The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 12:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still to answer what was done here that breached the rules surrounding appointments. What wasn't 'transparent'?

Francie, it doesn't matter whether or not rules were broken. If the appointment of a crony ex-politician to a post without a transparent process is within the rules in Northern Ireland, then the rules are wrong.

Down here we have a transparent process for State board appointments. SF stand over low standards for themselves while criticising others for higher standards. That is the issue.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 12:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean the way you gloss over ffg appointing ex-lobbists for nagp to the ethics watchdog to investigate ffg members leaking confidential documents to nagp......

kind of exposes your whole virtue signalling about this issue as shallow and conceited,

(1) That is for the FG thread, not the SF thread.
(2) You linked to a report of a Dail vote on an appointment which suggests there was some transparency over it and that it wasn't in the gift of a single party but a democratically approved appointment
(3) If you want to reject the democratic legitimacy of the Dail, go right ahead.

03-02-2021 12:25pm

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) That is for the FG thread, not the SF thread.
(2) You linked to a report of a Dail vote on an appointment which suggests there was some transparency over it and that it wasn't in the gift of a single party but a democratically approved appointment
(3) If you want to reject the democratic legitimacy of the Dail, go right ahead.

Yay for shutting down discussion,if it stumbles upon yous hypocrisy....this line of debate is entirely relevent as a direct comparison within the topic yous have raised

Looks to me,you happy to cheerlead open corruption once ffg approve it in the dail??

Do you honestly think,what they done was appropriate?

Critise stormont all yous want,time to wind it down anyway,and build towards a unity referendum...it deosnt work (looks to me,the dail is more corrupt than stormont with that appointment,jokeshop of a parliment)

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 12:39pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Francie, it doesn't matter whether or not rules were broken. If the appointment of a crony ex-politician to a post without a transparent process is within the rules in Northern Ireland, then the rules are wrong.

Down here we have a transparent process for State board appointments. SF stand over low standards for themselves while criticising others for higher standards. That is the issue.

Jesus:

What wasn't 'transparent' about the process?

What rules were broken?

What was crony about appointing Liadh? She has the relevant expertise for the job as outlined in the article you posted.

And you are telling porkies about the SDLP 'yet to make an appointment' They made one the same flipping day! You can be read like a book on these issues. The SDLP appointed Dominic Bradley, an ex MLA to the board.

Foras na Gaeilge is covered by the legislation here. http://membership.stateboards.ie/board/Foras%20na%20Gaeilge/

Sweet.Science · 03-02-2021 12:55pm

you guys really need to get laid

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 2:15pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus:

What wasn't 'transparent' about the process?

What rules were broken?

What was crony about appointing Liadh? She has the relevant expertise for the job as outlined in the article you posted.

And you are telling porkies about the SDLP 'yet to make an appointment' They made one the same flipping day! You can be read like a book on these issues. The SDLP appointed Dominic Bradley, an ex MLA to the board.

Foras na Gaeilge is covered by the legislation here. http://membership.stateboards.ie/board/Foras%20na%20Gaeilge/

Look great, the SDLP are as bad as Sinn Fein, that is what you are saying, I am fine with that.

However, what remains is that the standards that Sinn Fein oversees in the North are far below the existing standards that are in place in the South that they deem unacceptable.

Deeply hypocritical of them.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 2:20pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Look great, the SDLP are as bad as Sinn Fein, that is what you are saying, I am fine with that.

However, what remains is that the standards that Sinn Fein oversees in the North are far below the existing standards that are in place in the South that they deem unacceptable.

Deeply hypocritical of them.

The 'board' is under the aegis of the legislation you were praising a few posts ago.

HOW has it been usurped, ignored?

Can you be clear and back up what you are alleging here. And who you blame for not taking action if there has been any corruption or cronyism here.

McMurphy · 03-02-2021 2:57pm

I can't believe he's actually doubling down on this :eek:

James Brown · 03-02-2021 3:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

DUP and SDLP might be as bad as SF, let us see when their nominations are made.

However, and this is the point I have made, which is unrefuted, is that the appointments fall well below the standards applicable in this State and below the standards which SF claim for themselves. Hypocrisy of the finest.

#notanormalparty

Nah, you posted wrongly there Blanch, very wrongly.
The parties are putting people forward based on the set criteria. That's not crony. You were wrong to wrongly accuse SF as you did.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 3:22pm

James Brown wrote: »

Nah, you posted wrongly there Blanch, very wrongly.
The parties are putting people forward based on the set criteria. That's not crony. You were wrong to wrongly accuse SF as you did.

Also wrong on the SDLP, they appointed somebody the very same day.

Also wrong that this was outside of the aegis of the legislation he was gloating about.

Desperation leading people astray.

a very cool kid · 03-02-2021 3:28pm

James Brown wrote: »

Nah, you posted wrongly there Blanch, very wrongly.
The parties are putting people forward based on the set criteria. That's not crony. You were wrong to wrongly accuse SF as you did.

So there's no one else they can put forward except a Sinn Féin politican?

James Brown · 03-02-2021 3:34pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

So there's no one else they can put forward except a Sinn Féin politican?

Maybe Steve Aiken? I can see MM putting Gino from PBP on a board.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 4:18pm

a very cool kid wrote: »

So there's no one else they can put forward except a Sinn Féin politican?

She is working in the field and is an activist for the language.
We STILL have not been told why she is not suitable and where the lack of transparency is nor what rules were broken.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:37pm

James Brown wrote: »

Nah, you posted wrongly there Blanch, very wrongly.
The parties are putting people forward based on the set criteria. That's not crony. You were wrong to wrongly accuse SF as you did.

That is laughable.

If the appointment of Liadh is not a crony appointment, it means the Woulfe appointment followed best practice, after all he was nominated by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

Some neck to defend this.

03-02-2021 5:37pm

blanch152 wrote: »

That is laughable.

If the appointment of Liadh is not a crony appointment, it means the Woulfe appointment followed best practice, after all he was nominated by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

Some neck to defend this.

Why didnt wolfe resign over golfgate and why havnt government sacked him yet??

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why didnt wolfe resign over golfgate and why havnt government sacked him??

Answered that many times on the Woulfe thread.

Brendan Bendar · 03-02-2021 5:40pm

Sweet.Science wrote: »

you guys really need to get laid

We’re goin’ to Pancakes House......

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

it screamed corruption to me....we have a judge who openly laughs at covid restrictions and nothing been done about it

Ffg are quick to critise public for socialisng at xmas....but if its a judge its ok and covered up...same as that gowling with martin going to washington for paddys day...one rule for establishment,one rule for rest of us

We are discussing cronyism in appointments here. Woulfe's behaviour at a golf event isn't even remotely linked. Bizarre to introduce it.

If you want to compare board appointment processes, which is the issue, please go ahead.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Wasnt wolfes appointment essentially just cronyism though??

Woulfe at least went through an independent process through the Judicial Appointments Board.

In the ranks of crony appointments, that still leaves Liadh out up front on her own as the cronyist.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 5:53pm

blanch152 wrote: »

That is laughable.

If the appointment of Liadh is not a crony appointment, it means the Woulfe appointment followed best practice, after all he was nominated by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

Some neck to defend this.

They are in no way comparable.
This was a political appointment where all parties chose the appointee.
Woulfe was a Leo/FG crony who was gifted the appointment. Wasn't it only Woulfe's name put forward for consideration?
Surely you can comprehend the difference between people applying and names put forward for consideration, to political parties allowed appoint who they like?

Nothing to defend. You are making a fool of yourself.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there not a whole heap of messing,where ffg essentially made a joke of the process and then decided it wad too much hassle to bother removing him??

Indeed,but surely the ex lobbyist for nagp,whom ffg appointed to ethics watchdog to investigate ffg leaks to nagp was multiples worse??

Again the process for her involved a vote in the Dail according to the link you provided. Cronyism requires that there is no democratic accountability or transparent process.

State boards appointments in Ireland now go through an independent process, anyone can apply. That isn't the case in the North.

Here is one for the Marine Institute, closing Friday.

http://www.stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/128420.htm

If a former politician gets one, it is because they have applied through a transparent process and are qualified. The likes of Liadh with her anti-vaxxer credentials wouldn't be qualified.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 5:58pm

James Brown wrote: »

They are in no way comparable.
This was a political appointment where all parties chose the appointee.
Woulfe was a Leo/FG crony who was gifted the appointment. Wasn't it only Woulfe's name put forward for consideration?
Surely you can comprehend the difference between people applying and names put forward for consideration, to political parties allowed appoint who they like?

Nothing to defend. You are making a fool of yourself.

Say what? Liadh's appointment was solely in the gift of Sinn Fein. No transparency, no merit, pure cronyism.

It is completely wrong for any appointment to a board to be solely in the gift of a political party appointing who they like. Amazed that you stand over it.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 6:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Again the process for her involved a vote in the Dail according to the link you provided. Cronyism requires that there is no democratic accountability or transparent process.

State boards appointments in Ireland now go through an independent process, anyone can apply. That isn't the case in the North.

Here is one for the Marine Institute, closing Friday.

http://www.stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/128420.htm

If a former politician gets one, it is because they have applied through a transparent process and are qualified. The likes of Liadh with her anti-vaxxer credentials wouldn't be qualified.

Nobody said anything illegal took place. Cronyism is playing favourites to the detriment of other applicants as in the Woulfe case. Liadh was appointed.

What's 'the likes of Liadh' exactly? How is she unqualified? And you know she's not anti-vax. Again you are throwing that on top of your nothing claim.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 6:17pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Say what? Liadh's appointment was solely in the gift of Sinn Fein. No transparency, no merit, pure cronyism.

It is completely wrong for any appointment to a board to be solely in the gift of a political party appointing who they like. Amazed that you stand over it.

Yes, which was their right and correct protocol. They were to appoint someone. They did.
Explain 'no merit'?

I'd agree if it wasn't the very criteria in place. you are confusing two completely separate processes.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 6:20pm

James Brown wrote: »

Nobody said anything illegal took place. Cronyism is playing favourites to the detriment of other applicants as in the Woulfe case. Liadh was appointed.

What's 'the likes of Liadh' exactly? How is she unqualified? And you know she's not anti-vax. Again you are throwing that on top of your nothing claim.

I never said anything illegal ever took place. Cronyism isn't illegal.

Cronyism is "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Liadh's appointment fully meets the definition of cronyism. No advertised transparent process. In Woulfe's case, you could have applied for the job and the Judicial Appointments Board would have considered the merit of your application. In Liadh's case, you wouldn't have met the requirement to be a member of Sinn Fein and friends with the party leader.

She was barely a wet week in her job as promoting the Irish language. Hardly makes her qualified.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 6:26pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Again the process for her involved a vote in the Dail according to the link you provided. Cronyism requires that there is no democratic accountability or transparent process.

State boards appointments in Ireland now go through an independent process, anyone can apply. That isn't the case in the North.

Here is one for the Marine Institute, closing Friday.

http://www.stateboards.ie/stateboards/campaignAdvert/128420.htm

If a former politician gets one, it is because they have applied through a transparent process and are qualified. The likes of Liadh with her anti-vaxxer credentials wouldn't be qualified.

So your thesis here is that the state boards legislation has failed? Is that your issue?

Because you haven't yet explained the following:

What was 'sneaked in' about this appointment?

What rules were broken?

Why is Liadh not suitable when somebody like Dominic Bradley is not only is not noticed by you, but has sparked no outrage from you?

Finally, whose fault is it that the state boards legislation failed if you believe the above?

Over to you. Typing out 'crony' numerous times is not an answer to the above.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 6:28pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said anything illegal ever took place. Cronyism isn't illegal.

Cronyism is "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Liadh's appointment fully meets the definition of cronyism. No advertised transparent process. In Woulfe's case, you could have applied for the job and the Judicial Appointments Board would have considered the merit of your application. In Liadh's case, you wouldn't have met the requirement to be a member of Sinn Fein and friends with the party leader.

She was barely a wet week in her job as promoting the Irish language. Hardly makes her qualified.

There is no call to advertise the job for open applications. That's what you are missing.
In Woulfe's case you could but your name wasn't going to be put forward for consideration was it?
You don't think she's suitable, cula bula.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 6:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell us again how wolf appointment is legit?

I have no problem critising shinners here and saying stormont should be disbanded

but yous are reluctant to critise appointments of wolf and feeney....while berating others for much less

I have already explained to you how Liadh's appointment is blatant cronyism and far worse than any appointment made by the Irish government. Woulfe went through the JAB, that was an independent process, Feeney was approved by the Dail in a democratic vote, both are far better than Liadh's appointment.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 6:33pm

James Brown wrote: »

There is no call to advertise the job for open applications. That's what you are missing.
In Woulfe's case you could but your name wasn't going to be put forward for consideration was it?
You don't think she's suitable, cula bula.

Exactly, that's what is wrong.

Fine Gael could have kept appointing who they liked to every State board in the country, but they didn't. They changed the process, made it independent. That means anyone can apply, including you.

Sinn Fein have kept to the old crony ways of doing things in the North, no independent process, pick a party member. At least we now know what way they do these things.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 6:42pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly, that's what is wrong.

Fine Gael could have kept appointing who they liked to every State board in the country, but they didn't. They changed the process, made it independent. That means anyone can apply, including you.

Sinn Fein have kept to the old crony ways of doing things in the North, no independent process, pick a party member. At least we now know what way they do these things.

This particular set up was agreed upon and followed by all parties.
You are now criticising the system as crony. Crony is subverting the system in favour of pals or family. Getting desperate.

Yes, FF/FG don't engage in cronyism :rolleyes:

Give over. Did you know SF would prefer if the whole place shut up shop and we'd one Irish government for the entire island? It's true. Look it up.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 6:53pm

James Brown wrote: »

This particular set up was agreed upon and followed by all parties.
You are now criticising the system as crony. Crony is subverting the system in favour of pals or family. Getting desperate.

Yes, FF/FG don't engage in cronyism :rolleyes:

Give over. Did you know SF would prefer if the whole place shut up shop and we'd one Irish government for the entire island? It's true. Look it up.

No explanation of what was wrong here, no explanation of what was 'sneaked in', no explanation of why somebody who has always advocated for the Irish language, who is currently working on the Irish language, who sat on the Board that established TG4 is NOT suitable for a board position on this board and the pretence that the SDLP hadn't made an appointment to it the vey same day and that this appointment was outside the aegis of the legislation he was gloating about.

I think it isn't hard to work out what is going on here.

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 7:15pm

James Brown wrote: »

This particular set up was agreed upon and followed by all parties.
You are now criticising the system as crony. Crony is subverting the system in favour of pals or family. Getting desperate.

Yes, FF/FG don't engage in cronyism :rolleyes:

Give over. Did you know SF would prefer if the whole place shut up shop and we'd one Irish government for the entire island? It's true. Look it up.

Then Woulfe and every single other judge cannot be a crony appointment either!!!!!!!

"Article 35.1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and all other Courts established in pursuance of Article 34 hereof shall be appointed by President.” While the formal appointment of judges is made by the President through the presentation of warrants of appointment to those appointed, this power is, pursuant to Article 13.9, exercised “only on the advice of the Government.”"

Governments in Ireland have full freedom to appoint whomever they want.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 7:19pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Then Woulfe and every single other judge cannot be a crony appointment either!!!!!!!

"Article 35.1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and all other Courts established in pursuance of Article 34 hereof shall be appointed by President.” While the formal appointment of judges is made by the President through the presentation of warrants of appointment to those appointed, this power is, pursuant to Article 13.9, exercised “only on the advice of the Government.”"

Governments in Ireland have full freedom to appoint whomever they want.

This is the reason you went down the cul de sac of 'sneaky', rule breaking 'cronyism'.

You want FG vindicated.

Funny.

James Brown · 03-02-2021 7:47pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Then Woulfe and every single other judge cannot be a crony appointment either!!!!!!!

"Article 35.1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and all other Courts established in pursuance of Article 34 hereof shall be appointed by President.” While the formal appointment of judges is made by the President through the presentation of warrants of appointment to those appointed, this power is, pursuant to Article 13.9, exercised “only on the advice of the Government.”"

Governments in Ireland have full freedom to appoint whomever they want.

I'll break it down:
Did 5 other people apply for the job and was only Liadh's name was put forward?
Was the position open to applicants?

blanch152 · 03-02-2021 9:15pm

James Brown wrote: »

I'll break it down:
Did 5 other people apply for the job and was only Liadh's name was put forward?
Was the position open to applicants?

Nobody was allowed put their name forward because Sinn Fein kept the post to give it to one of their cronies.

There are thousands of people more qualified than her for the job.

FrancieBrady · 03-02-2021 9:26pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody was allowed put their name forward because Sinn Fein kept the post to give it to one of their cronies.

There are thousands of people more qualified than her for the job.

Can you back up the assertion that 'nobody was allowed put their name forward' please?

James Brown · 03-02-2021 9:36pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody was allowed put their name forward because Sinn Fein kept the post to give it to one of their cronies.

There are thousands of people more qualified than her for the job.

Not as far as SF were concerned and it's their decision.

It's cute that you think some rule or other means FF/FG can't and won't engage in cronyism.

nigeldaniel · 04-02-2021 11:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair fcuks to gerry kelly

https://mobile.twitter.com/GerryKellyMLA/status/1356519508811333633

Too long people have been afraid to say boo and over indulgence loyalist paramilitaries......bend the knee to them and they'll walk over you

and if the shoe was on the other foot!

blanch152 · 04-02-2021 4:56pm

https://www.independent.ie/news/ceann-comhairle-sean-o-fearghail-demands-apology-from-sinn-fein-for-outrageous-email-40051914.html

"The Ceann Comhairle said no one in his office has ever been “dictated to” by party officials. Mr Ó Fearghaíl said none of his predecessors were ever approached by unelected party officials to make complaints. A source at the meeting said the Ceann Comhairle was furious and told Sinn Féin: “I will not accept this and I will not be dictated to”."

You have to feel sorry for O'Feraghail. He obviously never understood that Sinn Fein is run by unelected people behind the scenes.

FrancieBrady · 04-02-2021 5:04pm

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/news/ceann-comhairle-sean-o-fearghail-demands-apology-from-sinn-fein-for-outrageous-email-40051914.html

"The Ceann Comhairle said no one in his office has ever been “dictated to” by party officials. Mr Ó Fearghaíl said none of his predecessors were ever approached by unelected party officials to make complaints. A source at the meeting said the Ceann Comhairle was furious and told Sinn Féin: “I will not accept this and I will not be dictated to”."

You have to feel sorry for O'Feraghail. He obviously never understood that Sinn Fein is run by unelected people behind the scenes.

Reminds me of that time Stephen Donnelly wagged his finger at the Leas Ceann Comhairle and tried to bully her. Distasteful too.

Small query...if it was an 'unnamed official' how did we jump to the conclusion they are 'unelected'?
Surely the important thing here was, is the email voicing the opinion of the deputies...which considering the debate in the house and the complaints, it seems to.

Ceann Comhairle playing politics again I suspect.

Brendan Bendar · 04-02-2021 5:17pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reminds me of that time Stephen Donnelly wagged his finger at the Leas Ceann Comhairle and tried to bully her. Distasteful too.

Small query...if it was an 'unnamed official' how did we jump to the conclusion they are 'unelected'?
Surely the important thing here was, is the email voicing the opinion of the deputies...which considering the debate in the house and the complaints, it seems to.

Ceann Comhairle playing politics again I suspect.

If the media show as much enthusiasm digging into the opposition as they do with the Govt. we should find out soon enough.

However I feel they’ll there will be a little more reluctance from folk in that arena to ‘talk’.:cool:

FrancieBrady · 04-02-2021 5:28pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

If the media show as much enthusiasm digging into the opposition as they do with the Govt. we should find out soon enough.

However I feel they’ll there will be a little more reluctance from folk in that arena to ‘talk’.:cool:

The media forced a confession from our Tanaiste...much good it did in terms of accountability.
The 'unnamed official' should claim he was doing it in the 'interests of de country'

blanch152 · 04-02-2021 5:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reminds me of that time Stephen Donnelly wagged his finger at the Leas Ceann Comhairle and tried to bully her. Distasteful too.

Small query...if it was an 'unnamed official' how did we jump to the conclusion they are 'unelected'?
Surely the important thing here was, is the email voicing the opinion of the deputies...which considering the debate in the house and the complaints, it seems to.

Ceann Comhairle playing politics again I suspect.

Eh, the Ceann Comhairle did not name the unelected official that contacted him?

So Ceann Comhairle gets abusive email of complaint from say davy.c.clarke @ sinnfein.ie and knows that the official is unelected, but does not name him at the meeting. Does that help you understand?

FrancieBrady · 04-02-2021 5:36pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh, the Ceann Comhairle did not name the unelected official that contacted him?

So Ceann Comhairle gets abusive email of complaint from say davy.c.clarke @ sinnfein.ie and knows that the official is unelected, but does not name him at the meeting. Does that help you understand?

No, the report says it was from an 'Unnamed party official. It does not say the Ceann Comhairle did not name him. So that needs clarification.
Can you also point to where anything was said about 'abuse'. An 'outrageous' email is not necessarily an 'abusive' one. 'Outrageous' because it tried to influence, is the issue I would assume.

Your needs getting the better of you again maybe?

blanch152 · 04-02-2021 5:39pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, the report says it was from an 'Unnamed party official. It does not say the Ceann Comhairle did not name him. So that needs clarification.
Can you also point to where anything was said about 'abuse'. An 'outrageous' email is not necessarily an 'abusive' one. 'Outrageous' because it tried to influence, is the issue I would assume.

Your needs getting the better of you again maybe?

Just applying Occam's Razor here.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the Ceann Comhairle did not know the identity of the email account.

Is there a "unnamed.person @ sinnfein.ie" email address?

04-02-2021 5:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Just applying Occam's Razor here.

The simplist theory doesnt imply the email was abusive???.....your undertanding of this is fundamentally flawed as ceann comhairle said he was being dictated too,and nowhere mentions abusive...

This thing of email being abusive is an infersion of yours,with no evidence to support it,making it at best a dubious theory and not applicible as most obvious??

Brendan Bendar · 04-02-2021 6:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The simplist theory doesnt imply the email was abusive???.....your undertanding of this is fundamentally flawed as ceann comhairle said he was being dictated too,and nowhere mentions abusive...

This thing of email being abusive is an infersion of yours,with no evidence to support it,making it at best a dubious theory and not applicible as most obvious??

Have we a new word for the OED?

rdwight · 04-02-2021 6:11pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Reminds me of that time Stephen Donnelly wagged his finger at the Leas Ceann Comhairle and tried to bully her. Distasteful too.

Small query...if it was an 'unnamed official' how did we jump to the conclusion they are 'unelected'?
Surely the important thing here was, is the email voicing the opinion of the deputies...which considering the debate in the house and the complaints, it seems to.

Ceann Comhairle playing politics again I suspect.

A (the only?) reasonable conclusion from reading the article is that Ó Fearghaíl knew the identity of person who sent it and that person is an unelected party official.

padd b1975 · 04-02-2021 7:09pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, the report says it was from an 'Unnamed party official. It does not say the Ceann Comhairle did not name him. So that needs clarification.
Can you also point to where anything was said about 'abuse'. An 'outrageous' email is not necessarily an 'abusive' one. 'Outrageous' because it tried to influence, is the issue I would assume.

Your needs getting the better of you again maybe?

It's outrageous that it was sent in the first place Francis.

FrancieBrady · 04-02-2021 7:10pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Just applying Occam's Razor here.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the Ceann Comhairle did not know the identity of the email account.

Is there a "unnamed.person @ sinnfein.ie" email address?

I have an info@ and admin@ address. Needs clarification is all I said.

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Comments