What rebrand?
Your party is not big enough to condemn, nevermind censure the actions of their politicians.
1 Like
Do you condemn the actions of Barry McElduff in this instance?
A yes or no will suffice
This has all gone a bit stale
8 Likes
1 Like
I’d need to know whether he intended this or not to condemn it.
Sweep, sweep.
@Little_Lord_Fauntleroy also initially refused to condemn the role of his team Chelsea FC in the cover up. He commended Chelsea FC for paying abuse victim Gary Johnson 50 grand to buy his silence and not accept any responsibility for the actions of its paedohphile employees.
Chelsea Football Club has apologised “profusely” to former footballer Gary Johnson over sex abuse he suffered as a youth team member in the 1970s.
Mr Johnson, 57, told the Mirror on Friday that the club paid him £50,000 to keep quiet about allegations of sexual abuse by a former chief scout.
In a statement, Chelsea said Mr Johnson had “suffered unacceptably”.
The club said a review into the case would take place, adding it had “no desire to hide any historic abuse”.
It said the review would examine whether it had carried out a proper investigation when the allegations first came to light and why it did not report them to the Football Association and Premier League.
"We are fully committed to ensuring the safety and well-being of all children and young people who are in our care or attending our premises.
“Their welfare is of paramount importance,” the club said.
Mr Johnson was a member of Chelsea’s first team from 1978 to 1981.
He joined the club as an 11-year-old in 1970 and told the Mirror he had been groomed from the age of 13 by scout Eddie Heath.
Mr Heath, who was the club’s chief scout from 1968 to 1979, died before the allegations against him were made.
According to the Mirror, Mr Johnson signed a confidentiality agreement in 2015 and accepted £50,000 from the club, but they did not accept blame.
Chelsea said in its statement that when the settlement was reached the club’s board understood it was “usual practice” to include a mutual confidentiality agreement, adding that Mr Johnson’s solicitors had not objected to the clause.
“More recently, against the current backdrop of wider revelations and other victims coming forward bravely to tell their story, we no longer felt it appropriate to keep the confidentiality agreement in place. It was therefore removed,” the club said.
The club said the decision to have a confidentiality clause had received “significant scrutiny” and it had now asked an external law firm to review this decision and make recommendations for settling claims in the future.
"In advance of that, however, the board would like to make clear that, in light of what we know now about the wide-scale abuse in football clubs in the 1970s and 1980s, it now believes that the use of such a clause, while understandable, was inappropriate in this instance.
“We certainly have no desire to hide any historic abuse we uncover from view. Quite the opposite.”
Chelsea said Mr Johnson’s solicitors at the time claimed Heath had “inappropriate relationships” with other young boys and men from the club, but no names were given.
The club said with the “limited information” it received it had been unable to identify any further individuals who may have been subject to abuse.
It comes after former Chelsea midfielder Alan Hudson said on Facebook that it was “common knowledge that Mr Heath was a danger to us youngsters”.
Chelsea added it was now a “very different club” to the one it was in the 1970s.
It said its safeguarding policies were robust and continually reviewed and audited by the Premier League.strong text
I must say having seen his other stuff on his head pictures and seen footage of this guy on the news earlier, I think there’s a very good chance that he didn’t mean it. The guy looks like a complete simpleton.
4 Likes
I’m actually beginning to think this too.
However if that is the case then Sinn Fein should say that today and that’s the reason why they are giving him the three months and not asking him to resign as MP.
As it is they are trying to cover all angles.
1 Like
Backtrack.
He’s absolutely harmless. It’s disgusting opportunism by Arlene Foster and Micheál Martin.
2 Likes
I’m just being honest.
In the words of my hero Pee Flynn - try it sometime!!
He does seem a bit touched. Is this the calibre of candidate that IRA/Sinn Fein are now reduced to running?
A SF elected official with a Kingsmill loaf of bread on his head, on the anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre (reportedly posted 5 mins after midnight) was simply a coincidence?
He has previous with hilarious hi-jinks and zany antics of posting pictures of balancing items on his head, so any interpretation of this being a pisstake of the actual murders is political point scoring.
This is @Bandage take on the matter?
it was a total coincidence, the loaf of kingsmill bread fell on top of his head 
1 Like
It would have been better if it was Kingsmill Brown Bread
3 Likes
I believe the argument is he is a simpleton. In fairness, that covers a very broad swarth of Irish politicians.
A comedian and a bigot. Excellent credentials to attract sfira voters.
1 Like
KIngsmills bread have regularly advertised on UTV on January 5th in the past with no problems.
Apparently that was a direct insult to the victims!
Personally I would have censured Barty McElduff for inappropriate advertising but for no other reason.
1 Like
A simpleton maybe, but he didn’t choose that particular brand and post at that exact time in error. He did it to take the piss out of the murders on the anniversary of the murders.
There’s no need to paraphrase my post, mate. It was very clear.
2 Likes