Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

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 09:22AM

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 09:28AM

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 09:41AM

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 09:45AM

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 09:51AM

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 09:54AM

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.

blackwhite · 09-12-2016 10:48AM

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.

Sums up SF and their supporters in a nutshell.

The behviour sounds identical to the approach of the catholic church and child abusers. "We've dealt with it internally, stop asking us questions."

If it was any other party they'd be screaming from the rafters about cover-ups. When it's SF, different rules apply.

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 10:53AM

blackwhite wrote: »

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.

You were not happy with ML doing it once in a blue moon, but silent on it happening again and again in relation to SF.

That warrants a QED . Well done.

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 10:57AM

blackwhite wrote: »

Sums up SF and their supporters in a nutshell.

The behviour sounds identical to the approach of the catholic church and child abusers. "We've dealt with it internally, stop asking us questions."

If it was any other party they'd be screaming from the rafters about cover-ups. When it's SF, different rules apply.

Did you find a quote where they said they would tout?
You only lose credibility if you don't do something you said you would do.

Correct?

Jawgap · 09-12-2016 10:58AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

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

ah now, come on.......there's a world of difference (even though SF wouldn't think so) between boring, in development policy issues and someone saying something inflammatory and newsworthy.

Unlike SF, most parties have factions - alliances are forming and reforming constantly. You said the word 'scum' had been used and went on to suggest that even less parliamentary language might be used behind closed doors and I suggested the PP meetings leak.

You really think that if someone was using that kind of language a rival wouldn't leak it?

Leaking a policy potentially hurts the party (unless it is a policy very closely tied to a personality) and hurts the collective - leaking a quote damages the person who said it - not the worst idea if you are in a multi-seat constituency or jockeying for promotion

......and I'm sure other party whips look at SF and envy their tight, "uno duce una voce" approach to getting out their political message out and the code of omerta that backs it up - in fairness you never see much of anything leaked from them.

FreudianSlippers · 09-12-2016 11:27AM

Can I just ask a basic logic question with regard to Adams?

Is it true to say that one does not "have information on a crime" on one hand, yet admit knowing someone who either does or at the very least claims to have information on a crime?

As a mere logic question - if you don't know who committed a crime but you know someone who does or potentially does know, don't you therefore "have information on a crime"?

weldoninhio · 09-12-2016 11:31AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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:

The British and Irish (FF/FG) govts want no part in a truth commission. They both know that if the stories of their collusion etc come out that they can no longer vilify SF (Irish govt) and that it would be a huge international scandal (British).

LordSutch · 09-12-2016 12:06PM

A few questions;

"Why is Gerry Adams still the leader of SinnFein" and when will he stand down?

How & why is he still allowed to lead a political party in the Dail?

...and finally, what do you SF/IRA supporters & followers want to happen regarding your leadership for the future?

johnnyskeleton · 09-12-2016 12:30PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

you sure about that? See Post 7.

Ok, on reading it again you did draw a distinction between SF and the IRA there.

But tell me this, how is the IRA's participation relevant to SF, since you were the one who made the connection?

Surely a truth and reconciliation commission would require that senior members of SF who were in the IRA admit that they were?

FrancieBrady · 09-12-2016 01:05PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, on reading it again you did draw a distinction between SF and the IRA there.

But tell me this, how is the IRA's participation relevant to SF, since you were the one who made the connection?

Surely a truth and reconciliation commission would require that senior members of SF who were in the IRA admit that they were?

In my world 'truth' means truth and I would expect everyone to tell it. There is one side in the conflict which refused to take part because ...well make your own mind up about that.

Something that intrigues me about this phenomenon that you might know the answer to.
In every other environment, family, social, down the pub, the court's etc if someone keeps alleging stuff, at some point they will be asked to produce something to back it up. Not so, with Adams or SF.
Stack was taken to meet somebody with info, he was given the info but classically (see similar behaviour on here) it wasn't the info he wanted. (That the IRA sanctioned the killing) so he just gets away with staying it is untrue. No journalist or poster in here thinks it important to ask: well, how do you know it isn't true?'

That would happen no where else.

A Little Pony · 09-12-2016 01:10PM

A just society would have seen Gerry Adams hanged long ago due to his crimes against humanity. I just hope his eventual death is painful.

Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Comments