Bowie wrote: » No it's not. The SF politicians in the south represent the south. The ones in the north pushed for an all island tackling of Covid. It's no pass, anyone who elected a SF politician in the south want representation in the south. You're talking complete nonsense. Senior hurling? You are the lads making the balls of the match and looking to another game in a different field
Bowie wrote: » Different politicians representing different arrears in different jurisdictions. Your laboured effort at a point is nonsense. Maybe address the criticisms made instead of trying to hide or divert?
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1126/1180563-cabinet-sub-committee-covid-19/ "Speaking outside the Dáil, she said: "There is no serious suggestion that people won't cross the border"" Mary-Lou encouraging people to break travel restrictions again. Is it all just about posturing for a united Ireland and nothing to do with people's lives? So careless and heartless.
blanch152 wrote: » If there is a way to twist something that Leo has been said, it will be followed. That is the agenda. Leo is rightly feared by the Sinn Fein supporters on here hence their almost maniacal focus on him. He has maintained his popularity through tough times.
"There is no talk or no plans for that at the moment," said a spokesperson for the Taoiseach. "There has never been a ban on North-South travel, nor will there be."
Blanch wrote: Mary-Lou encouraging people to break travel restrictions again. Is it all just about posturing for a united Ireland and nothing to do with people's lives? So careless and heartless
Bowie wrote: » Give over. Talk about posting lies.
blanch152 wrote: » That is a complete cop-out. In effect, you are saying that Sinn Fein are entitled to be as duplicitous as they want to be, having hyopcritically different positions on issues North and South. That might be acceptable to you, but we are not all that accepting of such duplicity. As for addressing the criticisms made, we are on the SF thread, so I think that one is on you, as one of the leading defenders of all things SF.
Fann Linn wrote: » I hope you've gone to the Gardai with your evidence.
McMurphy wrote: » Lol..... Blanch posted this..... In response to this.https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1331867432898744326?s=19 Considering a spokesperson for the Taoiseach said this...... Shows you what you are up against on this site. :pac:
Bowie wrote: » Nope, you are the one making the nonsense claims, (while backing up Mark's ones). Mark stated and you supported that politicians based in this jurisdiction, elected in this jurisdiction had some cheek commenting on the **** balls of the FF/FG/Green government because of what other elected politicians in another jurisdiction are involved in. That my friend is complete escapist nonsense.
blanch152 wrote: » It isn't nonsense, unless you give Sinn Fein a free pass to be duplicitous and hypocritical. I don't give them that pass, hence it isn't nonsense. We can hear what Sinn Fein say in the South, we can see what they do (or in this case don't do) in the North. You accept what they say, I look at what they do. Think I'm on solider ground.
blanch152 wrote: » So you think that people can travel more than 5km under Level 5 to Northern Ireland and out of their county under Level 3 to Northern Ireland?
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1126/1180563-cabinet-sub-committee-covid-19/Mary-Lou encouraging people to break travel restrictions again. Is it all just about posturing for a united Ireland and nothing to do with people's lives? So careless and heartless.
"Speaking outside the Dáil, she said: "There is no serious suggestion that people won't cross the border""
If there is a way to twist something that Leo has been said, it will be followed. That is the agenda.
No wonder Covid is spreading, the way some people interpret the rules.
McMurphy wrote: » Blanch you obviously forgot or didn't reread what you posted - I advise you do so. This is what you posted. No, she didn't she did exactly the same as what Leo did yesterday when he upstaged Michaél with his "we know people will do it anyway" remarks. So, she didn't "encourage" anyone to cross the border, she did the same as Leo did, stated the bloody obvious! The fact I also highlighted that you posted this. Sailed straight over your head. Indeed, but obviously that doesn't extend to Supreme Court Judges (going by your standard)
markodaly wrote: » So if the SF UK minister in charge of housing is rasing rents for public housing in NI, we should all just say nothing when SF ROI are giving out about housing in the south. It seems you want nothing bad to be said about SF NI as its in a different jurisdiction. How very partitionist of you.
smurgen wrote: » When people can't even admit to the party they really follow I thing that tells ya everything you need to know.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » https://uup.org/news/6869/21/Beattie-demands-investigation-into-Legal-Aid-following-latest-Adams-ruling#.X8ERbi3fWhB What is all this about, one wonders?
Ulster Unionist Party MLA Doug Beattie asked “just how and why someone with the expansive means of Gerry Adams – through book sales and pensions from Westminster, Stormont and the Dáil, plus property owned – be entitled to legal aid when so many victims are told they are not entitled to it?” But Mr Collins of PJ McGrory solicitors in Belfast said there is a separate legal-aid system in criminal appeal cases. “Unlike every other type of legal aid in criminal appeal cases it is the court that decides whether someone gets legal aid,” he said. In other cases, applications were made to the legal aid department which examined issues such as the financial means of the applicant. Mr Collins added that in criminal appeal cases the chief focus was on whether the case had merit and in this instance the court of appeal, while rejecting Mr Adams’s case, “certified there was a point of law of general public importance”. “Because of that it was considered entirely appropriate to take this case to the supreme court, a decision that was vindicated by the supreme court ruling,” said Mr Collins.
FrancieBrady wrote: » That's a curious one and an old one. Not sure why the UUP are revisiting it. From May 2020https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/unionists-criticise-106-000-legal-aid-payment-to-gerry-adams-1.4259505?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Funionists-criticise-106-000-legal-aid-payment-to-gerry-adams-1.4259505
blanch152 wrote: » I think it was a SF supporter on another thread who complained about the €250 going to students who weren't on grants and who he felt didn't deserve it. Now we have Legal Aid being given to a rich man like Adams whose combined pensions would be far more than the average salary, a man who could afford to be flown to the US for surgery. "“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”" The people are the creatures outside being taken for fools by the Sinn Fein pigs who pretend to be different.
Fann Linn wrote: » Or is it not to do with that ex FG councillor who was calling out SF over the £4 million inheritance, and then it was discovered that he had got his degree on the back of a scheme which had already expired and he shouldn't have availed of. "“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”" These blueshirts they really are a lousy shower.
blanch152 wrote: » There is always a whataboutery defence of Gerry Adams, even one as obscure as yours that I don't know what you are talking about. On the subject of degrees did Pearse ever get the one he claimed he had?
Mr Adams’ solicitor Seamus Collins said: “The decision to award Gerry Adams legal aid for this Supreme Court case did not involve any assessment of Gerry Adams’ means. “The decision was made by the court itself, primarily on the merits of his case, in which the Court of Appeal in NI certified that it involved a point of law of general public importance.”
“Mr Adams was granted legal aid by the Court of Appeal. The grant of legal aid for criminal cases before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are not subject to any financial eligibility test. “The Supreme Court has, further to representations from the Secretary of State against who costs were originally awarded, amended the terms of its original order which it considered was inappropriate. “Mr Adams will have his costs met by legal aid in line with the legislation and direction of the Court.”
blanch152 wrote: » I think it was a SF supporter on another thread who complained about the €250 going to students who weren't on grants and who he felt didn't deserve it.
Solutionking wrote: » Oh I seen that alright. Really you have to wonder the level of bitterness that someone has to complain about a student getting a few euro.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The court, because of the type of case it was, decided to award Aid. That's my reading of it. I don't think Adams made an application. That is confirmed by the department responsible: Doug Beattie also seems to be talking through his hat about legal aid costs spiralling. Also walked himself into a rap on the knuckles from Naomi Long for being a hypocrite like that FG fella mentioned above.https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/crime/concern-over-supreme-court-legal-aid-gerry-adams-3047834
blanch152 wrote: » If the man had any decency (I know, a forlorn hope), he would have turned it down.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would you expect anyone to be out of pocket attempting to clear their name? Speaks volumes that the British understand that more than you. Anyway, another 'get Gerry' attempt goes up in smoke. Ready to give up yet?
theballz wrote: » John Finucane is Daniel Kinahans solicitor and represents MTK - open your eyes.
