You are a FG voter are you not? Is that not 'factual' as well?
Give it a rest dude.
Whatever dude.
If you aren't going to tell us what is factual and what is not, what can anyone do?
I don't see why you think it is acceptable not to back up what you say when asked.
Because the people I despise and criticize don’t keep records of their activities, pal.
How many times have I stated that.
Their total MO is secrecy and denial and hard necks.
Does it take whats obvious which I have stated several times to get folk to understand that.
Of course that’s if you want to understand the issue, which obviously you don’t.
This is a ridiculous pivot.
There is no evidence of large scale intimidation Brendi...none.
No amount of insinuating that it is happening in some sort of twilight zone makes it a fact.
You were asked to provide data and you provided a list of people who have gone to jail.
Then you mock and deride people who provide factual detail with what amounts to nod and wink insinuation.
Not one bit ridiculous Francie, time those who run with that lot faced up to the facts.
I keep telling you these people don’t operate like normal folk.
The silence of Omertà is their God , you should know and acknowledge that.
To try to equate normal politics to them and their fellow travelers is ludicrous.
you have been exposed here time and time again but because someone can’t produce ‘back up’ to say Gerry Adams was a member of the Ira , then he wasn’t.
Give it a rest dude. Fess up for once in your life.
Heheh… you heard me.
Oh right...'the silence of Omerta', but Brendi knows all about it, nudge nudge wink wink, say no more a chara dude.
😁😁
If you prefer we can say they ended up facilitating British rule in NI.
Maybe they were playing the long game. Didn't they end up working for the British despite their history.
Resorting to trying to taunt is not a good look jh79
Once again, have at it.
It's true though all the same. Former IRA men now work for the British.
Maybe it was a natural evolution or maybe they were guided by the British via the likes of Donaldson. Who knows.
Sad and a bit pathetic way to deflect from not being able to back up your statements.
Maybe study the run up to the GFA and then sit down and read it?
What statement is that?
The one you packed in when you had to use a case in the northern courts as proof of intimidation of jurors here.
But cases where there is a risk of intimidation go to the SCC meaning there won't be any examples.
The Bell case is just an example where an opportunity for intimidation was available and did occur.
Which could happen in any court system.
I was a bit premature with that post. 93 convictions for it over the last 10 years.
Exactly...it happens in ANY system.
So what? Why make it easier for them? I think it should stay untill someone comes up with a better alternative.
If the "Good Republicans" all went legit in the morning I'd still want it for the likes of the Dundons etc.
Have you come up for an alternative for all the other cases? Or do they not matter?
Which cases? Not following you.
Don't you read your own links?
Figures released by the Department of Justice show that in the past 10 years there have been 343 legal proceedings brought against people suspected of threatening, intimidating or interfering with members of a jury with 92 cases resulting in a conviction.
Without knowing the details, possibly the SCC should be used more.
I read the article just not following your logic.
The logic is, clearly intimidation isn't the problem. They want to retain the powers that bring the SCC in to issues with human rights organisation.
If jurors being intimidated was what they were really concerned with your idea would have been implemented long ago.
So your saying it's political because it doesn't apply to all cases?
the british army used be sent here to oversee exporting of food during the famine....a primary school knowledge of irish history would expose the obvious flaw in your taught logic
I'm saying pretending it is there because of 'intimidation' is a mis-direction.
So why is it there in your opinion?
No idea why people who pontificate about rights at the drop of a hat can stand over it tbh. But then the same power swap allows Shannon to be used and pretends we are neutral. Hypocrites running the country maybe?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)