Bowie wrote: » That's a disgusting misrepresentation. We know FF/FG will continue to cost the tax payer billions down to cronyism and ineptitude. I don't believe MLMD will be robbing banks. Mind FF/FG are okay with the banks robbing the tax payer. Look at yourself(?). Am I doing it right?
Bowie wrote: » Nope. It's very unlikely MLMD will be setting up snipers, but you could bet the farm FF/FG will continue to cost tax payers billions down to cronyism and ineptitude. Basically the shinner scaremongering is outweighed by the character and record of FF/FG...and sleepy Eamo.
Shefwedfan wrote: » SO he didn't say "I was wrong and Paul Quinn was not a criminal" But you are saying the PSNI shoud say that? how do you think that makes sense?
jm08 wrote: » TBH, I don't understand why the PSNI/Gardai don't do it. It would carry a lot more credibility coming from them. Conor Murphy doesn't really know one way or the other. He was repeating what Bertie said in the Dail (and he got it from the Gardai, who got it from the PSNI). Six people were arrested and questioned by the PSNI, so someone must have pointed the finger at those people. Why was there no attempt to prosecute anyone?
Shefwedfan wrote: » SO Conor Murphy didn't know? but he still made the statement to say he was a criminal and has never retracted that statement?
Yet you go off talking about the PSNI? sorry but it is baffling the level some people will sink to
jm08 wrote: » He was repeating what Bertie Ahern had said in the Dail. Bertie got his info from the Gardai/PSNI. Presumably Murphy got his info from the same source to make that comment. Here is a timeline. 23 people were questioned, but no one charged.https://www.thejournal.ie/paul-quinn-sinn-fein-conor-murphy-4994057-Feb2020/ The PSNI are the only ones who have the knowledge to be able to claim that Paul Quinn was not involved in criminality. It doesn't matter what any politician says as they don't actually know.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Tell us all what he said? Feb 3rd 2020 and Mary Lou was still lying on TV.....
Bowie wrote: » It was a bad move and they should have socially distanced. Mind it was no 80 people out golfing. Another minister of agriculture on the way out?
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I prefer my political news to come from reputable sources that employ journalists, as opposed to some toothless simpleton who drives a white van and thinks his worthless opinions are worthy of being transmitted to the world. The sort you find on Twitter in particular.
Shefwedfan wrote: » What exactly does the timeline prove? You really are digging a hole here for yourself and at this stage you will never get out of it
jm08 wrote: » Its a summary of whatever said and when. Bertie didn't retract that there was criminalty involved, yet no one says anything about that. I just don't understand why the PSNI will not make a statement that Paul Quinn wasn't a criminal if that is the case. Why isn't the British Gov. putting pressure on them to make a statement because it looks to me as if both the British and Irish Gov. could have put pressure on the PSNI to clear Paul Quinn's name.
jm08 wrote: » All Mrs Quinn wanted from Conor Murphy is to say that her son wasn't a criminal. Every other expression of regret that he has made has been rejected by her.
charlie14 wrote: » Other than the fact that Breege Quinn has no interest in hearing anything from someone who took 13 years to withdraw his allegations about her son you are attempting to make it appear that was all she wanted from him. "I would like Conor Murphy to stand down. But if he comes out, gets justice for Paul. and tells the Gardai and PSNI the names of the people he spoke to, and we see the people who murdered Paul up in court and in jail, then Conor Murphy will be entitled to stay in his position"
FrancieBrady wrote: » The PSNI know who he spoke to. For the PSNI to tell the IMC what they based there comments on then they would have to have known who the local exIRA members were. They couldn't have ruled it out as an IRA act otherwise.
mynamejeff wrote: » So I was right . but in the future tense , your argument is now that murder in the past is better than fraud in the past because murderes are unlikely to go back to murder while fraudsters will always fraud ? The Character and record of SF is inexcusable on a totally different level
Truthvader wrote: » Nope, wrong again. Nothing to do with social distancing. It was a bad move brcause in a functioning democracy political parties do not assemble a paramilitary goon army of thugs dressed as prrtendy "soldiers" to honour and glorify dead criminals.
charlie14 wrote: » I would be very surprised if the PSNI didn`t know who the local IRA members are, but did Conor Murphy tell them who he spoke to as Mrs Quinn asked, or did he step down which she also asked ? He should never had the option of stepping down. He should have been sacked.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I wouldn't argue with you on the sacking...he should have been. Again, if I was to hold all party's to account on things like that I'd have nobody to vote for.
Shefwedfan wrote: » So you think saying a person is a criminal to the media as if that makes it ok to murder him? Then lie for years about it Al the time while assisting to hide the people who committed the murder is ok? Earlier we had one of you trying to say a TD should be sacked for part owning a greyhound which had pups with a vets approval? Seriously what is wrong with you lot? It is just baffling how messed up your logic is
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who is hiding people? The Gardai, The PSNI and the IMC know who killed Paul Quinn. The evidential strength of what they know is strong enough for them to say to governments that the IRA as an organization was not involved. It was a local dispute with no little connection to illegal activity.
Shefwedfan wrote: » Who said the PIRA was not involved? If the PIRA was not involved then why was Sinn Fein including Gerry Adams jumping all over this? The old horse has bolted, trying to say the PIRA was not involved at this stage is burying your head in sand again
3 In Section 3 above we do not attribute the killing to PIRA . This is for several reasons: the local and personal nature of its roots; the absence of indications either of organisational sanction or that it was in the interests of PIRA; and because it was contrary to the declared policy which PIRA has been following for over two years. We are reinforced in this view by the subsequent public remarks to which we refer above. The fact that some local members or former members or associates of the organisation were involved in the incident does not in our view justify attributing it to PIRA. In reaching this conclusion we are applying the standards we have consistently followed in respect of all kinds of paramilitary incidents, and to which we have referred in the past . 4.4 We recognise that the involvement of local members or former members or associates of the organisation in the way we have described is bound to raise questions about the level of control exercised by the leadership of PIRA. The PIRA leadership has had some difficulties in the past in exercising authority in South Armagh. Looking more widely in Ireland North and South we do not find evidence to suggest that this recent rejection of instructions is a general problem.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Our government, and the IMC have stated that the IRA were not involved....here is how clear the IMC were about that:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Lots of attempts to divert to the current governments predicament and rolling maul of resignation. There are threads were I have been quite happy to discuss. Travelling atm.
