Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

Still not seeing any evidence that consensus I point to doesn't exist. Perhaps come back if you've something to counter that reality?

Oh and with regard to Ferriter - here's his take on the date:

Yes - a war of independence not The War of Independence which is what I said he said.

Seriously as you don't appear to understand the difference between lower case 'a war of independence' and capitalised 'The War of Independence' - - or primary and secondary sources - or what constitutes a 'historical document' I am wasting my time.

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - a war of independence not The War of Independence which is what I said he said.

Seriously as you don't appear to understand the difference between lower case 'a war of independence' and capitalised 'The War of Independence' - - or primary and secondary sources - or what constitutes a 'historical document' I am wasting my time.

I couldn't care less if you put an 'a' or a 'the' in front of it tbh.
Your professor seems clear it commenced in 1919 - which wouldn't be 1916.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A colleague - who happens to be a historian who specialises in Irish history and a 'protestant' from East Belfast who grew up during The Troubles - just linked me this article by Fintan O'Toole with a note saying 'Truth commission urgently required. It is a no brainer.'

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcconville-case-signals-pressing-need-for-independent-commission-of-inquiry-1.1784237?page=2

It expresses what I have been arguing. Don't select which murders deserve investigation but remain silent about the others - a tactic all sides are engaging in.

If one side/individual is being called to account - then all must be called to account as all those innocent people killed equally deserve to have their deaths investigated and their killers brought to justice.

Yes, but Sinn Fein want a Truth Commission plus amnesty. Not going there. Murders should be investigated by the police force.

As far as I am concerned, I want all murders to be investigated. However, that requires new evidence. New evidence was provided in the McConville case by the Boston papers which warranted the reopening of the investigation.

I am not silent about all of the other murders, let us get new evidence, investigate them and bring perpretators to justice, and no messing with this only two years in jail clause.

And that applies to Gerry Adams for all of the things that he is guilty of.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but Sinn Fein want a Truth Commission plus amnesty. Not going there. Murders should be investigated by the police force.

As far as I am concerned, I want all murders to be investigated. However, that requires new evidence. New evidence was provided in the McConville case by the Boston papers which warranted the reopening of the investigation.

I am not silent about all of the other murders, let us get new evidence, investigate them and bring perpretators to justice, and no messing with this only two years in jail clause.

And that applies to Gerry Adams for all of the things that he is guilty of.

Indeed.

Just like the 'new' evidence from the Saville Enquiry (which published it's findings 4 years ago next month ) led to prosecutions.

Except it didn't. It prompted unnamed 'senior British officials' to urge that such events be taken in the context of their time

Senior defence officials want David Cameron to to tell the House of Commons that the Saville Report's findings need to be viewed in the context of the violence and chaos which engulfed Northern Ireland in 1972.
They have said that while there should be no attempt to justify the killing of 14 civilians by British paratroopers, the Commons should be told that the events of Bloody Sunday were a tragedy which belonged to another era and should not reflect badly on today's Armed forces...

...One senior official said: "The Army is in a lose-lose situation. All we can hope is that the events of Bloody Sunday are seen in the context of the times and not through 21st century eyes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7823537/David-Cameron-urged-to-tell-public-not-to-judge-Army-over-Bloody-Sunday-killings.html


So the British Army (whose actions were such that Cameron apologised in The House of Commons) appear to be of the opinion that events in 1972 must be viewed with the context of it's time and

'that the shootings took place in a year when more than 140 members of the security forces and 250 civilians were killed on the streets of Ulster.
The period amounted to the worst period of civil strife on British soil for hundreds of years.

therefore it would serve no good purpose for prosecutions to take place...

Now, change that to discussing SF and the PIRA - are their actions 'not to be viewed within the context of their time'?

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

Just like the 'new' evidence from the Saville Enquiry (which published it's findings 4 years ago next month ) led to prosecutions.

Except it didn't. It prompted unnamed 'senior British officials' to urge that such events be taken in the context of their time


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7823537/David-Cameron-urged-to-tell-public-not-to-judge-Army-over-Bloody-Sunday-killings.html


So the British Army (whose actions were such that Cameron apologised in The House of Commons) appear to be of the opinion that events in 1972 must be viewed with the context of it's time and therefore it would serve no good purpose for prosecutions to take place...

Now, change that to discussing SF and the PIRA - are their actions 'not to be viewed within the context of their time'?

And where have I said that they should not be prosecuted?

McGuinness, Adams and senior defence officials may be hypocrites but I am not and I believe those responsible in all cases should be brought to justice with any available new evidence. I would not vote for Sinn Fein as a result of their hypocrisy on this issue. If you are condemning the senior defence officials, how are you able to bring yourself to vote for Sinn Fein?

Incidentally, the defence officials are not public representatives, and much as I dislike their advice, it is their duty to give their views, however, it is the public representatives who are answerable to the public. The next time I hear McGuinness bellyaching about some perceived British injustice, it won't be a pinch of salt needed but a mountain of the stuff.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

And where have I said that they should not be prosecuted?

McGuinness, Adams and senior defence officials may be hypocrites but I am not and I believe those responsible in all cases should be brought to justice with any available new evidence. I would not vote for Sinn Fein as a result of their hypocrisy on this issue. If you are condemning the senior defence officials, how are you able to bring yourself to vote for Sinn Fein?

Incidentally, the defence officials are not public representatives, and much as I dislike their advice, it is their duty to give their views, however, it is the public representatives who are answerable to the public. The next time I hear McGuinness bellyaching about some perceived British injustice, it won't be a pinch of salt needed but a mountain of the stuff.

Because I believe it is time to move on just as we had to move on in 1922.

We can keep rehashing old woes or we can sadly accept that all sides engaged in atrocities, no side covered itself in glory and work together to ensure the conflict does not re-ignite.

That is not possible while one side is being held to account but the other isn't.

The British and Irish governments need to make the call - do we go with Truth and Reconciliation where all sides are free from prosecution and admit what they did so the families of all the victims get some form of closure or do we prosecute every single individual possible - including those Paratroopers whose identity is known.

Personally I don't care which one it is as long as it is applied to all sides equally.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because I believe it is time to move on just as we had to move on in 1922.

We can keep rehashing old woes or we can sadly accept that all sides engaged in atrocities, no side covered itself in glory and work together to ensure the conflict does not re-ignite.

That is not possible while one side is being held to account but the other isn't.

The British and Irish governments need to make the call - do we go with Truth and Reconciliation where all sides are free from prosecution and admit what they did so the families of all the victims get some form of closure or do we prosecute every single individual possible - including those Paratroopers whose identity is known.

Personally I don't care which one it is as long as it is applied to all sides equally.

Even if you have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the truth comes out, it is one thing to learn the truth, it is another to forgive those who have done wrong, but it is a further and, to me, unacceptable step to forget what happened and elect those responsible to public positions.

As I have said before if Sinn Fein come clean and give a full and clear account of their members' involvement in atrocities and retire them from public life and replace with a new generation, only then could I consider giving them a vote.

Of course, their mad economic policies become a factor then, but that is for another day.

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because I believe it is time to move on just as we had to move on in 1922.

We can keep rehashing old woes or we can sadly accept that all sides engaged in atrocities, no side covered itself in glory and work together to ensure the conflict does not re-ignite.

That is not possible while one side is being held to account but the other isn't.

The British and Irish governments need to make the call - do we go with Truth and Reconciliation where all sides are free from prosecution and admit what they did so the families of all the victims get some form of closure or do we prosecute every single individual possible - including those Paratroopers whose identity is known.

Personally I don't care which one it is as long as it is applied to all sides equally.

The people voted for a mechanism for progress in the GFA. The absense of any amnesty was clear then, along with the need for an independent police service committed to:

• the legislative and constitutional framework requires the impartial discharge of policing functions and conforms with internationally accepted norms in relation to policing standards;
• the police operate within a clear framework of accountability to the law and the community they serve, so:
• they are constrained by, accountable to and act only within the law;

and everyone - SF included, signed up to them. If there's enough evidence to convict anyone for crimes committed during the troubles, it's the duty of the police, and the state to pursue those crimes. Any commission would have to operate alongside those realities - nobody gets to avoid prosecution if there's sufficient evidence to charge them. As it should be.

For what it's worth - the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team have been accuse of bias in charges pressed from both republican and loyalist sides, which suggests anything but a one-sided approach. Their last FOI info on the breakdown was in 2010 - “71 arrests to date; all but one are loyalists”.

nagirrac

Godge wrote: »

Yes, but Sinn Fein want a Truth Commission plus amnesty. Not going there. Murders should be investigated by the police force.

Including murders where the police force themselves were allegedly involved? Do you seriously think police officers or members of the British army would give evidence against former or current members without the condition of amnesty? Actually, a more serious question is do you seriously believe members of the security forces would give evidence at all, in particular given what has transpired with the Boston tapes?

Godge wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, I want all murders to be investigated. However, that requires new evidence. New evidence was provided in the McConville case by the Boston papers which warranted the reopening of the investigation.

Who is going to provide that new evidence? The participants in the Boston tapes were assured that the testimony they gave would not be released during the lifetimes of those concerned. Clearly this was a condition that as it transpired could not be met. Do you seriously expect anyone involved in murders during the NI conflict, whether Nationalist, Loyalist or security officers to give testimony against either themselves or former comrades, if this evidence were to lead to prosecutions?

Specifically in the Gerry Adams case, the testimony given in the Boston tapes was by individuals who were bitterly opposed to Adams and the peace process. Is this the way forward? Individuals still opposed to the GFA and in some cases still committed to the armed struggle giving testimony against those who have embraced peace.

Godge wrote: »

I am not silent about all of the other murders, let us get new evidence, investigate them and bring perpretators to justice, and no messing with this only two years in jail clause.

Who is this "us" you speak of? Who is going to get the evidence from the former RUC, UDR, and British army involved in murders? Have you seen any evidence from the British government that they have any interest in doing this? If, not what's the point of this exercise you propose, unless its to selectively target one side involved in the conflict. Reflect on the question Bann has raised. Why have the PSRI not demanded that the British soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday be handed over for trial? Surely this is the simplest of all cases from the period to prosecute?

Godge wrote: »

And that applies to Gerry Adams for all of the things that he is guilty of.

What is Gerry Adams guilty of in your view?

golfball37

Godge wrote: »

Even if you have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the truth comes out, it is one thing to learn the truth, it is another to forgive those who have done wrong, but it is a further and, to me, unacceptable step to forget what happened and elect those responsible to public positions.

As I have said before if Sinn Fein come clean and give a full and clear account of their members' involvement in atrocities and retire them from public life and replace with a new generation, only then could I consider giving them a vote.

Of course, their mad economic policies become a factor then, but that is for another day.

Frank Aiken took Protestant women and children from their bed in Altnaveigh and had them gunned down in cold blood for no reason other than a sectarian one. He later became tanaiste and Irelands ambassador to the UN. Whether guilty people should leave the stage its up the people who elect them really.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

If there's enough evidence to convict anyone for crimes committed during the troubles, it's the duty of the police, and the state to pursue those crimes. Any commission would have to operate alongside those realities - nobody gets to avoid prosecution if there's sufficient evidence to charge them. As it should be.

As Bann has asked, why then have the PSNI not demanded that at a minimum the British paratroopers involved in Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre be handed over for trial? There's all the evidence in the world to try them, why has it not happened?

Zubeneschamali

golfball37 wrote: »

Whether guilty people should leave the stage its up the people who elect them really.

Exactly - which is why SF should be sent the message that many of us will not vote SF until the IRA crowd are gone.

Notice that SFs candidates in the Euros are new faces with no prior record - SF making a break with the past. The Euros are often a name-recognition contest, and SF pushing new faces is a bit of a risk, but also an acknowledgement that many of SFs better known names are divisive.

Mary Lou McDonald having to come out and pretend Gerry was never in the IRA damages that effort, as it reminds people who's really in charge of SF.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly - which is why SF should be sent the message that many of us will not vote SF until the IRA crowd are gone.

Notice that SFs candidates in the Euros are new faces with no prior record - SF making a break with the past. The Euros are often a name-recognition contest, and SF pushing new faces is a bit of a risk, but also an acknowledgement that many of SFs better known names are divisive.

Mary Lou McDonald having to come out and pretend Gerry was never in the IRA damages that effort, as it reminds people who's really in charge of SF.

By the same token why didn't FF sever all ties with those involved in the economic mess that led to the Troika landing on our shores?

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the same token why didn't FF sever all ties with those involved in the economic mess that led to the Troika landing on our shores?

In FF's case, if they admit they were at fault, get rid of the old guard, adopt strict anti-corruption policies, and pave Hell over with Raspberry Ripple ice cream, I still will never vote for them*

* Except to give them a higher preference than the Catholic Lunacy Party and the Independent Puppy Farming candidate.

Blowfish

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the same token why didn't FF sever all ties with those involved in the economic mess that led to the Troika landing on our shores?

No idea. You can be damn sure that not doing so has cost them a lot of people's votes though. The same applies for SF.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

As Bann has asked, why then have the PSNI not demanded that at a minimum the British paratroopers involved in Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy massacre be handed over for trial? There's all the evidence in the world to try them, why has it not happened?

I suspect you don't know what evidence is available to the PSNI. So don't pretend otherwise.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In FF's case, if they admit they were at fault, get rid of the old guard, adopt strict anti-corruption policies, and pave Hell over with Raspberry Ripple ice cream, I still will never vote for them*

* Except to give them a higher preference than the Catholic Lunacy Party and the Independent Puppy Farming candidate.

I wouldn't even give FF a preference - after all, they not only have links to a terrorist organisation, they were founded by a convicted terrorist and later made a man implicated in gun running their leader, they are populist, economically illiterate and not once have they admitted to any wrong doing...


:pac:

Bannasidhe

alastair wrote: »

I suspect you don't know what evidence is available to the PSNI. So don't pretend otherwise.

Here it is:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http:/report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/

UDP

I might be a bit slow but still don't get why sinn fein are any worse than some of the other parties. Their violent history doesn't bother me as I can see how it came about. FF bankrupted the country - I think sinn fein could not have done any worse than them. I'd probably vote for fg as they are the only credible alternative but I still think sf could not have been any worse than ff were/are but yet while ff were in power I saw people making the same arguments as I can see in this thread as to why not vote for sf. We expect the north to accept them but they are not good enough for the South? They are making cuts in the north as necessary so I cannot see how they wouldn't do the same here. All the parties lie during the elections giving aspirations which they can never achieve rather than realities.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the same token why didn't FF sever all ties with those involved in the economic mess that led to the Troika landing on our shores?

Firstly, we ran most of them out of office at the last election. Secondly, to ever get my vote, that is what they are going to have to do.

There are two parties running for election in this country who will not get my vote.

One is guilty of crimes against the people because of September 2008.
The other is guilty of crimes against the people for committing murder in their name and for support of those murderers and for continuing to harbour them in their ranks.

Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein, the four dirtiest words in Irish politics. The current shouting and roaring by SF over Gerry Adams proves the contention that they haven't gone away.

alastair

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here it is:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http:/report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/

Which particular evidence there is sufficient for charging a named individual?

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

I suspect you don't know what evidence is available to the PSNI. So don't pretend otherwise.

Have a read of what Bann has posted.

Quite a bit more evidence than they had to charge Gerry Adams I would venture.

Do you not believe the paratroopers involved and their superior officers should not be arrested and tried for the Bloody Sunday massacre? If not, why not?

maccored

Godge wrote: »

Firstly, we ran most of them out of office at the last election. Secondly, to ever get my vote, that is what they are going to have to do.

Unfortunately watch FF rise in time for the next election. They will.

Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein, the four dirtiest words in Irish politics. The current shouting and roaring by SF over Gerry Adams proves the contention that they haven't gone away.

SF havent gone away. They never did.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

Which particular evidence there is sufficient for charging a named individual?

Do you seriously believe the officers in charge that day do not know who fired the shots?

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you seriously believe the officers in charge that day do not know who fired the shots?

I'm not seeing any named individuals accused of shooting anyone - Derek Wilford is outside the jurisdiction of the state - so maybe if he was extradited, he might be able to tell them something, but why do you think he's bound to know who shot whom?

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

Firstly, we ran most of them out of office at the last election. Secondly, to ever get my vote, that is what they are going to have to do.

........

...then you're not going to be voting for them any time soon. There will be no rejection of the armed struggle.

Nodin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly - which is why SF should be sent the message that many of us will not vote SF until the IRA crowd are gone.

Notice that SFs candidates in the Euros are new faces with no prior record - SF making a break with the past. The Euros are often a name-recognition contest, and SF pushing new faces is a bit of a risk, but also an acknowledgement that many of SFs better known names are divisive.

Mary Lou McDonald having to come out and pretend Gerry was never in the IRA damages that effort, as it reminds people who's really in charge of SF.

Why? That would be jettisoning the core support of the party to garner votes from some floaters. Slowly but surely, and without overly compromising, the party is gaining converts. That's the important thing, not pandering to whoever turns up and makes arbitrary demands.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Why? That would be jettisoning the core support of the party to garner votes from some floaters. Slowly but surely, and without overly compromising, the party is gaining converts. That's the important thing, not pandering to whoever turns up and makes arbitrary demands.

a.k.a. Reason # 42 - they are not being populist enough.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

a.k.a. Reason # 42 - they are not being populist enough.

The populist feckers....

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

The populist feckers....

...are not being populist enough = reason # 54: Inconsistency.