Sinn Fein leadership

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to comment on ongoing court cases no matter how much you ask me to.

But you are going to sinisterly infer. Well done.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were a lot of people 'protected' on all sides during the war/conflict.

Other than stating that rather obvious fact, you are correct, I will ignore that rabbithole. Plenty of threads where it has been discussed before.

Translation: let's stop bringing up the fact that Adams protected and facilitated murderers and paedophiles?

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

Translation: let's stop bringing up the fact that Adams protected and facilitated murderers and paedophiles?

No, I think I clearly said that lots of people were 'protected' on all sides. It's the nature of war/conflict since time began.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I think I clearly said that lots of people were 'protected' on all sides. It's the nature of war/conflict since time began.

To protect paedophiles and help find them work around children?
Name one other leader of a political party who did that, "war" or not!

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

To protect paedophiles and help find them work around children?
Name one other leader of a political party who did that, "war" or not!

Like many many other reasonable people who vote for Adams party I accept he did the wrong thing in a family situation.
I don't believe he endangered other children deliberately or with malice.
I accepted his apologies long ago.

All I can say if you don't accept his story is don't vote for him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like many many other reasonable people who vote for Adams party I accept he did the wrong thing in a family situation.
I don't believe he endangered other children deliberately or with malice.
I accepted his apologies long ago.

All I can say if you don't accept his story is don't vote for him.

That just isn't good enough, he protected Liam Adams and got him a job in Louth, he then told two different stories - one to Spotlight and another to the court - which makes him unsuitable for public office, no matter which party he represents and nothing to do with terrorist offences.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That just isn't good enough, he protected Liam Adams and got him a job in Louth, he then told two different stories - one to Spotlight and another to the court - which makes him unsuitable for public office, no matter which party he represents and nothing to do with terrorist offences.

As I said, if you know he broke the law go to the authorities.
Many many perfectly decent people have accepted the story of a man in a difficult family situation. A man who has admitted he handled it badly
Nobody is compelling them or you to vote for him.
But you seem to know he has done this many times but refuse to back it with fact.
I guess it is over to you to save us all from this heinous monster.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, if you know he broke the law go to the authorities.
Many many perfectly decent people have accepted the story of a man in a difficult family situation. A man who has admitted he handled it badly
Nobody is compelling them or you to vote for him.
But you seem to know he has done this many times but refuse to back it with fact.
I guess it is over to you to save us all from this heinous monster.

I can't prove he broke the law, just that he lied.

He told one story to Spotlight
He told a different story to the court.

He only committed a crime if the story to the court was untrue. I can't prove which one was true or untrue so he escapes justice but is still a liar, just don't know which was a lie.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't prove he broke the law, just that he lied.

He told one story to Spotlight
He told a different story to the court.

He only committed a crime if the story to the court was untrue. I can't prove which one was true or untrue so he escapes justice but is still a liar, just don't know which was a lie.

You can't prove he broke the law yet you infer that he did and that there are court cases ongoing surrounding this???

OK, I think I will leave that there then. That kind of insidious carry on speaks for itself in fairness.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't prove he broke the law yet you infer that he did and that there are court cases ongoing surrounding this???

OK, I think I will leave that there then. That kind of insidious carry on speaks for itself in fairness.

You asked me whether he broke the law in the context of Liam Adams - I set out the context.

As for whether he broke the law in other cases, let us wait and see, you are not going to trap me into breaking boards rules on commenting on ongoing cases.

uck51js9zml2yt

Francie , will you be telling us next that we just don't understand him.

He protected his brother who he knew abused his niece. He did just what the RCC hierarchy did and moved him.
He's protecting murderers, saying it wouldn't be helpful to prosecute then... unhelpful to who?

Count Marcula

''When did he defend child abuse and rape?''
What a silly question. He defended Maria Cahill's rapist and also his pedophile brother. It had nothing to do with war.  Just a narcissist interested in his own power.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Just to be clear, this thread is about Sinn Fein leadership, how it affects the grass roots and who might take over if or when Gerry Adams leaves. So maybe we can move on from Gerry himself and focus on the party?

Count Marcula

Ok, lets start talking about the party then. Johnathan Dowdall, former councilor charged with water boarding  a guy and got 12 years. Sounds like a candidate for leadership once he gets out.

FrancieBrady

Count Marcula wrote: »

Ok, lets start talking about the party then. Johnathan Dowdall, former councilor charged with water boarding  a guy and got 12 years. Sounds like a candidate for leadership once he gets out.

Eh...'former' member of the party.

Can we, as the mod says, talk about the party?

Brendan Bendar

I would suggest that it would be in SFs interest to ease out the old guard out of leadership.

Otherwise as this thread seems to 'prove' the past will always be dragged up.

They have some well informed people there now who would be more acceptable to the middle ground and I would suggest that when they put out their policies they would be more balanced in favour of those who do something for themselves.

I would think that hanging on to the past as these parties like the DUP and SF like to do will get this country nowhere.

Time the leadership moved on or were moved on?

Thomas__

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I would suggest that it would be in SFs interest to ease out the old guard out of leadership.

Otherwise as this thread seems to 'prove' the past will always be dragged up.

They have some well informed people there now who would be more acceptable to the middle ground and I would suggest that when they put out their policies they would be more balanced in favour of those who do something for themselves.

I would think that hanging on to the past as these parties like the DUP and SF like to do will get this country nowhere.

Time the leadership moved on or were moved on?

Absolutely agree with your post, it´s exactly what I mean. A younger generation taking over the leadership of SF would bring about a change, but the old ones like Adams can´t let go that easily, maybe for fear that without them, SF would go on a rapid decline in votes. But there´s no proof for that at all.

nlrkjos

The problem within SF is that many of the old guard will not accept the younger generation as they never saw conflict, or state intimidation. This older generation will have to die off or just get pushed out to allow new blood.
There is bully boy tactics going on in SF, and also a whispering campaign gets going when someone new starts to rise in the "ranks" without approval from the "lads".
There will be change in SF, Adams cannot stop it but it will take a generation, and until then I would prefer to see them out of government

johnnyskeleton

I wonder too how the Northern younger SF members view the Southern younger SF members - potentially the fact that the Southern party is developing a base around things like water charges and LPT will conflict with the Northern younger people for whom powersharing / ultimate reunification is far more important

Thomas__

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder too how the Northern younger SF members view the Southern younger SF members - potentially the fact that the Southern party is developing a base around things like water charges and LPT will conflict with the Northern younger people for whom powersharing / ultimate reunification is far more important

Good point. In my view, they are both worlds apart cos of the different priorities SF sets in NI and in the Republic to appeal to voters and to gain members. And so are the reasons for why people vote for or join SF. Imagine someone from the Republic will take over the Presidency of SF, someone who has no connection whatsoever to NI and for whom a UI is more a matter of political agenda but who then has to face the problems in NI him- / herself when taking on leadership for the whole party. Adams knows the people in NI and he knows those in the Republic, any other person without that background would have much lessons to learn. Whether this person would be acceptable in NI is quite another matter.

Brendan Bendar

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder too how the Northern younger SF members view the Southern younger SF members - potentially the fact that the Southern party is developing a base around things like water charges and LPT will conflict with the Northern younger people for whom powersharing / ultimate reunification is far more important

That's a good point Johnny,however, and there's always a 'however' I would suggest that SF in the ROI would do better if they got away from the 'protest' angle and the 'agin everything' and 'tax the rich' aspect of how they are perceived.

The perception out there is that they would bankrupt the country if given access to the levers of power.

So as well as dumping (gently) the old guard they, in my opinion,would need to modify their policies a bit to appeal to the middle ground in any serious way.

That said a shake up of sorts mightened be worse thing ?

Colonel Claptrap

Thomas__ wrote: »

Imagine someone from the Republic will take over the Presidency of SF, someone who has no connection whatsoever to NI and for whom a UI is more a matter of political agenda but who then has to face the problems in NI him- / herself when taking on leadership for the whole party. Adams knows the people in NI and he knows those in the Republic, any other person without that background would have much lessons to learn. Whether this person would be acceptable in NI is quite another matter.

Excellent point.

There's a certain irony that they are incapable of fostering a 'United Ireland SF party' under a single governance structure.

jm08

Thomas__ wrote: »

Good point. In my view, they are both worlds apart cos of the different priorities SF sets in NI and in the Republic to appeal to voters and to gain members. And so are the reasons for why people vote for or join SF. Imagine someone from the Republic will take over the Presidency of SF, someone who has no connection whatsoever to NI and for whom a UI is more a matter of political agenda but who then has to face the problems in NI him- / herself when taking on leadership for the whole party. Adams knows the people in NI and he knows those in the Republic, any other person without that background would have much lessons to learn. Whether this person would be acceptable in NI is quite another matter.

Sinn Fein is the only party that gives such prominence to the President (and the President is so prominent). I'd imagine Mary Lou will lead the south and Michelle lead the north and both will be answerable to the Ard comhairle. Since neither have had any direct involvement in the Troubles, it will be interesting to see how the DUP /hardline unionists handle not having Adams or Marty to demonise.

Count Marcula

Sinn Fein appeal to a group of people who see membership of the party as a greenlight to do what they want. Johnathan Dowdall is a good example of one.

When youve been in the party long enough you discover that all their members are like Johnathan Dowdall. The party is on par with no other. They are effectively a mafia organization for weeklings.

TheRiverman

Count Marcula wrote: »

Sinn Fein appeal to a group of people who see membership of the party as a greenlight to do what they want. Johnathan Dowdall is a good example of one.

When youve been in the party long enough you discover that all their members are like Johnathan Dowdall. The party is on par with no other. They are effectively a mafia organization for weeklings.

Should that be "weaklings" ?

FrancieBrady

Count Marcula wrote: »

When youve been in the party long enough you discover that all their members are like Johnathan Dowdall.

How long were you a member? Who else is loon enough to be waterboarding car buyers?

Count Marcula

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Count Marcula wrote: »

When youve been in the party long enough you discover that all their members are like Johnathan Dowdall.

How long were you a member? Who else is loon enough to be waterboarding car buyers?

A couple of years. I know. A COUNCILOR!!!

FrancieBrady

Count Marcula wrote: »

A couple of years. I know. A COUNCILOR!!!

So 'who' else (you claim they 'are all') is 'like' Jonathan Dowdall and water boards people who call trying to buy a car?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So 'who' else (you claim they 'are all') is 'like' Jonathan Dowdall and water boards people who call trying to buy a car?

"like" does not mean "exact replica".

If you are to class Jonathon Dowdall as a violent criminal, well yes, there are a number of SF public representatives who have been convicted of terrorist crimes and who have served time, not to mention some of the shady backroom boys.

Count Marcula

What about judge gerry and the recent miscarriage of justice he was involved in? I hear he likes to hang his own party members out to dry. He doesnt make much of a hullabaloo when he gets it wrong.