Truthvader wrote: » I know - paid back the minute they were caught
McMurphy wrote: » How do you prove you're not a member of something incidentally Does one post a photo of the membership card one doesn't own, or a screenshot of the annual membership fee one hasn't paid
blanch152 wrote: » Think most of us are fairly certain as to who is and who isn’t a member of SFOS.
maccored wrote: » whats your view on this Blanch152 - are you going to condemn the British army yet?https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-evidence-emerges-in-shooting-dead-of-teenager-in-belfast-in-1972-1.4394816
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'm not sure of the process of getting her name on the list of select victims maccored. Maybe the lads can help us?
maccored wrote: » if there was a derogatory mention of SF anywhere they in like a shot. Not the same when it comes to the BA funnily enough Whats the bets the 'this is a SF thread, not a british army one' retort comes first?
Nobotty wrote: » I see the DUP are wasting police time by referring the SF pandemic payments to the PSNI I mean,at worst from a SF perspective, what went wrong here was it was paid into a probably defunct account previously used as a Westminster office account and went unnoticed Understandable but OTT to be asking for resignations over it IMO driven by the need to avoid potshots . focusing on delivering opposition without distraction Had to be done but OTT
a very cool kid wrote: » At first I thought this was a pretty minor administration thing myself to be honest (I think SF are cowboys but there's plenty other more relevant stuff to beat them with!). A more is coming out on it , it's looking more and more fishy 1. There were three separate payments to three separate accounts, none were repaid or even queried until it was raised in the media. It seems very unusual that if the default was to repay the money that none of them would have noticed or queried it. This gives rise to speculation SF thought they were entitled to it. 2. In the case of McCallion, the money was paid to her and her husband's joint personal account. I struggle to believe neither of them noticed. If neither heeded the amount involved warranted investigation, it begs the question of how much money is going through their personal account and is it fitting for an elected official? Furthermore, if the property involved was a Sinn Féin registered property why was the council tax paid from a personal account (other parties have candidates take leases in their own names and pay rent themselves to the landlord in question - sometimes a chunk of that rent will be reimbursed by the party) 3. Resigning a seat in the houses of the Oireachtas is a massive deal. If this was an administrative issue, the punishment far outweighs the issue. Two questions here: Was EMcC told to resign because she herself stole the money? If so, will SF completely kick her out? Was she told to resign to prevent questions in the Seanad? Given the party are already being investigated by SIPO are they trying to prevent further scrutiny of their financial affairs?
blanch152 wrote: » Pretty good summary of the outstanding questions. Don’t expect answers from the lads though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How would a political party prevent questions being asked in the Seanad or the Dáil?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Now you have it. Nobody made off with anything. Fair play, took all day, but you got there.
a very cool kid wrote: » It's all a bit odd, there have been loads of misplaced and missed COVID payments so I guess I wouldn't be complaining about them getting the cash in the first place. I just wonder has Mary Lou thrown some people under the bus here who may have been instructed from higher up that they were entitled to hang onto a payment and now is blaming it on individuals to save face for the party?
SouthWesterly wrote: » So if they hadn't have been caught can we assume they would have kept it?
blanch152 wrote: » Very concerning, and I hope that this investigation gets the same resources and time that all other ones do. No stone should be left unturned.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, assumption seems to be the place where most are at, when it comes to the Shinners, They never seem to make assumptions when FGers or FFers are caught though. 'Gimme loads of sterling' and I'll sort your planning issues.
a very cool kid wrote: » It's the senators private bank account if she resigns she can't face questions about her personal conduct Edit to add - this happened in a different jurisdiction so the party couldn't really face an Oireachtas inquiry, however a member of the house could face an enquiry for improper behaviour.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Questions can still be asked of the party...stop with the disingenuous nonsense. You are flumoxed by the quick and no nonsense reaction here. As said, problem uncovered, problem dealt with and you guys are faffing about looking silly now. Being reminded of all the faffing, excusing and ignoring of financial irregularities of the power swap. They even sent Regina Doherty out to take the high moral ground today.
blanch152 wrote: » Wouldn’t be surprised if the word had come from Belfast to cut them loose. Would be looking to a new life in Spain if I was that Senator.
a very cool kid wrote: » Even you have to admit it's a bit strange that none of the three payments made to different Sinn Féin related accounts were queried until such time as the BBC outed them? Surely one person on the three accounts would have noticed - I could understand if it was one person but all three together seems off
maccored wrote: » whats the issue here anyway? MLMCD said she had accepted the resignation of the west Tyrone official who had failed to return the money "despite being requested to do so" by MLA for the area, Maolíosa McHugh. Whatever was going on with the official who never sent the money back, SF as a party acted responsibly did they not in getting rid of the official and paying back the money?
a very cool kid wrote: » That doesn't explain how three of them didn't send it back simultaneously. Was there a case where a payment was made to Sinn Féin and then repaid before the BBC questions? This would make it significantly more believable as an administrative issue
FrancieBrady wrote: » 380 approx haven't sent back the money.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It was an unforgiveable ****-up. It should not have happened. If FG or FF had done it, I would have said somebody needs to resign. That happened here.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e54e8024b002427df3ce2953d22b721.svg)
