An end to criminality?

monument

Now that Ray Burke is jailed, and the government is trying to change the law in retrospect to allow the state's stealing money off old people to become legal, is the FF/PD government willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

A Dub in Glasgo

Hell will freeze over before they even consider some of the things they do criminal

true

Thats a bit rich , coming from a fellow traveller of those who do not think that the murder , torture and secret burial of Jean McConville was a crime.

The FF/PD govt. is not perfect, but at least they are a democratic government and like all other democratic parties, generally make some good attempt to work within the law.

monument

The question still stands - when will the FF/PD government be willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

ReefBreak

Anyone that votes for the Shinners has no right to comment on criminality.

Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is member of a terrorist organisation? Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is convicted of a criminal act? How many members of Sinn Féin have murdered/maimed innocent men, women and children?

Nuttzz

The practice of taking money from old aged pensioners is 30 years old, it was not brought in by this government, all the main parties (FF,Lab,FG,DL,PD) when in governemnt supported this policy. This government has brought in a law to legalise the practice and to prevent 30 years worth of claims which would make the Army deafness claims look small.

What examples of criminality have you got that THIS GOVERNMENT has do (you have to do better than a 30 year old situtaion)

Villain

ReefBreak wrote:

Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is member of a terrorist organisation? Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is convicted of a criminal act? How many members of Sinn Féin have murdered/maimed innocent men, women and children?

Can you ever stay on topic, or let one thread go without bashing SF??? :rolleyes:

In fairness it would be difficult to blame anti SF people coming into this thread given the nature of the subject...

I'm astounded, by the way, at the comparison apparently being drawn by the thread starter between Vile attacks against people ie punishment beatings plus robberies(which regardless of who is acting on which organisations behalf or none are still not normal) and what democratically elected governments decide to do.

To be honest the comparison behind the thread wouldnt get past the vast majority of voters.

Villain

Who made the comparison??

In light of Ray Burke, a former Minister for Justice going to jail, I think the topic is relevant enough as long as its kept in context.

gandalf

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

Beating people senseless with studded baseball bats, kidnap and robbery as Earthman said there is no comparison with what democratically governments do. We can vote them out, we cannot get rid of the scum hiding behind balaclava's who are only supported by a minority in this country but claim to speak and act for us all.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

Where in this thread have any SF supporters justified Illegal activities? please provide quotes.

A Dub in Glasgo

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

eh? others brought the issue of IRA criminality into the thread. If anything it is off topic

Continuing Threads
Replies should be kept on-topic. We realise that threads may naturally "drift", but there are limits.

If you wish to discuss a seperate issue which has arisen in a discussion, then take it to a seperate thread, and post a link in the original thread if you feel it appropriate.

gandalf

It is very clear to me in the wording why this thread was started and where the person who started it was coming from. If you have a problem go and complain to the admins.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Where in this thread have any SF supporters justified Illegal activities? please provide quotes.

Not in this thread but in this forum for the last couples of months we have seen SF/IRA Apologists justify murder and robbery because it was for the cause.

As for finding quotes go look for them yourself you know the threads, you posted in them, personally I do not want to trawl through that manure again.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

Not in this thread but in this forum for the last couples of months we have seen SF/IRA Apologists justify murder and robbery because it was for the cause.

As for finding quotes go look for them yourself you know the threads, you posted in them, personally I do not want to trawl through that manure again.

Hold on a minute you said

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing.

Also not every Sinn Fein supporter has tried to justify illegal activity.

Don't brand us with the same bad name, I personally detest FTA69 and his comments.

Zombrex

Firstly everyone stop talking about SF .. it is off topic ... next Bush will be brought into this thread :rolleyes:

Secondly, in response to the actual question, I don't understand what purpose the original poster believes such as statement would serve. It is not like FF were saying what Ray Burke was doing was acceptable and part of party policy that now has changed. This is all done in the shadows, it was always illegal and against offical party policy. I am not in any way justifying the actions of the people in the party that ignored what was happening. I am just pointing out that a statement from FF saying that out TDs will not commit crimes is pointless because their TDs were never supposed to commit crimes, and it didn't stop them

swiss

monument wrote:

The question still stands - when will the FF/PD government be willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

I don't think we will feasibly see an end to criminality within the workings of the state for a very long time, perhaps not even within our lifetimes. We all know that FF was mired in corruption in the past, and it would be naive to assume that this culture has dissipated completely because awareness of the issue has been heightened. "Lesser" forms of corruption are still in evidence, such as cronyism. The recent Monica Leech story underlines this.

Nevertheless, I do believe steps are being taken within the government to end, or at least mitigate the effects of corruption and criminality within the workings of government. Their motives for doing so may be less than altruistic with public confidence understandably shaken in light of various tribunal findings. In this light, it is important that the government appear to do something about criminality. Whether the real political will exists to end corruption or not is debateable.

How this relates to Sinn Féin/IRA is that in order to tackle criminality in the state, organised criminal gangs need to be targeted, exposed and brought down. It has long been my assessment that the IRA, and Sinn Féin by association are mired in criminality. The recent robbery in Belfast, and the discovery of Jean McCoulgan perfectly serve to corroborate this viewpoint.

So in another light, what the question really entails is "is there a political will to end the criminal activities of SF/IRA?". This is much trickier to answer, because in a sense SF/IRA have hijacked the peace process. A return to violence is unthinkable, so there is a temptation to accede to IRA criminality and thuggery because it is preferable to IRA paramilitary action. It would appear to be a case of better the devil you know than the other devil you know.

Fortunately there is a growing realisation in government that both criminality and paramilitarism are unacceptable in a democratic society. The question is: when are SF/IRA going to realise this? Given that they refuse to accept murder as a crime, I despair that they will never accept this basic reality.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Who made the comparison??

It is very clear

Sleepy

It'd be a pointless announcement really. What value would it have to anyone? I can personally think of a score of better uses of elected TD's time than making promises that those who want won't accept/believe anyway and that would be the equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull for the opposition.

Stupid idea.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

It is very clear

Yes, that you made the comparison.

ionapaul

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly everyone stop talking about SF .. it is off topic ...

...I don't understand what purpose the original poster believes such as statement would serve.

Well, the original poster posed the question for the following reason: he / she wanted to show the rest of us (particularly us damn Free-State loving, Republican-hating, traitorous, West Brit, non-beard wearing, capitalist, right wing bastards) that what Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor did without the sanction of their party leadership is equal or worse than what the IRA have been doing for the past 30 years with the approval / acceptance of the SF leadership.

The reason SF came into it within two replies is our ability to read between the lines - it wasn't very hard as the comparison wasn't very subtle.

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

he / she wanted to show the rest of us (particularly us damn Free-State loving, Republican-hating, traitorous, West Brit, non-beard wearing, capitalist, right wing bastards)

Hey!!! ... who is calling me non-beard wearing

Well if that was the point of the original post then I agree, it was pretty stupid. FF's behind the scenes inaction with reguard to Ray Burke and his like is nothing compared to SF public acceptance and approval of the IRA and the crimes against the state that they commit.

And also isn't Ray Burke in jail now? I don't think he will be becoming head of FF any time soon ... :rolleyes:

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Yes, that you made the comparison.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the Reply made earlier

monument

In reply to ionapaul, gandalf, and Earthman, at any level of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ I wasn’t trying to compare the IRA’s actions to any possible crime that may or may not have being portrayed by this governments, or individuals within the government, or even FF’s legacy of crime.

I most certainly wasn’t trying to justify any murder, robbery, or any other crimes or wrongdoings the IRA have committed.

Nuttzz wrote:

The practice of taking money from old aged pensioners is 30 years old, it was not brought in by this government, all the main parties (FF,Lab,FG,DL,PD) when in governemnt supported this policy.

And it continued after they entered government. But more importantly…

Nuttzz wrote:

This government has brought in a law to legalize the practice and to prevent 30 years worth of claims which would make the Army deafness claims look small.

This government is trying to make an illegally practice legal, just to make it clear..
THIS GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO MAKE THE ACT OF THE STATE STEALING MONEY FROM OLD PEOPLE LEGAL AFTER THE FACT.

Nuttzz wrote:

What examples of criminality have you got that THIS GOVERNMENT has do (you have to do better than a 30 year old situtaion)

It may be a ‘30 year old situtaion’ but it’s still going on.

swiss wrote:

I don't think we will feasibly see an end to criminality within the workings of the state for a very long time, perhaps not even within our lifetimes. We all know that FF was mired in corruption in the past, and it would be naive to assume that this culture has dissipated completely because awareness of the issue has been heightened. "Lesser" forms of corruption are still in evidence, such as cronyism. The recent Monica Leech story underlines this.

Nevertheless, I do believe steps are being taken within the government to end, or at least mitigate the effects of corruption and criminality within the workings of government. Their motives for doing so may be less than altruistic with public confidence understandably shaken in light of various tribunal findings. In this light, it is important that the government appear to do something about criminality. Whether the real political will exists to end corruption or not is debateable.

Any real political will is doubtful, as there seams to be a complete denial of anything but a few isolated cases of corruption, or any wrongdoings.

monument

monument wrote:

THIS GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO MAKE THE ACT OF THE STATE STEALING MONEY FROM OLD PEOPLE LEGAL AFTER THE FACT.

perhaps... I wouldnt call it stealing though unless it was pre-meditated-was it pre-meditated?? ie did they have foreknowledge that it was illegal? Didn't all governments impliment that policy so they're all criminals in your book??
I hope you dont mind but I in common with most don't go so melodratic about things

Furthermore they will be going to the electorate in about 2 and a half years who can throw them out if they disagree.
What voice does or did the electorate get with actual criminality??
Were the electorate of the whole island ever given a say in IRA criminality? or just ignored?
Ok no need even to ask that question they were ignored.
The electorate were never given a say either in the decisions taken by people(muggers,rapists,robbers etc etc) who decided to do actual everyday crime either...
With regard to your above example,its not hard to see who by far, who by infinite amounts, have the higher moral ground.

billy the squid

monument wrote:

to allow the state's stealing money off old people

lol I'm reminded by the attempted robbery which led to the death of Gerry McCabe. the bank truck contained money for old age pensioners did it not.

anyhoo the difference i see between the criminality in the IRA and the Criminality in Fianna Fail is that the Criminality in Fianna Fail is not on behalf of fianna fail, whree as the criminality in the IRA is on behalf of the IRA.

monument

Earthman wrote:

perhaps... I wouldnt call it stealing though unless it was pre-meditated-was it pre-meditated?? ie did they have foreknowledge that it was illegal?

Yes, they did know it illegal.

Earthman wrote:

Furthermore they will be going to the electorate in about 2 and a half years who can throw them out if they disagree.
What voice does or did the electorate get with actual criminality??
Were the electorate of the whole island ever given a say in IRA criminality? or just ignored?
Ok no need even to ask that question they were ignored.
The electorate were never given a say either in the decisions taken by people(muggers,rapists,robbers etc etc) who decided to do actual everyday crime either...
With regard to your above example,its not hard to see who by far, who by infinite amounts, have the higher moral ground.

Wow! So, now it’s ok for a government to do what it likes because if they commit a crime they would be doing so as elected criminals.

Nuttzz

monument wrote:

It may be a ‘30 year old situtaion’ but it’s still going on.

So that it then? one 30 year old example nothing else, nothing introduced by the current government then?

monument

So, if a new boss takes over a gang it's ok for him/her to continue what ever crimes the old boss did because s/he didn’t introduced the policies of implementing the crimes in the first place. And it makes it all ok. That's nice.

monument

monument wrote:

Yes, they did know it illegal.

When did they know it was illegal, from what point?

Wow! So, now it’s ok for a government to do what it likes because if they commit a crime they would be doing so as elected criminals.

Honestly Your posts are getting silly on this matter now-show me the intent, the deliberate plan, the minutes of meetings where it was decided that they knew about this yet decided to proceed to deduct from the peoples pensions for all those years and you *might* have some class of a point.

The government of the day are there to decide how best to run things, if the people decide that they have run them wrong, then they will turf them out.

Nuttzz

monument wrote:

So, if a new boss takes over a gang it's ok for him/her to continue what ever crimes the old boss did because s/he didn’t introduced the policies of implementing the crimes in the first place. And it makes it all ok. That's nice.

Come on, give me another example.... Bertie is no more gulity than John Burton or Garret FitzGerald who also allowed this practice. Do you want FG to renounce criminality also?

They shouldnt have been taking that money from the OAPs fair enough, all my grandparents had their books taken off them when they were in care homes so my family would be entitled to compo if this law doesnt pass the supreme court, however the funds would have to come from somewhere, normally its the department at fault that pays for the claims (e.g. the money for the army deafness claims came from the department of defences budget). I would rather the department of health spent the compo that my family would be due on the health services (especially the A&E departments) than take a cent

Villain

Earthman wrote:

When did they know it was illegal, from what point?

They knew for years, thats why the Pensioners that questioned the process were allowed to keep their pension. This is the main argument that is being argued in the courts at the moment after the President reffered it.

They knew it was illegal, the Attorney General told them it was but they still took the money!!

irish1

irish1 wrote:

They knew it was illegal, the Attorney General told them it was but they still took the money!!

Who knew this,the health boards,the hospitals or the td's?
Oh and SF have had a presence in the Dáil for years now, did they mention it over those years or was it just recently when it came to their attention?


By the way while we are being this silly,I propose that all posters who are reading this while they are working should turn themselves into the law straight away as they are stealing from their employer...

The issue thats current at the moment is actual discernable criminality not governmental or bureocratic mismanagement and mistakes.
Ordinary people look on the two differently.

Villain

LOL

Earthman's debating rules:

1:Bash SF
2:Bash SF some more
3:Bash SF some more.......

Come on Earthman, there is loads of threads in which you can bash SF. The Government knew it was illegal because as I stated already the Attorney General told them, it's their responsiblity to enform the Dept. Of Health and thus stop the process. Articles in the press pointed out that evidence showed the " Health Boards and the Department of Heath had received many warnings that that they were acting illegally by making deductions from the pensions of those in nursing home care."

I'm not being silly I'm pointing out that the President has reffered the bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality, and the main argument taking place is in relation to how the process was not applied to people who contested it because the people who were taking the money knew it was illegal. The clause which prevents retrospective claims for the recovery of pension deductions is very worrying in my mind.

If it turned out that the governent was knowingly taking over 80% of your income illegal, you'd be pi**ed off and then if they tried to pass a bill to ensure you couldn't get it back you'd be really pi**ed off.

This was a criminal act knowingly carried out under the supervision of the Government.

I'm not comparing this to anything that happens up North, I' speaking of an issue in this state in it's own context.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

LOL

Earthman's debating rules:

1:Bash SF
2:Bash SF some more
3:Bash SF some more.......

Well you are an SF supporter aren't you? The point I was merely making was that an extension of what Monument was saying was that all T.D's were duplicitous in this including SF T.D's for not bringing it up.

Of course they weren't duplicitous to stealing the money if they merely didnt know,if it was merely mismanagement or if they thought it was legal to charge them at the time based on the information they were working on at the time.
Ultimately the courts will decide on the constitutionality of what they are now trying to do.

This was a criminal act knowingly carried out under the supervision of the Government.

Really? where is your evidence and can we not wait for the courts to rule in the matter. I notice you say under the supervision of the government when you should really say under everybodies supervision-every t.D including your own.

Heck I voted for some of these T.D's maybe I'm a criminal aswell even though like them I probably didn't know...

Now what was that forum suggestion made here a while ago?? ah yes the tin foil hat forum... if we build it , they will come.....

Of course if you want to run with a by now tired sob sob they're bashing SF again angle to what I was pointing out well... go ahead you have no grounds for what you say in relation to me anyway :rolleyes:

gurramok

Earthman wrote:

The issue thats current at the moment is actual discernable criminality not governmental or bureocratic mismanagement and mistakes.
Ordinary people look on the two differently.

I find it criminal that the govt encourages crime in areas I frequent by decreasing the garda presence in the local garda station while increasing\maintaining garda presence in other more affluent areas of the city.
McDowell assigned armed patrols for a few weeks as a stop-gap measure but alas the situation has spiralled out of control. Crime has still shot up.
If the terror from crime gangs happens in his own local constituency, the crime rate would not be tolerated for sure.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Really? where is your evidence and can we not wait for the courts to rule in the matter. I notice you say under the supervision of the government when you should really say under everybodies supervision-every t.D including your own.

Heck I voted for some of these T.D's maybe I'm a criminal aswell even though like them I probably didn't know...

Now what was that forum suggestion made here a while ago?? ah yes the tin foil hat forum... if we build it , they will come.....

Try actually reading my posts, I have said a few times that the attorney General informed the Government and the Dept. of Health work under the supervision of it's Minister and the Taoiseach. THEY KNEW

Earthman wrote:

Of course if you want to run with a by now tired sob sob they're bashing SF again angle to what I was pointing out well... go ahead you have no grounds for what you say in relation to me anyway :rolleyes:

LOL I have never ran away from a discussion in my life, so you can keep you childish "sob sob" remarks to yourself. The point I was making is that you can't seem to discuss anything here without bashing SF.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Try actually reading my posts, I have said a few times that the attorney General informed the Government and the Dept. of Health work under the supervision of it's Minister and the Taoiseach. THEY KNEW

Perhaps you could read mine,I asked when they knew...
Also bear in mind that the attorney General gives an opinion not a legal declaration, its up to the courts to determine/test the latter.
Which AG gave the opinion and why didnt his predecessors give it?
Has the government been taken to law over this matter(which is different to the new legislation being tested) and has there been a determination of criminal guilt on anything??
I'll put another question to you while I'm at it, did any of the pensioners who questioned this, inform their local T.D's at the time(not recently now but say the first few who got the charges stopped)?
The other thing I'll ask is, what was going on at the monthly heath board meetings on which most parties would have had representatives? Was the extra funding needed to cover the expenses of the few who did question the pension deductions ever discussed or was it being swept under a convenient layer of managment paperwork somewhere?

Jeepers for a man that keeps coming on here defending Adams and mcGuinness from accusations that they are on the Army council, you're quick to determine guilt here when (a) all politicians are in the same boat on this one and (b) theres no evidence to suggest that a cabinet, any cabinet decided that this is against the law but we'll do it anyway.

LOL I have never ran away from a discussion in my life, so you can keep you childish "sob sob" remarks to yourself. The point I was making is that you can't seem to discuss anything here without bashing SF.

Where did I bash SF,I brought up a valid point, they were in the Dáil, they had constituents and probably party members who were in these hospitals, why didn't they investigate it??
I put it to you that like other Dáil members they were caught on the hop.
Thats not bashing them, thats a comment that I made thats all.

You seem very sensitive.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Perhaps you could read mine,I asked when they knew...
Also bear in mind that the attorney General gives an opinion not a legal declaration, its up to the courts to determine/test the latter.
Which AG gave the opinion and why didnt his predecessors give it?
Has the government been taken to law over this matter(which is different to the new legislation being tested) and has there been a determination of criminal guilt on anything??
I'll put another question to you while I'm at it, did any of the pensioners who questioned this, inform their local T.D's at the time(not recently now but say the first few who got the charges stopped)?
The other thing I'll ask is, what was going on at the monthly heath board meetings on which most parties would have had representatives? Was the extra funding needed to cover the expenses of the few who did question the pension deductions ever discussed or was it being swept under a convenient layer of managment paperwork somewhere?

Well I can't get a definite date but the current Ombudsman published a document stating

My predecessor as Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, during his term of Office received a considerable number of complaints about the issue of nursing home charges and subventions. In 2001 he published a Report of an investigation into the issues arising from these complaints entitled Nursing Home Subventions.

The full document is here http://ombudsman.gov.ie/24ba_156.htm

Earthman wrote:

Jeepers for a man that keeps coming on here defending Adams and mcGuinness from accusations that they are on the Army council, you're quick to determine guilt here when (a) all politicians are in the same boat on this one and (b) theres no evidence to suggest that a cabinet, any cabinet decided that this is against the law but we'll do it anyway.


Where did I bash SF,I brought up a valid point, they were in the Dáil, they had constituents and probably party members who were in these hospitals, why didn't they investigate it??
I put it to you that like other Dáil members they were caught on the hop.
Thats not bashing them, thats a comment that I made thats all.

You seem very sensitive.

You should go down to the Dail some day and you might realise there is more than Sinn Fein sitting on the opposition side, because you you haven't mentioned 1 other single party. I agree if SF knew this was going on and said nothing they were wrong, but they only have 5 TD's where as FG and Labour have a hell of a lot more. You see you can't defend the Government without giving out about SF. Open your eyes man and realise SF aren't the only party around here, it really is getting a little silly the way you can't discuss anything in this forum without bringing up SF.

BuffyBot

Hmm..I think the reason SF were brought into this, was because of the none too subtle starting point of this thread, spoofing the calls for an end to IRA criminality etc.

It just goes to show though, doesn't it. SF is being trumpeted as the honest, anti-corruption party, yet the best reasoning that has been given is that "well, no one else said anything" - that's comforting..

irish1

irish1 wrote:

You see you can't defend the Government without giving out about SF. Open your eyes man and realise SF aren't the only party around here, it really is getting a little silly the way you can't discuss anything in this forum without bringing up SF.

Where was I defending the government ? Did I say they were right?

I agree with Buffybot.
The thread title was being mischievious and in a non too subtle way.
By the way while I'm on the subject,twas interesting that a SF supporter would want to try and invent criminality here in this thread when all the while they are disassociating themselves from having anything to do with IRA criminality.
The fact that both you and monument felt the need to go down this shakey road is another Gaffe as it makes it look like the invention of the crime is soley for the purpose of saying the pot and the kettle are black.Ye shouldn't be doing that as from a presentation point of view, it looks bad-just a little advice

Theres no way on earth IRA crimes could ever be compared in their blackness to mistakes and mis management.
Corruption is a more serious crime but at least there are tribunals in place for dealing with that whereas the IRA and UVF etc got away literally with murder.

I merely mentioned SF because from his posts I took monument as an SF supporter and I know you are... yet you singled out the government parties when SF could have read the ombudsmans report, when FG could have raised a stink.
None did at the time-why? Because there a concensus of non interest.

Villain

But I'm discussing this topic and this topic only, I have discussed Sinn Fein and the IRA in many many threads. I just think people should try and deal with the topic at hand, no matter who the thread starter is. Neither myself or momument have made any comparisons to IRA criminality. So to put it simply, just deal with the topic at hand.

Last Sunday I started 2 threads, " Have you all lost marbles" and "Ray Burkes fate to be decided" and threebeards started another thread "Ray Burke Jailed".

Now Ray Burke made History on Monday by becomming the first former Minister to be jailed and between the two threads relating to him there was 51 Replies and 818 views.

The thread titled "Have you all lost your marbles" currently has 90 replies and 1,317 views. People here would rather discuss SF than the corruption and jailing of a Former Minister for Justice!

irish1

irish1 wrote:

But I'm discussing this topic and this topic only, I have discussed Sinn Fein and the IRA in many many threads. I just think people should try and deal with the topic at hand, no matter who the thread starter is.

Ah come on now-Monument and yourself called this a crime-judge and jury and you call examining and comparing this to real crimes not sticking to the topic??
You expect people like myself not to ask why you want to see convictions or at least arrests before you'll concede IRA members who " may also be SF members coincidently" are actually carrying out criminal acts yet you will be judge and jury on what you think suits your arguments to be described as criminal??

It's called asking for a modicum of consistency between threads and its very much on topic to examine what is and isnt a crime and who is involved in that crime in this thread given what the thread alledges.

The thread titled "Have you all lost your marbles" currently has 90 replies and 1,317 views. People here would rather discuss SF than the corruption and jailing of a Former Minister for Justice!

Perhaps thats because they feel that the likes of the IRA and the UVF etc got away with murder against the wishes of the people of Ireland and that they are being féted by their political associates.
The same people swallowed bitter pills and gave them a chance via the GFA, to clean up their act yet they refuse.
A lot of people who are non alligned to political parties and therefore fair game to any party looking for their vote would have been disgusted by the carry on of SF describing the abduction and murder of Jean McConville as not being a crime for instance.
Those are thorny subjects and of course they are going to haunt SF supporters.

Villain

I think SF are an easy target thats why, and people here would just rather give out about something than discuss the politics of this nation, and examine the past, present and future of our Government.

By the way I don't see many threads about the UVF and other Unionist groups that you rightly say have got away with murder.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

By the way I don't see many threads about the UVF and other Unionist groups that you rightly say have got away with murder.

Thats probably because they dont stand for election down here or have a party that venorates their wrong doings standing for election down here.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

I think SF are an easy target thats why, and people here would just rather give out about something than discuss the politics of this nation, and examine the past, present and future of our Government.

No maybe its because they are tied at the waist to a criminal organisation and alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

gandalf wrote:

No maybe its because they are tied at the waist to a criminal organisation and alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in :rolleyes:

Is standing for election not a de facto recognition?

Cork

irish1 wrote:

I think SF are an easy target

It was elected public representatives who were the targets of survallance.

SF has some hard choices to make - Do they see their future in politics or not?

Both governments have left the door open for them - But IRA criminality has got to end. I think Adams & friends have got the message.

Villain

Cork wrote:

It was elected public representatives who were the targets of survallance.

SF has some hard choices to make - Do they see their future in politics or not?

Both governments have left the door open for them - But IRA criminality has got to end. I think Adams & friends have got the message.

Thanks again Cork for a great post that is right on topic!

Gandalf, can you back up your claim that

alot of their members and supporters don't even choose to recognise the state that they are standing for election in

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Thats probably because they dont stand for election down here or have a party that venorates their wrong doings standing for election down here.

Does that make their actions any less criminal?

Winning Hand

Necromancer wrote:

Is standing for election not a de facto recognition?

If that was the criteria for recognition then surely by standing for parliamentary elections SF recognise the authority the british have over Northern Ireland?