable was that people THOUGHT Justice should be ignored because of fear. I never denied that the IRA was not been tackled because of this fear, you took me up wrong.

Necromancer wrote:

You are trying to ignore and deflect the points I am making to you because you dont want to give the answer which by this stange we both know. You acknowledge that the IRA has been getting special treatment and deep down you approve because you feel supportive and sympathetic to the cause.

I am neither supportive or sympathetic to the IRA if you read my posts here over the last year or so you would know that.

Necromancer wrote:

You are suggesting that Bertie is making cheap political shots. You have no idea the work and sacrifice Bertie as put into the process. He travelled from his mothers funeral straight to talks, the rise of SF hurts FF more than any other party, he

Necromancer

Necromancer wrote:

The first time the Sunday indo said that they quoted paisley who said it under privilage in westminister, and since then its perfectly legal for them to say it as much as they like since it was in the public domain.

I dont think you are strictly correct there Necromancer...
The allegations were originally printed in the Sunday Times and mentioned in westminister by Paisley a few days later...


But theres another paper that could have been sued.

*edit* Link

Villain

Earthman,

I'm in a hurry so I'll make it quick, in my last post about FG bringing the motion I was trying to say they had brought the motion etc to get in the publics minds before the by-election not to take votes from SF.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Earthman,

I'm in a hurry so I'll make it quick, in my last post about FG bringing the motion I was trying to say they had brought the motion etc to get in the publics minds before the by-election not to take votes from SF.

I hope you don't mind me saying but thats a bit cynical really.
Voters on the ground in those constituencies are hardly going to be thinking peace process when voting.
They'll be more than likely thinking schools, hospitals,waiting lists and a myriad of other things and indeed It's probable that theres loads of Dáil speeches lately on that subject.

The other thing to consider is that it was a motion accepted by all three big parties and is therefore associated as that now and not as an FG opinion.
It's hardly profile raising given that this is the topic of the moment anyway and the attention is on Ahern mostly and Adams.
Any ostute politician would know that it would have more of a profile lowering effect given that as in the case of FG , their party is not a major player in the saga.

Stabshauptmann

true wrote:

The two cases are slightly different, Necromancer. With Jean McConville, who "knows" she was an informer? Just the IRA thugs who realised they needed a better excuse for abducting, torturing and murdering and burying her in an unknown location the mother of ten than just her going to the aid of a dying soldier at the side of the road. Oh, and you, you know.

Now since Defamation had such a big role in this thread consider the following:

The following things must be shown for an action in defamation to be supported;
a statement was made about you expressly or by implication in such a way as to be understood by others as referring to you.
it was published to a third party
the statement must be likely to lower you in the eyes of right thinking persons.

Types: Innuendo. A Plaintiff may succeed in a defamatory action even if the words in their ordinary meaning are not defamatory. An innuendo is a statement by the Plaintiff of the meaning he attributes to the words.

True, you have commited a tort which I'd say is quite actionable.
Ofcoures to go to court would be a huge overreaction, I seem to remember how huge an advocate you are of appologies. I want an appology true, a sincere one because you have done something wrong, you did it against me and you did it deliberatly.

If she was a spy with a radio, why did Grizzly not produce the Radio at the time, with a big grin on his face , at a press conference ?

With Sinn Fein / IRA, the Irish government inc virtually all parties, the UK govt. inc virtually all parties, the US envoy , and the IMC all say them same about Sinn Fein / IRA. None of them are calling for Grizzly and / or his friends to be abducted, tortured , murdered and buried on a beach until coastal erosion exposes his remains decades later. This is despite many in Sinn Fein / IRA have been responsible for many crimes over the years.
There is a big difference, dont you think , Necromancer.

that is totally rediculous. You've just said that the greater the crime the smaller the burden off proof should be. You cant say that we'll skip a few steps in the juctice system because its important somebody pay. Only one person(s) should pay, the person(s) responsible. And we can only ensure that if we are sure we have the right person, thats why all the procedues of our system must be followed.

If Grizzly was innocent, he would sue.

The reasons why he cant.

Tell me when you've read that post and we can discuss why Adams cant sue Bertie but the McConville family could sue Ed Moloney and thus by logic you've accepted, Jean McConville was a British spy. We'll continue it in another thread ofcourse.

Bad and all as the majority of people in Northern Ireland are

More ignorant sectarianism. Im pointed this out because it is the premise of your arguement and thus must be shown to be flawed.

his standing would not remain unemblemished if they though / if it was proved he was a member of the "army council ." He cannot use that as an excuse. The reason he does not sue, and the reason he lost his temper recently , is because he knows the authorities are right.

Lost him tempter, hes doing some of the finest politiking ive seen in years!
You are ignorant of both the allegation and the relevant tort law. Educate yourself.
Ahern didnt say he was on the army council, he refused to state whether he believed adams was or not

Cork

irish1 wrote:

Just because I said IRA did achieve things by violence IN THE PAST doesn't mean I believe they would achieve anything in the present circumstances if they returned to war. Times thank god have changed.

The IRA only achievement was that they finally got around to accepting the concent principle.

Yesterdays Tribune had a very good article on the IRA army council. Some leading Shinners were mentioned.

IRA involvement in the Robert McCarney murder highlights the need for that organisation to disappear.

I think both governments should insist on this before they re-enter talks with the likes of sf.