[articles] The Provos and the Docks

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Asking for proof is a red herring.

/me bookmarks this post for the next time Cork tries to ask for consideration for a FF member who is accused of something, and Cork is asking for either proof, due process (which involves asking for proof), or that we withold judgement until such times as due process has been followed and the facts known.

Cork - I seriously cannot believe that you are saying that the legal system does not and should not apply in this case, but that is the only conclusion one can reach from such a statement.

"One law for us, and another one for the rest of ye". Why don't you suggest this as your party's new motto?

If you are not willing to defend or retract this statement, please don't ever suggest that a FF member be given any sort of consideration such as "the law" or "due process" on this board again, because quite frankly, such blatant hypocracy will leave me no option but to decide that you are trolling, which will result in a ban.

jc

jc

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Cork
Why do they need money at time of ceasefire?

And of course, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris are definitely not members of the IRA Ruling Council, no sir, no way. The same IRA that murdered a garda while robbing a post office at Adare.

Villain

Originally posted by ReefBreak
And of course, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris are definitely not members of the IRA Ruling Council, no sir, no way.

ReefBreak has seen the light!!!:D

Originally posted by Earthman

Sinn Féin doesn't appear to have a similar clean up policy regarding its members.
By not having that standard they are open to looking like they don't care or have a disregard for criminality when it involves their members.
Yet at the same time they would want to be in government where laws are made and the enforcement of such laws should be sacrocant.

That for me and many, many others would be a serious difficulty in the perception of Sinn Féin

Am I asking too awkward a question or making too awkward a statement there for a Sinn Féin supporter to comment?

Villain

What exactly are you referring to, past history of Sinn Fein members or current unproven accusations??

I'm referring to the criminal record of existing Sinn Féin members.
Other parties disqualify their members for such records do they not?
Sinn Féin doesn't.

Cork

I am not aware of SF using a members criminal record to disqualify from membership.

As a political party it needs to speak out about acts of criminality such as racketeering and punishment beatings.

Why should we accept lesser standards from SF than we would from Labour, FF, FG etc?

(I am taking a break from boards for a spell. (dreaded exams) and I have to get down to study. So Slan go foil)

Mighty_Mouse

Sinn Féin doesn't appear to have a similar clean up policy regarding its members.

Similar to whom .... FF FG !!! Or maby your beloved PD's (FF in disguise!):eek:

To the best of my knowledge does not tolerate criminality within the party. Where are you sourcing this accusation?

Are you really on about the Martin Ferris accusations again!!

Or would you suggest that all former IRA men be kicked from the party!!! Don't be ridicolous! Again remember that your talking about a party moving from a war-time situation to a peaceful one. Any members not acting in the best interest of the peace process, the people they represent or the party , I'm sure would be asked to leave.

Maby its the lack of corruption within SF that has you scared!!:eek:

I mean what if a politician was motivated by purely political ideals with no dirt to control him or drag him down... now theres a scary though for our government.!!

Can I just again say :
to those that said SF were a "nothing" party(1-year ago!) not worth talking about.!! Seems that FF are afraid of them and see them as main competitors going forward.

Am I asking too awkward a question

no am I? must be because you fail to answer every time or resort to you sarcastic SF rules of engagement!I mean for christs sake grow up.

Mighty_Mouse

Why do they need money at time of ceasefire?

This is getting tiresome. SF have brought the republican community : hardliners etc , a long way in the last 15 yrs.

What are you seriously suggesting here? Do you think that the IRA are getting money together to buy arms, explosives etc etc or ?

If thats your worry , then dont!

Or maby their using it to buy their various properties around the country for election offices (as i think McBollik also suggested!):rolleyes:

My own personal opinion is that very little IRA coparitive fundraising is been undertaken

And of course, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris are definitely not members of the IRA Ruling Council, no sir, no way.

Ok.....I'll stop with the whole crazy "evidence" lark! I mean I must be crazy to suggest such a thing.

At the very least tell what leads you to presume this?

The same IRA that murdered a garda while robbing a post office at Adare.

None of the IRA men were convicted of murder.

Why were the IRA robbing post offices?Oh they also murdered a garda while they were robbing the post office. AND they were on a cease-fire at the time. QUOTE]

Get you facts right Reefbreak! Two points:

1. No-one was convicted of murder
2. The IRA WERE NOT on cease-fire at the time.

Anything else Reef or Cork. Any more DIFFICULT questions that you care to pose?

This time do yourselfs a favour and get your facts right.
If your gonna twist logic into bull**** rhetoric at least base it on fact!:rolleyes:

Villain

Agree with you all the way Might_Mouse.

God Cork you'l be sadly missed:rolleyes:

{Start of sarcasm}Yes
I think I'll set up paramilitary organisation myself now

I'll declare war first, I want to free Carlow from the Republic of Ireland and return it to the UK.
I shall go about this in a very violent means first by bombing and shooting all who disagree.

Oh maybe a better idea, I want to free the squirrells from Dublin Zoo...
Forget Carlows freedom, I'll bomb and shoot untill i get all the squirrells free...


I'll have a political party too.
No one will expect me to have the same democratic standards as everyone else , shur that would be silly I'd have to agree to what the majority want then...:rolleyes:

{/End Sarcasm}

So are there any SF T.D's or councillors in the Republic of Ireland with a criminal record?
And if so why are they not dished out the same treatment as similar offenders would be in the other parties?

See what I'm getting at??

I'm just explaining a perfectly plausible perception that Sinn Féin would do well to get away from, if they are to rise above the accusations of McDowell.

to those that said SF were a "nothing" party(1-year ago!) not worth talking about.!! Seems that FF are afraid of them and see them as main competitors going forward.

But for heavens sakes man, its the pd's who are in the main shouting about this.
They have little or nothing to gain politically from it, as your average SF voter or those who would tend that way would never vote for the conservative PD's

I'm only posing the questions here and the answers aren't improving my perception of SF so far.

And By the way I actually have some respect for them in a lot of areas I just wish they would tidy up their baggage...

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman

I'll declare war first, I want to free Carlow from the Republic of Ireland and return it to the UK.

Have you been to Carlow lately, you'l need more than 1 army!!

Originally posted by Earthman

But for heavens sakes man, its the pd's who are in the main shouting about this.
They have little or nothing to gain politically from it, as your average SF voter or those who would tend that way would never vote for the conservative PD's

Hold on a minute Bertie has made several statements about SF of late, McDowell might be doing the shouting but Bertie has backed him and it was bertie who said Adams was a memeber of the IRA!

Mighty_Mouse

Oh maybe a better idea, I want to free the squirrells from Dublin Zoo...

Its more than a little offensive that you would compare the Troubles in NI to the whim of an animal rights activist who wants to free squirrels. I feel sorry for you lack of education on the matter already!

I'll have a political party too. No one will expect me to have the same democratic standards as everyone else

I would argue that SF have higher democratic standards than any other party in Ireland.

If at this point you refer to the IRA .... they are on cease-fire.... committed to political struggle.... "war is over"....decommissioning.....apologies..... etc

I mean what more do you want from them. Your not gonna get the formal disbandment at this stage. Too many things havent been delieved for Republicans to make this next step. If Patten, the GFA agreement, enquires in RUC collusion etc had been implemented in full.......we could quite possibly be near this ...but not anywhere near it at the mo....

So are there any SF T.D's or councillors in the Republic of Ireland with a criminal record?

I don't know. .... maby you should write to them indivdually and ask them! Probably a few have records for IRA related activites in the past....

By the way, this craic of once a criminal ... always a crim is not acceptable in my mind. Does "do the crime, serve the time" not apply anymore.

Do we not encourage our criminals back into our society?
Is every former criminal disallowed from participating in a democracy?
---- so a 19 yr old steals a car ,, 20 years later still being punished by not allowed to participate in a democracy?

See what I'm getting at??

No.

If its to do with SF criminality - your really, really, really wrong!

I'm just explaining a perfectly plausible perception that Sinn Féin would do well to get away from, if they are to rise above the accusations of McDowell.

And i've tried to explain a different plausible explanation to all your questions! Just beware of what you read in the papers. Ask the simple questions of :" whats this source? ," why is this coming out at this time?", " what evidence show this to be likey/true?"

You arent the same poster by any chance who suggested that SF would be best to try and give Paisley a headache!!! I think SF are better off focusing on their own policies and goals and not be worrying about Mcdowell has to say. At the end of the day its all smoke and mirrors and not what really matters.

But for heavens sakes man, its the pd's who are in the main shouting about this.

The fact that our Minister for justice cant keep his trap shut for two mins doesnt make the PD's the main party making wild accusations about SF.

ie your wrong here

Sparks

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
I would argue that SF have higher democratic standards than any other party in Ireland.

So do so.

I mean what more do you want from them.

All arms decomissioned (yes, I know, verifying that that's been done is a near impossibility), prison sentences for those who've carried out punishment beatings since the GFA, and a formal apology to all the relatives of all of those the provos have killed in the last few decades.

Your not gonna get the formal disbandment at this stage.

Really? So you're saying then, that Sinn Fein will continue in government while the IRA continue to exist? I seriously doubt that anyone outside Sinn Fein and the IRA will find that acceptable.

If Patten, the GFA agreement, enquires in RUC collusion etc had been implemented in full.......we could quite possibly be near this ...but not anywhere near it at the mo....

Now see, that just makes me angry. "Yes, we've stopped shooting people, but if you don't give us what we want, we'll start again."
:rolleyes:

I don't know. .... maby you should write to them indivdually and ask them! Probably a few have records for IRA related activites in the past....

Yes. At least one we've discussed in the past has a criminal record for gun-running and is under investigation for activities surrounding his election.

Villain

Originally posted by Sparks

Now see, that just makes me angry. "Yes, we've stopped shooting people, but if you don't give us what we want, we'll start again."
:rolleyes:

.

There not saying that, what there saying is they will fully dispand when theres a level playing field. They have decommisioned a lot of weapons and what did the Unionists do??

Say " ah well you won't tell us the numbers and types so we don't accept it"

Theres 2 sides Sparks, the IRA are only 1 side, saying they should dispand without getting the level playing is being ignorant to the situation.

They have not threatened to restart their campaign.

Sparks

Originally posted by irish1
Say " ah well you won't tell us the numbers and types so we don't accept it"

Exactly what's unreasonable about that?
"Oh, we've decommissioned. We no longer have any flintlock rifles left in the armoury".
:rolleyes:

Villain

Originally posted by Sparks
Exactly what's unreasonable about that?

John de Chastelain along with the international decommissioning body stated "We wish to inform you that we have witnessed an event in which the IRA leadership has put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use"

If they weren't willing to accept that they aren't interested in progressing the Northern Peace Process

Originally posted by irish1

Hold on a minute Bertie has made several statements about SF of late, McDowell might be doing the shouting but Bertie has backed him and it was bertie who said Adams was a memeber of the IRA!

no he said he had always assumed that adams was a member of the IRA.
If ye are being pedantic, so can he.

Villain

Originally posted by Earthman
no he said he had always assumed that adams was a member of the IRA.
If ye are being pedantic, so can he.

assumed:
accepted as real or true without proof

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Exactly what's unreasonable about that?

Absolutely nothing would be, if they hadn't signed up to a process which did not require the details of the decomissioned items to be disclosed. However, they did sign on to such a process, and then complained that the process was simply not acceptable.

"Yes...its fine. We agree to that in the name of progress. Its not ideal, but given that we believe the Republicans are only stalling for time, we'll sign up and show them."

followed by :

"Oh - they've actually done something? No...that won't do at all at all. Thats just completely unreasonable, that is. Oh, we signed on board to that? Don't care...its still unreasonable and we're just not going to accept it."

That is the problem. Unless they wish to posit that they were too stupid or too careless to realise when they signed up that there was this big glaring loophole you could power-slide a supertanker sideways through it, that the even the media pickedup on(from memory), then they don't really have a leg to stand on.

If they would care to admit these things, thought, then I'd accept it as reasonable, as long as they were willing to cede their places in further discussions to someone who had the necessary intelligence and/or care.

They said yes it was good enough, and then when what they said yes to was done, they said no, it wasn't good enough.

That is what is unreasonable.

jc

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Its more than a little offensive that you would compare the Troubles in NI to the whim of an animal rights activist who wants to free squirrels. I feel sorry for you lack of education on the matter already!

Well its a point worth making, if the Rah can bomb for a cause against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of this island, why can't someone who wants to free squirrels do the same??
Sinn Féin support only rose at the level it has in NI in recent years after the IRA bombing and shooting came to a halt and thats a fact.

By the way, this craic of once a criminal ... always a crim is not acceptable in my mind. Does "do the crime, serve the time" not apply anymore.

Oh it does apply but not in the eyes of many many people when it comes to political office.
Thats the point I've been making all along, the other established parties usually dump councillors or T.D's that have been found to be involved with criminality or corruption or at least investigate them.
And they usually dont select candidates with recent criminal convictions either.
Someone in that position should be above reproach.
You may think different, but most law abiding citizens don't.

The fact that our Minister for justice cant keep his trap shut for two mins doesnt make the PD's the main party making wild accusations about SF.

He's entitled to speak it is a democracy, we are all speaking.
But remember, SF were gagged by section 32 for a long long time, and gave out about it so it might not be a good idea to be advocating gagging other people.

You arent the same poster by any chance who suggested that SF would be best to try and give Paisley a headache!!! I think SF are better off focusing on their own policies and goals and not be worrying about Mcdowell has to say. At the end of the day its all smoke and mirrors and not what really matters.

And whats wrong with giving paisley a headache??
I'd far prefer that his policies were analyised and shown up for being sectarian drivel, rather than SF continuing to allow a situation to arise whereby SF are seen to be associated with criminality.

But it appears alas that, thats where Our minds don't meet.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Oh it does apply but not in the eyes of many many people when it comes to political office.

As opposed to, say, people who have no problem voting back in politicians who have been shown to have had financial misdealings which have been discovered via tribunal?

And they usually dont select candidates with recent criminal convictions either.

And not one of them has, since the inception of the state, been in a position remotely comparable to that of Sinn Fein's. And, I do believe that if you check your history books, you will find that - around the time of the inception of the state, that many of the major politicians did have criminal convictions.

Someone in that position should be above reproach.
You may think different, but most law abiding citizens don't.

Yes, they do think differently, unfortunately.

They may draw the line in a slightly different place, but there are an absolute rake of politicians who's actions as evidenced in the various tribunals are far from "above reproach".

Hell, Haughey was dismissed from office in 1970 for allegations of gun-running, and returned to become arguably the most successful leader the nation has ever seen.

Above reproach? Hardly.

If you want to say "without a serious criminal record", then say that, but lets not try and put some false face of over-respectability on other politicians and parties.

He's entitled to speak it is a democracy, we are all speaking.

Did you even read the point you were responding to? He said that Martin's inability to stay silent does not make his party the main critics. I've emphasised the bit you seem to have completely misinterpreted as "means he shouldn't say anything" to help show where you went wrong, although I'm unsure how you managed to do that.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

I've tried to answer all the questions you consider difficult to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately the anti-shinners have not.

All I ask is that ye deal with the points raised instead of going off on a tangent of twisted logic everytime!

"Oh, we've decommissioned. We no longer have any flintlock rifles left in the armoury".

Do you belive this is all that the IRA have decommissioned?
What are you argueing here? that the IRA will return to war ?
do you believe that the IRA are holding weapons in order to return to war?

If ye are being pedantic, so can he.

If your suggesting that the PD's are the only ones attacking SF then I suggest you pick up any paper, any time and read the source of the anti-SF article within it?

Do you believe that the PD's are the only/main/vast majority party argueing against SF?

This is wrong (not even "IMO" , its just plain wrong)

I posted:

I mean what more do you want from them.

You replied:

All arms decomissioned (yes, I know, verifying that that's been done is a near impossibility),.

Am I correct in assuming that your asking for the impossible so?

prison sentences for those who've carried out punishment beatings since the GFA).

And I would like all those ppl who committed a crime last year to be brought before the courts and given prison sentances... My point?

I'm sure the PSNI and the Gardai will put those responsible for punishment beatings in jail if they catch them. Other than that, what do you want?
Would you like for all those guilty of punishment beatings to turn themselves in to the cops? Do you think this will happen? Is this not another impossibility?

Do you think that the problem of punishment beatings is best solved by jail sentences or by providing the republican community with a police force it can trust?

and a formal apology to all the relatives of all of those the provos have killed in the last few decades.).

""""""We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families. """"""

They already have. Do you know anything about the NI peace process or do you just make it up as you go along. Just do a bloody google on any of you dopy remarks from now on.

Have you read IRA apology: 16 th July 2002

"""Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured.

While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.

It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides.

We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives.

The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt.

That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants.

It will not be achieved by creating a hierarchy of victims in which some are deemed more or less worthy than others.

The process of conflict resolution requires the equal acknowledgement of the grief and loss of others.

On this anniversary, we are endeavouring to fulfil this responsibility to those we have hurt.

The IRA is committed unequivocally to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Ireland.

We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents.

This includes the acceptance of past mistakes and of the hurt and pain we have caused to others. """""""""""

Do you honestly think that the IRA should apologise to british soldiers? and other combatants?

It was a war for christs sake.

Now see, that just makes me angry. "Yes, we've stopped shooting people, but if you don't give us what we want, we'll start again."

Is this what I said? Does this answer in anyway the remark I posted?
Do you belive the IRA will "start shooting people again"? Do you believe the IRA have threatened to "start shooting people again"?

Do you not think it reasonable to ask for the GFA, patten and investigations into collusion to be implemented?

Yes. At least one we've discussed in the past has a criminal record for gun-running and is under investigation for activities surrounding his election.

How is this different to what I said? So one has a record for IRA activity....

What is your point here? Do you belive that all former IRA men should be prohibited from participating in a democracy? Do you think that such a request is unreasonable following 30 years of war?

Do you have a better suggestion for a peace process than asking people to lay down their arms and participate in a peace process/democracy?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
None of the IRA men were convicted of murder.

Get you facts right Reefbreak! Two points:

1. No-one was convicted of murder
2. The IRA WERE NOT on cease-fire at the time.

Anything else Reef or Cork. Any more DIFFICULT questions that you care to pose?

Mighty_Mouse:
First of all, the IRA were on a ceasefire at the time. I remember it like it was yesterday. "Get your facts right."

Secondly, I agree, the IRA men were not convicted of murder, though they were convicted of "manslaughter". However, a bullet to the chest sure seems like murder to me.

The reason they weren't convicted of murder was because a major witness wouldn't testifty after he was received serious harrassment by the Irish Facist Party...sorry SF/IRA. The DPP had no option but to reduce the sentence to manslaughter. To repeat, the IRA intentionally killed a garda that day while on ceasefire.

Originally posted by bonkey
As opposed to, say, people who have no problem voting back in politicians who have been shown to have had financial misdealings which have been discovered via tribunal?
jc

I didnt address that issue in my post at all...
Michael Lowry topped the poll, having been thrown out of Fine Gael.
But he topped it as an independent, with constituents that like him and appreciate his constitiency work.
If he stood in any other constituency , his result would have been poor enough as his "corruption" record would have came into play.
Local issues and local popularity combined with a certain amount of , those guys in Dublin aren't going to tell us what to do.
Same applies to Martin Ferris actually, he has a criminal record, but that counts for nothing when you are popular locally among enough people to get you elected.

However, can you imagine the furore if Lowry remained in FG and was left on the ticket in Tipperary as an FG candidate?
It would have been open season on FG from the other parties and probably that would include ironically Sinn Féin.
The other irony is, that Lowry would probably still have topped the poll if he ran as an FG candidate.
Thats the context whereby politicians generally have to be above reproach and generally don't get selected as candidates if too many awkward skeletons are let out of the cupboard.

And not one of them has, since the inception of the state, been in a position remotely comparable to that of Sinn Fein's. And, I do believe that if you check your history books, you will find that - around the time of the inception of the state, that many of the major politicians did have criminal convictions.

Correct Bonkey, but this is 2004, do you want us to go back to the turn of the century and wind back all the foward motions of society since then?
Are we to treat society in 2004 by the rules of the turn of the century?
There is a time to call full stop on non democratic procedures and that time has been here for more than half a century.
Looking back at the origins of the current established parties has its limits when you have to go back nearly a hundred years, it doesn't stand up in my view as an excuse for violence.
The GFA is there,it doesn't countenance raceteering or punishment beatings as far as I'm aware.
Lets deal with the intransigence of Unionism by first getting Republicans houses in order, that would be my view.
They have absolutely nothing to lose.

Did you even read the point you were responding to? He said that Martin's inability to stay silent does not make his party the main critics. I've emphasised the bit you seem to have completely misinterpreted as "means he shouldn't say anything" to help show where you went wrong, although I'm unsure how you managed to do that.

Bonkey I'm surprised that you would say that, it's clear what I was responding to...
He said that because the minister for justice ,thats Michael McDowell not Martin Ferris ( as you have alluded by mistake perhaps? ) and I suggested that he shouldnt be suggesting gagging a minister when SF complained about being gagged under section 32 of the broadcasting act for so long.
An act that was put there for a reason in the latter part of a civilised 20th century and renewed by different governments.
It was there to prevent SF promoting a violent IRA campaign in the view of those governments.

Here is exactly what I said and I've given you the context and the point that I was making if it wasn't clear enough.

Mighty Mouse said:
The fact that our Minister for justice cant keep his trap shut for two mins doesnt make the PD's the main party making wild accusations about SF.

Thats nothing to do with Martin ferris...In your post Bonkey you mention "Martin"
And I replied:

He's entitled to speak it is a democracy, we are all speaking.But remember, SF were gagged by section 32 for a long long time, and gave out about it so it might not be a good idea to be advocating gagging other people.

Now could you explain to me the context of where I am not reading posts, as I dont generally making a habit of blind posting and certainly don't believe I've done so in this case, unless I've missed something or we are on different trains of thought here, my apoligies if so but I am making one point , you are making another.
Adressing both is good.
In my previous posts, I had already proffered the view that potential SF voters are not going to Vote PD in any large number so McDowell has nothing to gain and his prior background( the party he supported before becoming a PD) is FG and not FF afaik.
Apart from being asked, Bertie hasnt gone out of his way to be high profile on this, it's McDowell who is bringing it up in all the radio and press interviews that I have heard in recent weeks.
He's been on morning Ireland, five live, the last word and all over the media with it.
He is indeed the main party or individual talking about it.

ReefBreak

Correct Bonkey, but this is 2004, do you want us to go back to the turn of the century and wind back all the foward motions of society since then?

This is a good point. Sinn Féin/IRA are constantly harping on about the situation in Ireland between 1916-1921 as a justification for a lot of their atrocities and for the existence of their terrorist wing. Using the past to justify the present is pretty disgusting - for example, we also had the death sentence back then, yet nobody is suggesting we bring it back. We're assumed to be a more enlightened society now.

Mighty_Mouse

To repeat, the IRA intentionally killed a garda that day while on ceasefire.

manslaughter is the unlawful and unintentional killing of a person.
It means there was no intention to kill. The State and the Court accepted this Earthman. Do you not accept the State and the Court?

First of all, the IRA were on a ceasefire at the time. I remember it like it was yesterday. "Get your facts right."

:eek:

For god's sake man. Don't embarras yourself so easily. I nearly feel a little embarrassed for your stupidity myself!:o

Ok I'll spell it out...

The first IRA ceasefire ended in February 1996
The Adare robbery occurred on the 7th of June 1996.
The second IRA ceasefire was called in July 1997.

YOU ARE WRONG EARTHMAN

Climb down from that one. I'll accept your humble apology anyway you wanna make it:D

P.S.
The aul memory isn't the best, is it Earthman?

ReefBreak

It was me, Reefbreak, not Earthman, that made the mistake.

I stand corrected, it was between the two ceasefires. Note, regarding my stupidity, your style of writing has already proven enough to most people.

manslaughter is the unlawful and unintentional killing of a person.

We all know what he was convicted of. We all know why the charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter. If you think the killing was unintentional, then I believe that you are a liar.

Mighty_Mouse

Note, regarding my stupidity, your style of writing has already proven enough to most people.

Could you expand what you ment here Reefbreak?

But I will apologise for the previous style of writing. It was a little too antagonistic.

We all know why the charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter. If you think the killing was unintentional, then I believe that you are a liar.

Why was the charge reduced to manslaughter?
I think it was a robbery that went wrong.
How have I lied here?

Its not a very nice situation, expecially for the family of detective garda Gerry McCabe. What I have argued here is the reasons why the Castlerea prisoners should be released in the context of the GFA.

You obviously disagree with the Irish government leading the way in implementing the GFA

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse

For god's sake man. Don't embarras yourself so easily. I nearly feel a little embarrassed for your stupidity myself!:o

Ok I'll spell it out...

The first IRA ceasefire ended in February 1996
The Adare robbery occurred on the 7th of June 1996.
The second IRA ceasefire was called in July 1997.

YOU ARE WRONG EARTHMAN

Climb down from that one. I'll accept your humble apology anyway you wanna make it:D

P.S.
The aul memory isn't the best, is it Earthman?

I'd like to point out that you have attributed a quote to me that I never posted.
I did not talk about IRA ceasefires or particulars.
Kindly do not attribute things to me which are not mine.
So you are saying I am wrong about something that I havent posted...
I'd hazzard a guess that, it is you that are confused here.