Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 10:33am #1

After yesterday's shennanigans, yet again, in the Dáil, has the time come when FF, FG, Labour and all other parties and independents, should be looking to ways to bring closure to what happened during the recent conflict/war that involved everybody(even those who ignored it) on this island and many beyond it, instead of single issues like the one currently in the news.

It seems to me that again and again and again there are those who only want to remember selective things that happened. Is Adams right when he says:

“If the Taoiseach and Micheál Martin are interested in healing the legacy of the past for all families, including the Stacks, the Finucane’s, the families of the Dublin Monaghan bombs and hundreds more, then they could begin by putting in place an International based independent truth recovery process,”

Chips Lovell · 08-12-2016 11:00am

Given the IRA's seeming determination to play games with the Stack family and prolong their grief, I wouldn't be in any way confident that Brian Stack's murderers will be brought to justice, truth commission or no truth commission.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 11:22am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Given the IRA's seeming determination to play games with the Stack family and prolong their grief, I wouldn't be in any way confident that Brian Stack's murderers will be brought to justice, truth commission or no truth commission.

Not really interested in thrashing out the specifics of the case per se. Therein lies strife.

Is it time to set some system up that addresses all remaining issues.
Call everybody's bluff, so to speak.

This approach, the selective one, the political point scoring one, has abjectly failed in producing the results that people claimed they are being raised for, a concern for victims and their families.

Chips Lovell · 08-12-2016 11:30am

I think Adams is resorting to whataboutery to deflect from the issue, but I don't really see what relevance it has. It's like saying one murder in the Kinahan-Hutch feud shouldn't be prosecuted until all the murders are solved.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 11:39am

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think Adams is resorting to whataboutery to deflect from the issue, but I don't really see what relevance it has. It's like saying one murder in the Kinahan-Hutch feud shouldn't be prosecuted until all the murders are solved.

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

Jawgap · 08-12-2016 1:44pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

Because SF and the IRA cannot be trusted to participate fully, frankly and honestly. In fact everything in their make up suggests that while they'll expect everyone else to engage in frank disclosure they will weasel out of their obligations......

......in this particular instance Adams seems to think the fact that the killers were 'disciplined' is somehow a positive.....it's just another example of the mask slipping where they think that somehow the IRA and their nutting squad were a legitimate law and order force.......

.......if a gangland figure came out with the equivalent of "nothing to see here because we've disciplined one of our associates" would it be acceptable?

It shouldn't be acceptable just because the person who said, said it in the Dail.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 1:52pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Because SF and the IRA cannot be trusted to participate fully, frankly and honestly. In fact everything in their make up suggests that while they'll expect everyone else to engage in frank disclosure they will weasel out of their obligations......

The facts don't support that at all. Who in SF has run from questioning by the police or Gardai?

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

The IRA have said they would participate in a T&R type process. They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR, what gives you the impression they wouldn't follow through in a T&R process? And why not call their bluff, what does anyone have to lose by so doing? This selective way is getting nowhere, plenty of proof of that, no?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

Jawgap · 08-12-2016 1:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The facts don't support that at all. Who in SF has run from questioning by the police or Gardai?

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

The IRA have said they would participate in a T&R type process. They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR, what gives you the impression they wouldn't follow through in a T&R process? And why not call their bluff, what does anyone have to lose by so doing? This selective way is getting nowhere, plenty of proof of that, no?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

on this issued - it seems Adams is the one doing the running.

I'm sure that SF and the IRA have said they would participate in a T&R process (even though they weren't always in favour of one).......the point is no one trusts them to be truthful.......you see every time one of their reps opens their mouth how hung up on semantics they are so I reckon - and it's just my opinion - they'd have completely different definition of truths to be applied differentially to the different groups who might participate.

AlanG · 08-12-2016 2:04pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 2:10pm

Jawgap wrote: »

on this issued - it seems Adams is the one doing the running.

I'm sure that SF and the IRA have said they would participate in a T&R process (even though they weren't always in favour of one).......the point is no one trusts them to be truthful.......you see every time one of their reps opens their mouth how hung up on semantics they are so I reckon - and it's just my opinion - they'd have completely different definition of truths to be applied differentially to the different groups who might participate.

Even if people find out who carried out acts that saw their family members killed or injured?

Quantifying the results would be very very easy. It's an 'either or' question. There are no fuzzy lines acceptable imo.

As I said, you will find out very quickly if SF and the IRA are sincere, and how sincere all other parties to a T&R process are too.

None of these now tiresome politically selective stunts (I have stopped even reading about them to be honest) in the Dáil have produced one positive result for victims, because the issue is clear. Nobody in the IRA is going to enter into a one-sided retribution programme, nor is anybody on the British side, Unionist side or the Irish government side.

I think it is time to call FF FG's and other's bluff on this tbh. Do you want the truth and the whole truth or not.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 2:16pm

AlanG wrote: »

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

The security forces in the south, at the behest of the Irish government involved themselves in the war/conflict, acting on the side of the British, securing the border, arresting and intimidating people involved in the conflict/war.(the heavy gang, censorship etc.)

There was spillover as a result of that, that is the reality of what happened, ignore it if you want, it isn't going to solve anything.

LordSutch · 08-12-2016 5:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

AlanG wrote: »

There was no war between the IRA and the Irish State. SF love to put the killing of Security Officials in the South down to a war but then they should admit they were at war with the Republic.

Should every solider in a war be allowed kill who they want in their homeland because they are involved in a war in a different place.

The security forces in the south, at the behest of the Irish government involved themselves in the war/conflict, acting on the side of the British, securing the border, arresting and intimidating people involved in the conflict/war.(the heavy gang, censorship etc.)

There was spillover as a result of that, that is the reality of what happened, ignore it if you want, it isn't going to solve anything.

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 5:31pm

LordSutch wrote: »

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

I am not sure why this pious lie is allowed to be told on a politics forum.

They simply and factually were not the 'enemies of everybody' at any time.
The IRA were supported by many people and by their political wing, all through the troubles.
That political wing is now the largest political party on this island and has many former unrepentant members of the IRA as representatives of the people among it's ranks.

It is a blatant lie to say they were enemies of ALL the people. So can you stop please?

LordSutch · 08-12-2016 5:38pm

They were our enemies (The Irish people) of that there can be no doubt. Bank robberies, extortion, kidnapping, murders, torture, disappearances, knee cappings . . .

Their list of crimes against us is endless.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 5:41pm

LordSutch wrote: »

They were our enemies (The Irish people) of that there can be no doubt. Bank robberies, extortion, kidnapping, murders, torture, disappearances, knee cappings . . .

The list is endless.

They weren't.
I could do you a list of the activities of others in the conflict/war if you want?

I wouldn't be pious and silly enough to claim that the British were the 'enemies of the Irish people' or Loyalists were' because both had plenty of support among Irish people north and south.

Godge · 08-12-2016 5:44pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai were selectively prosecuting murders would you have a problem?
Because it seems to me that is what some want to see happening here.

FF FG and others want to conveniently forget that there was a conflict/war in progress when it suits them, politically.

I am not seeing why there is resistance to setting up a process that sees all legacy issues dealt with. Because what is currently happening is getting nowhere.

The truth commission is a complete red herring in respect of the Stack murder (and the Jerry McCabe case).

What Sinn Fein/IRA are looking for in a truth commission is a process that ensures that its members can never be prosecuted for crimes such as murder of gardai and prison officers, rape of young women, sexual abuse, punishment beatings, drug dealing, disappearances, kangaroo courts, money laundering, tax evasion, armed robbery, theft and fraud that had absolutely nothing to do with the "Troubles"

Sure, the rest of us might be happy with a truth commission that dealt with some of the things that happened, but we don't want to see SF/IRA members (and after yesterday in the Dail, we can once again see them as the same organisation) escape justice for the crimes I have mentioned. We also know that SF/IRA would milk such a process for publicity and gloss over their misdeeds.

Thanks but no thanks for that idea.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 5:59pm

Godge wrote: »

The truth commission is a complete red herring in respect of the Stack murder (and the Jerry McCabe case).

What Sinn Fein/IRA are looking for in a truth commission is a process that ensures that its members can never be prosecuted for crimes such as murder of gardai and prison officers, rape of young women, sexual abuse, punishment beatings, drug dealing, disappearances, kangaroo courts, money laundering, tax evasion, armed robbery, theft and fraud that had absolutely nothing to do with the "Troubles"

Sure, the rest of us might be happy with a truth commission that dealt with some of the things that happened, but we don't want to see SF/IRA members (and after yesterday in the Dail, we can once again see them as the same organisation) escape justice for the crimes I have mentioned. We also know that SF/IRA would milk such a process for publicity and gloss over their misdeeds.

Thanks but no thanks for that idea.

There has been and most likely will never be prosecution's.
If your concern is victims and families then you are basically playing circus with them if you support yesterdays and today's shennanagins. Or the now forgotten Cahill case, an alleged rapist is still walking free because of the same political grandstanding nonsense.

JPCN1 · 08-12-2016 6:04pm

LordSutch wrote: »

The security forces & Governments on both sides of the border were fighting the Provo's, that goes without saying. The Provo's were everybody's enemy at the time of the Troubles, and this needs to be said.

And they still are. Ask the McCartney or Quinn families.

Jawgap · 08-12-2016 7:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even if people find out who carried out acts that saw their family members killed or injured? Quantifying the results would be very very easy. It's an 'either or' question. There are no fuzzy lines acceptable imo.

As I said, you will find out very quickly if SF and the IRA are sincere, and how sincere all other parties to a T&R process are too.

None of these now tiresome politically selective stunts (I have stopped even reading about them to be honest) in the Dáil have produced one positive result for victims, because the issue is clear. Nobody in the IRA is going to enter into a one-sided retribution programme, nor is anybody on the British side, Unionist side or the Irish government side.

I think it is time to call FF FG's and other's bluff on this tbh. Do you want the truth and the whole truth or not.

The simple fact is SF have a serious credibility problem.

Only a few, and mostly those indoctrinated into SF, think that SF will actually abide by the standards they would expect other actors in the conflict to honour.

They are the arch opportunists of Irish politics and because of that no one expects they will be out to do anything except serve their own warped agenda.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 7:52pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The simple fact is SF have a serious credibility problem.

Only a few, and mostly those indoctrinated into SF, think that SF will actually abide by the standards they would expect other actors in the conflict to honour.

They are the arch opportunists of Irish politics and because of that no one expects they will be out to do anything except serve their own warped agenda.

Time and again the same people have made allegations and a cohort believed them even though there hasn't been anything to substantiate.
The 'burden of proof' is met for this cohort simply because the allegations are loud and repeated.
Yet SF have the credibility issues? ..

A T&R commission would of course very quickly establish the bona fides of all involved. But of course there is now cheap political capital to be made if victims get closure. Ask any of the Dublin Monaghan victims families about that!

Godge · 08-12-2016 9:41pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Time and again the same people have made allegations and a cohort believed them even though there hasn't been anything to substantiate.
The 'burden of proof' is met for this cohort simply because the allegations are loud and repeated.
Yet SF have the credibility issues? ..

A T&R commission would of course very quickly establish the bona fides of all involved. But of course there is now cheap political capital to be made if victims get closure. Ask any of the Dublin Monaghan victims families about that!

Gerry Adams lied to a court or a TV programme about his knowledge of his brother's sexual abuse of Gerry's niece. He has had a credibility problem since that day.

Now please don't bring up why he wasn't charged with perjury, simple, he claimed he lied to the TV programme, which isn't a crime.

johnnyskeleton · 08-12-2016 9:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This approach, the selective one, the political point scoring one, has abjectly failed in producing the results that people claimed they are being raised for, a concern for victims and their families.

They dont raise these issues out of concern for the victims and their families. Maybe a truth and reconciliation commission might be helpful for them or it might not be. But they are not the point of politicians raising this.

The point is that if a sitting TD had knowledge of or indirectly supported the killing of a gentleman who dedicated his life to service of the state, then it is something that the people who get to vote in these things ought to know.

So there are sound political reasons to get to the bottom of this.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 9:58pm

Godge wrote: »

Gerry Adams lied to a court or a TV programme about his knowledge of his brother's sexual abuse of Gerry's niece. He has had a credibility problem since that day.

Now please don't bring up why he wasn't charged with perjury, simple, he claimed he lied to the TV programme, which isn't a crime.

So, what you are saying in effect here, is closure and answers for a whole community of victims, hinges on whether Adams told the full truth to a TV programme?
That no matter what he says or does subsequent to this 'issue' (which nobody seems to think important enough to keep a recording of, as I have never seen this lie) you and the rest of the cohort have decided he is telling the truth about nothing? Despite the fact that no charges have ever been brought against following extensive examination of several allegations?

Step back and have a look at that and tell us again about 'credibility'.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 10:01pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They dont raise these issues out of concern for the victims and their families. Maybe a truth and reconciliation commission might be helpful for them or it might not be. But they are not the point of politicians raising this.

The point is that if a sitting TD had knowledge of or indirectly supported the killing of a gentleman who dedicated his life to service of the state, then it is something that the people who get to vote in these things ought to know.

So there are sound political reasons to get to the bottom of this.

At what point do you say to those making allegations, 'put up or shut up' though?
Are you saying that it is legitimate or even fair to hold up progress for all victims for what has been little more than tawdry political mud slinging.

johnnyskeleton · 08-12-2016 10:02pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again and again we have people like Regina Doherty and Michael Martin making sensational claims about SF involvement in criminality and it all comes to nothing.
The weight of evidence would suggest that there is nothing there.

They participated in the recovery of the disappeared to the satisfaction of the ICLVR

How do, if you'll pardon the pun, reconcile these two propositions? If there was a weight of evidence suggesting no wrong doing on the part of Sinn Fein, how were they helpful in locating the bodies?

The point is, selective outrage about what happened and selective blame (which is what is happening in political stunts like the latest one) will not help victims one bit.

Again, the point is not to help the victims. The Irish State doesnt bother with unionist politicians who may have been involved in murder because those politicians are not running for election in this state. Hence, people need to know who SF really are. That so many people vote for them knowing all this is what is quite frightening.

johnnyskeleton · 08-12-2016 10:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At what point do you say to those making allegations, 'put up or shut up' though?
Are you saying that it is legitimate or even fair to hold up progress for all victims for what has been little more than tawdry political mud slinging.

They did put up. Austin Stack is on record denying that he gave the names to Gerry. So Gerry lied about how he got the names.

As to holding up progress, how does this hold up progress? Presumably any moves towards a truth and reconciliation process in the north are no more nor less advanced today than they were 3 days ago when the story broke. Maybe its holding it up because SF are saying that if we are going to be asking difficult questions without some convenient loyalists around to bash to take the focus off them that they arent going to participate?

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 10:09pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do, if you'll pardon the pun, reconcile these two propositions? If there was a weight of evidence suggesting no wrong doing on the part of Sinn Fein, how were they helpful in locating the bodies?

SF had nothing to do with the disappeared. The IRA assisted as best they could in finding remains, as they said they would.

Again, the point is not to help the victims. The Irish State doesnt bother with unionist politicians who may have been involved in murder because those politicians are not running for election in this state. Hence, people need to know who SF really are. That so many people vote for them knowing all this is what is quite frightening.

That is just a cop out and an excuse. There was a conflict/war on this island involving everyone, including Ends and his party and Michael and his. The way they selectively forget this and then turn up for the reflected glory of how the state came about is hypocritical and frankly sickening.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 10:16pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They did put up. Austin Stack is on record denying that he gave the names to Gerry. So Gerry lied about how he got the names.

As to holding up progress, how does this hold up progress? Presumably any moves towards a truth and reconciliation process in the north are no more nor less advanced today than they were 3 days ago when the story broke. Maybe its holding it up because SF are saying that if we are going to be asking difficult questions without some convenient loyalists around to bash to take the focus off them that they arent going to participate?

Yeh, and Maria Cahill said xxxx and somebody else said he was chief of the IRA but funnily enough not a single shred of evidence capable of standing the test or scrutiny of a court.

Put all the allegations together and the lack of any concrete undenialable evidence and pretend it is a case against some unknown in Texas or somewhere you have no emotional stake. Would you even hesitate to ask questions about that anomaly? Even Al Capone was got with something concrete and provable.

johnnyskeleton · 08-12-2016 10:46pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF had nothing to do with the disappeared. The IRA assisted as best they could in finding remains, as they said they would.

You just said earlier that SF assisted with the disappeared.

That is just a cop out and an excuse. There was a conflict/war on this island involving everyone, including Ends and his party and Michael and his. The way they selectively forget this and then turn up for the reflected glory of how the state came about is hypocritical and frankly sickening.

How is the murder of an Irish prison officer in the 80s connected to the war of independence? Could i rob a bank tomorrow and say i did it because the British once ruled Ireland?

johnnyskeleton · 08-12-2016 10:48pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, and Maria Cahill said xxxx and somebody else said he was chief of the IRA but funnily enough not a single shred of evidence capable of standing the test or scrutiny of a court.

Put all the allegations together and the lack of any concrete undenialable evidence and pretend it is a case against some unknown in Texas or somewhere you have no emotional stake. Would you even hesitate to ask questions about that anomaly? Even Al Capone was got with something concrete and provable.

Its not a criminal trial. Allegations avout Bertie Ahearn were never proven to the criminal standard. Doesnt mean that we all have to ignore them.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 10:57pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You just said earlier that SF assisted with the disappeared.

you sure about that? See Post 7.

How is the murder of an Irish prison officer in the 80s connected to the war of independence? Could i rob a bank tomorrow and say i did it because the British once ruled Ireland?

No, you couldn't. The connection is 'selectivity'. Enda and Michael and fine moral upstanding politicians select what they want to be outraged about.

holyhead · 08-12-2016 10:58pm

What I find curious is whenever there is a chance to attack Sinn Fein both FG and FF are quick off the mark. Neither would go into Government with them yet expected the main Unionist parties to do so in Northern Ireland. I think the Austin Stack issue is a tricky one for SF and in particular Gerry Adams. The family of Stack are understandably wanting justice and for the sake of what's right and credibility GA may have to stick his neck out this time and for want of a better word snitch on those responsible. If not then his successor will not inherit a party deemed fit for Government appointments/office.

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 11:12pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its not a criminal trial. Allegations avout Bertie Ahearn were never proven to the criminal standard. Doesnt mean that we all have to ignore them.

So you are happy that the business of the Dail should involve bandying about allegations about one man while not once asking for proof? When there are many victims who await answers?
When they are wining and dining the titular head of armed forces who have never been publicly challenged about their role in the bombing of Dublin and Monaghan? When they are silent about the activities of a whole range of police killings?
You think that is even approaching responsible government?

FrancieBrady · 08-12-2016 11:16pm

holyhead wrote: »

What I find curious is whenever there is a chance to attack Sinn Fein both FG and FF are quick off the mark. Neither would go into Government with them yet expected the main Unionist parties to do so in Northern Ireland. I think the Austin Stack issue is a tricky one for SF and in particular Gerry Adams. The family of Stack are understandably wanting justice and for the sake of what's right and credibility GA may have to stick his neck out this time and for want of a better word snitch on those responsible. If not then his successor will not inherit a party deemed fit for Government appointments/office.

Seems to me from listening to Stack on Prime Time that he got answers at the meeting but like a few on here, they were not the answers he wanted. And from wanting 'closure' in 2013 he now wants retribution/justice and expects Adams to provide the man responsible.

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 12:30am

Vincent Browne (no fan of SF) nailing it. The gardai have the name (according to Stack himself) so this is another trip into the predictable dead end.
Peadar Tobin's question, what has FG done to advance justice/closure for all in the 20 years since GFA.

Anyone care to field that one?

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 9:22am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Time and again the same people have made allegations and a cohort believed them even though there hasn't been anything to substantiate.
The 'burden of proof' is met for this cohort simply because the allegations are loud and repeated.
Yet SF have the credibility issues? ..

A T&R commission would of course very quickly establish the bona fides of all involved. But of course there is now cheap political capital to be made if victims get closure. Ask any of the Dublin Monaghan victims families about that!

Yes, they have credibility issues because beyond trials, beyond the media people talk and discuss and form their own opinions - SF like to talk about what has been proven/not proven, while people base their opinion of them on what they know, not what has been proven formally.

People may argue that's not 'fair' - but that's politics and that's the reality. If SF wanted to dramatically shift the view of them as being wholly self serving they'd need, imo, to do something unexpected that would, literally, raise eyebrows.

......and they could start by allowing some dissent in the ranks. It's difficult to counter the idea that the IRA Army Council or characters associated with it aren't in control of SF when it behaves in a monolithic fashion, suggestive of tight, centralised control!

If they behaved like a political party, maybe people would engage with them as a political party.

tomwaterford · 09-12-2016 9:28am

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, they have credibility issues because beyond trials, beyond the media people talk and discuss and form their own opinions - SF like to talk about what has been proven/not proven, while people base their opinion of them on what they know, not what has been proven formally.

People may argue that's not 'fair' - but that's politics and that's the reality. If SF wanted to dramatically shift the view of them as being wholly self serving they'd need, imo, to do something unexpected that would, literally, raise eyebrows.

......and they could start by allowing some dissent in the ranks. It's difficult to counter the idea that the IRA Army Council or characters associated with it aren't in control of SF when it behaves in a monolithic fashion, suggestive of tight, centralised control!

If they behaved like a political party, maybe people would engage with them as a political party.

Presumably you wish to see a split/weak party representing poor people.....like labour??

SF is not run as it seems from the outside....no issue is rushed through etc
It's brought about in meetings and sold carefully/negociated and then released from top down....hence why it looks like they sing from the same hymn sheet

(Pretty sure this has been explained before??)

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 9:41am

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, they have credibility issues because beyond trials, beyond the media people talk and discuss and form their own opinions - SF like to talk about what has been proven/not proven, while people base their opinion of them on what they know, not what has been proven formally.

People may argue that's not 'fair' - but that's politics and that's the reality. If SF wanted to dramatically shift the view of them as being wholly self serving they'd need, imo, to do something unexpected that would, literally, raise eyebrows.

......and they could start by allowing some dissent in the ranks. It's difficult to counter the idea that the IRA Army Council or characters associated with it aren't in control of SF when it behaves in a monolithic fashion, suggestive of tight, centralised control!

If they behaved like a political party, maybe people would engage with them as a political party.

You now want them to behave like other political parties?

Which one FF? FG?

The latest non story unravelled overnight- the Gardai have had the name all along. Other than the fantastically deluded notion that Adams is going to start touting on men and women whose confidence he needs there was as usual no story here.

Stack began looking for closure and information, he got that through Adams. Stack now wants Adams to assist him in getting justice.
That isn't going to happen in a one-sided retribution process, ever. Anyone actually listening would know that.

The fall back position, that SF are mind control despots is now thrown in the mix as the 'story' predictably falls apart just like the Indo opening a second front with a classic 'sources say
' story.

Fascinating that people fall for this over and over and over again.

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 9:45am

tomwaterford wrote: »

Presumably you wish to see a split/weak party representing poor people.....like labour??

SF is not run as it seems from the outside....no issue is rushed through etc
It's brought about in meetings and sold carefully/negociated and then released from top down....hence why it looks like they sing from the same hymn sheet

(Pretty sure this has been explained before??)

Labour shot themselves in the foot while in government - their current trauma is as a result of that and the inability of certain characters to acknowledge their poor performance and apologise for it.

FF would be the counter to the Labour example - despite wrecking the country, they did their time in purdah (not bloody long enough), generally cut their ties with the old regime and returned with a bit of humility. It's remarkable they've been forgiven!

Political parties should embrace dissent, allow for factions and even the odd heave can be cleansing.

SF just come across as a cult - no one challenges the leadership, everyone speaks as one, candidates seemed to be churned out of the same cookie-cutter process and dissent is not evident.

If people are happy with that, that's fine but it may be something worth reflecting on when considering election and polling performance.

In this particular instance SF doubtless think they are right - and they probably are by their own internal logic, but a lot of other people would struggle to understand why an elected representative sitting in the Dail would work so hard to protect the identities of people who set about in such a dedicated fashion to subvert this democratically enacted republic......it may make sense to SF, but not to many outside the bubble.

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 9:51am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You now want them to behave like other political parties? Which one FF? FG?

The latest non story unravelled overnight- the Gardai have had the name all along. Other than the fantastically deluded notion that Adams is going to start touting on men and women whose confidence he needs there was as usual no story here.

Stack began looking for closure and information, he got that through Adams. Stack now wants Adams to assist him in getting justice.
That isn't going to happen in a one-sided retribution process, ever. Anyone actually listening would know that.

The fall back position, that SF are mind control despots is now thrown in the mix as the 'story' predictably falls apart just like the Indo opening a second front with a classic 'sources say
' story.

Fascinating that people fall for this over and over and over again.

Two parties which for all their troubles at least put up the appearance of being governments-in-waiting and both have what might be called credible candidates as "Taoisigh-in-waiting." Doubtless you'll rubbish those particular notions but whatever.

And your sentence "Other than the fantastically deluded notion that Adams is going to start touting on men and women whose confidence he needs there was as usual no story here" sums up the SF mindset in a nutshell, and the reason why they would be unfit to hold an office under the Constitution.

tomwaterford · 09-12-2016 9:54am

SF is built by people who risked everything...they represent the poorest of people in the country

(Those left behind by Celtic tiger)

It may loom like it from outside....but leadership in SF above all else can't hoist a decision on top of its members without disputes (same as any other party)

Hence why they managed to bring so many along during the peace process

There is even within SF discussions on who is to replace Adams upon retirement (2019???) afaik

They aren't going to give up ira members....you know,I know, those who are using stack for their own ends know it

If the IRA refused to give up tom Barry in 1921....What's changed since then??

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 10:03am

Jawgap wrote: »

Two parties which for all their troubles at least put up the appearance of being governments-in-waiting and both have what might be called credible candidates as "Taoisigh-in-waiting." Doubtless you'll rubbish those particular notions but whatever.

And your sentence "Other than the fantastically deluded notion that Adams is going to start touting on men and women whose confidence he needs there was as usual no story here" sums up the SF mindset in a nutshell, and the reason why they would be unfit to hold an office under the Constitution.

Where did you get the notion that SF would begin touting? Is there anything in the record that shows they said they would do that?
Why are you disappointed that they haven't done something they never said they would do?

Why would they be lectured on this by two parties that came out of a bloody birth and subsquently behaved the exact same way.
The 'who shot Brian Stack' story is just a modern 'who shot Michael Collins' one.

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 10:06am

tomwaterford wrote: »

SF is built by people who risked everything...they represent the poorest of people in the country

(Those left behind by Celtic tiger)

It may loom like it from outside....but leadership in SF above all else can't hoist a decision on top of its members without disputes (same as any other party)

Hence why they managed to bring so many along during the peace process

There is even within SF discussions on who is to replace Adams upon retirement (2019???) afaik

They aren't going to give up ira members....you know,I know, those who are using stack for their own ends know it

If the IRA refused to give up tom Barry in 1921....What's changed since then??

As the saying goes, the past is a different country.

Since 1921 we've established ourselves as a liberal democracy, we have functioning civic institutions, educated citizens, a vibrant media etc

Look no one actually expects SF to start giving up IRA members, that's their nature and no one expects them to be anything to be true to that nature.....but I alluded earlier to the idea that SF needed to 'surprise' people if they wanted to change the narrative around their credibility or lack thereof. Maybe that needs to be considered when they are wondering why no one will believe them.

Oh, and they can spare us the rhetoric about being the true representatives of the downtrodden masses......all the parties, in their own way and in ways a lot won't agree with, are working to help people struggling.

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 10:10am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did you get the notion that SF would begin touting? Is there anything in the record that shows they said they would do that?
Why are you disappointed that they haven't done something they never said they would do?

Why would they be lectured on this by two parties that came out of a bloody birth and subsquently behaved the exact same way.
The 'who shot Brian Stack' story is just a modern 'who shot Michael Collins' one.

As I said above no one actually does, so that's why their credibility issues will persist, and indeed on the back of this story, they'll likely grow.

From Noel Whelan in today's IT (feel free to dismiss it, but it's still there in a national newspaper being read by tens of thousands).....

In weighing up any conflict of evidence, one must assess the general credibility of those making the competing claims.

Gerry Adams’s credibility is shot to pieces. The precedents that illustrate his loose relationship with the truth are stacked very high. His various contradictory statements about McConville, McCabe and Colombia Three are just some examples of how he has been caught dissembling on politically sensitive events.

Adams’s denials about how the IRA covered up the abuse of Maíria Cahill is another case in point. His refusal to confirm that he was ever a member of the IRA further undermines him. Anyone who, notwithstanding these examples, still believes that Adams’s word can be trusted should study the transcript of his evidence in his brother’s first trial for sexual abuse. The transcript is available online and is riddled with inconsistencies, to the extent that he was not called as a witness in the retrial.

On the other side of the scale we have the word of Austin Stack, a man who, like his father before him, has given a life’s service to the State and is now a senior prison officer. He is a son motivated by his family’s need to find answers about his father’s death.

Given their respective motives and track records, the choice on who to believe in this recent controversy is a no-brainer.

tomwaterford · 09-12-2016 10:12am

Jawgap wrote: »

As the saying goes, the past is a different country.

Since 1921 we've established ourselves as a liberal democracy, we have functioning civic institutions, educated citizens, a vibrant media etc

Look no one actually expects SF to start giving up IRA members, that's their nature and no one expects them to be anything to be true to that nature.....but I alluded earlier to the idea that SF needed to 'surprise' people if they wanted to change the narrative around their credibility or lack thereof. Maybe that needs to be considered when they are wondering why no one will believe them.

Oh, and they can spare us the rhetoric about being the true representatives of the downtrodden masses......all the parties, in their own way and in ways a lot won't agree with, are working to help people struggling.

These being the parties and supporters of which regularly refer to SF voters as scum??

You need only reason reactions on here for FG supporters/members to see their ture worth

With an election result these areas went from descent areas with small bad element to being scum when they didn't vote for them??

I shudder to think on what they say in private are these parlimentry party meetings....presumably they are representing of their members/supporters????

Berserker · 09-12-2016 10:22am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

should be looking to ways to bring closure to what happened during the recent conflict/war that involved everybody(even those who ignored it) on this island and many beyond it, instead of single issues like the one currently in the news.

I never realised that SF/IRA were at war with the Irish state. Can you give us some more detail about this war?

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 10:23am

tomwaterford wrote: »

These being the parties and supporters of which regularly refer to SF voters as scum??

You need only reason reactions on here for FG supporters/members to see their ture worth

With an election result these areas went from descent areas with small bad element to being scum when they didn't vote for them??

I shudder to think on what they say in private are these parlimentry party meetings....presumably they are representing of their members/supporters????

I think it's pretty clear what goes on at PP meetings - those things leak like a sieve.

......and you know if SF want to go on whinging about the world being against them they can (and probably will) but they can hardly be surprised if things don't change when they themselves keep doing the same things, repeating the same mantras and deal with issues like Brian Stack's murder, in the same way.

Their actions may will be consistent with their history but that's not how they'll change things.......

.......interesting though that even in the depths of the worst recession this country has experienced they never managed to gather enough votes to become even the main party of opposition......probably tells you all you need know about being such a slave to the past.

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 10:28am

Jawgap wrote: »

As I said above no one actually does, so that's why their credibility issues will persist, and indeed on the back of this story, they'll likely grow.

From Noel Whelan in today's IT (feel free to dismiss it, but it's still there in a national newspaper being read by tens of thousands).....

Did you find a source which shows SF saying they would tout?
I can find you plenty where they talk about what is needed.

I can find you statements were Adams commits to helping Stack in what he was then seeking, I can show you Stack thanking Adams for what he did.
What I can't show and neither can you is SF saying anywhere that they will tout.

And all you do show is an erstwhile spin doctor for the stokers of this latest round; FF, probably pontificating about the same thing - ie SF not doing something they have been at pains to say, they wouldn't do for very good reasons. If you or Noel can't grasp why, research why they depositions given to the military bureau here where kept top secret. And maybe ask why nobody was prosecuted on the basis of any info given.

It isn't rocket science even for high moral grounders.

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 10:34am

Berserker wrote: »

I never realised that SF/IRA were at war with the Irish state. Can you give us some more detail about this war?

Agreed, SF is not a democratic organisation. A small number of people decide what the party line is going to be in private, staged meetings allowing the party membership to "discuss" the issue are held and the media etc is informed thereafter. It is a very strict format.

However, something has gone wrong on this one. A very close friend of mine who works in the media (political media) is getting information, contradictory information, from various SF sources on the qt. This person has worked in the print media for decades and this has never happened before. The consequences for breaking rank, essentially, are harsh in SF, as you probably know, so something is up within the party ranks. They'll manage to put a lid on this, I'm sure but this doesn't bode well for the future.

The Irish state involved themselves on the side of the british. Far as I know, The IRA never declared war. That there casualties on the side of The Irish state would not be unexpected. Volatile situations, conflicts/wars.

tomwaterford · 09-12-2016 10:40am

Jawgap wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear what goes on at PP meetings - those things leak like a sieve.

......and you know if SF want to go on whinging about the world being against them they can (and probably will) but they can hardly be surprised if things don't change when they themselves keep doing the same things, repeating the same mantras and deal with issues like Brian Stack's murder, in the same way.

Their actions may will be consistent with their history but that's not how they'll change things.......

.......interesting though that even in the depths of the worst recession this country has experienced they never managed to gather enough votes to become even the main party of opposition......probably tells you all you need know about being such a slave to the past.

These meeting leaking like a sieve :pac: :pac: :pac:

I know if three national policies being discussed that nothing has been released to media/discussed upon

One of which is a massive step aside/snub of a billionaire businessman

Considering they are leaking buckets....perhaps you'll how they are ended

blackwhite · 09-12-2016 10:42am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are happy that the business of the Dail should involve bandying about allegations about one man while not once asking for proof? When there are many victims who await answers?
When they are wining and dining the titular head of armed forces who have never been publicly challenged about their role in the bombing of Dublin and Monaghan? When they are silent about the activities of a whole range of police killings?
You think that is even approaching responsible government?

You were quite happy to cheer-lead Mary Lou doing the same thing about politicians from other parties - including her quite deliberate insinuations about Sean Barrett.

Funny how the tune changes when SF are the ones in the spotlight.

Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Comments