Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

I'm not in any way trying to defend that by the way. Does politics attract more "characters" than would be typical in other walks of life or is it just the extra scrutiny they are under which unearths stuff like this? 🤔

I've just looked him up and wasn't aware he was nominated to the Seanad. He shouldn't have been.

On a sidenote, the government need to be calling an election straight away, they have an open goal to be re-elected with this mess that SF find themselves in.

That would be unwise. They are just waiting for this to play out. There's another few days of media frenzy over this.

If an election was called the media would drop this.

Up at the crease early today Mr B.

It's SF, The media wouldn't drop this for love nor money. It's fairly obvious a lot of the print media despise SF. This scandal couldn't have come at a worse time.

So let's say SF put their hands up and say 'we need to change how we do these things and be like everyone else'.
How do they do disciplinary hearings. Let's take for example the the party of our current Taoiseach.

I look up McGahon's disciplinary hearing…oh wait, there wasn't one.

I looked up Leo Varadkar's disiplinary hearing for committing serious wrongdoing….can't find one.

I look up Maria Bailey's one (One was held) and find:

We don’t have the full facts on her disciplinary hearing.

We don’t know who conducted it. Or who was there

We don’t know what was said.

We don’t know what the process was

And the final report was never made public.

Can anyone help here?
What do other parties do?
Surely this is a comparison to 'the right way to do it'?

So what is the right way, can you or anyone else point me to another political parties transparent process?

I am perplexed by the following. In the normal course of discussion between two people - and ESPECIALLY between two very SENIOR TDs’ of the same party - if one of them made a very brief comment of a serious nature I would expect that person to proffer sufficient information so that the person he/she is talking to has a basic understanding as to what the issue is. Why would he/she just say that there is a complaint made against me AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. So , I assume that when BS informed MLMD of the complaint on July 27 last that he told her all he knew about it.

Likewise, if MLMD was not clear or felt that she needed to know more/ seek some clarification re the July 27 th meeting that she would have BS there and then. And IMO - because of the seniority of the two - following on from the meeting that one or both would have further discussions later ‘after having carried out ‘discrete enquiries’ as to what is going on.

One would expect the above to be the case in normal circumstances. All of the above - according to MLMD- , apparently did not happen as MLMD was saying up to yesterday that she still does not know what the complaint is about
There is a term that is used - especially in the war / political spheres called Communication through back channels. It normally happens completely off radar. I am sure that SF is aware of the concept !!!!!!!

through ‘back channels’ via MLMD. These channels are normally carried out completely off the radar so it’s very safe to ‘talk away’ - and as long as there is nothing in writing or audio / video recorded.

As David Ervine said many years ago "They don't like it when the serve is returned".

If the shoe was on the other foot Louise would be roaring into any available microphone calling for resignations, votes of no confidence, recall of the Dail etc etc.

I’m talking in general terms really. If I’m called up in front of a disciplinary panel in the morning would I be advised who the panel members are in advance of that meeting?
We already know that BS was allowed bring representation with him so did he bring a barrister as that is what he would be facing?
I’m aware that bringing someone with you (if you want) is normal procedure for any working environment. What is new to me is having barristers there. Maureen from the legal department or your solicitor I get but the ones that wear the wigs ????

@FrancieBrady and @Augme will have some more waffle about that which contradicts an earlier statement.

I'm not sure I can spend too much more time trying to simplify things for you tbh.