The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't suggest it CF. It is a 'lie' to keep suggesting he did. AGAIN:

We could go around in circle
If Pearse was actually giving any information he would have told everyone to shop around.
he didn't, which as a politician he should have. But he didn't.

All he had was a huff&puff about the government and gave no information including the FACT his bill would have cost people money. Not saved it.

Any discussion on that?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Dear jaysus. :rolleyes: :D

You don't get it.

Was favourable treatment given to Sinn Fein and the family of Bobby Storey? Yes

Was the favourable treatment the result of undue pressure from Sinn Fein? According to you, no.

What is the alternative explanation? Public servants saw that a Sinn Fein funeral was taking place and decided to give it favourable treatment.

Was that?

(A) Out of the goodness of their heart
(B) Because they felt Sinn Fein deserved special treatment more than ordinary families
(C) Because they were afraid of the consequences for their jobs and their families if they were not seen to give Sinn Fein special treatment
(D) Because they were members and/or supporters of Sinn Fein

Answers (B) to (D) speak to a deeply ingrained corrupt culture in Belfast City Council. Answer (A) speaks to a certain naivety.

I don't believe (A). I don't necessarily believe there was no pressure either, the nature of such pressure would mean that it was unlikely to be recorded.

As I said already, Sinn Fein already have a patsy, one man has lost his job, but got his pension, so all the blame can be put on him.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

We could go around in circle
If Pearse was actually giving any information he would have told everyone to shop around.
he didn't, which as a politician he should have. But he didn't.

All he had was a huff&puff about the government and gave no information including the FACT his bill would have cost people money. Not saved it.

Any discussion on that?

You lied again...no amount of typing is going to change that. You haven't apologised for any of the lies you were caught out on in the course of just 24 hours. If you can find someone who thinks you have any credibility left, maybe they will 'discuss' with you.

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't get it.

Was favourable treatment given to Sinn Fein and the family of Bobby Storey? Yes

Was the favourable treatment the result of undue pressure from Sinn Fein? According to you, no.

What is the alternative explanation? Public servants saw that a Sinn Fein funeral was taking place and decided to give it favourable treatment.

Was that?

(A) Out of the goodness of their heart
(B) Because they felt Sinn Fein deserved special treatment more than ordinary families
(C) Because they were afraid of the consequences for their jobs and their families if they were not seen to give Sinn Fein special treatment
(D) Because they were members and/or supporters of Sinn Fein

Answers (B) to (D) speak to a deeply ingrained corrupt culture in Belfast City Council. Answer (A) speaks to a certain naivety.

I don't believe (A). I don't necessarily believe there was no pressure either, the nature of such pressure would mean that it was unlikely to be recorded.

As I said already, Sinn Fein already have a patsy, one man has lost his job, but got his pension, so all the blame can be put on him.

Here is what the Council themselves say:

It said the decision by Nigel Grimshaw, director of city and neighbourhood services, to allow up to 30 mourners to attend the Storey cremation was taken “in the context of managing potential issues if numbers arrived and demands for access were made”.

Mr Grimshaw acknowledged it was “a mistake for which he takes responsibility”, and he regretted its impact on the other families.

Perfectly reasonable reason to me. But then I don't have any boogeymen and women living with me, rent free.

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't get it.

Was favourable treatment given to Sinn Fein and the family of Bobby Storey? Yes

Was the favourable treatment the result of undue pressure from Sinn Fein? According to you, no.

What is the alternative explanation? Public servants saw that a Sinn Fein funeral was taking place and decided to give it favourable treatment.

Was that?

(A) Out of the goodness of their heart
(B) Because they felt Sinn Fein deserved special treatment more than ordinary families
(C) Because they were afraid of the consequences for their jobs and their families if they were not seen to give Sinn Fein special treatment
(D) Because they were members and/or supporters of Sinn Fein

Answers (B) to (D) speak to a deeply ingrained corrupt culture in Belfast City Council. Answer (A) speaks to a certain naivety.

I don't believe (A). I don't necessarily believe there was no pressure either, the nature of such pressure would mean that it was unlikely to be recorded.

As I said already, Sinn Fein already have a patsy, one man has lost his job, but got his pension, so all the blame can be put on him.

On this particular issue, I'd be leaning towards your side of things. I wouldn't be going with the sinister undertones you're implying, but I don't think the Storey funeral reflects well on SF.

Do I think it goes past, 'doesn't reflect well' into the outright immorality or corruption that you're suggesting? Probably not.

I'd suggest the timing was also a factor, perhaps a lack of clarity or awareness of regulations on behalf of the man in question given how recent everything was.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

We could go around in circle
If Pearse was actually giving any information he would have told everyone to shop around.
he didn't, which as a politician he should have. But he didn't.

All he had was a huff&puff about the government and gave no information including the FACT his bill would have cost people money. Not saved it.

Any discussion on that?

I think it's plain to see you're just either being incredibly pedantic, or the type of person who needs every little aspect of your life micromanaged.

If your mammy told you "not to just buy the first suit you tried on" to would you show up in the nip for your job interview, or have the wit to realise she meant shop about some for value and comfort of fit?

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't get it.

Was favourable treatment given to Sinn Fein and the family of Bobby Storey? Yes

Was the favourable treatment the result of undue pressure from Sinn Fein? According to you, no.

What is the alternative explanation? Public servants saw that a Sinn Fein funeral was taking place and decided to give it favourable treatment.

Was that?

(A) Out of the goodness of their heart
(B) Because they felt Sinn Fein deserved special treatment more than ordinary families
(C) Because they were afraid of the consequences for their jobs and their families if they were not seen to give Sinn Fein special treatment
(D) Because they were members and/or supporters of Sinn Fein

Answers (B) to (D) speak to a deeply ingrained corrupt culture in Belfast City Council. Answer (A) speaks to a certain naivety.

I don't believe (A). I don't necessarily believe there was no pressure either, the nature of such pressure would mean that it was unlikely to be recorded.

As I said already, Sinn Fein already have a patsy, one man has lost his job, but got his pension, so all the blame can be put on him.

Answer (E) you weren't there so don't know wtf happened.

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sinn-fein-councillor-organises-commemoration-for-ira-bomber-40104086.html

You know they just can't help themselves, can they?

"A Sinn Féin councillor has been criticised for organising a commemoration tonight for an IRA bomber from Wexford who died on a terror mission in England.

Edward O’Brien (21), of Gorey, was killed instantly when a bomb he was ferrying detonated on a double-decker bus in London’s theatre district in 1996.

The explosion in Aldwych wrecked the vehicle and injured the driver and some passengers, along with car drivers and pedestrians nearby. A fellow Irishman aboard, not connected to Mr O’Brien, suffered a fractured skull. It was never established what was the ultimate target for Mr O’Brien’s 4kg Semtex device, whose detonation was heard five miles away."

WTF? The poor young man, duped into being a bomb-carrier, lost his life tragically and now they want to celebrate him? They should be apologising to his family, they should be apologising to the people on the bus and in the vicinity, yet instead we are going to get the usual sloganising, probably with some "Tiocfaidh" songs and "Ireland for the Irish" and other exclusionary nationalist propaganda.

Fair play to Senator Craughwell who said:

"We do not need or want to commemorate bombers, kidnappers, bank robbers and the people who murdered our gardaí and Defence Forces.”

The continuous drip-feed of this stuff is nauseating.

You can't commemorate killers or bombers?
The Royal British Legion will be terribly crest fallen.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is what the Council themselves say:

Perfectly reasonable reason to me. But then I don't have any boogeymen and women living with me, rent free.

In fairness, that quote doesn't read too well to me, Francie. It comes across a bit, 'we gave them what they wanted in case they kicked up a fuss'. It certainly isn't a justification I'd accept for example if the Parades Commission allowed a highly contentious march to proceed “in the context of managing potential issues if numbers arrived and demands for access were made”.

grayzer75

James Brown wrote: »

You can't commemorate killers or bombers?
The Royal British Legion will be terribly crest fallen.

That's remembrance Sunday cancelled lol

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't think Martin McGuinness, Bobby Storey or Gerry Adams would have carried a bomb on a bus like that and exposed themselves to that risk?

Like all who have been sent on such missions, he was duped.

Have you any photos of Tony Blair defusing road side bombs in iraq? The Queen up to her tits in mud on the front lines?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

On this particular issue, I'd be leaning towards your side of things. I wouldn't be going with the sinister undertones you're implying, but I don't think the Storey funeral reflects well on SF.

Do I think it goes past, 'doesn't reflect well' into the outright immorality or corruption that you're suggesting? Probably not.

I'd suggest the timing was also a factor, perhaps a lack of clarity or awareness of regulations on behalf of the man in question given how recent everything was.

It may well be that rather than a deeply ingrained corruption, it was a one-off incidence of corrupt favouritism brought on by the unique situation of the Covid-19 crisis, but as with Golfgate, those in positions of authority who attended the funeral and who should have known better should have paid a price, looking at Michelle O'Neill and Mary-Lou McDonald.

I await the details of the report.

markodaly wrote: »

LOL.
Well at least you are honest about your overt bias towards 'da Brits'.

I'll take your dodge as you bowing out

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

It may well be that rather than a deeply ingrained corruption, it was a one-off incidence of corrupt favouritism brought on by the unique situation of the Covid-19 crisis, but as with Golfgate, those in positions of authority who attended the funeral and who should have known better should have paid a price, looking at Michelle O'Neill and Mary-Lou McDonald.

I await the details of the report.

Why are you waiting for the report when you've already made your mind up?

We know SF can do nothing right in the eyes of you FFG heads but that's fine.

blanch152 wrote: »

It may well be that rather than a deeply ingrained corruption, it was a one-off incidence of corrupt favouritism brought on by the unique situation of the Covid-19 crisis, but as with Golfgate, those in positions of authority who attended the funeral and who should have known better should have paid a price, looking at Michelle O'Neill and Mary-Lou McDonald.

I await the details of the report.

I'd tend towards having more sympathy for funeral attendees than a shoulder-rubbing booze up, whatever opinion one holds towards the departed. It does stick in my craw to some extent given that I lost a close family member recently and was unable to attend the funeral ceremony (that being said, I did travel outside the 5km advised during lockdown, so perhaps I'm showing some hypocrisy).

That being said, I didn't call for heads during Golfgate, so I won't now. I'm eager to see the report myself, but given the report on the Cash for Ash scandal, I won't be holding my breath for any great revelations from it.

blanch152 wrote: »

As well as those that were forced, there were those who were duped by the propaganda.

Duped like this?

If you don't like the IRA that's cool and all but be honest.

McMurphy wrote: »

I think it's plain to see you're just either being incredibly pedantic, or the type of person who needs every little aspect of your life micromanaged.

The whole point of the bill is because people don't shop around for insurance and automatically renew, hence why insurance companies make more money off existing rather than new customer.
You do understand that?

blanch152 wrote: »

That would be even worse.

Corruption is endemic when public servants do what they are expected to do by politicians without any influence or pressure needed. A culture of conformity with Sinn Fein expectations is dangerously corrupt.

So they weren't coerced so they must be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome?
"Your honour, I only robbed the shop because I thought others probably wanted me to".

seems legit...

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

The whole point of the bill is because people don't shop around for insurance and automatically renew, hence why insurance companies make more money off existing rather than new customer.
You do understand that?

Over the course of two days there's been numerous lies/ people "thought" about there being "petitions", "offering free insurance" which moved on to "suggesting people don't renew insurance" (assumedly drive around uninsured?)

And now this afternoon, you think you'll be able to turn this around, like it's me that had "understanding issues"

blanch152 wrote: »

It may well be that rather than a deeply ingrained corruption, it was a one-off incidence of corrupt favouritism brought on by the unique situation of the Covid-19 crisis, but as with Golfgate, those in positions of authority who attended the funeral and who should have known better should have paid a price, looking at Michelle O'Neill and Mary-Lou McDonald.

I await the details of the report.

Going over well trodden ground won't build the outrage Blanch.
Golfgate was a piss up organised and attended by the authorities who created the regulations they flouted.
Seems to me they were expecting large numbers and made allowances.
MLMD and MON were showing a bad example IMO. We know all this though.
Basically Flanagan and Co. were okay doing the exact same thing because they weren't shinners. Not even the shinner who attended Horkan's funeral gets a mention

At least be consistent in your blind hate.

McMurphy wrote: »

Over the course of two days there's been numerous lies/ people "thought" about there being "petitions", "offering free insurance" which moved on to "suggesting people don't renew insurance" (assumedly drive around uninsured?)

And now this afternoon, you think you'll be able to turn this around, like it's me that had "understanding issues"

To explain the bill is about the fact some people do not shop around for insurance, so I can get a 20% discount by shopping around but if you don't bother and renew then the insurance company will not give you the 20% discount I got. So some people are not able to manage their own lives.

The problem with the bill is SF done it half assed so the insurance company would just go, right nobody gets the 20% discounts, so the people who ring around would lose out.

According to Pearse Ireland has 2.5mill people who are "the type of person who needs every little aspect of your life micromanaged"

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

To explain the bill is about the fact some people do not shop around for insurance, so I can get a 20% discount by shopping around but if you don't bother and renew then the insurance company will not give you the 20% discount I got. So some people are not able to manage their own lives.

The problem with the bill is SF done it half assed so the insurance company would just go, right nobody gets the 20% discounts, so the people who ring around would lose out.

According to Pearse Ireland has 2.5mill people who are "the type of person who needs every little aspect of your life micromanaged"

So is your point that if we don't agree with a bill brought before the Dáil, we can just make up any nonsense we want about the person putting the bill forward?

Maybe stick to criticising the actual bill rather than just making things up?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

So is your point that if we don't agree with a bill brought before the Dáil, we can just make up any nonsense we want about the person putting the bill forward?

Maybe stick to criticising the actual bill rather than just making things up?

I tried numerous times to discuss the bill. Every time the response from you and other is to fire shots at me.
Read every post you have made, not once have you discussed the benefit/negatives of the bill

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I tried numerous times to discuss the bill. Every time the response from you and other is to fire shots at me.
Read every post you have made, not once have you discussed the benefit/negatives of the bill

You lied about the bill and got caught out 3 times doing it.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I tried numerous times to discuss the bill. Every time the response from you and other is to fire shots at me.
Read every post you have made, not once have you discussed the benefit/negatives of the bill

Maybe if you hadn't thrown the whole subject off topic from the content of the bill with nonsensical lies we could've had a more sensible discussion on its contents?

Everything I've posted about the bill has been about the.....alternative facts you've introduced to the conversation. If you didn't want to discuss those points, why did you introduce them to the conversation?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Maybe if you hadn't thrown the whole subject off topic from the content of the bill with nonsensical lies we could've had a more sensible discussion on its contents?

Everything I've posted about the bill has been about the.....alternative facts you've introduced to the conversation. If you didn't want to discuss those points, why did you introduce them to the conversation?

If you read my posts I gave details from CBOI, the current Minister who looks after insurance etc.

Are you actually going to discuss the bill or just post constantly about me?

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If you read my posts I gave details from CBOI, the current Minister who looks after insurance etc.

Are you actually going to discuss the bill or just post constantly about me?

I've replied entirely to subjects that you have introduced to the thread. It seems a bit odd to complain about people discussing subjects you brought up. Why did you introduce these subjects if you didn't want to discuss them?!

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If you read my posts I gave details from CBOI, the current Minister who looks after insurance etc.

Are you actually going to discuss the bill or just post constantly about me?

I have been reading your posts, it started here

Your very first post "mentioning insurance" was a lie.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I see Huff&puff are going to solve the insurance issues.
They have launched an online petition on Facebook.
That is going to show the insurance companies

And they kept coming from then on.

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I know, the car insurance is up soon. Perfect timing. I always wanted free insurance. Sinn Fein to the rescue

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

I actually thought he done a petition, instead he just created a #hashtag :P
That has the insurance companies running for cover

Well at least free insurance next week so sorted......you holding onto your renewal?

And so on and so forth, now of course you're wanting to steer the conversation in a different direction, and pretend you had been engaging in truthful reasonable discussion all along.

Why do you bother, like what's the end goal?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Let’s not jump the gun, there are other issues to deal with.

There’s the Peter Coll report and the Mark Webster report.

I doubt if the other families using Roselawn at the time would agree.

Of course they wouldn’t know the full background.

Oh dear.......... Most likely not what you wanted to hear Brenner.

'No political pressure' on Bobby Storey cremation plans, Belfast City Council report finds

Sinn Fein did not apply political pressure on how Belfast City Council handled the cremation of IRA man Bobby Storey, an independent report has found.

Mr Storey's status as a senior member of the party was also not the "determining factor" in his cremation being treated differently at Roselawn Cemetery last June.

A "jigsaw of factors" led to a change in committal services being introduced earlier than planned, the report's author Peter Coll QC said

This'll be the beginning of some folk "winding their necks in"..

He said Mr Storey's high-profile cremation appeared to have resulted in a focus on a "need in the public interest, and a corresponding ability on the part of the council, to bring forward from the 6th July the planned change of introduction of committal services".

He continued: "In that sense, and having heard the evidence of the managerial level decision-makers involved, it appears to me that the evidence does not establish that the determining factor for the difference in treatment was Mr Storey's status as a former senior member of Sinn Fein per se, nor that in some way Sinn Fein had applied pressure to have the change regarding committal services brought about to the benefit of the arrangements to be applied to the Storey cremation.