Is it just me or have SF vanished?

hmmm wrote: »

What are Sinn Fein's views on whether the pubs and schools should be reopened? Yes or no?

Their view is that the government is wrong... it doesn't matter if the pubs are open or close.

maccored wrote: »

not peaved at all - just wondering why the strange blindness people have.

its apparently grand to blame sf and the IRA for something theres no proof they had anything to do with, yet on the otherhand still apparently believing in justice and democracy with the right to being innocent until proven guilty.

Personally i think thats a bit ****ed up because you cant say the former and believe in the latter.

But you can, being innocent until proven guilty is a law term.
Everyone who faces trial is believed guilty by someone or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
An organisation like the IRA can be even known to be guilty of something, but finding the person or persons to charge and proving it in court very hard.
Many IRA claimed atrocities have never been brought to trial as no individual could be proven to have committed them, but we know the IRA did it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wrong, they believe the public health advice should be followed.



https://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/57627

They're all for big funerals anyway.

SF staged a massive "funeral" which did not even end with a burial!

Edgware wrote: »

But Mary Lou says that that is party policy in solidarity with the unemployed and workers on low pay. Are you calling her a liar?

Its only policy for some

https://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2018/01/20/news/sinn-fe-in-faces-questions-over-average-wage-as-td-allowed-full-90-000-salary-1237052/

Bishop of hope wrote: »

There's a difference in showing respect and showing yourself up for what you are though.
I doubt the Storey funeral was as much about respect as it was about showing your colours.
Today is about respect, the Gardas was about respect, there's a big difference.

Selective again.

People go to funerals to pay respect or out of respect for the deceased. Nice demeaning of a certain group of people.
I have absolutely no doubt that many of those who lined the streets for Storey would want to do the same for Hume.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Selective again.

People go to funerals to pay respect or out of respect for the deceased. Nice demeaning of a certain group of people.
I have absolutely no doubt that many of those who lined the streets for Storey would want to do the same for Hume.

Nothing bad about lining the streets at all, I hope they do.
The political circus that went with the Storey SF led farce won't happen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Storey was a senior party member. The party heads all went to his funeral. Unusual? Not in this country.

That’s a lot of heads, Francis. Couple of thousand of them.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you can, being innocent until proven guilty is a law term.
Everyone who faces trial is believed guilty by someone or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
An organisation like the IRA can be even known to be guilty of something, but finding the person or persons to charge and proving it in court very hard.
Many IRA claimed atrocities have never been brought to trial as no individual could be proven to have committed them, but we know the IRA did it.

but but but ... you cant be blaming people without anything to back it up. thats being guilty and having to prove innocence. good to see you finally admitting you dont believe in justice.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you can, being innocent until proven guilty is a law term.
Everyone who faces trial is believed guilty by someone or they wouldn't be there in the first place.
An organisation like the IRA can be even known to be guilty of something, but finding the person or persons to charge and proving it in court very hard.
Many IRA claimed atrocities have never been brought to trial as no individual could be proven to have committed them, but we know the IRA did it.

If we are convicting on hearsay shouldn't a certain blueshirt be serving 5 life sentences?

Truthvader wrote: »

Seems a bit of confusion here

1. Whether someone did something or not is a matter of fact.

2. Whether they are prosecuted or convicted in a Court of Law is a different thing and has no bearing on whether they did it or not. Prosecutions routinely fail or are not advanced at all for all kinds of reasons and "guilty" men go free.

and our justice system says that you arent guilty until a case has been proven against you.

If its obvious someone has done something then there will be this stuff called 'evidence' that would be used to arrest and detain them

If there isnt any 'evidence' - after 16 years - then its about time the accusers copped on with themselves and go look for someone else. maybe people who had been found with 50 grand of the money. Might be a start.

Deleted User wrote: »

Youd imagine,with all these "informers" which "riddled" said organisation....the evidence would soon come to light :pac:


Quite the corner,the conspiracy theorists have painted themselves into,it seems :pac:

Im sure they'll have some fine whataboutery to present (maybe starting with something like "Seems a bit of confusion here ..") to try and change the subject.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So what is the revisionist republican narrative now?

Gerry Adams wasn’t in the IRA.
The IRA didn’t rob the Northern Bank.
There were no informers in the IRA.

Seems legit.

there were - had to be - informers in the IRA, but not to the extent you like to claim. As for your other two points ... you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but yet cant show anything to back it up. Bar hearsay.