Adams defends "slab" Murphy

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

Well I have news for you.
Its not your job to tell people what to think or to impose your values on their opinions.
You are right people should not be convicted of anything unless there is evidence but people are entitled to think they are guilty if thats what they want to do.
They are also entitled to express that opinion here if they so wish as long as its within the charter.
If you post once more with that kind of line towards any poster here expressing their opinion,I'll conclude that you are not in favour of free speech or of discussion and your access here will be curtailed.

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.

Every newspaper in the land reported on this news story.
All that is being done here is ,it is being discussed.
If you have a problem with that Go Elsewhere.

I'm handing out this warning once and once only as it should be taken as a given.
It is not for discussion by pm either as my time as is the time of the other moderators is too important to be wasted on a deflection.

Voipjunkie

Earthman wrote:

Well I have news for you.
Its not your job to tell people what to think or to impose your values on their opinions.
You are right people should not be convicted of anything unless there is evidence but people are entitled to think they are guilty if thats what they want to do.
They are also entitled to express that opinion here if they so wish as long as its within the charter.
If you post once more with that kind of line towards any poster here expressing their opinion,I'll conclude that you are not in favour of free speech or of discussion and your access here will be curtailed.
Every newspaper in the land reported on this news story.
All that is being done here is ,it is being discussed.
If you have a problem with that Go Elsewhere.

I'm handing out this warning once and once only as it should be taken as a given.
It is not for discussion by pm either as my time as is the time of the other moderators is too important to be wasted on a deflection.

I have no idea what you are talking about I gave an opinion the same as everyone else here.
How could I impose my values on anybody I can not restrict what anybody says here only you can do that.
Of course people can think what they like and of course they can express it here within the law and the charter but how does my opinion in anyway prevent them from doing either
It is odd that you mention free speech and then say that this decree is not up for discussion. As I have no idea how I have transgressed the Charter and I have read over it a few times how can I ensure that I don't repeat my mistake when I have no idea what you believe I have done so wrong that deserved such a heavy handed response.

Could someone please explain this to me or direct me to someone who can exlplain it.

Sand

I said:

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

Voip Said:

None

That does not mean that the paras were not responsible for murder on bloody sunday.

It is obvious that certain unnamed paratroopers were responsible for murdering innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday

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.

Youre engaging in hypocrisy, or to be more precise the sort of whinging that Provos engage in any time they dont have any better defence for what their heros have been caught doing. No Paras have been convicted of any wrongdoing, but its okay to assume they committed murder on Bloody Sunday.

But shame, shame, shame on all of us for discussing reported facts that Tom Murphys farm was raided, that money and laptops were found hidden in haybales, that Tom Murphy is widely credited with supporting Adams SFIRA strategy, and that Tom Murphy failed in an attempt to sue media that identified him as being on the SFIRA army council.

Give it a rest. When youre ready to discuss the case on grounds other than your mock outrage give us a shout.

By the way, has Tom "good republican/small time innocent farmer" Murphy surfaced since the raid?

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.

It is obvious Tom Murphys farm was raided by hundreds of police and army, it was obvious that past raids in Machester were linked to Tom Murphy, it is obvious that most legitimate farmers do not store laptops or hundreds of thousands of sterling in haybales, it is obvious that Tom Murphy was named as being on the SFIRA army council and was unable to persuade a court that the article was wrong (actually the paper was able to prove it was right to a courts satisfaction), it is obvious that a British soldier was arrested by Gardai on Tom Murphys southern land having chased a car from a mortar site into the northern side of his farm, it is obvious that Tom Murphy is widely credited with swinging the local IRA to supporting Adams. Please point out where Im violating Tom Murphys rights by discussing whats in the public domain? Its not like Ive got some secret information source - everything Im discussing is out there already. Like I said already, spare me the violins.

Could someone please explain this to me or direct me to someone who can exlplain it.

Youre not discussing the case, youre running around telling everyone how terrible they are for discussing it. I dont blame you because Id be stumped if I was asked to think up an excuse for why a innocent farmer would store a laptop and cash in haybales. But I guess thats why im not a defence lawyer.

By the way Im reminded of the Provo outrage over the Frank Connolly-McDowell affair a few months back. Im guessing Frank has by now proven that he was never in Colombia .... His bank mustve got a bank statement for him by now showing him withdrawing cash from an atm somewhere in Ireland on the contentious dates? Hmmmmm.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about I gave an opinion the same as everyone else here.
How could I impose my values on anybody I can not restrict what anybody says here only you can do that.
Of course people can think what they like and of course they can express it here within the law and the charter but how does my opinion in anyway prevent them from doing either
It is odd that you mention free speech and then say that this decree is not up for discussion. As I have no idea how I have transgressed the Charter and I have read over it a few times how can I ensure that I don't repeat my mistake when I have no idea what you believe I have done so wrong that deserved such a heavy handed response.

Could someone please explain this to me or direct me to someone who can exlplain it.

Quite simple
Subject deflecting will not be tollerated.
It's off topic.
I'm of the view as a mod that you are using your media rants as a deflection inside this thread and this is not on.
If you want to express an opinion on a subject outside the remit of this thread-Go start another one.
Indeed if the subject is the media,then go to the news and media board with it.

Telling people in a thread that they should not express their opinion here implying sub judice ( by saying and I quote "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.") or something is simply not on.
Do it again and you will have your posting rights here removed.
Your whole attitude here reeks of thread spoiling rather than encouraging the flow of discussion.

Consider yourself moderated with this second warning.
A heavy handed response would have been to ban you straight away.
The "look over there" approach to deliberately fuzz up a thread will not be tolerated and will be strictly dealt with under the auspices of clearing up off topic wanderings in a thread.
There was a problem with this sort of behaviour with certain posters before on this board and I'm not going to allow a return to it.
It spoils free and open discussion which is the essence of this board.

No further discussion on this and everyone can go back on topic now.
Off topic posts will be deleted if I see them.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

No Paras have been convicted of any wrongdoing, but its okay to assume they committed murder on Bloody Sunday.

they = unnamed people in the British Army. Note the difference.

But shame, shame, shame on all of us for discussing reported facts that Tom Murphys farm was raided, that money and laptops were found hidden in haybales,

Those are the reported facts, at the moment anything inferred from them is speculation therefore we are discussing peoples opinion based on speculation presented as fact. Is this acceptable? of course it is but lets not kid ourselves that speculation = facts

that Tom Murphy is widely credited with supporting Adams SFIRA strategy,

and? If it is the peace strategy you are referring to, I hear Bertie Ahern is a supporter as well.

Im guessing Frank has by now proven that he was never in Colombia

He does not need to

ballooba

Just in case there is any confusion here. My interpretation of what Gerry Adams meant when he called Slab a "good republican" is as follows.

That he admires Slabs methods in furthering the cause for a United Ireland.

If anyone else has taken a different interpretation of what adams said, then I would love to hear it.

ISAW

Earthman wrote:

Quite simple
Subject deflecting will not be tollerated.
It's off topic.
I'm of the view as a mod that you are using your media rants as a deflection inside this thread and this is not on.
If you want to express an opinion on a subject outside the remit of this thread-Go start another one.
Indeed if the subject is the media,then go to the news and media board with it.

Telling people in a thread that they should not express their opinion here implying sub judice ( by saying and I quote "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.") or something is simply not on.
Do it again and you will have your posting rights here removed.
Your whole attitude here reeks of thread spoiling rather than encouraging the flow of discussion.

Consider yourself moderated with this second warning.
A heavy handed response would have been to ban you straight away.
The "look over there" approach to deliberately fuzz up a thread will not be tolerated and will be strictly dealt with under the auspices of clearing up off topic wanderings in a thread.
There was a problem with this sort of behaviour with certain posters before on this board and I'm not going to allow a return to it.
It spoils free and open discussion which is the essence of this board.

No further discussion on this and everyone can go back on topic now.
Off topic posts will be deleted if I see them.

When it comes to Slab Murphy I don't know the Guy and can only judge by comments in the media. I doubt any moderator will mention here specific complaints they have against him without referring to the source from which they heard it.

I would prefer to address the more general point in relation to with what slab Murphy is accused of being involved with. If the allegations are true the IRA (whether with his involvment or not) were involved in a property empire I believe in Manchester. What I find really ironic about that is the whole SF position in relation to priveate property as found in their submission on constitutional reform.

I see very little in the way of policy coming from SF but they do have a big problem with corporate ownership of property which it appears is exactly what the IRA are accused of doing. This to me indicated the difference between the trendy neo liberal leftie public face element of SF (which is also a creation for the media) and the republican element of the IRA who are more concerned in a 32 county Ireland by whatever means necessary.
Given that I find it difficult for Adams to support any property empire should one be discovered or revealed.

I also find no evidence in the above post of any sub judice reference. If there was one then one could refer to where it might affect an actual case. I see no such reference. But I do detect a possible hypocritical attitude of SF and others in this debate. One can not maintain double standards.

I would like to ask how Adams can support Slab Murphy if Murphy or any of his associates does believe in corporate ownership of property?

ISAW

ballooba wrote:

My interpretation of what Gerry Adams meant ...

That he admires Slabs methods in furthering the cause for a United Ireland.

If anyone else has taken a different interpretation of what adams said, then I would love to hear it.

Please see my above comment for the implications of such a statement about what Adams meant.

ballooba

Well what Adams said was the whole point of this thread originally. I hadn't thought of the whole 'Sinn Fein opposing corporate property ownership' element of it, neither had Adams probably.

ISAW

ballooba wrote:

Well what Adams said was the whole point of this thread originally. I hadn't thought of the whole 'Sinn Fein opposing corporate property ownership' element of it, neither had Adams probably.

Yes but why did Adams refer to Murphy as a good republican? I mean Fianna Fæil are the largest Republican party. They get over ten times the seats that Sinn Fein get. Yet Adams and his ilk will knock FF FG and the PDs but FF in particular as friends of big property developers.

You see the "if you believe in a 32 county republic then other interests dont count" excuse cant apply because FF believe in 32 counties. So where does that leave all the rehetoric about Big Business? I mean Adams gave a lunch time talk to the bankers didnt he? the funders of Noraid include corporate America dont they?

One can also go back and note how FG and the military intelligence of the day were involved in property and financial deals. The Sweepstakes are a good example. See the problem is how can SF sling mud about that and not mention when friends of theirs are in big business? And how can they sling mud and also say that the colombia three and others are innocent until proven guilty? How many TDs have been convicted of property and other deals? None! How many have substantial proof of dealings against them (I mean in the last 20 years) - all parties maybe 2 FF 1 FG no doubt there might be others but it isnt serious evidence against them yet.

Now how many IRA members and SF friends are convicted not of terrorism related offences but of fuel laundering, drug dealing, protection and other racketeering, smuggling, etc. ?

But maybe this is for another thread? It relates to Slab Murphy in the sense that it draws the criminality or lack of principles into perspective. But I am also unclear as to what is on topic and what is off topic since the direction given on it by the moderator seems self contradictory to me. So failing direction I will leave it at that and suggest someone start another thread on the issue since I find it impossible to continue since the ruling that this one can only address what Adams said in defence of Murphy.

rsynnott

Voipjunkie wrote:

Do you believe everything you read and hear as fact

I dont know if laptops were found in bales of hay but I do know that reporters tell lies all the time lets wait and see if that is a fact or a figment of a reporter or some garda's imagination

Even if it is true as far as I know there is nothing illegal in placing a laptop in a hay bale

So you think the state is lying to you whenever it can? Or only in cases of investigations into organised crime? Or only in cases of investigations of organised crime which involve alleged ex-terrorists?

Cork

Just as an aside:
I think the criminal assets bureau is doing a fine job.

Little seems to have been done before them.

Maybe there lacked political will to tackle organised crime.

Voipjunkie

My take on what Adams said is that in his opinion and from his knowledge of Murphy he does not believe Murphy to be a criminal.

The situation is something akin to Aherns defence and castigation of the opposition over the Ray Burkes resignation at the time Burke was innocent in that he had been convicted of nothing does Aherns defence of him then mean that he approves of what subsequently emerged that burke had been up to obviously not.

Adams also said at the time that smuggling and diesel washing are wrong so presumably if any of the allegations against Murphy subsequently are found to be true then Adams would withdraw his support.

Sand

My take on what Adams said is that in his opinion and from his knowledge of Murphy he does not believe Murphy to be a criminal.

Well, Id say Adams doesnt consider Murphy a criminal anymore than he considers himself to be a criminal. And lets face it, its pretty hard to consider anyone connected to SFIRA to be criminal under SFIRAs definition of criminality.

But do you seriously not think Adams support of some farmer down on the border who has little to do with him on the surface of things is just opinion? Adams is supporting him because Murphy is probably raging down the phone at him and the SFIRA figures who back Adams are eyeing their holiday homes nervously.

ISAW

Voipjunkie wrote:

We keep getting these stories about IRA money and property but we never see anyone being prosecuted or even charged.

We kept getting stories about the waste of money in Iraq. i mean the corruption and disappearance of billions of dollars. I believed it. thousands of people must have been involved. so far only four arrests one charge and one person pled guilty without a court case.

Adams and others will insist the war is rife with corruption based on circumstantial evidence. i would believe it. So he cant have double standards! I know it is not illegal to have lap tops in hay bales but it is circumstantial evidence. When you find a trout in the milk such kind of evidence becomes quite compelling. No it does not prove that it could not have happened by accident nor is it illegal but wouldent you think a trout in the milk had some human hand in it for some purpose?

Cork

Court freezes €1m of 'Slab' cash

Nearly €1m seized by police during dawn raids on the home of former IRA chief-of-staff Thomas “Slab” Murphy in north Co Louth. Ireland has been frozen, it emerged tonight.

This is an important development.

murphaph

Yes Cork, it shows the poor innocent republicans are being picked on again by the big bad garda. Any muppet who votes for SF when the world and his mother knows they are involved in all sorts of crime deserves them.

I'm sure the excuses for CAB requesting these asset freezings are on the way....