seamus wrote: » Par for the course. Anyone who thinks that Sinn Féin and the IRA aren't still joined at the hip, is an idiot. It's well known that if you need to "confer" with any part of the IRA, you have a chat with a local Sinn Féin TD who can arrange it. I expect in this case, the witness needed to know what he was and wasn't allowed to say.
blanch152 wrote: » Probably checking whether the criminal was in good standing with Sinn Fein or not.
Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: » Might be a while before the resident shinners post here. They probably need to check in with HQ for the party line .
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Are they not, currently, “under orders” to step back from “engaging”, P?
IAMAMORON wrote: » It really makes you cringe when you see them looking for reform of the Special Criminal Court in one breath and then standing plain face in Dáil Eireann throwing mud at honest politicians trying to run the country. The worst is that people are voting for these scumbags as a viable alternative, voters are lapping up their tripe, scary enough.
maccored wrote: » no - though I admit, this whole thing is a bit weird. Im a member of SF and I would never think of asking SF anything before going to the gards so it puzzles me why yer man thought he should
EmmetSpiceland wrote: » Either way, he must have been a, fairly, low level “grunt” for them to give the go ahead to send him down.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Honest politicians'? Every tribunal, inquiry and investigation (and we have had many many many of them) that ever was, seen politicians hiding behind barristers, points of law and their respective party lines. A FG minister gets found to have taken bribes...what happens...'ah sure, take a back seat there and if we need you to keep us in power we'll give you a shout. Don't make me laugh here. Here is what happened with the Brady case...SF say they will do anything necessary to get justice for the family. A nervous witness comes forward and SF hand Gardai the 'break' they need in the case. Am I missing anything?
IAMAMORON wrote: » Kangaroo Courts?
John Hutton wrote: » So a member goes to a local rep and says he knows something. Local rep puts member in touch with the Gardaí. Member then gets cold feet and says he is not sure if he should talk to police about it and wants to talk to senior SF party. SF TD then tells the member to go to the Gardai and give a statement which he does, and statement proves instrumental in the investigation. So at all stages SF tell member to voluntarily cooperate with the Gardai and in fact encourage him to do so and support him in doing it. Was this not the right and proper thing to do? Tbh I can understand a person not wanting to give a statement given the intimidation and threats that went on. I would also not be pleased to see all the media reports about my statement when the other criminals are still at large! If the SF member was a long-standing one of the older generation I can understand his wariness of speaking to the Garda given the carry on the Gardai got up to in Dundalk historically. So he asked for support and advice from his friends and it was given. This is a positive and shows how SF have changed - 30 years ago they would have told him to have no dealings with the police whatsoever.
piplip87 wrote: » Its says it all when a Garda is murdered and a witness has to go to a political party to make sure the murderer isn't a "Good Republican." At the end of the day that's the only logical reason behind this. Again I say not a normal political party .
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's hard to turn a blind eye to what actually happened here isn't it. Having to resort to that kind of comment.
IAMAMORON wrote: » As opposed to having to get the all clear from your local army council before speaking to the cops about an armed robbery, or getting raped by your uncle?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Has to be asked, is it right that a senior Gardai can release information like this.
