Bowie wrote: » How do you feel about FG councilor O'Leary actually admiring fascists? I mean its actual not inferred or suggested. He actually admired the blue shirts. Was what Varadkar said about the civil service being very white better or worse than what Holohan said? Would Varadkar being the political leader of the nation not make it a bigger deal either way? I mean the boxing community and who ever else deals with Kinahan should be ashamed and called out IMO. You must be outraged by FG's O'Leary? I mean, speaking of actual racist councillors this one openly admires them. Also aren't SF about better conditions for asylum seekers? Doesn't add up really does it? Then we've Varadkar canvassing for Verona and then cosying up to her after her attitude on asylum seekers is known? I mean doesn't FG look more like what you are describing? Is this just another case of spouting general claims with no back up or inconsistent faux outrage when it suits? Ordinary Irish people voted for SF, FF and FG and others. What would you call trying to make out other people are different, less than, to be vilified, scorned, not 'ordinary' based on what they might look like, where they are from or how they vote?
blanch152 wrote: » The finest quality whataboutery as always. Sinn Fein have been caught with their pants down cosying up to the Kinahans. It plays well with the likes of the boys in West Belfast and racist councillors from Tallaght, but it doesn't wash with the ordinary Irish people. No other party has given the Kinahans a platform and an endorsement in the way that Sinn Fein did.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well if it didn't 'change' things, why wasn't FG and everybody else not up in arms about Conlan's Belfast bout? Did any politician call for EirSport or BBC NI to boycott it?
Yeah_Right wrote: » Because it was in a different country so why would they care.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well if it didn't 'change' things, why wasn't FG and everybody else not up in arms about Conlan's Belfast bout?
jh79 wrote: » Bob Arum says otherwise.
jh79 wrote: » You also provided a link to rte and said that changed things. How did it change things?
jm08 wrote: » I think what happened Kinahan went to ground after the Regency Hotel murder and MTK claimed that Kinahan sold his interest in it. Their CEO was claiming that up to làst week. I don't think Kinahan had much/anything to do with Conlon or Framtons fights.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where? I said...boxing has always had shady characters and criminal elements associated with it.
jh79 wrote: » You seems to be suggesting that SF were unaware of Conlan links to Daniel Kinnahan.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What excuse?
jh79 wrote: » Outside of Ireland, DK isn't well known but in Ireland everyone knew and given that he and the rest of MTK were banned from fighting in the Republic prior to the Nikitin fight, SF can't use that excuse.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Everybody is now saying that. Where they saying it when Conlan fought Nikitin? No they weren't...BBC, Eir Sports all happy to cover and promote the fight. Nobody else condemning them...interceding with royal families to ask them to reassess... etc etc. The situation has changed...politicians have reacted.
jh79 wrote: » This is what she said in the papers yesterday about DK. "The future of Irish boxing and of our communities behoves us to resist the clutches of the Kinahans in the strongest possible terms." SF in NI gave him full VIP treatment, lots of pics of him with Pat Finucane etc. Hardly resisting in the strongest possible terms.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Does she know Conlan personally maybe? Is Conlan an Irish fighter maybe? You can have an issue with a fighter management and still admire and support the fighter you know. Has happened multiple times in boxing.
jh79 wrote: » Where in any of my posts do i say i have a problem with Conlan? My issue here is with MLD and SF. Can you explain the differences between the Conlan fight and the proposed Fury fight?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why is Leo all of a sudden concerned? Was he admonishing individual boxers and trying to implicate them in involvement with the alleged crimes of their bosses? You couldn't support or praise most pro boxers in history if that was the case. I'd fancy your problem with Conlan is his very evident northern republican background.
jh79 wrote: » How did that change things, DK has been involved in boxing for nearly a decade. He was involved when Conlan and Barnes signed for them. So why is MLD suddenly concerned now about his involvement ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who else had a problem? Maybe...just fecking maybe this is what has changed things. FFS you guys are unreal.https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0521/1139799-kinahan-boxing/
jh79 wrote: » Well, MLD has a problem with the Fury fight but no problem with the Conlan fight. What's the difference?
FrancieBrady wrote: » What's the problem with Conlan? I supported and loved Muhammad Ali, does that mean I endorse some of the backroom boys and management/promoters? Get a wee grip here.
jh79 wrote: » Mick Conlan, the boxer. Had a fight in Belfast in December. Happens to work for MTK aka Meet the Kinahans.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Conlan? The FG guy who glassed someone?
atticu wrote: » At long last- you have finally admitted that you are on duty. The truth comes out - you are here on duty for SF. What is the pay like? Asking for a friend.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
