Yes Brendi, actual history would tell you that is not what Ford said at all, a journalist cleaned up what Ford ACUALLY said.
History can be altered/slanted/or damn right lied about and is usually written by the victors or those in power. It's never clear and clean when you dig down into it.
Lot of anger here……
who was the lad who said ‘History is bunk’ Harry Ford was it?
Lad had a point…..only used for deflection and freeloading in the real world.
we need to get back onto the real subject-the present.
Cathal Goulding called the MacStiofan's splitters the 'Provisional Alliance' and the press abbreviated it to identify the two factions. The IRA also split the year before and were referred to as the Provisionals or Provo's to distinguish them from the Official IRA.
Handy nicknames/monikers that I don't think either refer to themselves as. (maybe they do now because of familiarity and length of use.
Know your history mike.
"A split in January 1970, mirroring a split in the IRA, led to the emergence of two groups calling themselves Sinn Féin. One, under the continued leadership of Tomás Mac Giolla, became known as "Sinn Féin (Gardiner Place)", or "Official Sinn Féin"; the other, led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, became known as "Sinn Féin (Kevin Street)", or "Provisional Sinn Féin". As the "Officials" dropped all mention of Sinn Féin from their name in 1982–instead calling themselves the Workers' Party of Ireland–the term "Provisional Sinn Féin" has fallen out of use, and the party is now known simply as "Sinn Féin".
So, still Provisional Sinn Fein?
Both
We have seen the history of the UK being rewritten as their colonies grow in confidence and independence. The colonised are now telling their histories and that is undermining what Britons have thought of themselves.
Similarly here, the history of the state has a power swap slant. The 'true' agreed history will not be written until we are united and all equal.
I don't expect it to be the history we are told today.
P.S. That does NOT mean that the Shinners will emerge as heroes of the piece, before posters saddle up the high horses of indignation. 😁
as i ve said multiple times already yes of course you keep ignoring that , every one with information ,including sf members dont you agree ?
so whats with the goys thing its weird ?
So we take this as you will join calls for garda special branch files to be opened to glean from them any possible relevent data
Should the officers,whom overseen macstoifin as an imformer face sanction for letting killings go on,on their watch though?? (If still alive?)
should whomever was minister of justice at time be called to answer qs at any future inquiry,if still alive?
aw but you haven't because its not true blazz , thinking your right doesn't make it so , its like shouting peaceful protest as you throw rocks at the police , do you understand ?
your lying again about what i said about those murdered by the ira
read back and see any investigation would be welcomed and those who have relevant information should be compelled including members of sf , i was very clear about that but you ignored it for your own reasons
Except i do.....this is a wee bit like when yous accused me of lying earlier to cover fact you were getting yous arse handed to you,with facts and logic and starting screaming abuse,when pulled up on it
What do you feel is incorrect?
aw so you dont understand the situation in even the most simple way thats very very clear
what with calling every one who makes you look silly goy btw ? is that and effort at trying to make yourself feel superior or what ?
Except i have exposed yous lies and fantasy repeatdely with facts and logic.....while yous position is exposed as shallow and conceited....
same as yous concern for disappeared,went v.silent on concerns when it pointed out garda special branch files is a worthy source to invesrigate for locating remains......i believe the phrase for such shallow conceitedness is 'woke'
I believe the leadership,didnt get votes required to carry a motion on abstenion and tried pull a quick one......resulting in majority membership,reasserting and reconstiruong
Quite how you goys think a majority.membership,operating outta same premises with 100 years and under same name is somehow different is utterly bizzare
you've repeatability proven that you dont blazz
😂😂😂 no answer when your lies falls apart
remember what i said about a pattern emerging ?
Yous going about screaming delusional at anyone whom dare qs yous,or point out the obvious holes in yous talking point
Except they are the same party....but who needs facts and logic i guess
Do you goys not feel silly,when yous cant explain how they operate outta same premises and same name as 1920s and then trying to claim em different......wee bit like when yous tried to gaslight country into thinking black&tans (and auxies)werent in the ric,despite being sworn in as constables🤔
what do you think happened in january 1070 and why ?
And it smacks of desperation to be the good terrorists to try and dispute it.
The best that can be said is whole era is clouded in jockeying to be the 'legitimate party'.
We have after all been listening to this since the state was founded. How funny that those who fought so hard to be distinct are now coalescing to keep out the one they tried to get rid of.
Sticking to a single particular "core principle" when you split from the main party does not give you the right to claim unbroken succession. It is quite sad to see claims that SF go back to 1905. It smacks of desperation for legitimacy, as if the current stature isn't enough.
I studied this period for a history module way back.
I remember being struck at the time that it was a fairly sleeveen attempt to finish off SF for once and for all.
The FG Hayes practically says it in that Dàil debate. It was also evident in other reading. Civil War politics in full flow with history re-writing, track covering all going on.
P.S. i will add too, that like now Separation of Powers was far from distinct. This state has never quite managed that convincingly.
which insults blazz ?
calling you people on the lies making you uncomfortable , as it should
Except it is the same party?
How is it in same premises and same name
Do you not feel.an inability to tackle.this rather glaring hole in your position...makes it seem.illogical??
whos complaining ,? i m pointing out that posters here claiming that the sf that exists today is the same one that existed in 1905,
that is not true , its as been proven as not true , there fore to state is a a fact is actually a lie ,
if that makes you uncomfortable it should
That's a technical issue over funds mired in controversy itself. There was no finding with regard to the continuity of the party or it's members.
Here is Eamon DeValera speaking in the Dáil in 1947 and he very clearly outlines what happened with the party and that despite the splits there was always continuity from the original even if the party went into the doldrums after 1926
Perhaps, I should say that not merely was the great national organisation of 1917-21 divided into roughly equal parts in 1922 but, in 1926, as a result of a proposal as to the future programme of the organisation which I put forward, there was a division again. Again, the division was very close—about fifty-fifty also. We left the organisation and formed Fianna Fáil. The other organisation dwindled until the position was reached that the body claiming the moneys to-day would represent only a tiny fraction of our people—very tiny compared with the great organisation to which the moneys were subscribed.
Sinn Féin Funds Bill, 1947—Second Stage. – Seanad Éireann (5th Seanad) – Tuesday, 13 May 1947 – Houses of the Oireachtas
Its himself brought it in.....to drool on about a garda commeration of 2 gaurds killed by the ira.....bow claims it wasnt the ira
Is now upset that his position is simply illogical and people are daring to qs it....hence the repeated hurling of insults
edit
I don't know where you gleaned that from.
You complain about how the discussion is going on the genesis of Sinn Fein when it is yourself and a few others constantly using the past to avoid the present.
Except this evidence,deosnt say what yous think it deos?
The fact there was no funds remaining after expenses made.appealing it pointless?
Like factually and logically,yous are flailing about,but landing no punches,as much as yous.might try......tell us again how a majority of members staying,operating out of same premises,under same name....is now magically a different organisation....yous position deosnt make sense to.me anyway,and simply seems illogical
An attempt in the 1940s to access funds that had been put in the care of the High Court led to the Sinn Féin Funds case, which the party lost and in which the judge ruled that it was not the legal successor to the Sinn Féin of 1917
Sinn Féin - Wikipedia
reposted just for you francie
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
