Adams defends "slab" Murphy

Sand

Over the last 20 years an insidious element has taken hold in sections of our media that prosecutes and finds people guilty on rumour and hear say this is not how to operate a criminal justice system.
I don't care whether it is

How many of the Paras have been convicted of murder on Bloody Sunday?

Just to add that people should not allow political persuasion to come into this I understand that some people have a deep distrust if not hatred for provisional Republicanism but people should not put our justice system to one side because the person accused is a political opponent to do that inevitably leads to miscarriages of justice. We should have a basic principle that people are innocent untill proven guilty whether they are provisional republicans, Loyalists, FFers or normal Joe soaps with no political affiliation.

Lets put it like this. Anyone, even honest Provos will admit it to themselves, will accept that if Slab Murphy is convicted of money laundering, smuggling and handling stolen goods etc,etc,etc it will be the *least* of his crimes. The man has directed, planned and carried out terrorist atrocities for decades. The man, his money and his ill gotten property is drenched in the blood of people who were all too often in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were working the wrong job, or were of the wrong religion.

Thats not political persuasion, thats reality. I heartily believe Milosevic directed genocide though there is no conviction. Thats not because I vote for Milosevics rivals, its because I think genocide is wrong, that its clear he was aware of it and encouraged it. Its the same with Murphy, hes a well known IRA leadership figure - even those crediting him with supporting the peace proccess accept that. Personally, Id be happy to see him doing life for murder, but Ill settle for the maximum sentence possible for tax evasion and whatever else they can throw at him.

The only political persuasions that come into it are the posters who without fail take their postions straight from the latest SFIRA press release or public address.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

How many of the Paras have been convicted of murder on Bloody Sunday?

The reason for that, as you know, is the fact that the British thought the Paras did a good job that day. Not only were they not charged with murder, they were honoured and decorated for their deeds.

Do you think they should have been charged with murder?

Sand

Do you think they should have been charged with murder?

Of course, ballistic tests indicate that at least one victim was shot in the back whilst lying on the ground by a soldier standing over them. Thats murder plain and simple.

Mind you, Im aware that Provos would disagree strongly that anyone could say the Paras murdered anyone, because they havent been convicted. Provos advocate that nobody murdered anyone on Bloody Sunday because no one was convicted of murder.

Thats your position isnt it Glasgo? Voip has already spelled out his principles on trial by media.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Of course, ballistic tests indicate that at least one victim was shot in the back whilst lying on the ground by a soldier standing over them. Thats murder plain and simple.

Mind you, Im aware that Provos would disagree strongly that anyone could say the Paras murdered anyone, because they havent been convicted. Provos advocate that nobody murdered anyone on Bloody Sunday because no one was convicted of murder.

Thats your position isnt it Glasgo? Voip has already spelled out his principles on trial by media.

The British Army murdered people on Bloody Sunday, that much is obvious to anyone. Who actually did the murdering cannot be determined because nobody was convicted.

The British did not even attempt to charge the soldiers who carried out murder that day.

The IRA murdered people, that much is obvious to anyone. Tom Murphy did not do the murdering as he has not been convicted or charged with murder. Are you suggesting that Murphy has not been charged with murder because the British thought he is doing a good job?

Cork

Lets put it like this. Anyone, even honest Provos will admit it to themselves, will accept that if Slab Murphy is convicted of money laundering, smuggling and handling stolen goods etc,etc,etc it will be the *least* of his crimes. The man has directed, planned and carried out terrorist atrocities for decades. The man, his money and his ill gotten property is drenched in the blood of people who were all too often in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were working the wrong job, or were of the wrong religion.

Correct. Yet Adams considered him a "Good Republican".

Organised criminality by the IRA or others has nothing to do with politics or the peace process.

Bloody Sunday is no excuse for breaking the law.

Cork

Just on trial by media - where?

In a democracy - we have press freedom.

The provos may not be keen on this.

Journalists and others are entitled to comment.

Why should be have to wait untill criminal convictions to comment?

Sand

The British Army murdered people on Bloody Sunday, that much is obvious to anyone. Who actually did the murdering cannot be determined because nobody was convicted.

No, in the absence of murder convictions by the Provo principle of innocent until proven guilty (possibly by your local secret unaccountable IRA kangeroo court? Wonder how many of those Murphy sat on?) all that can be said is that the Paras shot a number of people on Bloody Sunday. No one has been convicted of murder, so again, by Provo standards no one can say a murder occured.

Seriously Glasgo, youre wasting your time. We both know that a commonsense evaluation of the information available on Bloody Sunday means its obvious the Paras murdered people that day. By the exact same standard its obvious that Murphy is up to his neck in organised crime ( money and laptops hidden in haybales ffs?!?!), and its even more obvious that he directed IRA terrorism for decades. Refusing to accept this is letting your politics get in the way of common sense. Personally, I dont care. The more Provos like Adams rush to defend Murphy the bigger the fall when hes convicted. Adams is trapped by his need to keep Murphy and the other IRA honchos on side, but I dont see why ordinary Provos need to run onto a sinking ship.

monument

Cork wrote:

Correct. Yet Adams considered him a "Good Republican".

Again, do you know what a 'Republican' is?

Quote:
Republican [upper case]
1 a member of the Republican Party in the US

2 a person who believes that Northern Ireland should become part of the Irish Republic
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...7098&dict=CALD

spanner wrote:

all for arresting murphy but bringing in the army! definately they were trying to make it look spectacular, what could the army do that the ERU cant do in a situation like that

Move bales of hay/whatever (as pictured in the Irish Times).

Cork wrote:

[free press...]The provos may not be keen on this.

Them and about everyone in politics

zuma

Full link to the above...for those interested!

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67098&dict=CALD

Freelancer

Voipjunkie wrote:

You see I don't care if Mr murphy did everything that he is alleged to have done or not that is not the point it is for a court of law to decide whether he is a criminal based on the evidence put before it is not upto elements in the media along with elements in the Gardai to decide who is guilty.

Lets take this at face value.

There is so much stuff printed as fact about Murphy that it is arguable that he could not receive a fair trial in this state.

Okay fair enough, however the position you've taken is to give the man the benefit of the doubt to an absurd degree and abuse anyone who dares to assume he's anything but guiltly. All thats happening here is people are having the same conversation that happens in pubs, around dinner tables, in flats across the country, you have just taken it upon yourself to be the moral crusader of innocent until proven guilty. If I was choosen to act as a juror in this trial, I'd excuse myself as I've found myself discussing the facts of this cases. Plently of people could and are ignorant of the facts in this case and could act as jurors.

Over the last 20 years an insidious element has taken hold in sections of our media that prosecutes and finds people guilty on rumour and hear say this is not how to operate a criminal justice system.
I don't care whether it is
Slab Murphy ,Wayne O'donoghue , Joe O'reilly ,Ian Bailey , The husband of Grace livingstone or Siobhan Kearney , Frank Connolly and on and on.

Theres a plethora of accusations there ranging on a variety of different court cases, the media has always taken on a role sometimes less slabubrious role in court cases.

However you've challenged the facts on this case in such a one sided manner, Slab's fleeing, his wife fleeing, the laptop found in a hale bale, none of these were reported as admission of guilt the were reported as a statement of fact. Should newspapers not report facts? You disputed that these facts should be seen as an admission of guilt, the papers merely reported them, posters on this site debated them. You questioned our assertions. Are you claiming we cannot draw conclusions from a newspaper article, or a newspaper shouldn't report certain facts?

Trial by media is wrong and the media and the Gardai get it wrong that is why we went to the bother of setting up a justice system.

Again these articles are merely presenting facts. Slab murphy lost a libel action over claims he was in the IRA, fact. Hundreds of thousands of euro were found on his property fact. He fled the scene, fact. Thousands of cigarettes were found on the property, fact. Thousands of gallons of fuel were found on the property, fact. The IRA make a fortune washing diesal, fact. No one is trying Murphy, they're just presenting facts.

Take for example Ian Bailey who the media assured us was responsible for the murder of Ms Du plantier except now it seems that the main witness was coaxed and harrassed into making a statement and has withdrawn her statement.
Mr Bailey it should be noted also failed in a libel case.

As did Slab. Your point being? The media should only report on something when the criminal justice system prove it?

Anyone who read Jimmy Guerins book would be left with grave doubts as to whether Grace livingstons husband could have could have been responsible for her death.

What is going on with the Rachel O' Reilly murder at the moment is a disgrace particularly rags like the Evening Herald who seem to come up with a new angle everyday or every slow news day.

Or the express about Diana. Whats your implication here, the press should only report on what you want them to report on?

Just to add that people should not allow political persuasion to come into this I understand that some people have a deep distrust if not hatred for provisional Republicanism but people should not put our justice system to one side because the person accused is a political opponent to do that inevitably leads to miscarriages of justice. We should have a basic principle that people are innocent untill proven guilty whether they are provisional republicans, Loyalists, FFers or normal Joe soaps with no political affiliation.
We are on a slippery slope and our current Minister for Justice has not helped matters infact he has made it worse.
The contrast between the hullabaloo over the Garda leak over his sons assault and the stony silence over the leak a day nature of the Rachel O'Reilly murder investigation is striking.

Again you seem to be bringing a tangled stream of points into this. You've challenged every aspect of evidence in this, yet at the same time, refuse to allow anyone to express an opinion that Slab Murphy must be innocent, hardly the behaviour of someone with an open mind.

I dont believe that we should censor our media but I honestly think that it is only a matter of time before someone gets off with murder because they could not secure a fair trial due to media coverage.

Hmmm I've endured having a trial delayed due to media coverage, but for the most part coming up to trials and during trials the press display a serious degree of restraint. Take for example the Nevin trial, the biggest media circus this country has seen over a criminal trial, and it carried off successfully.

monument

zuma wrote:

Full link to the above...for those interested!

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67098&dict=CALD

As in the same link in my two post in this thread?

ballooba

monument wrote:

Again, do you know what a 'Republican' is?

What's your point?

That Adams was saying that Slab was a good "a person who believes that Northern Ireland should become part of the Irish Republic".

It's a little bit simplistic to quote a literal meaning from a dictionary.

We all know what the term republican means. A republican is to a republic what a christian is to christ.

FTA69

TomF wrote:

I also heard in that neck of the woods that "Slab" got the nickname because he favoured the dropping of a slab of concrete onto the legs of someone who got on his wrong side. I don't know if that is a fact or not.

Yep, and he's fat because he eats babies....:rolleyes:

For f*ck's sake, Murphy is a common name in South Armagh and as such nicknames are assigned to each different family of Murphys, eg spud etc. Slab is simply the nickname of his family, his father was called it too. Perhaps you should actualloy familiarise yourself with the situation before spouting such obvious nonsense.

At the end of the day lads, Murphy has no prior convictions whatsoever, for either smuggling or IRA membership or eating babies or whatever and for people who are forever whinging on about "due process" and the "rule of law" perhaps ye should actually stick to those concepts before passing judgement.

Mighty_Mouse

A republican is to a republic what a christian is to christ.

So saying someone is a good christian is a bad thing!:eek:

Freelancer

FTA69 wrote:

Yep,


At the end of the day lads, Murphy has no prior convictions whatsoever, for either smuggling or IRA membership or eating babies or whatever and for people who are forever whinging on about "due process" and the "rule of law" perhaps ye should actually stick to those concepts before passing judgement.

I'm fascinated by the pro slab brigade who in the absence of a defence for slab or his actions, are reduced to demanding that we adhere to due process or the rule of law. This is an internet forum and the discussion here is no different than the discussions taking place around watercoolers smoking rooms, pubs and dinner tables across the country, demanding we suppress debate for the above reasons is asissine, and smacks of desperation.

A Dub in Glasgo

I suppose it boils down to people offering their opinions as facts. I would like to think that the Politics board is a lot better than gossiping around watercoolers

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I suppose it boils down to people offering their opinions as facts. I would like to think that the Politics board is a lot better than gossiping around watercoolers

You should always take peoples postings here as opinion unless it is shown to be fact.
Thats the way I look at it.
It's easier that way as the great bulk of the discussion here involves peoples opinions around the facts and its a bit much to be asking people to preface every other sentence with the line " in my opinion"

Of course at times in contentious debate it will be necessary to clarify whether it is opinion or fact such may be the nature of the contentious post.
Thats where a poster can ask for clarification of the point with a decent source for the fact or confirmation that it is only their opinion.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion whether it is ill informed or not.
Where I as a mod would draw the line would be if I took the view that it was being expressed for trolling purposes.

monument

ballooba wrote:

What's your point?

That's a question you quoted there, it is actually a question, imagine that. A point may follow if Cork would be kind enough to answer a direct question.

ballooba wrote:

It's a little bit simplistic to quote a literal meaning from a dictionary.

How so?

And if Cork’s use of ‘Republican’ is not a “literal meaning”, what is it – fictional or some kind of code? What?

Earthman - good post.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

It's easier that way as the great bulk of the discussion here involves peoples opinions around the facts and its a bit much to be asking people to preface every other sentence with the line " in my opinion"

What if the discussion involves peoples opinions around speculation which is presented as facts?

monument

Ask them to back it up.

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

How many of the Paras have been convicted of murder on Bloody Sunday?

None

That does not mean that the paras were not responsible for murder on bloody sunday.
How many paras can you name that have been alleged to have been responsible for murder on bloody sunday.


I have no problem with people saying that the IRA has a chief of Staff or that the IRA murdered X, Y or Z and washed X ammount of Diesel but I do object to the media identifying someone by name without waiting for a charge or conviction. I object to it on two main grounds that is that everyone is entitled to their good name and that if the allegations being made are false how do you correct it. How can someone defend themselves against the might of the the media barons empires. The second objection I have is that I think it is only a matter of time before someone gets away with a serious crime because they can not receive a fair trial due to media coverage.

Sand wrote:

Lets put it like this. Anyone, even honest Provos will admit it to themselves, will accept that if Slab Murphy is convicted of money laundering, smuggling and handling stolen goods etc,etc,etc it will be the *least* of his crimes. The man has directed, planned and carried out terrorist atrocities for decades. The man, his money and his ill gotten property is drenched in the blood of people who were all too often in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were working the wrong job, or were of the wrong religion.

Thats not political persuasion, thats reality. I heartily believe Milosevic directed genocide though there is no conviction. Thats not because I vote for Milosevics rivals, its because I think genocide is wrong, that its clear he was aware of it and encouraged it. Its the same with Murphy, hes a well known IRA leadership figure - even those crediting him with supporting the peace proccess accept that. Personally, Id be happy to see him doing life for murder, but Ill settle for the maximum sentence possible for tax evasion and whatever else they can throw at him.

The only political persuasions that come into it are the posters who without fail take their postions straight from the latest SFIRA press release or public address.

I dont read anyones press releases and I make my own mind up thanks very much.
The problem with your analogy is that milosevic was the president of yugoslavia that is an undisputed fact.
Murphy denies that he was or is the Chief of Staff of the IRA it is not an undisputed fact you maybe convinced he is/was but that is not good enough.

You are presenting things that you believe to be the case as fact they are not facts. Murphy has never been convicted of any of the stuff that you accuse him off.

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

No, in the absence of murder convictions by the Provo principle of innocent until proven guilty (possibly by your local secret unaccountable IRA kangeroo court? Wonder how many of those Murphy sat on?) all that can be said is that the Paras shot a number of people on Bloody Sunday. No one has been convicted of murder, so again, by Provo standards no one can say a murder occured.

Innocent until proven Guilty is not a provo principle it is a principle of any civilised democratic society.
And it would be nonsensical to say that because noone has been charged or convicted of a crime that we can not say that a crime has been committed.

Sand wrote:

Seriously Glasgo, youre wasting your time. We both know that a commonsense evaluation of the information available on Bloody Sunday means its obvious the Paras murdered people that day. By the exact same standard its obvious that Murphy is up to his neck in organised crime ( money and laptops hidden in haybales ffs?!?!), and its even more obvious that he directed IRA terrorism for decades. Refusing to accept this is letting your politics get in the way of common sense. Personally, I dont care. The more Provos like Adams rush to defend Murphy the bigger the fall when hes convicted. Adams is trapped by his need to keep Murphy and the other IRA honchos on side, but I dont see why ordinary Provos need to run onto a sinking ship.

It is obvious that certain unnamed paratroopers were responsible for murdering innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday however if I was to say Paratrooper 1 was responsible for a particular murder that is not an established fact.

Why is it obvious that he directed IRA terrorism based on what evidence we have a serious of unproven allegations made against Murphy that is all there is.
It is a fact that the IRA murdered people it is a fact that they engaged in all sorts of activity to fund their actions they are facts.

Voipjunkie

Freelancer wrote:

Lets take this at face value.

thank You

Freelancer wrote:

Okay fair enough, however the position you've taken is to give the man the benefit of the doubt to an absurd degree and abuse anyone who dares to assume he's anything but guiltly. All thats happening here is people are having the same conversation that happens in pubs, around dinner tables, in flats across the country, you have just taken it upon yourself to be the moral crusader of innocent until proven guilty. If I was choosen to act as a juror in this trial, I'd excuse myself as I've found myself discussing the facts of this cases. Plently of people could and are ignorant of the facts in this case and could act as jurors.

I have not abused anyone.

And it is not absurd to give everyone the presumption of innocence until proven Guilty.

Freelancer wrote:

However you've challenged the facts on this case in such a one sided manner, Slab's fleeing, his wife fleeing, the laptop found in a hale bale, none of these were reported as admission of guilt the were reported as a statement of fact. Should newspapers not report facts? You disputed that these facts should be seen as an admission of guilt, the papers merely reported them, posters on this site debated them. You questioned our assertions. Are you claiming we cannot draw conclusions from a newspaper article, or a newspaper shouldn't report certain facts?

The problem is that they are not facts they are rumour and innuendo being reported as fact.
I have no problem with the media reporting that a Farm has been raided that laptops have been siezed that money has been siezed that it is connection with an investigation into orgainised crime that diesel has been siezed. What I do have a problem with is that the person who owns the farm has been identified.
Speculation as to what is on the laptops where the money came from etc ec is all tied to that individual and we have a very unfair situation.
If in 6 months time the Gardai return the laptops the diesel the money because there is no connection with organised crime will the papers report it to the same extent as they have the raids.
As I have said this is not about Murphy I have no interest in him this is about the protection of all citizens and the right they have to a good name. It might be Murphy or Joe O'Reilly or Ian Bailey now but it could be any of us in the future if we do not protect our rights as citizens.

Freelancer wrote:

Again these articles are merely presenting facts. Slab murphy lost a libel action over claims he was in the IRA, fact. Hundreds of thousands of euro were found on his property fact. He fled the scene, fact. Thousands of cigarettes were found on the property, fact. Thousands of gallons of fuel were found on the property, fact. The IRA make a fortune washing diesal, fact. No one is trying Murphy, they're just presenting facts.

No they are not just presenting facts it maybe a fact that laptops were found on his farm it is not a fact that they contain IRA secrets

It may be a fact that money was found it is not a fact that this money was raised through illegal activity
It may be a fact that thousands of gallons of fuel were found it is not a fact that it was washed fuel
A few thousand cigarettes were siezed which may have been imported illegally although I have not seen a report that says where they were found among the 15 premises that were searched

Freelancer wrote:

As did Slab. Your point being? The media should only report on something when the criminal justice system prove it?

No they can report away on anything they should only name people when they have been charged and when they can report on the evidence presented to the courts or when someone has been convicted.

Freelancer wrote:

Or the express about Diana. Whats your implication here, the press should only report on what you want them to report on?

No again report away but do not identify people and try them in the media

Freelancer wrote:

Again you seem to be bringing a tangled stream of points into this. You've challenged every aspect of evidence in this, yet at the same time, refuse to allow anyone to express an opinion that Slab Murphy must be innocent, hardly the behaviour of someone with an open mind.

I have not prevented anyone from expressing an opinion that Murphy maybe be innocent.

Freelancer wrote:

Hmmm I've endured having a trial delayed due to media coverage, but for the most part coming up to trials and during trials the press display a serious degree of restraint. Take for example the Nevin trial, the biggest media circus this country has seen over a criminal trial, and it carried off successfully.

Yes and that was wrong as well why cant the media wait untill the conviction before they decide to give us the salacious gossip.
Would it not have been terrible if Catherine Nevin had got away with murder because the media had tried her beforehand.

ballooba

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

So saying someone is a good christian is a bad thing!:eek:

If they are murdering and racketeering in the name of christ, then yes.

ballooba

monument wrote:

How so?

And if Cork’s use of ‘Republican’ is not a “literal meaning”, what is it – fictional or some kind of code? What?

Because it's simplistic to treat words in isolation. Words have to be taken in context. Interpretation also comes into play. Would you try to learn a language using a dictionary?

Cork

I believe "Republican" to be inclusive. Sort of in the French way.

The provos have probably their own meaning that is more narrowly based.

Instead of calling "slab" a "good republican" - Adams should talk about how much illegal smuggling is costing our economy.

How much more could be done with this lost revenue.

Freelancer

Your issue isn't then with us talking about it its how criminal investigations are reported in the media.

This is no different than any other western democracy with a free press, and this is the manner in which incidents like this are reported across the globe, I'd suggest that instead of focusing on this one incident you broaden the scale of your campaign and focus on the media

monument

ballooba wrote:

Because it's simplistic to treat words in isolation. Words have to be taken in context.

That would be correct of the Cambridge Dictionary if it had one meaning in isolation and out of context. It does not.

It deals with more then one use of the word in some type of context, not in isolation.

ballooba wrote:

Because it's simplistic to treat words in isolation. Words have to be taken in context. Interpretation also comes into play. Would you try to learn a language using a dictionary?

Maybe not in isolation, but I wouldn’t dare try learning a written language with out one.

Cork wrote:

I believe "Republican" to be inclusive. Sort of in the French way.

The provos have probably their own meaning that is more narrowly based.

If you're talking about a supporter of our type of government system (or similar – which can be an extremely broad meaning) then it is 'republican' (lc). There is no reason to use a capital letter. Personally I’d only use a capital for the word names or titles (Republican Party (in the US), or “FF the Republican Party” etc).

I’ve a striking feeling that any time now a mod is going to pop in and say we’re (or I am) on the wrong thread or even board, or just being too pedantic.

model

Cork wrote:

Good Republican?

What makes him a "good republican"?

Does Adams even know the meaning of the word "Republican"?

From the above quote, I would assume you are implying that a "Republican" is someone who believes that violence is necessary if that person wants a United Ireland. Therefore making a fool of yourself.

JA quite clearly knows the definition, the practice and the reputation of an Irish Republican. There are many things which may make "Slab" a good Republican, and I fail to see what you are trying to prove with your sarcastic comments.

Voipjunkie

Freelancer wrote:

Your issue isn't then with us talking about it its how criminal investigations are reported in the media.

This is no different than any other western democracy with a free press, and this is the manner in which incidents like this are reported across the globe, I'd suggest that instead of focusing on this one incident you broaden the scale of your campaign and focus on the media

No my issue is people declaring people guilty without any trial and with no evidence just rumour innuendo and speculation. And this is a media and there is little difference between people doing here or in other forms of media although more people probably read and believe newspapers.

And this is not how these issues are dealt with in all countries with a free press it is an abuse of the free press and does nothing to assist and ensure justice is served it is done solely with the intention of selling more papers or attracting more listeners and thus increasing profit.
The system of justice is far more important than lining the pockets of O'Reilly and Co.