People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

is_that_so wrote: »

Now they are not against it so much, it would be up for review so what's that now about standards?

Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?

smurgen

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Some whataboutery there!!!

More like facts. Just trying to keep things in perspective

RandomName2

smurgen wrote: »

Let's be fair the likes of Dennis O Brien are alot closer to FG than the likes o slab Murphy to SF.

Really? Denis O'Brien is not a great individual (in any estimation other than his assets). But does he engage in murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence? No. I also think that he is fairly apolitical, or that his political allegiances are temporary and expedient. Although he bought the Sindo, which was for a long time a bit of a Fine Gael mouthpiece, from what I can see he has been actively hostile to the traditional reporters of that paper.

smurgen wrote: »

More like facts. Just trying to keep things in perspective

Some actual facts would be appreciated if you have them available. Or at least allude to them if you are afraid that boards would get sued by DOB

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really? Denis O'Brien is not a great individual (in any estimation other than his assets). But does he engage in murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence? No. I also think that he is fairly apolitical, or that his political allegiances are temporary and expedient. Although he bought the Sindo, which was for a long time a bit of a Fine Gael mouthpiece, from what I can see he has been actively hostile to the traditional reporters of that paper.

Some actual facts would be appreciated if you have them available. Or at least allude to them if you are afraid that boards would get sued by DOB

Who in SF is engaging in this:

murder, smuggling, tax evasion, armed violence

Odhinn wrote: »

Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?

I love that sidestep. The answer is that it is the same process, there is just no jury to avoid the risk of them being unduly influenced or threatened. Same due process applies.

Up to a number of weeks ago they were dead agin it and all for abolition. Clearly that was a pressure point in the media so now it is "up for review". Just a party adjusting its election focus, like all others.

Hamsterchops

is_that_so wrote: »

Trotsky actually!

I see what you mean

Maybe a cross between Trotsky, Himmler & Dev?

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who in SF is engaging in this:

Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

Eric Cartman

RandomName2 wrote: »

Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

and who was the other one who tortured a man in a garage ?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

You are the fact meister. What is Slab Murphy's involvement with the SF party?

Not seeking rumour - but facts.

is_that_so wrote: »

I love that sidestep. The answer is that it is the same process, there is just no jury to avoid the risk of them being unduly influenced or threatened. Same due process applies.

Up to a number of weeks ago they were dead agin it and all for abolition. Clearly that was a pressure point in the media so now it is "up for review". Just a party adjusting its election focus, like all others.

...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.

Odhinn wrote: »

Why should some crimes be put through a different judicial process to others?

You know why.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the fact meister. What dis Slab Murphy's involvement with the SF party?

Not seeking rumour - but facts.

Well there's facts what people sez and facts wot we can find and them statin' the facts is all 'onorable men!

Odhinn wrote: »

...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.

Nope it doesn't, very specific cases where a risk might exist. These days that also extends to our own Narcos.

Odhinn wrote: »

...and thats the difference. The state doesn't fancy equality and thus throws out a 3 judge court for whatever suits it.

You're spouting shite now, the legislation for the SCC describes very specific offences and situations where the SCC should be used. Not "whatever suits" the state.

is_that_so wrote: »

Nope it doesn't, very specific cases where a risk might exist.

SF aren't the only ones who have problems with the SCC, Amnesty International have too.

Skylinehead wrote: »

You know why.

Because it suits the state. You'll pardon me if I don't take that as an inviolable process we should slavishly follow.

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're spouting shite now, the legislation for the SCC describes very specific offences and situations where the SCC should be used. Not "whatever suits" the state.

So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF aren't the only ones who have problems with the SCC, Amnesty International have too.

Not as as much of a SF issue as a few weeks ago. So much for solid positions. Nobody really cares what Amnesty thinks anymore. Any port in a storm for them these days.

smurgen

RandomName2 wrote: »

Plenty engaged, but the topic at hand was Slab Murphy.

Not in SF. However FG who are residing over the national broadband plan and it seems their mate DOB has won alot of the subcontracting work through Actavo (Siteserv). The same crowd doing the water meters.he certainly has a way of winning government work!

Odhinn wrote: »

So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.

You're only after saying it was for whenever it suited the state, now it's "so what?". Can you make your point coherently? It's clearly not for whenever the state wants, it's for terrorism and organised crime cases where the jury is at risk of intimidation.

is_that_so wrote: »

Not as as much of a SF issue as a few weeks ago. So much for solid positions. Nobody really cares what Amnesty thinks anymore. Any port in a storm for them these days.

So who gives a **** what anybody might think, we are going to do it anyway.

That arrogance again.

Odhinn wrote: »

So what. It's the state creating a double standard of justice.

But only where it suits you to believe that. Would you have the same stance if one of the Kinahan mob was before it, I wonder?

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're only after saying it was for whenever it suited the state, now it's "so what?". Can you make your point coherently? It's clearly not for whenever the state wants, it's for terrorism and organised crime cases where the jury is at risk of intimidation.

But the jury can be at risk in any trial.

Eric Cartman

Odhinn wrote: »

But the jury can be at risk in any trial.

well when 19 year old anto up for robbing a few cars develops the precident and man power to dissapear bodies to never be found again , then perhaps we'll discuss merging the courts.

Odhinn wrote: »

But the jury can be at risk in any trial.

At higher risk.

Now can you address the "whenever the state wants" fallacy?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So who gives a **** what anybody might think, we are going to do it anyway.

That arrogance again.

Call it what you will. They are an organisation who once did good work. Nowadays they're in the advocacy game and just fire our "worthy" reports on social issues of their choosing.

Jinglejangle69

Slab Murphy is a good republican.

Now who said that again?

maccored

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Let them in at your (our) peril.

what are you basing that on, considering they've never been in power?

Dont even mention the north - if either FF or FG could survive a day with the DUP they'd be doing well.

You're basing your assumption on nothing more than your own opinion. We all have one of those already.