Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

K-9 · 13-12-2016 01:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So now it's Mary Lou's turn? I thought the new generation would be immune from all this?

I have seen several different SF reps answering questions on this.
Just as have seen several different FG and FF reps on it.
That is par for the course in politics when an issue arises, different people are appointed to go and debate the issue in the media.

I could ask on a whole variety of stuff, 'where is Enda' is he in hiding? And make hay with that.
In fact, isn't that a bit of a joke/social media trope now when talking about FG...'Where is Enda?' He gets routinely criticised for it.

It is odd that it seems very rare SF TD's rarely, if ever, criticise Adams though, unlike Kenny, Martin etc.

Remarkable loyalty and discipline or toeing the party line at all costs?

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 01:05PM

K-9 wrote: »

It is odd that it seems very rare SF TD's rarely, if ever, criticise Adams though, unlike Kenny, Martin etc.

Remarkable loyalty and discipline or toeing the party line at all costs?

I agree it happens rarely if at all. But I can see why, in a way, when you see how the journalist in that article has used stuff Mary Lou has said and done to paint a picture of her.

There is an embattled, under-fire, closed ranks aspect to SF. Not sure if that will disappear with almost constant attacks though.
This article gives the lie to the assertion that these attacks will die down when the current leadership steps down.

K-9 · 13-12-2016 01:14PM

But the problem is Adams is still leader so...

Doherty or Mary Lou are more removed from the Troubles stuff. Some Will still attack SF but that's politics!

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 01:20PM

K-9 wrote: »

But the problem is Adams is still leader so...

Doherty or Mary Lou are more removed from the Troubles stuff. Some Will still attack SF but that's politics!

It will start with somebody asking her/him to condemn something...then off we go again.

I believe that because I believe the only reason we get to see stories like Cahill's, Jean McConville's, The Stacks Jerry McCabe etc so prominently and not the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings, Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday, or the victims of the Glenanne Gang is because there is political capital to be made from forcing SF to defend/excuse them.
That isn't going to stop.

Jawgap · 13-12-2016 01:20PM

K-9 wrote: »

It is odd that it seems very rare SF TD's rarely, if ever, criticise Adams though, unlike Kenny, Martin etc.

Remarkable loyalty and discipline or toeing the party line at all costs?

I don't think it's a healthy sign at all to have such unquestioned loyalty to a party leader - it's closer to a cult of personality than anything else.

It's impressive the way everyone, even the online activists, are kept 'on message' and the way no one ever briefs against anyone else, but having a leader that reigns instead of leads is not good for the political process - and I think SF will only realise what trouble they have sown for themselves when Adams does eventually decide to vacate the title, but not the role.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 01:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think it's a healthy sign at all to have such unquestioned loyalty to a party leader - it's closer to a cult of personality than anything else.

It's impressive the way everyone, even the online activists, are kept 'on message' and the way no one ever briefs against anyone else, but having a leader that reigns instead of leads is not good for the political process - and I think SF will only realise what trouble they have sown for themselves when Adams does eventually decide to vacate the title, but not the role.

Oh I am sure someone will be able to make the claim that he is pulling the strings, even from beyond the grave.

And sorry, I see no evidence at all that SF are 'close to a cult of personality'. My work and interests have taken me to the SF Ard Fheis on two occasions and as a political experience it was very refreshing. You should go to one.

I find it impossible to believe that a party with the range of very very strong opinion and characters would be dominated or reigned by one man.
I would think that if they didn't want to do something it wouldn't be done.

Jawgap · 13-12-2016 01:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh I am sure someone will be able to make the claim that he is pulling the strings, even from beyond the grave.

And sorry, I see no evidence at all that SF are 'close to a cult of personality'. My work and interests have taken me to the SF Ard Fheis on two occasions and as a political experience it was very refreshing. You should go to one.

I find it impossible to believe that a party with the range of very very strong opinion and characters would be dominated or reigned by one man.
I would think that if they didn't want to do something it wouldn't be done.

Well given you are invested in the party you are hardly a neutral observer......

......oh, and absence of evidence, is not the same as evidence of absence.

marienbad · 13-12-2016 01:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deflection???

Did he lie/perjure himself = No
Did he attempt to get the accused off = No
Did the accused go to jail = Yes

What is the problem here? That he didn't answer in the way that you wanted?
Would it have been easier if he did lie and was definite about his recall?

Spell out what the problem is with this transcript, please. Because I don't have a clue what it is.

Francie , some times matter how much you admire someone you have to accept that at a minimum they made a catastrophic error of judgement .

I have read the full transcript (for the first time ) and it is damning .

GA knew about a sexual abuser for 10 years and did nothing of substance to prevent it , even enabling that abuser to work in proximity to children for years . That is the nub of it . And all this time he was a Public Representative

And as the cross examination clearly shows he only fully came clean to the police when a TV programme was imminent . He even arranged for the police to be called in to amend his previous statement taken over two years
previously .

The fact is the political element came before even the protection of children . I don't see how you can see it any other way .

marienbad · 13-12-2016 01:49PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will start with somebody asking her/him to condemn something...then off we go again.

I believe that because I believe the only reason we get to see stories like Cahill's, Jean McConville's, The Stacks Jerry McCabe etc so prominently and not the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings, Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday, or the victims of the Glenanne Gang is because there is political capital to be made from forcing SF to defend/excuse them.
That isn't going to stop.

Not quite Francie , the perpetrators of those atrocities don't aspire to govern this country .

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 01:52PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well given you are invested in the party you are hardly a neutral observer......

......oh, and absence of evidence, is not the same as evidence of absence.

I think there are better examples of undying leader defending out there. i.e. the Regina Doherty/Enda Kenny one, but that is just me.
I am not invested in the party at all. I would say I am not neutral though, as I come from the republican side of the political spectrum and I think most of my debating here is in relation to republican issues rather than strictly SF issues.

On the issue of the Truth Process I differ and disagree with SF on one aspect of their policy on that. I asked Billy yesterday could he spot it, as I had mentioned it. But he declined to have a go or maybe he did spot it but wasn't going to go to what it meant = that I wasn't on 'message'.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 01:55PM

marienbad wrote: »

Not quite Francie , the perpetrators of those atrocities don't aspire to govern this country .

So the Irish government can abdicate their commitments in the GFA and just concentrate on cherrypicked crimes atrocities?

marienbad · 13-12-2016 01:58PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the Irish government can abdicate their commitments in the GFA and just concentrate on cherrypicked crimes atrocities?

The bears no relation to what I just said , you speculated on why one type of atrocity featured more highly than another and I explained why ,

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 02:05PM

marienbad wrote: »

The bears no relation to what I just said , you speculated on why one type of atrocity featured more highly than another and I explained why ,

The Irish government can wine and dine the British government and royalty while they sit on/cover-up information on a lot of the aforementioned atrocities. They are co-signatories of an agreement that commits to a truth Process to bring information on these legacy issues.
They have never made a stand on behalf of the victims of any of the above.
Yet Enda can stand in Dail and lambast SF and have PR photos taken with selective victims etc to be plastered all over the media.
Posters on here are all over negative stories about SF and republicans but never ever criticise FG or FF governments for reneging on this Agreement.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 02:09PM

marienbad wrote: »

Francie , some times matter how much you admire someone you have to accept that at a minimum they made a catastrophic error of judgement .

I have read the full transcript (for the first time ) and it is damning .

GA knew about a sexual abuser for 10 years and did nothing of substance to prevent it , even enabling that abuser to work in proximity to children for years . That is the nub of it . And all this time he was a Public Representative

And as the cross examination clearly shows he only fully came clean to the police when a TV programme was imminent . He even arranged for the police to be called in to amend his previous statement taken over two years
previously .

The fact is the political element came before even the protection of children . I don't see how you can see it any other way .

I understand all of that and he accepted he had done the wrong thing.
What I need to assess (and anyone electing him as a leader or a representative) when a politician gets caught up in a situation involving a family member is, would it happen again? Personally, and as far as I can be aware, his party members and constituency electors, have assessed that it wouldn't.
He isn't the first politician to become embroiled in a difficult family situation and handle it badly.

marienbad · 13-12-2016 02:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish government can wine and dine the British government and royalty while they sit on/cover-up information on a lot of the aforementioned atrocities. They are co-signatories of an agreement that commits to a truth Process to bring information on these legacy issues.
They have never made a stand on behalf of the victims of any of the above.
Yet Enda can stand in Dail and lambast SF and have PR photos taken with selective victims etc to be plastered all over the media.
Posters on here are all over negative stories about SF and republicans but never ever criticise FG or FF governments for reneging on this Agreement.

You are just deflecting now Francie , you brought up a set of atrocities and asked why they weren't covered - I explained to you why .

Now if you want to leave that part of the discussion ,fine lets do so , but please don't bother morphing into some generalised stuff to just muddy the waters .

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 02:18PM

marienbad wrote: »

You are just deflecting now Francie , you brought up a set of atrocities and asked why they weren't covered - I explained to you why .

Now if you want to leave that part of the discussion ,fine lets do so , but please don't bother morphing into some generalised stuff to just muddy the waters .

It is relevant, you just don't want to deal with it.

It isn't Enda's role or Michael Martin's role to decide who gets to aspire to government. This is a democracy and if anyone receives a mandate from the electorate they are free to pursue that mandate. Other parties are free to oppose that mandate. They are not free to attempt to silence that mandate by exploiting selective victims while ignoring others.

marienbad · 13-12-2016 02:30PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I understand all of that and he accepted he had done the wrong thing.
What I need to assess (and anyone electing him as a leader or a representative) when a politician gets caught up in a situation involving a family member is, would it happen again? Personally, and as far as I can be aware, his party members and constituency electors, have assessed that it wouldn't.
He isn't the first politician to become embroiled in a difficult family situation and handle it badly.

That is to a extent is true ,but excepting he did the wrong thing effectively under duress in a court of law years after he was first aware, adds a whole different level of calculation to the issue . He put the political before his public duty and did so for years .

At a very base level why was his brother not treated the same way as we are told others that crossed the line were . Why was he not 'tried' like Maria Cahill's accused supposedly were .

Instead for nearly 10 years he was facilitated in moving from job to job working with young people .

If it had been a catholic priest he would have been pilloried at this stage and 'retired' to some monastery in Guatemala . And this wasn't even the 70's or 80's when the country was still in some zombie denial state . This was after Brendan Smyth , Fortune , Ferns , this was recent history .

marienbad · 13-12-2016 02:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is relevant, you just don't want to deal with it.

It isn't Enda's role or Michael Martin's role to decide who gets to aspire to government. This is a democracy and if anyone receives a mandate from the electorate they are free to pursue that mandate. Other parties are free to oppose that mandate. They are not free to attempt to silence that mandate by exploiting selective victims while ignoring others.

This might be valid Francie in some general sense , I don't know , but it has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand .

If you want to move on then just lets move on

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 02:42PM

marienbad wrote: »

This might be valid Francie in some general sense , I don't know , but it has nothing to do with the specific issue at hand .

If you want to move on then just lets move on

It is not Enda Kenny's role or Michael Martin's role to decide who 'aspires to government'

Although your admission that this is what it is all about i.e. 'stopping SF' is welcome, it doesn't let FG and FF off the hook for making political capital out of selective victim tragedies while ignoring others.
Not when they committed me, the voter ad the country to setting up a truth recovery process for the benefit of ALL the victims of the conflict/war.

A process they themselves will have to attend and contribute too.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 02:48PM

marienbad wrote: »

That is to a extent is true ,but excepting he did the wrong thing effectively under duress in a court of law years after he was first aware, adds a whole different level of calculation to the issue . He put the political before his public duty and did so for years .

At a very base level why was his brother not treated the same way as we are told others that crossed the line were . Why was he not 'tried' like Maria Cahill's accused supposedly were .

Instead for nearly 10 years he was facilitated in moving from job to job working with young people .

If it had been a catholic priest he would have been pilloried at this stage and 'retired' to some monastery in Guatemala . And this wasn't even the 70's or 80's when the country was still in some zombie denial state . This was after Brendan Smyth , Fortune , Ferns , this was recent history .

I agree largely with you, he handled it all very badly.
I had to think long and hard about it actually, at the time.
And I had to accept that I might have done something similar if I loved my brother and didn't want to face up to what he had done. It is a difficult nasty thing to deal with.

At a very base level why was his brother not treated the same way as we are told others that crossed the line were . Why was he not 'tried' like Maria Cahill's accused supposedly were .

Maria Cahill asked the IRA to 'deal' with it, by her own admission. Adams tried to deal with it himself.

Seth Brundle · 13-12-2016 02:55PM

Looking at the SF website, I found the following...

Commenting this morning on the report on clerical sexual abuse of children in the Dublin Diocese Sinn Féin Vice President Mary Lou McDonald said anyone found to have covered up the abuse of children should be arrested and face the full rigours of the law.
...
“It is especially damning that the State authorities facilitated the cover-up and allowed the Church to be beyond the reach of the law. Senior Gardai, up to and including the level of Commissioner, repeatedly turned a blind eye to crimes of clerical sexual abuse.
“Anyone, including Gardaí, found to be complicit in the cover up of child abuse must be arrested and made to face the full rigours of the law.
“Sadly child abuse is not a thing of the past and is continuing today and, to the shame of successive Governments in this state our child protection services are a disgrace. The HSE knows of cases where children are in grave danger but the services are not in place to make the interventions required.
“If the State does not put in place the services for the protection of children then it will be just as culpable as it was in the past when it facilitated the cover up of child sex abuse.”

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/17819

Double standards?

Jawgap · 13-12-2016 03:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think there are better examples of undying leader defending out there. i.e. the Regina Doherty/Enda Kenny one, but that is just me.
I am not invested in the party at all. I would say I am not neutral though, as I come from the republican side of the political spectrum and I think most of my debating here is in relation to republican issues rather than strictly SF issues.

On the issue of the Truth Process I differ and disagree with SF on one aspect of their policy on that. I asked Billy yesterday could he spot it, as I had mentioned it. But he declined to have a go or maybe he did spot it but wasn't going to go to what it meant = that I wasn't on 'message'.

I don't doubt that if Adams was only as bad Kenny, McDonald would be out there defending him to the hilt the (Regina) Doherty.....the fact that she doesn't speaks volumes on its own.

.......not invested in the party? You go to ard fheiseanna, you're on here full time defending them against all comers and all allegations, and you brook no criticism of them......but you're not invested? Ok, you've convinced me.

oscarBravo · 13-12-2016 03:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are co-signatories of an agreement that commits to a truth Process to bring information on these legacy issues.

Genuine question: what agreement is that?

K-9 · 13-12-2016 03:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will start with somebody asking her/him to condemn something...then off we go again.

I believe that because I believe the only reason we get to see stories like Cahill's, Jean McConville's, The Stacks Jerry McCabe etc so prominently and not the victims of Dublin/Monaghan bombings, Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday, or the victims of the Glenanne Gang is because there is political capital to be made from forcing SF to defend/excuse them.
That isn't going to stop.

It will in time, same as it did with FF and FG.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 03:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't doubt that if Adams was only as bad Kenny, McDonald would be out there defending him to the hilt the (Regina) Doherty.....the fact that she doesn't speaks volumes on its own.

But the article quotes several comments made by Mary Lou in relation to Adams.
As I said, maybe she doesn't feel he needs defending on this one, given that he is making himself available to answer questions.
Compare that to Enda and Regina...Enda is famous for not making himself available to answer questions in the media. Fairly or unfairly is a matter for your own view. I know what mine is.

.......not invested in the party? You go to ard fheiseanna, you're on here full time defending them against all comers and all allegations, and you brook no criticism of them......but you're not invested? Ok, you've convinced me.

I am not here full time and I said I went to 2 Ard Fheiseana (they are open to the public to attend as well as journalist) as a part of my work.

I have already said I am not neutral on republican issues and that I am invested in them. Is there anyone on these threads that is fully 'neutral'

marienbad · 13-12-2016 03:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not Enda Kenny's role or Michael Martin's role to decide who 'aspires to government'

Although your admission that this is what it is all about i.e. 'stopping SF' is welcome, it doesn't let FG and FF off the hook for making political capital out of selective victim tragedies while ignoring others.
Not when they committed me, the voter ad the country to setting up a truth recovery process for the benefit of ALL the victims of the conflict/war.

A process they themselves will have to attend and contribute too.

I don't know what you are saying here Francie , I am not discussing who decides who can aspire to government .

You asked why some atrocities were covered and other ignored and I explained why . Now if the members of the Glennane gang ever put themselves forward for election I am sure their exploits will receive saturation coverage also.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 03:55PM

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know what you are saying here Francie , I am not discussing who decides who can aspire to government .

You asked why some atrocities were covered and other ignored and I explained why . Now if the members of the Glennane gang ever put themselves forward for election I am sure their exploits will receive saturation coverage also.

Maybe we are on different frequencies.

Is Adams under suspicion of having a role in this murder?

I understand his role in getting information for the family, but is there something else I am missing? A supplementary rumour or allegation? What are you insinuating here?

blackwhite · 13-12-2016 03:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not Enda Kenny's role or Michael Martin's role to decide who 'aspires to government'

Although your admission that this is what it is all about i.e. 'stopping SF' is welcome, it doesn't let FG and FF off the hook for making political capital out of selective victim tragedies while ignoring others.
Not when they committed me, the voter ad the country to setting up a truth recovery process for the benefit of ALL the victims of the conflict/war.

A process they themselves will have to attend and contribute too.

Funny how you've never criticised any SF party members when they've called for Ministers to resign then :rolleyes:

It's the role of every politician to try and hold other parties to account.

Despite SF's desires (as seen by the various dictatorships that they like to associate themselves with), we don't have a one-party state, and we don't have a situation where criticism or questioning of certain parties or politicians is banned.

The hysteria of claiming that politicians are trying to "decide who aspires to Government" is one of the best you've come up with yet. It's politicans calling other politicians to account - it happens every day in democracies all over the world. SF and their fans don't seem to like when it's directed at them, but unless Gerry gets his dream of following in Castro's footsteps and abolishing all opposition then it's not going to change.

At least in this instance the people alleged to be involved are the ones actually being pointed at - not like when Mary Lou abused Dail privilege to try and slander Sean Barret so she could settle a personal score. But of course, she's an SF politician so it's all completely fine.

FrancieBrady · 13-12-2016 04:03PM

blackwhite wrote: »

Funny how you've never criticised any SF party members when they've called for Ministers to resign then :rolleyes:

It's the role of every politician to try and hold other parties to account.

Despite SF's desires (as seen by the various dictatorships that they like to associate themselves with), we don't have a one-party state, and we don't have a situation where criticism or questioning of certain parties or politicians is banned.

The hysteria of claiming that politicians are trying to "decide who aspires to Government" is one of the best you've come up with yet. It's politicans calling other politicians to account - it happens every day in democracies all over the world. SF and their fans don't seem to like when it's directed at them, but unless Gerry gets his dream of following in Castro's footsteps and abolishing all opposition then it's not going to change.

At least in this instance the people alleged to be involved are the ones actually being pointed at - not like when Mary Lou abused Dail privilege to try and slander Sean Barret so she could settle a personal score. But of course, she's an SF politician so it's all completely fine.

He didn't say anything about calling people to 'account'.

marienbad · 13-12-2016 04:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe we are on different frequencies.

Is Adams under suspicion of having a role in this murder?

I understand his role in getting information for the family, but is there something else I am missing? A supplementary rumour or allegation? What are you insinuating here?

No Francie you are just trying to change frequencies

You asked why are some atrocities brought up time after time and I told you why . Because those connected with those atrocities no matter how loosely ,aspire to government in this country .

The very same reason Michael Noonan will be forever linked with Mrs McCole and Lowery linked to Dunne . If you stand for public office the gloves are off - such is democracy

Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Comments