Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Bowie wrote: »

I think you have it in reverse chief. The likes of myself are posting on the hypocrisy of the one sided get the shinners mob.
It's shameful this non story took the public attention off politicians refusing positions and crony senate spots, one drawn from a hat. Likely the point.

I think the lack of respect shown by Sinn Fein politicians to all those who lost loved ones during this crisis and couldn't pay their respects in the normal way is the big story. One rule for the Shinners, another rule for the rest of us, that is what people are seeing. Unlike other issues, ordinary people can relate to this, because they have had to watch funerals online, comfort friends from afar and mourn in solitude, while SF TDs can waltz up from Cork to Belfast without a care in the world to bury a common thug.

Of course, the busy defence being put up by yourself and others is not surprising, and entirely not unexpected, and I hope that you will be thanked for the good work and wish you well in that regard, because it looks mostly like a thankless task.

Bowie wrote: »

I think you have it in reverse chief. The likes of myself are posting on the hypocrisy of the one sided get the shinners mob.
It's shameful this non story took the public attention off politicians refusing positions and crony senate spots, one drawn from a hat. Likely the point.

It's not a bit shameful. It just shows up the Shinner hypocrisy. Every other funeral goes from church to crematorium. Storey is carried around West Belfast like a team bringing home the Sam Maguire.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was pointing out the utter and abject stretching you are doing blanch, with a bit of humour that seems to have gone over people's heads.

Humour? About that funeral? And the hurt being felt by many people around the country which has forced the ladies of Sinn Fein to apologise?

Would that not be in bad taste?

blanch152 wrote: »

Humour? About that funeral? And the hurt being felt by many people around the country which has forced the ladies of Sinn Fein to apologise?

Would that not be in bad taste?

Yes blanch, about a funeral...nobody ever used humour about a funeral ever. You and your friends here are depicting people mourning at another funeral as all sorts. I have been likened to 'scum' in the last few posts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What did you mean by the 'IRA was adjunct to NICRA'?

The IRA was part of the formation of NICRA represented by McMillen. It was adjunct or supplementary or whatever you meant.

Like Adams says about the IRA there are those who say he and those who say he wasn't.
I have no idea of the truth of that or what he says about NICRA or what others say about him.

Neither do you, unless you were there, you are just choosing who to believe.

Adams and others are trying to pretend that the Provos became a sort of armed civil rights movement, seeking the same thing as NICRA.

That is nonsense. NICRA did not support a united Ireland and the Provos dismissed NICRA demands as reformist and partitionist.

Which is what led to the split, with Adams and McMillan's different wings of the IRA trying to kill one another for ten years.


As for Adams being in the IRA, only an imbecile would believe that he wasn't. The historical record of those who were in the IRA and who knew him as a leadership figure, including Chief of Staff, proves that he was.

The fact that the Village of the Damned kids who have largely taken over the movement since the surrender believe that he was not says a ,ot about how effective the Big Lie is.

Adams doesn't give a fart that those who were in the movement when it mattered laugh at his lies.

That is not the point. His target is the electorate because if they can obliterate history then they can convince them to vote for them.

Very strong piece in the Irish Times today from Stephen Collins about the continued influence of the IRA Army Council on the machinations of the SF party: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/storey-funeral-a-reminder-that-ira-army-council-runs-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.4294619

It spells out in very clear and stark terms that we are not dealing with a normal political party here. This is a party that has its eyes on being in Government in the 'Free State', and takes its orders from violent men in the ilk of Storey.

Of course this doesn't matter to the blind defenders of a sinister political party, but this week opened a lot of eyes to what SF is really about.

"The Bobby Storey funeral is another reminder not simply that the IRA has not gone away but that its army council is the ruling body of Sinn Féin. Clearly some voters have no problem with that but the episode should alert the wider electorate to what a vote for Sinn Féin actually means".

Mortelaro wrote: »

The issue I have with Fosters criticism is that if Mrs Windsor died in the morning, Darlene would be on the first plane over to London and you can be guaranteed that there'd be a darn side more than 30 at the funeral

So, your issue with Arlene Foster is the way you believe she will behave in an entirely hypothetical situation?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem is that in Ireland this is no longer the case - those prices are going up, but incomes are not keeping pace.



Off the top of my head, the government has to disincentivise the use of existing property (both residential and commercial) as an investment vehicle, build large scale subsidised social housing like we did in the 20th century, engage in serious root-and-branch reform of personal injury laws so that businesses are no longer held liable for their patrons' own stupidity, reform the insurance sector, reduce VAT and excise duty for the hospitality sector, improve inter-city and inter-county public transport infrastructure, tackle commercial and private landlords to reduce the cost of housing and of doing business alike, and slash spending on vanity projects which nobody actually wants and public entities which refuse to get their own houses in order (take RTE for instance).


The first on that list is the big one and that's what I and many others talk about when we talk about smashing the paradigm of housing as an investment vehicle instead of as a place to live. The trading and subsequent of residential property by people and entities so they can be used to milk money from people in the form of rent is something we should never have normalised as a society - if you don't live in it and you didn't build it, you shouldn't be the one who owns it.

OK at least this is a coherent collection of suggestions though I suspect there is an unreality to it in that it contains the double wish of lower taxes and more services. Unfortunately one moves co-relative to the other. To put it crudely you can have a Trump model of low taxes but you pay for your own **** and public services are minimal or a Nordic high tax and high social/ state services model

To comment specifically

1. Not sure what disincentivising private property and/or tackling Landlords actually means. You can certainly make it illegal (though would need a referendum) to own real property of either residential or commercial unless you actually occupied it but it would mean nothing to rent in either sector which seems impractical. Already payment of rent on residential property is essentially voluntary which is why so many Landlords have got out. The result is less to rent, more demand ,less supply; rents go up

2. Big social housing means big taxes. And just so you know a "tax the rich" solution does not work because there are not enough rich. Plus the more you do it the more people don't bother becoming rich and/or take their money and go where they can keep it. Already plenty of Irish in Monaco. So he price is middle income earners get hosed.

3. Personal injuries. All I will say is ask anyone who got a lot of money on a personal injury whether it was worth the injury. Dont know one - save a very few who suffered a minor soft tissue spoofy injury. What we could do is take the lawyer out of it so if you are injured you are compensated without having to prove negligence. They do it in Australia though I think that is motor claims only. Agree that Courts are too generous - particularly to idiots falling over in pubs but not sure what the solution is .Outlaw idiocy?

4. Public Transport? Again Big taxes

As you can see there are no "Lets form a band and save the school" solutions. I expect the centre parties FF/FG Labour are trying to balance all the pressures. The far left PBF etc just want all the stuff but have no concept that we will have to pay for it, while Sinn Fein will tell you anything you like to get power and again have no notion of how anything will be paid for - mainly because of the low standard of person they attract but also because their experience to date is in Northern Ireland where the Brits have created a free money tunnel to keep the two sides from killing each other

OPEN FOR IDEAS

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So say you were not in the RA but get your second in command and many more to openly admit they were ....in the hope you can fool the electorate as a political party?


Ha ha ha...two seconds to show up your nonsense. Any more gems of historical analysis there Bonnie?

I have no explanation for the multitude of lies he has told over the years; from denying what anyone with half a brain (that's your opt out Francie knows about his being in the IRA, lies about his rapist brother and how he was protected, to people who were buried on beaches on his say so, and so on.

I accept that people are upset that Storey's funeral showed scant regard for social distancing etc. I would be more offended that they gave this sectarian thug the title of being a republican. (Non capital letters intentional)

Bonniedog wrote: »

There was peace before 1969. That was not what it was about for the IRA.

Tell that to my dad who was born there in the late 20's.

If you call 'peace' a society that partitionists can ignore...then yeh, there was bountiful peace and provident harvests.

Jesus, the poster priding himself on his grasp of history comes out with that mouthful.

By the way, as far as I know, SF's opinion is (and I share it) there will be no peace on this island until partition is gotten rid.

Peace is the absence of war and armed conflict.

Of course northern Catholics were treated like sh1t. That is one of reasons the IRA opposed partition. Until it surrendered obviously with partition still in place.

I supported the ceasefire by the way. It is the political surrender and abandonment of any serious republican project for unity that I find objectionable. That is why the 30 years of armed conflict were a needless waste.

So the objective of the IRA was a reformed Northern Ireland was it? Or peace?