Bannasidhe wrote: » Found ithttps://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-dog-that-didnt-bark-southern-unionism-in-pre-and-post-revolutionary-ireland/
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'm blushing for blanch...what a doozie that was.
McMurphy wrote: » Shows how much attention you paid to the fcukin story, are you suggesting it was Carroll MacNeill who had to bring her daddy with her for support? This is about the funniest brainfart I've read on here in weeks. Better to remain silent etc etc. FG are after exposing themselves as a bunch of hypocritical imbeciles, so you've took it upon yourself to defend them.... Despite the bleedin obvious. Go on blanch, admit it, you haven't a scaldy balls notion what you're on about here. :pac:
blanch152 wrote: » This is amazing. Calling out misogyny is now unacceptable in your eyes. Have a real good look at your posts. You are equating a woman calling out misogyny in a public place having to bring her father with her for support with the lads calling around on a cold dark night to a vulnerable woman's door. That is not a good look in any book, but keep with it, you are doing brilliant.
McMurphy wrote: » Just reading up a bit more about Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, seems the young FG fellas offence was that he posted "Ding Dong the witch is dead" after Kate O'Connell lost her seat. MacNeill asked to meet him, but wouldn't disclose what the meeting was about. When they met, she "confronted him" with a screen shot of the Snapchat and was asked to step back from the council seat election (interfering in the democratic process) Apparently MacNeill also suggested she would have to consider sharing the Snapchat post with members of the Blackrock ward of Fine Gael if he remained a candidate.(isn't that considered blackmail though?) They're perfectly entitled to do so, but it's hypocrisy in the extreme to whinge about others.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well, it's certainly coming the 'heavy'. I ask any reasonable posters to wonder how this would be taken if it was a Shinner doing it. Keyboards would melt.
McMurphy wrote: » By the way, this is from the horses mouth. On confronting a 19 year old on his social media contribution to Snapchat......
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's like the IRA's McMurph...the good ones and the bad ones. This was a good threatening/intimidating trip to the beach.
RandomViewer wrote: » Get the notion that they want a hard border and little or no contact with England or the North,
christy c wrote: » Where are you getting that vibe?
RandomViewer wrote: » Am I picking up the right vibe that FG would be happy with a no deal Brexit?
Bowie wrote: » I expect a slew of posters to jump in on this as it is far more intimidating and actually threatening toward the young man than the debunked 'sending around the heavies' lie.
tobsey wrote: » Arranging a meeting with someone, outside in a public place due to coronavirus retribution’s, is very different than knocking on someone’s door.
blanch152 wrote: » Leo is really getting to some people around here. Must be doing something right.
UDAWINNER wrote: » https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1337004137301491714 Always some excuse from FG
DaveCliftonAP wrote: » That's interesting, got any sources from these historians?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Seem to recall there was an article in History Ireland many years ago. On phone so can't find it, but their website is searchable...might need a subscription to access the archives tho.
McMurphy wrote: » Oh good, we're all cool so.
christy c wrote: » I couldn't give a fcuk about their actions, this particular issue would not persuade me to vote for or against FG/SF. I choose to ask you a question because it seemed strange that you would mention blackmail and interfering and in the same post use the wording "entitled to do so". You clarified which since which is fine.
McMurphy wrote: » Sorry Christy, i was going to just let it slide, you've form on zoning in on things and luring folk down a rabbit hole, so I can't resist asking, curiosity has the better off me here. If you couldn't give a fcuk - why waste the time even replying to me, seriously, you yourself say you only vote for FG as best of a bad lot, so I'm curious here, what prompted you to even reply to me?
christy c wrote: » Probably took a minute or less writing the first post, I've wasted time on a lot worse.
McMurphy wrote: » So little fcuks you wasted time commenting on it? Get. Up. The. Yard. Not believable in the slightest Christopher.
In a statement yesterday, she said: “I was concerned about this post both because I felt it was not acceptable for the party in preserving dignity and respect for everyone in public life and because I knew that it would become a personal problem for the candidate, either as a candidate or as a councillor if successful in the election.” She added: “My intention was to impress upon him the public import of the social media post made after the election and to say that I would need ultimately to let voting delegates know about this in some way before they made their choice on the new public representative for the Blackrock area.” Ms Carroll MacNeill said she asked Mr Hutchinson to “reflect on his candidacy” or to “consider stepping back” from the election. “I said that we all make lots of mistakes, especially when we are young and that I knew I had made plenty along the way,” she said.
christy c wrote: » What a surprise, another pathetic response. If posting about blackmail and interfering in the democratic process then you need to be very clear about what you find acceptable (which you weren't).Couldn't give a fcuk about what MacNeill did or the SF person either.
tobsey wrote: » Well it’s not the same thing in most people’s books. Most workplaces would have social media guidelines and breaking them is a disciplinary issue. It’s not surprising political parties have the same thing. However in normal circumstances a meeting would be arranged to resolve the issue, rather than calling to someone’s private residence uninvited.
McMurphy wrote: » Perfectly entitled to "express their disappointment" in what a fellow party member posts regarding their own party on Social media. This isn't going to be another afternoon where I have to breakdown the already simplified text in my post for you Christy is it? Have you any thoughts on MacNeills actions yourself, or will I need a torch and safety line for the rabbit hole do you think hehe?
