Martin McGuinness preaching on corrupt politics - pot and kettle

sparkling sea

I really enjoyed last nights debate and thought the way Sean Gallagher was fully exposed on as a FF fundraiser was great - but given Martin McGuinness own political history and particularly the relatively recent history of SF - would people agree, M McG preaching on corrupt or even illegal practices in political campaigning is a a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

It was but Gallagher still needed to be exposed.

Tipp Man

McGuinness has done far worse to people on this island than Gallagher has ever done and how is quite frankly getting away with it is unbelievable

sparkling sea

rarnes1 wrote: »

It was but Gallagher still needed to be exposed.

Everyone who practices corrupt or illegal political practices need to be exposed and I am delighted its appears it is starting to happen here.

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote: »

McGuinness has done far worse to people on this island than Gallagher has ever done and how is quite frankly getting away with it is unbelievable

McGuiness hasn't a hope of getting in, I'd say he's well aware of that.

Gallagher was a shoe in until last night.

Last thing we need is a FF cronnie as president.

sparkling sea

rarnes1 wrote: »

McGuiness hasn't a hope of getting in, I'd say he's well aware of that.

Gallagher was a shoe in until last night.

Last thing we need is a FF cronnie as president.

Tis a wonder M McG would want such a borrowing role given the one he already has in Northern Ireland - it would make you wonder.

The thought of a FF President would make me cringe.

fryup

Tipp Man wrote: »

McGuinness has done far worse to people on this island than Gallagher has ever done and how is quite frankly getting away with it is unbelievable

either the media down here are too afraid to grill him or maybe some have a sneaky regard for the guy

bleg

Yup. I won't give either a preference.

sparkling sea

sparkling sea wrote: »

Tis a wonder M McG would want such a borrowing role given the one he already has in Northern Ireland - it would make you wonder.

The thought of a FF President would make me cringe.

McGuinness was never going to get in imo. I'm sure he had a fair idea from the start himself that it was a long shot.

It will and has raised the profile of SF though and you have to wonder if that was the main aim in the first place.

It was win-win for SF imo.

pablomakaveli

While i think its important that Gallagher was exposed,we saw McGuinness make an accusation based on only one mans account.

Now lets not forget that we have had accounts of McGuinness that would have shown that McGuinness was on the IRA army council down the years yet these accounts are never given fair consideration.

dlofnep

Tipp Man wrote: »

McGuinness has done far worse to people on this island than Gallagher has ever done and how is quite frankly getting away with it is unbelievable

Gallagher frankly hasn't done anything for the people of the Island. McGuinness took part in a war against the British establishment while his neighbours were being harassed, intimidated and murdered by British troops on the streets of Derry. It's very easy to judge McGuinness without taking into account the circumstances which he grew up in.

McGuinness is a peace maker. He was one of the pivotal players in bringing peace to the Island, and getting the broad Republican movement on board for it. He has worked day in, and day out alongside Unionist politicians (despite their differences) for the betterment of the people.

McGuinness is a much more accomplished politican than Gallagher ever was, or ever will be. That's a fact.

fryup

to be honest i'm surprised Adams didn't go for it...i tought that was the SF master plan to have him in the aras for the 100th anniversary of 1916

gandalf

dlofnep wrote: »

Gallagher frankly hasn't done anything for the people of the Island.

McGuinness has frankly done a lot against a large number of Irish men and women including being responsible (either directly or indirectly) in their deaths, their maiming, their torture and causing misery to their families.

Then the hypocrite starts to pontificate on ethics in politics in a state he didn't recognise and the cheerleaders of his party are on here and elsewhere proclaiming him as the new "messiah". What a sad little country we occupy when certain citizens of our country allow a man with such a tainted past in physical misery to dictate what is moral and what isn't.

What next from Sinn Fein allow paedophiles dictate our childrens educational policies?

LK_Dave

I reckon SF's ploy here is to tar anybody with any connection to the top layers of FF, they do this to deflect from their own past and keep FF from ever recovering. In doing so SF will hope to pick up those that previously voted FF.

Plus I would say that any prospect of being master of ceremonies come 2016 would be very attractive to them.

Patser

sparkling sea wrote: »

Everyone who practices corrupt or illegal political practices need to be exposed and I am delighted its appears it is starting to happen here.

I'm a bit confused here. What did Sean Gallagher do that was corrupt or illegal. He collected a cheque from a donor for a political party that he was then a member of. All of that was legal and normal at the time.

fryup

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Now lets not forget that we have had accounts of McGuinness that would have shown that McGuinness was on the IRA army council down the years yet these accounts are never given fair consideration.

one thing they could have pinned mcguinnes on is the Claudy bombing of 72

he said he was commander & chief in the derry brigade right up to 74...so in that case he must have given the OK for it to go ahead

KeithAFC

fryup wrote: »

one thing they could have pinned mcguinnes on is the Claudy bombing of 72

he said he was commander & chief in the derry brigade right up to 74...so in that case he must have given the OK for it to go ahead

The election candidates all seem like a bunch of cowards when it comes to Martin Mcguinness. Only Gay Mitchell has challenged him to some degree. Sean Gallagher was put in a hole and instead of fighting back and taking Martin Mcguinness on, he just hid like a coward and allowed Martin to slaughter him on live TV. He should be very disappointed with that.

gandalf

KeithAFC wrote: »

The election candidates all seem like a bunch of cowards when it comes to Martin Mcguinness. Only Gay Mitchell has challenged him to some degree. Sean Gallagher was put in a hole and instead of fighting back and taking Martin Mcguinness on, he just hid like a coward and allowed Martin to slaughter him on live TV. He should be very disappointed with that.

The media also should be chastised none of them have tackled him in any meaningful fashion on his murderous past. It seems the Good Friday whitewash has made him immune to any sort of rigorous questioning.

Liam Byrne

KeithAFC wrote: »

he just hid like a coward and allowed Martin to slaughter him on live TV.

Should we be thankful that that's just a figure of speech nowadays ?

The Waltzing Consumer

rarnes1 wrote: »

McGuinness was never going to get in imo. I'm sure he had a fair idea from the start himself that it was a long shot.

It will and has raised the profile of SF though and you have to wonder if that was the main aim in the first place.

It was win-win for SF imo.

Test run for Gerry Adams in seven years I say. The more I see McG on interviews, it really seems he does not even want the job. This is all just a test.

dixiefly

Patser wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here. What did Sean Gallagher do that was corrupt or illegal. He collected a cheque from a donor for a political party that he was then a member of. All of that was legal and normal at the time.

I have the same difficulty.

Gallagher probably stayed in FF longer than he should have and he should have been more up front about his association with them from earlier on but that is not a major issue in the bigger scheme of things. It wasnt as if he raised the money & pocketed it!

mrak

I think there's an increasing amount of ignorant commentary on the troubles. The other week I was chatting to a highly respected friend/colleague of mine on a run about the election and was surprised to hear he was a sf supporter and planned to vote for mcg. I did what any newstalk listener would do and slagged him from a height about their policies on economics, criminality, etc :P However by the end of the run he had opened my eyes a little to another perspective - he is not a young man (55) and grew up in the middle of the troubles, losing family, etc along the way. I'm putting the troubles into that growing bracket of things I'm not qualified to speak about, certainly not to those that lived through it.

jonniebgood1

dixiefly wrote: »

I have the same difficulty.

Gallagher probably stayed in FF longer than he should have and he should have been more up front about his association with them from earlier on but that is not a major issue in the bigger scheme of things. It wasnt as if he raised the money & pocketed it!

+2

That the story put by P Kenny was untrue has been forgotten. Whether for or against SG it is a very dangerous precedent if a media figures decision to introduce an untruth decides this election. I don't like many things in this election but this media decision is very bad.

Sunnyisland

mark wrote: »

I think there's an increasing amount of ignorant commentary on the troubles. The other week I was chatting to a highly respected friend/colleague of mine on a run about the election and was surprised to hear he was a sf supporter and planned to vote for mcgI did what any newstalk listener would do and slagged him from a height about their policies on economics, criminality, etc :P However by the end of the run he had opened my eyes a little to another perspective - he is not a young man (55) and grew up in the middle of the troubles, losing family, etc along the way. I'm putting the troubles into that growing bracket of things I'm not qualified to speak about, certainly not to those that lived through it.

Totally agree.

lugha

mrak wrote: »

I think there's an increasing amount of ignorant commentary on the troubles. The other week I was chatting to a highly respected friend/colleague of mine on a run about the election and was surprised to hear he was a sf supporter and planned to vote for mcg. I did what any newstalk listener would do and slagged him from a height about their policies on economics, criminality, etc :P However by the end of the run he had opened my eyes a little to another perspective - he is not a young man (55) and grew up in the middle of the troubles, losing family, etc along the way. I'm putting the troubles into that growing bracket of things I'm not qualified to speak about, certainly not to those that lived through it.

I wonder did you ask him about the arrogance of republicans in presuming to speak for, and take up arms on behalf of, all Irish people, including us free staters, AND AND AND are still utterly unapologetic about it or willing to concede that this was utterly wrong?

sparkling sea

Patser wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here. What did Sean Gallagher do that was corrupt or illegal. He collected a cheque from a donor for a political party that he was then a member of. All of that was legal and normal at the time.

I agree that the act of collecting a cheque is not corrupt or illegal, and Sean Gallagher himself is not a politican- that said the era of the brown envolope and corrupt politicial practices within the FF party has been well established.

Sean Gallagher claims he was not prominent member within the FF party - this is clearly not the case - he was leader of the FF National executive council up to January 2011? Not a position given to your average grass roots member IMO.

Gallagher did very will for himself in the FF era ( I know as did many others particularly those with FF connections) so does that matter - who knows!

He has been a member of FF and a high ranking member at that since the time of Charlie Haughey - to be able to rise in a party that has had the ethics of FF should at least raise an eyebrow.
I would question whether Gallagher should now even be running for the office of President and would even suggest that both he and M McG, in being allowed to stand are undermining the office

The M McG for president group are using dirty tactics there is no doubt about that, but S Gallagher has not been as upfront as he should have been - his own actions may now bring about his downfall - we will have to wait and see.

M McG has very dubious connections himself though and I think it is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle.

pablomakaveli

mrak wrote: »

I think there's an increasing amount of ignorant commentary on the troubles. The other week I was chatting to a highly respected friend/colleague of mine on a run about the election and was surprised to hear he was a sf supporter and planned to vote for mcg. I did what any newstalk listener would do and slagged him from a height about their policies on economics, criminality, etc :P However by the end of the run he had opened my eyes a little to another perspective - he is not a young man (55) and grew up in the middle of the troubles, losing family, etc along the way. I'm putting the troubles into that growing bracket of things I'm not qualified to speak about, certainly not to those that lived through it.

If we all followed that logic we wouldn't be "qualified" to speak on almost anything that happened throughout history.

Galwayguy35

Martin McGuinness was in the IRA, he admitted it, time for people to move on. The man has every right to be in the race if he wants to. Ill be voting for him.

jimmycrackcorm

I couldn't believe the glee on Marty's face about the cheque given the awful way his men tied up and sent Pasty Gillespie as a human bomb. Time to move on perhaps but that put a bit of perspective on it for me.

sparkling sea

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Martin McGuinness was in the IRA, he admitted it, time for people to move on. The man has every right to be in the race if he wants to. Ill be voting for him.

Couldn't agree more and M McG and Dana should move on and realise they live in a different country - we all have our problems moving on it seems

M McG is also a member of SF a party who cannot account for, among other things, some very very dubious funding - FF aren't the only corrupt party in this country.

I am delighted to you'll be voting though, even if I didn't like your choice of candidate

Galwayguy35

sparkling sea wrote: »

Couldn't agree more and M McG and Dana should move on and realise they live in a different country - we all have our problems moving on it seems

M McG is also a member of SF a party who cannot account for, among other things, some very very dubious funding - FF aren't the only corrupt party in this country.

I am delighted to you'll be voting though, even if I didn't like your choice of candidate

Im not a member of SF but ill be giving him the tick this time. Oh i would always vote its 5mins out of the day thats not much to ask of anyone.

phog

rarnes1 wrote: »

McGuiness hasn't a hope of getting in, I'd say he's well aware of that.

Gallagher was a shoe in until last night.

Last thing we need is a FF cronnie as president.

M MG had/has an agenda, I've no idea what it is but outing SG as a FF candidate wasn't it but he made hay when he could while doing it.

dlofnep wrote: »

Gallagher frankly hasn't done anything for the people of the Island.

I'm certain that the families of Jean McConville, Jerry McCabe, Tom Oliver, Tim Parry, Pvt Patrick Kelly and many more would be far more gateful if McGuinness and his fellow travelers hadnt done anything for their families too.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Martin McGuinness was in the IRA, he admitted it, time for people to move on. The man has every right to be in the race if he wants to. Ill be voting for him.

He stood beside M MG last night and pushed him to anser the question, he repeated the request to anser the question, strange when PK last night and D DP today asked him to call muder MURDER he could find it in himself to anser the question, he ran away today and kept saying he want to put the question in context last night but refrained from answering it on both occasions.

fishy fishy

mrak wrote: »

I think there's an increasing amount of ignorant commentary on the troubles. The other week I was chatting to a highly respected friend/colleague of mine on a run about the election and was surprised to hear he was a sf supporter and planned to vote for mcg. I did what any newstalk listener would do and slagged him from a height about their policies on economics, criminality, etc :P However by the end of the run he had opened my eyes a little to another perspective - he is not a young man (55) and grew up in the middle of the troubles, losing family, etc along the way. I'm putting the troubles into that growing bracket of things I'm not qualified to speak about, certainly not to those that lived through it.

great post. I agree, its all very well judging someone while sitting in a very comfortable armchair hundreds of miles away - a very different story when you are in the thick of it. but people don't seem to be able to see that perspective at all.

sparkling sea

fishy fishy wrote: »

great post. I agree, its all very well judging someone while sitting in a very comfortable armchair hundreds of miles away - a very different story when you are in the thick of it. but people don't seem to be able to see that perspective at all.

True but I suppose thats always the case when its not happening in your own country

Sunnyisland

sparkling sea wrote: »

True but I suppose that's always the case when its not happening in your own country

You never heard of the Dublin & monaghan bombings ? and still no one held accountable for them. It suits a lot of people hear to blame one side of a very complicated conflict/war.

Liam Byrne

sparkling sea wrote: »

fishy fishy wrote: »

great post. I agree, its all very well judging someone while sitting in a very comfortable armchair hundreds of miles away - a very different story when you are in the thick of it. but people don't seem to be able to see that perspective at all.

True but I suppose thats always the case when its not happening in your own country

They did murder people in our country too!

Pat Delta

dlofnep wrote: »

Gallagher frankly hasn't done anything for the people of the Island. McGuinness took part in a war against the British establishment while his neighbours were being harassed, intimidated and murdered by British troops on the streets of Derry. It's very easy to judge McGuinness without taking into account the circumstances which he grew up in.

MMcG is a peace maker. He was one of the pivotal players in bringing peace to the Island, and getting the broad Republican movement on board for it. He has worked day in, and day out alongside Unionist politicians (despite their differences) for the betterment of the people.

:mad:MMcG is a peace maker.
Yes he's McG is a good politican - just like bertie - move on from all the bad stuff and 'blow up' all the positivies
c

sparkling sea

Liam Byrne wrote: »

They did murder people in our country too!

They did indeed, as they did in England, and other places

When it comes to Northern Ireland I don't believe any one group is solely to blame and trojan work was done by all who brought about peace there. You couldn't help but admire everyone for the work they did in bringing about peace.

But it wasn't our conflict, our civil war ended many years before.

Galwayguy35

Whats all this "other country" thing that keeps being mentioned. Its another province thats ruled by a foreign power.

phog

fishy fishy wrote: »

great post. I agree, its all very well judging someone while sitting in a very comfortable armchair hundreds of miles away - a very different story when you are in the thick of it. but people don't seem to be able to see that perspective at all.

If it was as simple as that then how come so many good people opted not to join the IRA and their murderous campaigns.

The IRA got way out of control and it became a money bags for so many of their generals and that's the real reason why peace was delayed coming to this island.

Sunnyisland

sparkling sea wrote: »

They did indeed, as they did in England, and other places

When it comes to Northern Ireland I don't believe any one group is solely to blame and trojan work was done by all who brought about peace there. You couldn't help but admire everyone for the work they did in bringing about peace.

But it wasn't our conflict, our civil war ended many years before.

Whats that your sister in frontline last night as she hadn't a clue either about our country's history, educate your self educate yourself.

mrak

lugha wrote: »

I wonder did you ask him about the arrogance of republicans in presuming to speak for, and take up arms on behalf of, all Irish people, including us free staters, AND AND AND are still utterly unapologetic about it or willing to concede that this was utterly wrong?

Nope.

mrak

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If we all followed that logic we wouldn't be "qualified" to speak on almost anything that happened throughout history.

Fair point - I still wouldn't be too quick to judge though, who is to say what we would do in the same circumstances. You might be sure that you would take the peaceful path, good for you if so I don't know myself so well.

Myself I'm voting Higgins after the fiasco last night.

maccored

phog wrote: »

If it was as simple as that then how come so many good people opted not to join the IRA and their murderous campaigns.

the same way a lot of irish people dont opt to join the gards, or the army. You make it sound like people in the north would choose to join the IRA liek it was a football team. Many, many people decided not to actually fight, but provide support, encouragement and shelter when it was needed. There were a lot of people who supported the IRA in one form or another, but who weren't members of it.

sparkling sea

realies wrote: »

Whats that your sister in frontline last night as she hadn't a clue either about our country's history, educate your self educate yourself.

Who was that your brother on the podium answering, grow up this is a discussion, you have your opinion and I have mine.

I know all about my country's history and I love it so much i definitely want to keep my country exactly how it is, as did the girl on the Frontline and as do many others, earn to live with it cause we're not going away, a bit like your slanted view which of course your entitled too.

Richard

fryup wrote: »

to be honest i'm surprised Adams didn't go for it...i tought that was the SF master plan to have him in the aras for the 100th anniversary of 1916

SF won't win, no matter who they put up, but at least MMG is a credible candidate, whilst Adams isn't.

maccored

lugha wrote: »

I wonder did you ask him about the arrogance of republicans in presuming to speak for, and take up arms on behalf of, all Irish people, including us free staters, AND AND AND are still utterly unapologetic about it or willing to concede that this was utterly wrong?

I could be mistaken, but I think someone asked me that kind of question on here before, and the answer is because the IRA took up arms to primarily protect the people of the north. thats part of the island of ireland, so they were speaking for Irish people. You seem to be very affronted that because you are Irish, they specifically meant they were doing it in your name. I dont think they were, so please stop asking the same question in different threads.

sparkling sea

maccored wrote: »

I could be mistaken, but I think someone asked me that kind of question on here before, and the answer is because the IRA took up arms to primarily protect the people of the north. thats part of the island of ireland, so they were speaking for Irish people. You seem to be very affronted that because you are Irish, they specifically meant they were doing it in your name. I dont think they were, so please stop asking the same question in different threads.

Are you sure the criminals like the IRA and the UVF and who ever else, didn't take up arms as you call it too make money, because this is what they did and they did it together.

Of course you had innocents on both sides usually naive teenagers who taught they were fighting for a cause, who where used and scape goated, but not the big boys.

Sunnyisland

sparkling sea wrote: »

Who was that your brother on the podium answering, grow up this is a discussion, you have your opinion and I have mine.

I know all about my country's history and I love it so much i definitely want to keep my country exactly how it is, as did the girl on the Frontline and as do many others, earn to live with it cause we're not going away, a bit like your slanted view which of course your entitled too.

I am sure you do.

nesf

sparkling sea wrote: »

Everyone who practices corrupt or illegal political practices need to be exposed and I am delighted its appears it is starting to happen here.

There is absolutely nothing corrupt or illegal in soliciting donations for a political party. Distasteful sure, but there's nothing technically wrong with it.

Seriously people, don't throw around words like these if you don't understand them in the context.

sparkling sea

nesf wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing corrupt or illegal in soliciting donations for a political party. Distasteful sure, but there's nothing technically wrong with it.

Seriously people, don't throw around words like these if you don't understand them in the context.

I think you'll find I pointed this out already.