Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

Why would party members be briefed when there was a counter allegation that gave rise to details being passed onto AGS?

Are you suggesting SF members are aware of what this criminal is compliant is? How is the individual in question’s right to “fair procedures” being preserved?

Stop playing dumb, MLMD said explicitly;

The report also went to the head of our disciplinary committee, and I should say the Sinn Féin disciplinary process is supervised by a barrister, by a legal professional. It’s at arm’s length from the party itself.

It is not arms length when said barrister is a member of the party.

Nope-

Why are members of SF aware of what the criminal allegations against one member of the party are (not Brian Stanley)?

Why was Lynn Boylan so confident to go on the radio to attack Brian Stanley?

On the preview with Ray D'Arcy

That MLMD knows is unquestioned. That is not necessarily an issue (although her statements on timing and the fact that Stanley says the matters he considers criminal was reported in September open up questions on procedures).

To me the big question is why when it is not appropriate for MLMD to speak on the issues that it was for Lynn Boylan to make a fairly damming critique of Brian Stanley. How is it fair to both Stanley or the other individual complained about (although their name is not in public).

I’d agree with your statement on Boylan being able to say it was not a matter for her. I’m sure @FrancieBrady will be quick to say that if she had answered that way that we’d all be criticising her, but that isn’t the point. She made some very pointed comments about Brian Stanley.

Just to be clear on what you are saying.

Brian Stanley resigned on Saturday night. In his statement he said he felt he was poorly treated and there were other allegations made by him that he did not think were taken seriously.

You are saying that it is right and proper that SF members were briefed of all of those allegations once he left.

I'm saying I cannot see how it would work once he sensationally resigned.

So Lynn Boylan when she went on the radio was aware of the matter that required a criminal complaint from Stanley’s allegations?

Given that you yourself have said the procedure was open until this morning and that the Garda investigation was required as he called it short himself, how was it appropriate for Lynn Boylan to be criticising Brian Stanley on the radio?

How does this reconcile to your professed support of supporting those who speak out?

Which bit of the 'process ended with Stanley's resignation' are you still not getting?

You tried to impugn O'Broin but the fact he was tweeting Stanley on Friday suggests he was not in the picture at that stage.

Once he resigned I cannot see how you could operate a party without telling members what happened.

Can Franciebrady and Blanch152 please just set up their own chat about SF/DUP/ United Ireland etc. Every single topic about these issues is taken over and hijacked by these two and their tit for tat sniping at one another. It's childish and quite frankly boring the arse off everyone!!

It is not arms length from the party when all persons are members of said party.

You incorrectly said it was “from leadership”, why was that?

I don't need to square anything.
The process ended with the resignation, party members who wanted to know were briefed. Perfectly normal to me. Can't see how you could run a political party any other way tbh.

*MLMD said she was aware of a complaint but not the specifics btw.

According to Boylan yesterday pre announcement of Garda involvement;

Speaking on Newstalk, Ms Boylan said: "Brian could end all of this today, and actually could tell people what he was being investigated for, if he felt so hard done by in terms of that process."

How could Brian Stanley have “ended it all today” if he just said what he was investigated for? There was a counter allegation which Stanley has said he wanted reported to AGS in September but was not.

Lynn Boylan was exacting with what she said and who she seemed to think bore responsibility. Was she saying she did not believe the other allegation?

The whiff of cordite from Connolly House is all over this, one would surmise.

SF have said they cannot adjudicate on whether it was criminal or not. That's for the Gardai to decide.

If it is I presume another process will begin.

Nobody should be discussing it if your logic is correct.

With a barrister and solicitor representing him? A court that seemed to be fine for him up to the issuing of the preliminary report?

If it was a kangaroo court why didn't his legal reps get him out of there and go to the courts? Or did it only become a 'kangaroo court' when the report issued?