Skylinehead wrote: » All fair, but that still leaves the problem of how to replace the SCC. It's difficult on such a small island.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Easy to say that of course. Harder to prove.
Odhinn wrote: » An insistence on evidence, the recognition that the word of a senior garda can't be taken as some holy writ, unquestionable and beyond reproach. Think of this way - there was a time when the word of a priest was unquestionable, and thankfully that is resigned to history. The same process should apply to the gardai - none of this kowtowing to a uniform.
efanton wrote: » Why dont we try something novel. How about changing the laws that appear to be insufficient, ensuring our Gardai have the resources to build a proper case, and actually reform our judicial system where judges appear to be living in a totally different reality. There are endless cases going before the courts where the DPP have totally mismanaged a case, the gardai have been unable to build a sufficient strong case, and the judge slapping a repetitive criminal on the wrist, giving him an extremley lenient sentence, or suggesting a poor box contribution is enough. Why should one crime have a special court when we know the problem is not the crime but the total failure of our criminal system to work effectively. The ball lies strictly in the government lap. Its their cut backs and laziness to do any thing about it that make the SCC an easy solution. The SC is a totally bad idea, no matter what crime is being heard.
Skylinehead wrote: » Yeah that's stupid. I do understand that the SCC tends to require some evidence beyond that to convict someone though, even if legally it may not be necessary (morally, it certainly is). You're talking about silly sentences and petty criminals racking up 10s or 100s of convictions, all needs to be addressed, but has exactly nothing to do with the SCC. Damo from Ballyer robbing someone yet again isn't exactly going to be in the SCC.
maccored wrote: » nowadays it is. It wasnt always. probably be better to do something about organised crime itself in the first place - thats where the focus should be on, that way the crime mightnt happen. even mafia trials had jury courts.
Bishop of hope wrote: » If the crime doesent happen, no need for the court.
Bishop of hope wrote: » But all crime can't be prevented so it will go on. We live in a desperate country at the minute and getting worse it seems. Perhaps if Sinn Fein called in a few of their former associates and asked them to quit messing with the drugs and organised crime it could help?
maccored wrote: » Thats my point Everyday crime doesnt require the SSC
Skylinehead wrote: » You're talking about silly sentences and petty criminals racking up 10s or 100s of convictions, all needs to be addressed, but has exactly nothing to do with the SCC. Damo from Ballyer robbing someone yet again isn't exactly going to be in the SCC.
Bishop of hope wrote: » They don't all end up in it either.
maccored wrote: » I was just answering your post. You seem to be saying theres crime so we need the SCC.
maccored wrote: » Thats my point Everyday crime doesnt require the SCC. Plus once again you are very misinformed if you think SF or the provos had anything to do with drugs. You cant rely on a pool of addicts for volunteers.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What was the incidence of jury tampering/intimidation back in 1972? If there was a requirement then there must have been some.
Skylinehead wrote: » No idea. It may simply have been "big organisation has big reach, so we need to protect a jury somehow". Similar to organised crime. The provision for the SCC has been around a lot longer than that though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, back to the foundation of the state, when there were plenty around that might have interfered in jury trials. Far as I remember Jack Lynch opposed it's introduction in 1972 on the grounds it was unconstitutional. Those would be my grounds for being opposed to it as well.
maccored wrote: » mainly a problem if you live in the past - thats what you're saying?
RandomName2 wrote: » So are you saying they have changed their stance on this? I would actively welcome it. I think it is reasonable to have qualms about a political party, with paramilitary connections (even if they are on permanent ceasefire), who feels that terrorism is sometimes justifiable, and should not be penalized. Or are you saying that this isn't living in the past, that this is indeed their current stance, and that they applaud organizations like FARC and ETA, and still hanker after the abolition of the SCC in order to protect republican terrorists.
maccored wrote: » err - "terrorism, organized crime, blood diplomacy, armalite and ballot box tactics" ... yes, you avery much living in the past. the first two they arent even guilty of and the third's debatable. "armalite and ballot box" is an 80s quote The Columbia three was 2001. You are a relic you are so far in the past.
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » What year was Martin ferris found guilty of his crimes? Or Dessie Ellis?
maccored wrote: » try google? Ive no idea. Ive also no idea what point your badly trying to make. EDIT I googled it - Dessie Ellis' wiki says 1983. Ferris' says 1984 I still dont know what point you were trying to make - besides proving mine that is
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » "The Columbia three was 2001. You are a relic you are so far in the past." Nearly 40 years later Martin Ferris is still in the party. Who's a relic of the past??
maccored wrote: » Everyday crime doesnt require the SCC. Plus once again you are very misinformed if you think SF or the provos had anything to do with drugs. You cant rely on a pool of addicts for volunteers.
RandomName2 wrote: » Right, so they still haven't condemned this sort of behavior? The defense of Slab by Gerry Adams was only 13 years ago, same with the murder of Denis Donaldson. The murder of Robert McCartney and Joseph Rafferty was 14 years ago. This isn't ancient history. By that logic any criticism of FF is null and void because they haven't been in government for about 8 years. The 2008 recession? What a relic of the past. In relation to Irish republican terrorism, SF lies and blusters, and hopes that noone asks questions. They say 'that was in the past' and 'the peace process', but never condemn political violence in of itself. With murders like the ones above, they claim to have no connection to the incidents despite having their fingerprints all over them. When questions arise concerning who actually perpetrated the murders, there is a policy of omerta. The only court that can deal with terrorists is currently being actively targeted by Sinn Fein.We had nothing to do with the murder of Garda Jerry McCabe, we just sent a high ranking representative to greet his murderers when they were let out of prison in 2009. It's the dishonesty that is particularly nauseating. And just in relation to your relic of the Columbia three, you will be happy to know that Mary Lou honored them with a night of “celebration and remembrance” way back in 2015. Eons ago.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/convicted-colombia-three-member-honoured-with-night-of-celebration-1.2448193
blanch152 wrote: » However, supplying those addicts can generate an awful lot of money for a terrorist organisation, as we saw in the 1970s and 1980s.
smurgen wrote: » Sure FG wanted to celebrate the RIC only last month and then took a pop at the public following a massive uproar.or does FG only support violence when it's against Irish citizens?
blanch152 wrote: » Yes, in a thread about why people won't vote for Sinn Fein, keep introducing Fine Gael to the conversation in a desperate attempt at whataboutery.
joe40 wrote: » Sinn Fein will not be in government because both FF and FG have categorically ruled out (shamefully in my opinion) coalition, so to go back on that would be a major u turn. Even if they were in government they are realistic enough to know as junior coalition partners they will not get all their policies implemented. Government may actually be damaging for Sinn Fein. No party will get to fulfil all their promises/aspirations that is a given, but junior coalition partners especially left leaning take the brunt of the blame. Regardless of who wins this election housing and health are going to be major problems for years to come. No easy fixes
