More Crap on Adams, Mod Warning in OP.

daUbiq

Creative Juices wrote: »

The difference is we know he was in the IRA but we cannot understand why he wont admit it like McGuinness did. A continuous lie does not inspire admiration or trust.

Which Irish politicians do inspire your admiration or trust?

Edna, Bertie or maybe Charlie Haughey? They all lie and they all lie continuously. That's Irish politics. :eek:

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Where did she say she wasn't?

She didn't say she wasn't the Queen of Sheba either, but I think we'll take it as a given that she wasn't.
This is more amazing fill in the gaps with any old ****e logic. "She didn't say she was intimidated so I'll assume she was."
Hilarious.

Eamondomc

I m off for a while now. but this is a case of credability for sinn fein and so far they have shown themselves to be the same as all the other political parties and lie lie lie or at least stall and stall again till it goes away. Ah well its really the same old same old. Pity cos I thought they were a bit refreshing for a while there.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

No, just listen to the Dail, where he says they are decent people.

What kind of answer is that?

Godge wrote: »

Where did she say she wasn't?

So you are making it up. :rolleyes:

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you are making it up. :rolleyes:

I will make something up for you.

Gerry Adams thought is was the Irish Rail Association when he denied membership.

Eamondomc

And I ll make something up. Gerry Adams wasnt in the IRA

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

She didn't say she wasn't the Queen of Sheba either, but I think we'll take it as a given that she wasn't.
This is more amazing fill in the gaps with any old ****e logic. "She didn't say she was intimidated so I'll assume she was."
Hilarious.

If you read her account, she talks about seeing who was giving witness for the other side and people standing outside the court watching her. She also asked to give evidence remotely but the defence refused to agree to this. It is a reasonable conclusion that she backed down at the time because of fear.

Kind of like the way that Gerry can say it is likely she faced an IRA kangaroo court.

Dan_Solo

Eamondomc wrote: »

And I ll make something up. Gerry Adams wasnt in the IRA

So that's why Cahill, who we're told wanted nothing to do with the IRA, asked for a meeting with him?
Which is it?

Sierra Oscar

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe ask Maria Cahill why she separates Gerry Adams from the IRA in her substantive allegations and then later claims in another interview that she knows Gerry Adams was in the IRA and who recruited him?

Why does she say that? Why make a distinction between SF and the IRA if she 'knew' Gerry was the IRA?
Curious.

Is that the best you can come up with? Yeah Gerry wasn't in the IRA ...

*wink wink*

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

If you read her account, she talks about seeing who was giving witness for the other side and people standing outside the court watching her. She also asked to give evidence remotely but the defence refused to agree to this. It is a reasonable conclusion that she backed down at the time because of fear.

It is reasonable to make something up out of thin air. Sure.
Why can't she just say she was intimidated if that was the case? Do you think these people didn't know who she was already before they were called to the court? And she didn't know who they were?

Barely There

Dan_Solo wrote: »

LOL, yeah that's going to happen!
Do you think the golden circle parties and AGS wouldn't have done this by now if they could?

Personally I wouldn't be loll'ing at the thought of rapists and child molesters reoffending.

I'd imagine the Shinners are sh;tting themselves at the prospect though if a link can be established.

The most important thing now is for Gerry to let us all know how many he's moved down here. I mean some of these individuals may be living in communities completely un-monitored, beside schools or involved with children.

I think the people of this State have a right to know who's been expelled down here - don't you?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I will make something up for you.

Gerry Adams thought is was the Irish Rail Association when he denied membership.

Maria Cahill has said, that she knew Gerry Adams was in the IRA and who recruited him.
Yet for the purposes of her substantive allegations, the IRA and Gerry Adams are separate.

Can you explain this or not?

Dan_Solo

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is that the best you can come up with? Yeah Gerry wasn't in the IRA ...

*wink wink*

wink wink blah blah but still a Yes or No seems elusive.
If Cahill didn't want to deal with the IRA why was she dealing with Adams?

Eamondomc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So that's why Cahill, who we're told wanted nothing to do with the IRA, asked for a meeting with him?
Which is it?

Can you state caregorically and in full truth and without asking a rhetorical Question that Gerry Adams wasnt in the IRA. and remember without the rhetorical question. Just yes or no. Please

Dan_Solo

Barely There wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't be loll'ing at the thought of rapists and child molesters reoffending.

Why, did somebody here say that? Because I LOLed at the idea that the establishment parties wouldn't have nailed this on SF by now if they could, I am therefore LOLing at child abuse itself?
Hey, you used "loll'ing" in your post, therefore I will just pretend you are "loll'ing" about child abuse yourself. Why bother with the rest of a post, just pick out one word and invent stuff around it. Brilliant.

Dan_Solo

Eamondomc wrote: »

Can you state caregorically and in full truth and without asking a rhetorical Question that Gerry Adams wasnt in the IRA. and remember without the rhetorical question. Just yes or no. Please

That's a moronic question. I can state my opinion on whether he was in the IRA or not, but I can't state categorically if he really was or not.

tipptom

The accuser of the alleged rapist had a chance to pursue her rapist and get him convicted in court,she chose not to go under questioning in court and has now elected to go by trial by media in this case.




Would the media have named somebody else in the media whom charges were dropped against but charges could still have been brought against but they can stiil go and call him a rapist just because he was on one side of a divide that does not suit the political opponents/media of this country of a political party that is a threat to their power in the next election.
It does not matter one jot if a kangaroo court found him guilty or not,a court which has been described as completely inadequate to deal with these cases.which is a massive understatement


Now there is not a chance of the charges being put on the alleged rapist but this does not seem to matter to the accuser,FF/FG/irish media.All the seems to matter now is that the PM(who uses suicide victims and the disappeared to avoid questions and interviews) of this country gets his photo opp coming down the steps of the Dail with her,i hope he affords this personal attention to all the abused in this country with 50 minutes of his time and personally walks them outside and pretends not to see the photographers.
He will now set up a dail committee that will go on inexorably to conveniently run up to the next election and maybe GA could be arrested for membership again at the same time as the findings.


Every body here including SF supporters are saying that they have no doubt that this named person on boards as well as everywhere else has raped her,where is this evidence and why is it not being brought to the DPP?

Sierra Oscar

Dan_Solo wrote: »

wink wink blah blah but still a Yes or No seems elusive.
If Cahill didn't want to deal with the IRA why was she dealing with Adams?

Because she was dealing with Adams on a one to one basis and not as part of a Kangaroo court.

The fact is that she did meet with Adams as he himself admits that. So what exactly are you trying to say? You are clutching at straws.

Tell me this - what do you think was discussed at that meeting with Adams? Keep in mind Adams has said that he was aware of the abuse. Do you really think the abuse she went through, along with the Kangaroo court, did not arise once in the conversation? What do you think they were discussing?

Happyman42

Barely There wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if any of the abusers that Gerry and Co moved down here re-offended again after they were located here.

.

If they where, it seems they'd have no difficulty in our schools if this is anything to go by.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/enda-kenny-confirms-commitment-to-meet-louise-o-keeffe-1.1954625

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has confirmed his commitment to meeting with child sex abuse survivor Louise O’Keeffe after she challenged him to meet her to discuss the Government’s delay in enacting child protection legislation in primary schools.

Dan_Solo

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Because she was dealing with Adams on a one to one basis and not as part of a Kangaroo court.

Your clutching at straws.

My clutching at straws?
You're saying Adams is an IRA man, but he isn't when you talk to him personally?
That's sooo entertaining.

Happyman42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My clutching at straws?
You're saying Adams is an IRA man, but he isn't when you talk to him personally?
That's sooo entertaining.

The mind boggling mental gymnastics here is sure entertaining alright! He' s in, he's out, he's in, he's out!

Sierra Oscar

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My clutching at straws?
You're saying Adams is an IRA man, but he isn't when you talk to him personally?
That's sooo entertaining.

I note you conveniently removed part of my post from the quote you made. Some difficult question for you to answer is it?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Because she was dealing with Adams on a one to one basis and not as part of a Kangaroo court.

The fact is that she did meet with Adams as he himself admits that. So what exactly are you trying to say? You are clutching at straws.

Tell me this - what do you think was discussed at that meeting with Adams? Keep in mind Adams has said that he was aware of the abuse. Do you really think the abuse she went through, along with the Kangaroo court, did not arise once in the conversation? What do you think they were discussing?

Eamondomc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's a moronic question. I can state my opinion on whether he was in the IRA or not, but I can't state categorically if he really was or not.

Then it is only your opinion that he wasnt in the IRA. So why argue so ardently wit those whose opinion is that he was in the IRA. We are all just really offering our opinions.
I wouldnt condemn him for being in the IRA. There is in fact a better way of life now because of the struggle of the IRA. Just dont trample on everyone for doing what you are doing and expressing their opinion

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

LOL, yeah that's going to happen!
Do you think the golden circle parties and AGS wouldn't have done this by now if they could?

Laughing at potential child abuse, that is a new low.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/donegal-children-were-put-at-risk-says-report-1.1972831

This report shows that Donegal social services weren't able to cope with the case load because of the number of offenders and alleged offenders.

I am sure part of the reason is the lack of resources, but it may also be because they have more than the usual proportion of child sexual abusers because of the SF/IRA displacement from the North.

This is not a trivial question for making fun about. There is a real and serious risk to children because of the actions of SF/IRA.

SF/IRA vigilantes have moved child sexual abusers from the North to the South, thus ensuring that they cannot be convicted but leaving them able to continue on their path. You are familiar with the re-offending rates for child sexual abuse, aren't you? If not, maybe you would read up about it.

Prevention of Child Abuse services in the 26 counties are already overloaded, we don't need excrement being sent over the border by so-called "decent" people.

I haven't posted much about this aspect of the scandal because the level of debate on this thread isn't high enough to warrant serious discussion but the most disgusting aspect of this whole thing is the way those sex abusers were let go to reoffend (and they will reoffend, that is the pattern) and SF/IRA are doing nothing to sort out the problem they created.

Happyman42

Eamondomc wrote: »

Then it is only your opinion that he wasnt in the IRA. So why argue so ardently wit those whose opinion is that he was in the IRA. We are all just really offering our opinions.
I wouldnt condemn him for being in the IRA. There is in fact a better way of life now because of the struggle of the IRA. Just dont trample on everyone for doing what you are doing and expressing their opinion

Can you explain the anomaly in Cahill's statements then as all the anti SF posters are running from it.

Godge

tipptom wrote: »

Every body here including SF supporters are saying that they have no doubt that this named person on boards as well as everywhere else has raped her,where is this evidence and why is it not being brought to the DPP?

Well, if the four decent people who interrogated him on behalf of the IRA were to come forward and give evidence for the prosecution, I am sure he would be convicted.

Oh, that would mean admitting membership of an illegal organisation, so they aren't decent enough to put their own interests second to ensure the children of the State are protected from a child sex abusing monster.

Eamondomc

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can you explain the anomaly in Cahill's statements then as all the anti SF posters are running from it.

Actually no i cant. But I am not anti sinn fein. There are a lot of anomalies in the sinn fein responses too.

walshb

Eamondomc wrote: »

Can you state caregorically and in full truth and without asking a rhetorical Question that Gerry Adams wasnt in the IRA. and remember without the rhetorical question. Just yes or no. Please

What? Is Dan Solo Gerry Adams?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can you explain the anomaly in Cahill's statements then as all the anti SF posters are running from it.

Nobody understands your make-believe anomaly.

To most people, SF and IRA are interchangeable terms when you are talking about Gerry Adams. The fact she would use both terms when referring to him is perfectly understandable.

And why she went to him? Well if you were interrogated by a Fine Gael kangaroo court, wouldn't you complain to Enda Kenny if you had the access?

By the way, do you now accept that it is likely that Mairia Cahill was subject to an IRA kangaroo court, as Peadar Tobin and Gerry Adams do?


(Of course, nobody has told Pearse Doherty that such courts exist.)

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is not a trivial question for making fun about. There is a real and serious risk to children because of the actions of SF/IRA.



.

While Enda is steam rolling meetings with selective abuse victims and raising their cases in Dail Eireann for political gain, he is sitting on his hands on implementing child protection legislation and refusing to meet survivors of abuse who might embarrass him politically.
Any comment Godge, or does your hypocrisy, like Enda's, know no bounds.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/enda-kenny-confirms-commitment-to-meet-louise-o-keeffe-1.1954625

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has confirmed his commitment to meeting with child sex abuse survivor Louise O’Keeffe after she challenged him to meet her to discuss the Government’s delay in enacting child protection legislation in primary schools.
Mr Kenny said that, together with the Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan, he plans to meet with Ms O’Keeffe shortly to discuss the Government’s approach to dealing with child protection on foot of the European Court of Human Rights judgement which found in favour of Ms O’Keeffe.
Last January, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from abuse by school principal Leo Hickey while she was a pupil at Dunderrow National School in West Cork in the early 1970s.
In July, the Department of Education issued details of an action plan to address the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgement, but Ms O’Keeffe said the action plan amounted to nothing more than a restatement of Ireland’s defence in the case.
She emailed Mr Kenny on August 2nd, extending an invitation to both him and Ms O’Sullivan to meet with herself, and other survivors of child sexual abuse in day schools, to put in place child protection measures to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights ruling.
Ms O’Keeffe gave Mr Kenny two months to respond to her invite and when Mr Kenny was asked about it recently by The Irish Times, he said he would “be happy to meet” and a date for the meeting

“was not too far distant”,

though he could not talk to her about matters still before the courts.
Ms O’Keeffe told The Irish Times that she raised the issue with Tánaiste Joan Burton at Network Ireland’s national conference on September 26th and, later that day, she received an email from the Taoiseach’s private secretary confirming his willingness to meet her.
“I would be inclined to think that Joan Burton had a word with the Taoiseach – the email coming the same day was too much of a coincidence – it confirmed that the Taoiseach would meet me, but not the other victims of child sex abuse in day schools because they had cases still pending,” she said.
Ms O’Keeffe said she was disappointed that Mr Kenny was unwilling to meet other victims of child sexual abuse, but that she was happy to go ahead and meet him and other ministers, even though she still felt that child protection was not a priority for this government.
“I don’t think they see it as a priority – it’s eight months on from the ruling in my case and we have had nothing – yet within five weeks of the Supreme Court ruling they were writing to other survivors to try and intimidate them into dropping their cases so they can move with speed when they want to.
“I don’t know what the Taoiseach is going to say to me, I certainly hope he’s not going to say the same as we have heard before because I’ve been listening to it in the High Court, the Supreme Court and in Europe and there’s been no change in that so something new has to come.
“I’m harping back to the same thing all the time, particularly since Europe did find the state was responsible for the protection of children in national schools and what they put forward in July to the European Court of Human Rights was what we have been listening to in the courts for 15 years.”