FrancieBrady wrote: » What else would the PSNI be contributing...picking the hymns?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Plus even if there is a border poll in my life time. If SF lose the poll there is another long 7 year itch at least.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Does that type of thing really encourage previous Unionist voters to consider voting for a UI in a future border poll I wonder?
FrancieBrady wrote: » She has already dealt with the selfies. (23 hours ago)https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/storey-funeral-fallout-executive-safe-for-now-but-things-could-turn-toxic-1.4294772
downcow wrote: » I don't really see much contradiction in what you are highlighting. It seems the PSNI just reminded the organisers of the regulations. The huge contradiction is the PSNI saying they were not involved in the organisation, while Marylou states quite categorically that the PSNI were involved meticulously in the organisation. I am not having a go at Sinn Fein about that issue, I actually am more inclined to think that Marylou may well be telling the truth here and the police may end up very embarrassed. I see calls to have the issue investigated and lawyers stating clearly that it needs to be an outside force as the PSNI should not investigate itself. It will be interesting when the truth outs
gormdubhgorm wrote: » https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/1278041314815344641https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbyBhubXkAkqrX4?format=jpg&name=900x900
jh79 wrote: » Two photographs of her getting selfies with different groups of people.
O’Neill did acknowledge that she was wrong to have had a selfie taken with two of the mourners, but as SDLP leader Colum Eastwood allowed, that was perhaps another thing outside her control.
jh79 wrote: » They weren't involved in the organising of it and just reminded the organisers of the regulations that should of been adhered to. Certainly seems like SF lied that they were involved in "meticulous planning" of the event. I'm sure if they were, SF will have a paper trail or emails to support their claim.
downcow wrote: » https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psni-deny-mary-lou-mcdonald-claim-that-force-involved-in-planning-of-bobby-storey-funeral-39337494.html
Fionn1952 wrote: » What an odd statement from PSNI. First part of it states they were not involved, followed by the following 'Accordingly we were made aware of the plans for Tuesday’s funeral and local officers engaged with the celebrant and service organisers to highlight both the public health advice and risks around Covid-19, and the requirement for those attending to adhere to social distancing.'
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where have the PSNI said they were not involved? Here's all I can find on that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What 'photographic evidence'?
jh79 wrote: » At least they have apologies now but i don't understand why MON is continuing the lie that she adhered to regulations when there is photographic evidence that she didn't?https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mary-lou-mcdonald-apologises-for-hurt-caused-by-photos-of-busy-pathways-at-bobby-storeys-funeral-39337465.html I have a feeling that if the PSNI investigation doesn't go SF's way they will claim it was politically motivated;)
jh79 wrote: » Neither Leo or Martin had much to do with the GFA and i doubt had much interactions with the man. Picking the current leaders of the Republic for criticism had nothing to do with the mans legacy and was only of benefit to the Republic's branch of SF.
downcow wrote: » Psni day they were not involved in the arrangements. Mary Lou says it was arranged meticulously with the Psni. Some one is telling lies and my guess is it’s the Psni
The PSNI told the Belfast Telegraph that it had engaged with the celebrant and service organisers to highlight the public health advice and risks around Covid-19, and the requirement for those attending to adhere to social distancing. Superintendent Melanie Jones said: "We had assurances that those attending would observe the health guidelines and that marshals would be in place to encourage those lining the cortege route to observe social distancing. “We will now review footage gathered during the funeral and will consider any suspected breaches of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) Regulations NI 2020.”
FrancieBrady wrote: » So comparing what somebody political did in his life to what others did, is turning the whole funeral into a political football? Must take a look at other eulogies in that context. Funny that is not why it has become controversial...I think somebody other than MON taking a selfie is the 'football' and no social distancing in places, is the reason given. I think you are being a bit disingenuous here JH. I get it, there is a certain level of bitterness this man got a ceremony at all.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's the implied slur on the PSNI I don't get.
jh79 wrote: » I seen it as a question of credibility, the PSNI will say there was some level of rule breaking based on the 2 selfies. Until she has a chance to apologies for whatever level of rule breaking there was she can't lecture others on how they conduct themselves. Once Gerry used his funeral as a chance to have a cheap shot at Leo and Martin it became political.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Of course there is. What would impede the PSNI investigation if O'Neill stays in her role? Well he wasn't a key member of the DUP or FF or FG. They gave a fairly typical honour for a key member, as every other organisation would do and previous members of SF got similar funerals. That's a bit of a cheap shot JH.
jh79 wrote: » Don't think there is an implied slur on the PSNI. We all saw the photos. She breached the regulations, to what extent we'll find out in time.
To be fair SF turned the funeral into a political football by putting the party front and centre of the ceremony.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Absolutely good PR and it is why a funeral has turned into a political football. My take is that they will do their best to keep this an issue until the 12th stuff happens. It's the implied slur on the PSNI I don't get.
jh79 wrote: » I'd imagine because she lacks credibility now when they have to update the public on changes in the regulations which is fair enough. Good PR for the DUP too by asking for her to step aside but also saying they won't collapse the executive over it. Makes it look like they are putting the country first unlike SF with the 3 year hiatus.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fines as laid out in the regs. If Michelle O'Neill is responsible, resignation. I find the request for her to stand aside during the police investigation peculiar...is the implication here that the police are not independent? I understand why a First Minister or Deputy first minister should stand aside while a body within and appointed by the executive investigates something...but the police?
jh79 wrote: » Out of curiosity, what do you think should happen if the PSNI conclude a serious breach of regulations occured?
FrancieBrady wrote: » That isn't for you and me to assess. Arrangement satisfactory to the PSNI were made before the funeral so IF they were broken then charges will follow. Easing of regs. Numbers inside are based on size of venue. I have heard various figures claimed...up to authorities again. I haven't seen a rule on this in the regs...can you link to it? Forgive me here, but 'why a band parade?' Podium etc was erected for the traditional oration obviously. PSNI monitored the cortege all the way to the graveyard...again if there were breaches in whatever arrangements were agreed...charges will follow. So yes, until the PSNI call it, a selfie seems to be about it, so far. Band Parade organisers will have made the same type of arrangement. They will have had to assure authorities that they are prepared for more people to turn out than might be expected.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
