Morning Brendan, nice to see I have your attention. I never mentioned "crime" that's something you introduced to try and recover a shred of integrity for yourself.
Let's put it this way, if I admit to farting in a crowded room, then I'm guilty of farting in a crowded room. No one advocating my right to the presumption of innocence can take away from the fact I've already admitted to dishing out the fart.
You'd be as wise to back off from this one buddy, you've lost your line of defence ages ago.
I don’t think so, my friend, you are digging a hole for yourself that could be difficult to extract yourself from.
Nobody said you mentioned “crime”. You might note how I wrote the word ‘crime’.
My “like of defense” as you quaintly call it is as valid now as it was from my first post.
Sure it is buddy, sure it is. Thanks for clarifying that, because the cynics amongst us might have looked at this through a different lens.
Thanks for clearing it up though. You're a great supporter of the presumption of innocence, regardless of who is at the centre of it.
No suprise here, Sf only do good republican funerals. Especially ones they can run by the media.
"The Accession Proclamation ceremonies are intended for those whose political allegiance is to the British Crown.
"Sinn Fein will not be in attendance at these events."
TBF it's a fairly reasonable position,I wonder will rest of our parties,who swear alligence to the dail follow suit?
How shocking this is. An Irish republican party won't be attending the head of the British Royal family's funeral. I would guess this decision will cost them hundreds of thousands of votes among the electorate.
And there you have it, common decency trumped by political ideals.
Maybe you operate in circles which this kind of behaviour is ‘baked in’ but believe it or not there are decent folk out there
who don’t look at everything from a party political prism.
The kind of people for whom bitterness and bile can be overcome by common decency.
Relax Nigel Sir John Bruton will represent us royally
One can show empathy and decency in more ways than making sure you're seen to be attending a funeral, which lets face it, for many all that counts will be that their face can be seen attending the funeral. I read a fairly appropriate statement in reference to the passing of the queen of England, there's not much need for any more than that in my opinion.
Mind you, if others want to bend the knee and attend, that's ok with me too, as I said there's more than one way to pay respects to a deceased person.
With than in mind you can take yourself off with your self indignation, and faux high moralising. Doesn't impress, nor does it fool me.
In fairness Ms O’Neill did express what seemed to be an honest expression of sympathy.
Yes, and appropriate.
Also, my bad for not actually reading Nigel's link, but rather make comment on his post and make an assumption based on the "funeral" comment.
There's hardly a surprise that Sinn Fein of all Irish political party's will not be taking part in any Accession Proclamation ceremonies for King Charles III.
Maybe FF (the other republican party) will attend. Should help their polling numbers no end I would guess.
Michelle O'Neill should attend the Queen's funeral. She now represents all the people of NI as the incoming first minister. Unless she plans to only speak for those of a nationalist hue.
Now that ya look at it,
it deos look like the DUP missed an open goal for embarrassing shinners by not ratifying her🤣🤣
SDLP did not attend the declaration either.
Tbf while I wouldn't attend and gladly stick knife into blind shinners over it,
the woman if she was sworn in as first minister,would probably have to attend to represent the unionist population in the north.... (Though iirc there some rules around communion and Catholic/protestants)
Same as how you have SF belfast lord mayor's,laying poppy wreath's....or a unionist /loyalist leaders attending home coming for all Ireland winners
Thanks for your concern Brenda.
So Michelle doesn't represent all the people of Northern Ireland, just those she chooses to represent.
Here's the detail of what I am saying in that post. Respond to that, not what you imagine I am trying to say or what you are misinterpreting.
This is just sad mate,editing out the bit where yous posted likely libelous material and then accusing others of misinterpretation
Yes, but you think nothing strange about a TD approving a personal loan for himself from taxpayers money.
As I said,if your right,he should resign to reseek mandate,
if your wrong,you better have a good legal defense lined up,if he decides to persue you/boards for it
This is what you said - you think nothing strange about a TD approving a personal loan for himself from taxpayers money - there is no imagining or misinterpreting that
I have clarified the detail of the allegations against him.
It is a very serious matter to conceal loans to trustees from the accounts. It certainly gives the impression that other directors were not aware of the loan, or else they all conspired to conceal it. Did Kenny merely absent himself from the meeting, or did he explicitly mention his conflict of interest?
What Kenny has said is that "I made sure not to be part of any decision around the company's application". He does not say that he declared a conflict of interest to the other directors. That is a crucial unanswered question. For his sake, he should clarify.
you think nothing strange about a TD approving a personal loan for himself from taxpayers money - you think this is clarifying the allegations against him, you appear to be the only one levelling this allegation against him
You haven't clarified a thing though....you've attempted to pivot from some pretty serious allegations,
Just sad mate,not even willing to stand over your own words....it's insane,you've left your obsession with a political party cloud your judgement to extent,you have potentially put your assets at risk
Laughable stuff, the ambiguity in Kenny's own statement to the newspaper only adds to the questions.
If he wants to sue me, bring it on. I don't own much, but the discovery I will seek as part of any defence would be interesting and I would certainly publish that.
Ya mate....your so happy and confident with your posting,that you deleted passages to accuse people warning you of the trouble your making of misinterpretation of the posts
There may be ambiguity in his statement,but there's certainly none in your allegations
At this stage not even Perry Mason and Matlock can help @blanch152
I certainly wouldn’t want to see anybody in trouble, that post smacks of bravado, what would happen if there was nothing to see from your discovery, would it all be worthwhile then. If I was in your position I would withdraw gracefully, and admit you erred here (you lose nothing by admitting you got it wrong, it’s obvious to everyone anyway), but that’s just me. I’ll opt out now
Let him sue me, that will end up worse for him.
Edit: And by the way, it can easily be clarified by the charity and Kenny.
Wow, can you afford good lawyers? You should just bow out gracefully.
The panic in here to try and shut the story down is something to behold. Makes me think there is more to come out. The word must have gone out to suppress it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
