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

wicklowstevo wrote: »

different than most normal people ?

:pac::pac::pac:

we know

You might find EVERYONE in the world is different than the other. Might be a bit of a shocker to you but generally thats the way things are.

jh79 wrote: »

I thought it was under the new regulations?

hang on - are you telling me it's illegal to protest?

[Deleted User]

maccored wrote: »

hang on - are you telling me it's illegal to protest?

It's illegal to organise any event including protests.

https://www.iccl.ie/human-rights/iccl-briefing-on-emergency-covid-19-legislation/

jh79 wrote: »

It's illegal to organise any event including protests.

https://www.iccl.ie/human-rights/iccl-briefing-on-emergency-covid-19-legislation/

Organising an event or a gathering under the current COVID-19 regulations is not allowed without a “reasonable excuse”. It is up to Gardaí to decide what a reasonable excuse is.

https://spunout.ie/news/covid-19/a-guide-to-protesting-during-covid-19

Actual facts are always handy.

[Deleted User]

maccored wrote: »

https://spunout.ie/news/covid-19/a-guide-to-protesting-during-covid-19

Actual facts are always handy.

Both our links say the same thing.

jh79 wrote: »

Both our links say the same thing.

that protesting isnt actually banned or illegal.

granted, people could be a bit more creative about how to protest rather than gathering in large groups. protests need exposure - not tons of people contravening Covid guidelines.

jh79 wrote: »

Both our links say the same thing.

That link says that last June "If you wanted to organise a protest which followed social distancing guidelines, it would mean arranging lots of small groups of four people, who practiced social distancing within 5km of their home."

Under current restrictions, a one-man protest within 5km might be legal, anything else illegal.

[Deleted User]

maccored wrote: »

that protesting isnt actually banned or illegal.

granted, people could be a bit more creative about how to protest rather than gathering in large groups. protests need exposure - not tons of people contravening Covid guidelines.

They are not exempt from the regulations though either which is what my link highlighted. Protest in the traditional sense of a mass gathering are illegal.

https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2021/03/03/news/sinn-fe-in-say-hunger-strike-poster-will-not-be-removed-after-unionist-complaints-2241898/content.html

They really can't help themselves, can they? Finding new ways to antagonise the other side all the time.

I see the Guardian are now reviewing all of Greenslade's articles following a complaint by Mairia Cahill. The slur on her character continually propogated by a few posters around here originated from his writing. When the retraction and apology comes from the Guardian, I suppose posters will line up to similarly apologise?

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2021/03/03/news/sinn-fe-in-say-hunger-strike-poster-will-not-be-removed-after-unionist-complaints-2241898/content.html

They really can't help themselves, can they? Finding new ways to antagonise the other side all the time.

I see the Guardian are now reviewing all of Greenslade's articles following a complaint by Mairia Cahill. The slur on her character continually propogated by a few posters around here originated from his writing. When the retraction and apology comes from the Guardian, I suppose posters will line up to similarly apologise?

What has a British newspaper's squabble with Maria Cahill got to do with SF or poster's here?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has a British newspaper's squabble with Maria Cahill got to do with SF or poster's here?

The journalist in question was a secret Sinn Fein member and threw unjustified slurs at Mairia Cahill which have since been repeated ad nauseum on here by Sinn Fein sympathisers.

Pretty much completely on topic.

blanch152 wrote: »

The journalist in question was a secret Sinn Fein member and threw unjustified slurs at Mairia Cahill which have since been repeated ad nauseum on here by Sinn Fein sympathisers.

Pretty much completely on topic.

What slurs?

Who slurred Maria Cahill here?

What we don't know about this case is STILL 99% of the facts blanch. All we have is a woman's word against a man's.

A man who hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Are you 'slurring' his name here? This works both ways.

a very cool kid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What slurs?

Who slurred Maria Cahill here?

What we don't know about this case is STILL 99% of the facts blanch. All we have is a woman's word against a man's.

A man who hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Are you 'slurring' his name here? This works both ways.

Just to be clear - do you think she's lying?

We all know no one was prosecuted...but no one gets prosecuted for a lot of stuff

a very cool kid wrote: »

Just to be clear - do you think she's lying?

We all know no one was prosecuted...but no one gets prosecuted for a lot of stuff

It doesn't matter what I think, nor does it matter what you think or blanch thinks frankly.

This is a discussion forum, what Maria Cahill claims can be discussed if it is in the public domain. And other than her allegation of abuse/rape, Maria Cahill has made many other unbacked up claims too.

I'm interested to see incidents of her being 'slurred' and what the threshold is, if the man at the centre of these allegations can be 'assumed' to be guilty and that 'isn't' a slur on his name. A 'name' he turned up to court to defend.

You may think he is guilty but to claim it as a fact is to slur him too surely?

RandomViewer

blanch152 wrote: »

The journalist in question was a secret Sinn Fein member and threw unjustified slurs at Mairia Cahill which have since been repeated ad nauseum on here by Sinn Fein sympathisers.

Pretty much completely on topic.

Hardly a secret, he has always written from a pro SF stance and regularly contributed to radio shows from that viewpoint for about 25 years,

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.irishnews.com/paywall/tsb/irishnews/irishnews/irishnews//news/northernirelandnews/2021/03/03/news/sinn-fe-in-say-hunger-strike-poster-will-not-be-removed-after-unionist-complaints-2241898/content.html

They really can't help themselves, can they? Finding new ways to antagonise the other side all the time.

I see the Guardian are now reviewing all of Greenslade's articles following a complaint by Mairia Cahill. The slur on her character continually propogated by a few posters around here originated from his writing. When the retraction and apology comes from the Guardian, I suppose posters will line up to similarly apologise?

Unionists in Tyrone never removed flags in Omagh when requested by the general public. Didnt make the national news so blanch152 wasnt offended

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I think, nor does it matter what you think or blanch thinks frankly.

This is a discussion forum, what Maria Cahill claims can be discussed if it is in the public domain. And other than her allegation of abuse/rape, Maria Cahill has made many other unbacked up claims too.

I'm interested to see incidents of her being 'slurred' and what the threshold is, if the man at the centre of these allegations can be 'assumed' to be guilty and that 'isn't' a slur on his name. A 'name' he turned up to court to defend.

You may think he is guilty but to claim it as a fact is to slur him too surely?

The lengths that people will go to to defend IRA kangaroo courts that were continuing up until the early 2000s is incredible.

blanch152 wrote: »

The lengths that people will go to to defend IRA kangaroo courts that were continuing up until the early 2000s is incredible.

Who 'defended' kangaroo courts?

The only person in this conversation who ever condoned kangaroo courts is Cahill herself during her time as a supporter of the IRA and being anti any contact with the RUC.

I never supported the IRA or kangaroo courts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who 'defended' kangaroo courts?

The only person in this conversation who ever condoned kangaroo courts is Cahill herself during her time as a supporter of the IRA and being anti any contact with the RUC.

I never supported the IRA or kangaroo courts.

So you agree that it was wrong that Mairia Cahill was the subject of a kangaroo court?

blanch152 wrote: »

So you agree that it was wrong that Mairia Cahill was the subject of a kangaroo court?

Has that been proven?

a very cool kid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has that been proven?

If you don't believe her just say so.

This is the usually cowardly Provo tactic - doing everything by proxy.

a very cool kid

maccored wrote: »

Unionists in Tyrone never removed flags in Omagh when requested by the general public. Didnt make the national news so blanch152 wasnt offended

Who gives a **** it's a set of flags,

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has that been proven?

Ok, how do I rephrase.

Do you agree that it would have been wrong if Mairia Cahill was the subject of a kangaroo court?

a very cool kid wrote: »

If you don't believe her just say so.

This is the usually cowardly Provo tactic - doing everything by proxy.

I have exactly the same stance on this as I have about Gerry in the RA or British Army collusion in Dublin/Monaghan/Belturbet bombings = I don't know, and I am consistently careful to call these thing as what they are...allegations.

She has made an allegation but as a democrat I cannot take that as proof of anything as there are other people's rights involved. Somebody who turned up at court to defend himself for instance, along with the other people allegations were made against.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have exactly the same stance on this as I have about Gerry in the RA or British Army collusion in Dublin/Monaghan/Belturbet bombings = I don't know, and I am consistently careful to call these thing as what they are...allegations.

She has made an allegation but as a democrat I cannot take that as proof of anything as there are other people's rights involved. Somebody who turned up at court to defend himself for instance, along with the other people allegations were made against.

Do you accept that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the DPP to think it worthwhile prosecuting and that the trial collapsed on a technicality?

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, how do I rephrase.

Do you agree that it would have been wrong if Mairia Cahill was the subject of a kangaroo court?

I absolutely agree with Adams on this, the IRA should not have been dealing with matters like this.

The context of course being that many many people (including Cahill) did not trust the RUC. But of course in blanch world, the context must be ignored.

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you accept that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the DPP to think it worthwhile prosecuting and that the trial collapsed on a technicality?

I haven't seen any evidence bar an allegation.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I absolutely agree with Adams on this, the IRA should not have been dealing with matters like this.

The context of course being that many many people (including Cahill) did not trust the RUC. But of course in blanch world, the context must be ignored.

Wasn't the RUC on the verge of being abolished when the IRA held Mairia's kangaroo court?

blanch152 wrote: »

Wasn't the RUC on the verge of being abolished when the IRA held Mairia's kangaroo court?

Possibly, but again the context should be front and centre. It was a long time after before nationalists could sign up to policing for NI.