Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Options
1…2324252729

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The PSNI haven't dismissed it or can, until complaint has been processed.

    Alastair, as usual, is assuming on behalf of 'everyone else'.
    Under the Patten architecture, to which all political parties have signed up, there are numerous ways in which policing concerns can be addressed, notably through the independent Police Ombudsman, Policing Board or Human Rights Commissioner.

    As such, questioning the motivation or impartiality of police officers tasked with investigating serious crime in this very public, generalised and vague manner, is both unfair and inappropriate.

    It would have been wrong to treat Mr Adams any differently to other citizens.

    The arrest and questioning of Mr Adams was legitimate and lawful and an independent judge subsequently decided that there were grounds for further detention.

    Prosecutorial decisions will also be made independently by the PPS.
    Matt Baggott, Chief Constable PSNI


  • Options
    #783
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    maccored wrote: »
    Its quite obvious the questioning was at the very very least, suspiciously timed. I would say its political policing as the timing wasnt accidental. Purely 'imo' mind you.
    Your opinion, SF's opinion, but not an opinion shared by anyone outside the tent.


  • Options
    #784
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Matt Baggott, Chief Constable PSNI

    Again Alastair lies and distorts the truth.
    Matt Baggot said that in response to Martin McGuinness's statement NOT in response to an official complaint by Adams himself.
    Official complaints that still have to be adjudicated on.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-27296208


  • Options
    #785
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    alastair wrote: »
    When was he on the run? None of the above removes from the reality of his membership of the IRA.


    I was being sarcastic when I said on the run. Lowest form of wit.

    Still elected to three different parliments. How does that happen in a democracy ?. Oh yes people voted for him so dispite all the claims rightly or wrongly about his past he still has support. And we're not talking in the 100's bot the 1000's.


  • Options
    #786
    crusher000
    Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I've even heard it from SF supporters, how everyone including SF members know it, but it has to be denied for political reasons.

    If it is ever proven in court, the SF script will shift immediately to "everyone always knew that!".


    "If" enough said. If my auntie had balls .........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    alastair wrote: »
    It's certainly not factually incorrect - see below:
    Adams was implicated in the killing by two IRA veterans who gave taped interviews to researchers for a Boston College history archive
    http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/world/story/1.2627546
    Republicans interviewed as part of the oral history project had implicated Gerry Adams in the murder of Ms McConville, who was dragged “squealing” from her home in front of her children in December 1972 and was never seen alive again.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shadow-of-jean-mcconville-murder-still-hangs-over-gerry-adams-and-sinn-fein-30244125.html
    Participants in the BC project have implicated Adams in the killing: Brendan Hughes, a legendary IRA volunteer who fell out with Adams over the latter’s peace strategy that included compromising on long-standing republican ideals; and Dolours Price, one of the highest-profile female members of the Provisional IRA, who said that Adams ordered her to drive McConville to her IRA executioners.
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/30/sinn-fein-leader-gerry-adams-arrested-connection-with-ira-murder/xUrADTJZCIhQMZSExLiAlM/story.html

    I'll accept that being implicated in the crime by admitted IRA members fully justifies your use of the term.

    No further argument on the matter is really necessary. Attempts to obfuscate will be viewed with disfavour. Any additional discussion/comments by PM or on the "Rules" thread.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #788
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    crusher000 wrote: »
    I was being sarcastic when I said on the run. Lowest form of wit.

    Still elected to three different parliments. How does that happen in a democracy ?. Oh yes people voted for him so dispite all the claims rightly or wrongly about his past he still has support. And we're not talking in the 100's bot the 1000's.

    Did anyone deny he was voted for? Did anyone suggest that anyone shouldn't vote for the man? The issue is whether he's been a member of the IRA. Gerry Kelly, Martin Ferris, and (up to a point) Martin McGuinness have also been voted for by people, but they acknowledged their past in the IRA. So it's not particularly surprising that they would do so for Adams.

    I've voted for Christy Burke a number of times. Ex member of the IRA, sentenced for his crimes. Still a good councillor. Just no hypocrisy added to the equation.


  • Options
    #789
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again Alastair lies and distorts the truth.
    Matt Baggot said that in response to Martin McGuinness's statement NOT in response to an official complaint by Adams himself.
    Official complaints that still have to be adjudicated on.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-27296208

    That's PSNI dismissing the whole 'political policing' straw man. Adam's complaint is nothing to do with supposed 'political policing' - he's taken exception to some of the questions he was asked, but hasn't specified why exactly. I'm sure the police ombudsman will give it all the consideration it deserves. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #790
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    That's PSNI dismissing the whole 'political policing' straw man. Adam's complaint is nothing to do with supposed 'political policing' - he's taken exception to some of the questions he was asked, but hasn't specified why exactly. I'm sure the police ombudsman will give it all the consideration it deserves. :rolleyes:

    And nobody in the PSNI has commented on the complaints, despite you trying infer that they did.
    Just keeping you honest.


  • Options
    #791
    Palz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭Palz


    'One Man One Bullet'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And nobody in the PSNI has commented on the complaints, despite you trying infer that they did.
    Just keeping you honest.

    The complaint has nothing to do with the claim of 'political policing'. Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim for the bluster it was. Which is what was under discussion. Just keeping you on topic.


  • Options
    #793
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alastair wrote: »
    The complaint has nothing to do with the claim of 'political policing'. Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim for the bluster it was. Which is what was uner discussion. Just keeping you on topic.
    You're using the royal we again there alastair.
    Can we ask yet again who exactly are these "everyone"?


  • Options
    #794
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You're using he royal we again others alastair.
    Can we ask yet again who exactly are these "everyone"?

    I don't see any use of 'we' in there - royal or otherwise. If you've got any evidence of a group that has chimed in with SF's claims that Adams' arrest is 'political policing' then throw it up. Otherwise the facts are that the two governments, all other political parties, the police, and all political commentators have either dismissed the claim outright, or suggested that SF are completely overstating their case. The only journalist I've read that chimes in with them is Tim Pat Coogan, no stranger to kneejerk responses to anything unionist or UK state related, who believes that his pre-arranged, voluntary arrival for questioning was a, eh, 'black ops swoop on Adams'. Riiiiight.


  • Options
    #795
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    @Alastair
    Yes, you have used the royal we when you really mean just you. This isn't surprising after your confused usage of "strawman" earlier.
    Now, could you list this "everyone" who has completely dismissed Adams' claims of political policing with the traditional evidence (try to avoid twitter feed nonsense please) to back it up?


  • Options
    #796
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    @Alastair
    Yes, you have used the royal we when you really mean just you.
    That would be despite not using it at all? You've got your own thing going on there, I'm afraid. No doubt you're going to throw up the evidence that there isn't a consensus outside SF that the 'political policing' claim is so much guff?
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    His isn't surprising after your confused usage of "strawman" earlier.
    Simply saying it's confused doesn't actually make it so. The 'political policing' claim is entirely identifiable as a straw man, in the face of an embarrassing situation for the party.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Now, could you list this "everyone" who has completely dismissed Adams' claims of political policing with the traditional evidence (try to avoid twitter feed nonsense please) to back it up?
    I've already done so. Now feel free to do likewise for those who support the SF accusation. (I've helpfully given you Tim Pat Coogan and his swooping black ops, to kick you off).


  • Options
    #797
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Alright alright we get it. Not the slightest whiff of evidence to back up your "everyone" nonsense. You could have just said so instead of going off on one.


  • Options
    #798
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Alright alright we get it. Not the slightest whiff of evidence to back up your "everyone" nonsense. You could have just said so instead of going off on one.

    Eh no. I've given you a list of those who dismissed it - where is your list of those supporting the SF claim?


  • Options
    #799
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    @Alastair
    You've posted one or two links to the usual suspects. It's quite predictable that this counts as "everyone" to you.


  • Options
    #800
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    @Alastair
    You've posted one or two links to the usual suspects. It's quite predictable that this counts as "everyone" to you.

    Again - you're not too hot on reading what I've actually written. I provided no links to anyone - 'usual suspects' or otherwise - I gave you a list of those that have dismissed the claim. As a special bonus I even gave you one name to kick your list off. And yet I'm not actually seeing a list from you? What's that all about?


  • Options
    #801
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alastair wrote: »
    Again - you're not too hot on reading what I've actually written. I provided no links to anyone - 'usual suspects' or otherwise - I gave you a list of those that have dismissed the claim. As a special bonus I even gave you one name to kick your list off. And yet I'm not actually seeing a list from you? What's that all about?
    What's that about? It's about your trifling list not being worth the pixels they're printed on from the auto-condemn brigade.
    Did you really link to a dismissal from EVERY political party and EVERY commentator? Wow. Must have been a long list. Funny I can't find it anywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    What's that about? It's about your trifling list not being worth the pixels they're printed on from the auto-condemn brigade.
    Did you really link to a dismissal from EVERY political party and EVERY commentator? Wow. Must have been a long list. Funny I can't find it anywhere.
    That's a pretty broad 'auto-condemn brigade'.
    Again - I haven't linked to anyone.
    So, your list of those supporting the SF claim?

    1. Tim Pat Coogan
    2...


  • Options
    #803
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alastair wrote: »
    So, your list of those supporting the SF claim?
    I never claimed to have a list.
    YOU claimed "everybody" had dismissed the claim.
    You are now oh so predictably looking for some other list as a sad bit of whataboutery when you were called out on your bluster and have zero to back it up.


  • Options
    #804
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I never claimed to have a list.
    YOU claimed "everybody" had dismissed the claim.
    You are now oh so predictably looking for some other list as a sad bit of whataboutery when you were called out on your bluster and have zero to back it up.

    Everyone outside SF and their fanboys - yes.
    How exactly is providing a list to disprove that contention 'whataboutery'?

    I gave you a list of those that dismissed the SF claim - it's pretty much everyone with a stake or commentary in the arena.


  • Options
    #805
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alastair wrote: »
    Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim
    Just in case you forgot what you said alastair.
    Hey, why don't you ask me to hop on one foot or say a tonguetwister as some sort of counterclaim so everybody might forget you said this and have failed miserably to back it up?


  • Options
    #806
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Just in case you forgot what you said alastair.
    Hey, why don't you ask me to hop on one foot or say a tonguetwister as some sort of counterclaim so everybody might forget you said this and have failed miserably to back it up?

    I've backed up my comment by listing those that dismissed the accusation. It's essentially everyone but the Shinners and their coat-trailers. Now if you want to be pedantic, I'm happy to admit that there's quite a few people oblivious to the whole issue, to Adams, and to Ireland, but within those involved in NI, the consensus outside SF is that their accusation just doesn't hold water.


  • Options
    #807
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alastair wrote: »
    I've backed up my comment by listing those that dismissed the accusation. It's essentially everyone but the Shinners and their coat-trailers. Now if you want to be pedantic, I'm happy to admit that there's quite a few people oblivious to the whole issue, to Adams, and to Ireland, but within those involved in NI, the consensus outside SF is that their accusation just doesn't hold water.
    It'd be amazing if you found anybody who didn't have something to gain from dismissing SF's claims of police bias, wouldn't it?
    So by "everyone" you really do just mean "you and the usual suspects". Sorry about that.


  • Options
    #808
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The complaint has nothing to do with the claim of 'political policing'. Everyone has indeed dismissed that claim for the bluster it was. Which is what was under discussion. Just keeping you on topic.

    Could you post a link to his two complaints please? I didn't realise they were in the public domain, but you seem to be familiar with them...or are you bluffing again?


  • Options
    #809
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    here is a link, now can we move on please

    http://www.internetslang.com/GTFU-meaning-definition.asp


  • Options
    #810
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It'd be amazing if you found anybody who didn't have something to gain from dismissing SF's claims of police bias, wouldn't it?
    So by "everyone" you really do just mean "you and the usual suspects". Sorry about that.

    So - the 'usual suspects' comprise the two governments, the police themselves, all the other political parties who have been asked, and all journalists (bar Coogan) who have written op-ed pieces? That makes SF a remarkably suspicious party - almost paranoid tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Could you post a link to his two complaints please? I didn't realise they were in the public domain, but you seem to be familiar with them...or are you bluffing again?

    It's a single complaint - he's keeping the second in store, because the ombudsman wouldn't like it. The super-secret complaint relates to some unspecified questions he didn't like. But clearly the SF allegation of 'political policing' relates to the timing of the questioning, and not the nitty gritty of what he was asked - so it appears to be a complaint about something else.


Advertisement