Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

You avoided the question on the 50 to 60 exaggeration. To be expected.

Also neatly sidestepped the ‘a load’ exaggeration.

For your information: all parties suspend and expel members from time to time, nothing unusual in that.

The laws clearly suit those who have had the power to change them but haven’t. You would think the question would be why haven’t they.

What did you ask?

Only seeing the ninja edit now. I have to see these 50 or 60 cases and some proof.

Allegations are not proof. If you think that is gaslighting so be it.

I quoted it without the bit you added in the edit. That is what I know as a ninja edit.

You showed allegations and one where a SFer was expelled on foot of allegations.

Any sign of these 50 or 60 cases or ‘loads’ of expellings?

When my kids are exaggerating I tell them they are telling fairy tales. It’s not normal and they generally grow out of it.

I also tell them not to trust what they read.

It is not a normal political party, that is known.

Omerta is king, the cabal in Belfast control everything.

Unfortunately, I think the Irish people will fail to see it before the next election. A small sliver of hope remains, but that is all.

Hope that is extinguished by the SLAPPs actions of Sinn Fein.

'Proof' is only demanded when allegations are made against some in this country.

I think that is why you see cases being taken against newspapers now.

Obviously the new leadership of SF are no longer going to be held to account or responsible for stuff that happened when they were, in the most recent round of allegations,(Mary Lou and the Ben Dunne kidnaping) 12 yrs of age when it happened or not even born in other cases.

The message seems clear, if you make an allegation or insinuate, be prepared to stand over it in a court.

Nobody would dream of holding a young FFer to account for the crimes of Charlie Haughey or a FGer for Lowry's crimes. It would be patently ridiculous to do that.

Nobody would ask that FF or FG members renounce those who brought about independence via killing and kidnapping and disappearing either. There is zero problem on the high moral ground with that.

"Again, simply looking through their recent posts on the topic would show you are incorrect....again."

I have read your links. None concern rsf involving itself in a party political dispute.

What is being argued here is some journalists criticising the right of someone going to court to vindicate their good name. They seem to believe that , as journalists, they must be able to write whatever they like , without consequences. I have no idea what the IR article said about Chris Andrews TD. But, since he threatened to sue, there has been a relentless media campaign, now including the rsf, to stop that case. I would have more faith in our courts system than I do in the 'press'. Just look at what the 'press' have managed to do in both the US and UK to learn why they must be held to account. Whether the IT were right or Andrews is right, I see nothing wrong with the matter being decided by our courts and not by the media.

But i find it extraordinary that the rsf wants to involve itself in this in Ireland, a country the rsf itself rank as second in the world for press freedom, when they are not criticising similar cases in other jurisdictions.

1. You say no bullying happens, I provide multiple reports it does, you ignore those. No I haven't
2. You say nobody was expelled for bullying, I provide reports that multiple people have been, you ignore those. I questioned your use of 'loads' expelled and reminded you that all parties expel members
3. You demand I answer your questions, yet ignore any put to you. I asked you to re-ask your question, you haven't as yet
4. You gaslight every piece of evidence put to you. Allegations are NOT evidence, I have reminded you no court or tribunal have found anyone guilty of bullying to the extent alleged. Pretending allegations are evidence would be closer to 'gaslighting' tbh.
5. I gave you reports of approx 25 people involved in bullying, harassment and psychological warfare within SF, with multiple accounts from former SF members, you ignore it all. No I don't. What you are ;giving' are allegations made by former members of the party who may or may not have agendas. None of these allegations are accompanied by any evidence.

I have asked for that evidence. You have not provided any. Again an allegation is NOT evidence, if it was imagine the round up of the guilty we would have to do across the political spectrum.

Does 'gaslighting' mean anyone with a different opinion answering you back or RSF?

Are people supposed to fall prostrate in front of what are 'allegations' and differing opinion?

What do you mean?

I think you just gave all the explanation necessary. You are just using an edgy buzzword or don't understand the word to begin with.

The mad thing is their voter base would be far younger than either FG or FF, these are the exact people who need to have the pension time bomb explained to them and who can understand its future impacts on their lives. IE being honest and telling people in their 20s and 30s that there will be no state pension for them and to start prepping for it is far easier than telling people in their 50s. However in saying that their voter base is also far less financially literate or educated so doing so is going to be a tricky task and seemingly they have decided as usual to just take the populist and therefore easy way out.

Are you making this up? Can you show us where SF have said this?

Plus, can you explain why the government have not changed the pension age if they believe it should be 67 to defuse this 'timebomb'?