SF making right ol' fools of themselves here.
Imagine aligning themselves with the DUP and upper-class toffs...
I guess those rounds of golf with millionaires is rubbing off them.
They said they weren't affordable.
A revised scheme put forward by Glenveagh will now see all 853 properties used for State-supported homes – a tenure mix of 40pc social housing, 40pc cost rental and 20pc affordable purchase.
No they are not all.
It wasn't just SF who objected and reasons were given. Thats the correction needed making. I made it.
I was wondering did anyone know how Mary Lou and her team get to NY? Did she fly business class and stay in a 5 star hotel?
More curious than anything else, considering their salary is capped and invested into the SF coffers.
You still haven't linked to the report or statement setting out the reasons for Sinn Fein's objections. You have stated those reasons clearly but without any back-up.
That would have been expensed to the golf do.
The thread title on the wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein is never more apt than when dealing with the Covid-19 issues. Poor ould councillor down there in Gorey has to be disowned by Party Central over his remarks on mask wearing.
His full support for the anti-maskers is just another example of Sinn Fein playing to the audience.
I showed it wasn't just SF and they all had reason. Job done.
I've posted two quotes regarding why they voted against it. SF had issue with the costs being high because we were feeding the profits of a private developer. Its in the indo article.
Tiresome schoolboy antics to try get a win on display here.
(1) You have never provided a link to Sinn Fein saying that it was because there wasn't enough social and affordable, which was your original claim that you never backed up, as Ha Long Bay has pointed out in his post.
(2) If I was indulging in tiresome schoolboy antics as you claim, I would probably have posted a pic or a gif.
You're looking desperate now.
The claim was SF blocked it because they seem to want to own housing.
The facts are a number of parties and indies had issue with the allocation of social and affordable and SF specified the use of a private developer being an issue.
So it wasn't just SF and they had reason as did the others. Now its all in the articles available. Toddle along now.
You are now saying that Sinn Fein specified the use of a private developer being an issue, but you originally claimed it was because Sinn Fein thought there wasn't enough social and affordable. So you are admitting you were wrong.
That new reason however only makes it worse for Sinn Fein. Everyone and their mother knows that local authorities don't have the inhouse capability to develop something like that so a private developer is needed or it won't get built. The objection by Sinn Fein to a private developer therefore makes the original claim that Sinn Fein are blocking housing even more valid.
As for other parties, this is the Sinn Fein thread. I am happy to discuss RBB and the rest on their own thread.
Did this lad have previous issues on something else.
He looks familiar.
Probably, but they have so many nutters, it is hard to keep track.
Although I won't lose any sleep either way, I showed it wasn't just SF but also others who had issue with the allocation of affordable/social and it being costed to include the profits of a private concern.
Just what has you upset here? If you disagree with them that's cool. The whole claim was it was just SF. Showing it wasn't isn't trying to turn the thread over to another party, it's showing the claim was false.
So SF giving him a hard time for being anti mask is SF playing both sides? Maybe they should have closed his branch down 🤠
Except that the original claim is not false.
Here is the original claim: ‘ SF just voted against a housing development in the Oscar Traynor Road (Dublin) was only passed because of FF FG Labour Greens. ‘
You said that they had posted that: ‘ The whole claim was it was just SF. ‘
If you read the claim, it is : SF just voted, not Just SF voted.
So, either SF did vote against it, or they did not. And you have posted that SF did vote against it.
*sigh*...
Here is the bit I said was the poster suggesting it was only SF and for no good reason.
SF’s tactic seems to be housing is ‘our thing’ how dare anyone else build houses. Those are our votes? That is the impression I get.
Here's the whole bit:
Japers lads. Stuck for a bit of scandal? MON used her ministerial car that time, go nuts :)
Now where did I say that SF were playing both sides?????
Nobody said others didn't vote against it. All they said was that Sinn Fein voted against it, which was a true statement.
They also stated that Sinn Fein voted against it because SF’s tactic seems to be housing is ‘our thing’ how dare anyone else build houses. This also appears to be a true statement, because I have repeatedly asked you and other posters to produce any evidence that Sinn Fein in recent years have voted in favour of any housing development.
You are arguing with a strawman of your own making, and not only that, because it relates to other parties, it is an off-topic strawman.
I don't know if you even realise, but you make zero sense here blanch152.
Surely even you must see the contradictions contained in your sentence here?
And this sentence here.
Poor ould councillor down there in Gorey has to be disowned by Party Central over his remarks on mask wearing.
So this individual being "anti mask" is an example of Sinn Fein playing to the audience, Sinn Fein, whom you post also "disowned him"?
That makes zero sense and the two things are incompatible with one another?
Nope. I said he suggested it was just SF and they'd no reasoning. I showed it was others too. Its all there. Time to move on my friend.
But why did you lie saying the reason SF voted against the development was because there was not enough social and affordable housing in the proposal?
Lie? Really? Grow up mo chara.
They all voted it down based on the numbers. Then some voted for after the numbers changed. Read the article.
My only point was it wasn't just SF and they did have reasons.
You lads are looking desperate.
Was hoping for another meme. The fact you can't just say you were wrong means it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.
You also never answered my other questions do you think 250k to 306k for a 3 bed A rated house is affordable and also would you prefer if the scheme was 100% social.
Couldn't give a fiddlers what 3 or 4 SF obsessives think tbh.
I was right. It wasn't just SF and they had reasons.
Depends on the income doesn't it?
I'd prefer if it was real affordable and social, built instead of bought. I'm 100% against buying or leasing to use as social.
SF thread though. Whats their take?
What was the SF reasons to object to the proposal?
It's still not clear what the issue is apart from homes being built for people who need them.
He never said it was "just SF", that is a lie. You completely made up what he said, then you made up a false statement about SF reasons.
You are correct that it is time to move on, as your posts were a poor attempt at deflection and distraction based on misinformation.
Not at all, it shows the duplicitous nature of Sinn Fein. For as long as he avoided national attention, that councillor would have been allowed play to anti-masker audience. That makes it worthy of comment.
Ok, let's focus on this.
For as long as he avoided national attention, that councillor would have been allowed play to anti-masker audience
Where is your evidence that this is a factual comment?
It's nonsense and an irrational comment that you know quite rightly you will not, because you cannot back up.
People on here would quite rightly be annoyed if someone was claiming equally nonsensical statements about other party's I'm sure.
Lets imagine we propose that FG would have been quite happy with Maria Bailey and her claim? We know fine well that they (FG) are ok with insurance claims within their ranks (this can be backed up) by looking at Alan Farrell.
As per - your letting rationality cloud your vision blanch152.
Nonsense and a fallacious comparison.
I have to laugh at this, a "fallacious" comparison.....
Did you mean to type out "uncomfortable truth"?
So you just made a blind assumption and generalisation, with absolutely zero to back it up. The poster cdarby comes along, and points out the flaws in using sweeping generalisations (I mean seriously, how can you claim both, your man is both playing to an audience, and Sinn Fein have disowned him lol)?
When pointed out, that it's not exactly wise to start the sweeping generalisations, with hard evidence (about MB and AF) you claim it's "fallacious".
Did you ever stop and think that you do an awful lot of blind defending for FG ("as a green") Blanch?
