To secure a conviction.
No, but people should be able to give information knowing that their identities wonât be shared with murderous scum against their wishes. Very brave of them to say anything.
We have a litany of what FG deem acceptable: tens of thousands homeless, over 70 years of institution abuse, covering up both corruption and state wrongdoing leading to deaths such as Brigid McCole and Emma Mhic MhathĂșna.
We also know tying people to landmines, fascism and Garda malpractice are all acceptable to the blueshirts.
Sure theres a trial upcoming, clearly plenty of evidence and there mighy well be a conviction. Theres no need to name people who spoke to authorities at all
Murderous scum, like the violent civil war parties?
Iâm just highlighting how FG are actively trying to cover up murders for the British State. Thatâs all, you seem comfortable with that.
Tens of thousands homeless can you show me where these poor people are?
The whole country was complicit in institutional abuse, mainly because people generally, like sheep, followed mass untruths and were afraid to question what was reality.
If you want a modern example, look for tens of thousands homeless.
But at least youâve rowed back from your utterly unreal post claiming murder of a garda and blabbering on a tax cheat are comparable
Surely governance is the issue here.
Strange to see you think itâs acceptable though.
But you donât accept they have a duty to protect people and their right to anonymity, when they feel losing that could put them in danger?
Where did i say it was acceptable?
I donât accept that rationale at all.
Iâve asked you to clarify what danger these people would be in 30+ years on? You have been unable to. Itâs a bit rich to ask me to accept that when you canât even come up with anything credible to support it yourself.
You excused it.
People only spoke on guarantee of anonymity. They still donât want that waived. They, on the ground, fear for their safety, and are far more aware of local dangers than you are. Iâll defer to that knowledge.
How do you know that?
All we know is that Flanagan has point blank refused to release a report that could help bring some justice to a family who were the victim of British state terrorism.
No i never excused any abuse, its in the past thankfully, FG arenât perfect but they are a way better option than SF. Its grand for you refusing to vote, whinging from fence, but someone has to form a government so as a citizen i have to vote for the best option for the country in my opinion. And i did.
Thatâs something you made up in your head.
Oh great.
Hey everybody, did you hear that? Itâs in the past.
Because he emphasized that they only spoke on guarantee of anonymity. Why did they look for that if they felt no danger?
You said i excused it, i didnât, so withdraw that remark fairly sharpish
You said âThey still donât want that waivedâ
You made that up.