People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

is_that_so wrote: »

So that makes you right and me wrong? We randomers on the internet, bless.

Yes, I am certainly right that there are more than SF concerned about the SCC.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have a slightly higher standing than some randomer on the internet who doesn't want to admit the SCC is problematic in a democracy.

So that makes you right and me wrong? We randomers on the internet, bless.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So your saying the scc is one sided?

im saying they are the equivalent of the diplock courts. The Diplock Courts in the north were heavily critised . Go do your own research please and stop asking me to educate you.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Good example. I recall the Gardai being a big problem there, what with forced confessions etc. I surmise that it was held in the SCC due to links with paramilitary violence?

Yeah, evidence in that case was coerced and tainted. Any case that is appealed goes to a non-jury court anyway.

is_that_so wrote: »

Really more I don't share your unbridled enthusiasm for these groups.

They have a slightly higher standing than some randomer on the internet who doesn't want to admit the SCC is problematic in a democracy.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Good example. I recall the Gardai being a big problem there, what with forced confessions etc. I surmise that it was held in the SCC due to links with paramilitary violence?

The state gave elements within the Gardai carte blanche with how they dealt with suspects, victims and so on throughout the 1970's and 1980's. As a victim of that abuse, the notion that the state should be given free reign is deeply disturbing to me, as it should be to all citizens.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everyone is wrong but us. Arrogance.

Really more I don't share your unbridled enthusiasm for these groups.

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

they both run on the same principle

So your saying the scc is one sided?

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

they both run on the same principle

So your saying the scc is one sided?

Skylinehead

Odhinn wrote: »

No one. All should be dealt with in the same manner.

In theory yes, but we need a way to deal with the jury problem, and nobody is forthcoming with alternative solutions.

Odhinn wrote: »

Wasn't nicky kelly tried before such a court?

Good example. I recall the Gardai being a big problem there, what with forced confessions etc. I surmise that it was held in the SCC due to links with paramilitary violence?

efanton

ressem wrote: »

What's radically new?
A 'socialist' irish party that supports and endorses the 'fair election' of the president of Venezuela while he hands control of food and oil industries to the military, during what is resembling a politically created famine?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-defend-backing-venezuelan-president-despite-40-deaths-in-civil-unrest-37761300.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/world/americas/venezuela-maduro-inauguration.html

Where the healthcare system has gone truely to non-existent, and hunger is rampant, child mortality in their first month increasing 100 fold.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/06/on-the-road-venezuela-20-years-after-hugo-chavez-rise

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/world/americas/venezuela-cuban-doctors.html

Nah, that's not radical. Parties prioritising displays of ideological brotherhood ahead of humanity, empathy or common sense aren't new.

"possibly benefiting greatly" you claim. Not vague irresponsible handwaving at all.

Not exactly a vote getter, some of us like having access to food and clean water, and are old enough to have seen around the world how quickly an excessively populist government can cut this off.

The politics of Venezuela are an issue for the people of Venezuela.
Like I previously said in in Ireland's interest to stay on friendly terms with as many nations as we possibly can even if we do not agree with their political or religious beliefs.

Im not going to even try make excuse for a government in another country where a leader was democratically elected. He was democratically elected because some opposition parties boycotted elections, instead of taking part.

Hugo Chávez the previous leader was extremely popular with the majority of the Venezuelan people. For most life improved considerably.

It appears their new president Nicolás Maduro has made a balls of the economy, but maybe some of those problem were inherited. But the fact remains he was democratically elected, although in less than ideal circumstances. I freely admit I don't like what Nicolás Maduro is doing now by suppressing political opposition and his other less than democratic actions, and would openly condemn them.

The fact remain though its not for other countries to interfere unless they are asked by the people of a nation to interfere. When other countries interfere in a nations politics it generally gets messy, and usually has no good outcome.
Just look at the long list of dictators 'appointed' by the USA in south american to see how bad it gets.
We have to trust the Venezuelan people will take action in a democratic way if possible, and are allowed to decide for themselves what happens now.

As for radically new, you knew I was talking about Irish politics, but you decided to go of on a tangent, distracting from the issues at hand.
Rent control, massive house building programs, a new tax band for the extremely wealthy, are they not new?

is_that_so wrote: »

The former are a version of what Amnesty do, actually they produce even more reports and the latter, well they do love a cause. If a change comes it will be down to neither and if an abolition came it would come out of sense of it no longer being required.

Everyone is wrong but us. Arrogance.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And have they no experience of the scc?

they both run on the same principle

Bishop of hope

maccored wrote: »

as far as the special criminal courts are concerned - anyone with any cop-on will realise the SF stance is based on its experience with Diplock courts, which were invariably one sided.

And have they no experience of the scc?

Skylinehead wrote: »

................

Can you show me an example of the state misusing this power? As in, whenever it suits them?

Wasn't nicky kelly tried before such a court?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties also object to it.

The former are a version of what Amnesty do, actually they produce even more reports and the latter, well they do love a cause. If a change comes it will be down to neither and if an abolition came it would come out of sense of it no longer being required.

as far as the special criminal courts are concerned - anyone with any cop-on will realise the SF stance is based on its experience with Diplock courts, which were invariably one sided.

Skylinehead wrote: »

No, but somebody has to decide the risk. In this case, it's the DPP, who has all the necessary information. Who should decide whether a jury is at risk in your opinion?

No one. All should be dealt with in the same manner.

Skylinehead

Odhinn wrote: »

According to the state, which is not some neutral actor.

No, but somebody has to decide the risk. In this case, it's the DPP, who has all the necessary information. Who should decide whether a jury is at risk in your opinion?

Can you show me an example of the state misusing this power? As in, whenever it suits them?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't have to drink bleach to know drinking bleach is a bad idea.

thats because bleach has been shown to be bad for you. d'oh.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Only a problem if you have an issue with terrorism, organized crime, blood diplomacy, armalite and ballot box tactics. Sorry, I should have said, a 'non partisan' issue with.

mainly a problem if you live in the past - thats what you're saying?

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties also object to it.

Eric Cartman

maccored wrote: »

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.

I don't have to drink bleach to know drinking bleach is a bad idea.

Skylinehead wrote: »

At higher risk.

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

According to the state, which is not some neutral actor.

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.

Jinglejangle69

Slab Murphy is a good republican.

Now who said that again?

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.

Skylinehead

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?

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.