Why is Bik McFarlane being tried?

Mad Finn

Prominent IRA man Brendan "Bik" McFarlane is currently being tried for his alleged part in the kidnapping of businessman Don Tidey 25 years ago, which led to a shootout in which two members of the Irish security forces were killed.

None of the newspaper reports I have seen have addressed the issue of why this case is being brought to trial. Would this not have been rendered moot as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement and the general amnesty for political prisoners/POWs/terrorists? (delete according to viewpoint)

Personally I think any old fecker who abducted a widowed man, as Tidey was, at gunpoint in front of his children and is found guilty of a related crime should be locked up and the key thrown away but why are people guilty of much worse atrocities walking around free as air while this case is being tried? What's so special about it?

And can the state really win this one? It was 25 years ago. It may be hard to prove. And can you imagine the gloating from the Shinners if he gets acquitted?

Maybe it would have been better just to let it lie.

gandalf

I'm sure the families of the dead Garda trainee and the soldier would agree with you. Honestly none of the criminals no matter what hue they were should have been released imho.

PrivateEye

1981 was in colour, and 1916 was black and white.
Not a very romantic revolutionary.

The lads who shot coppers on Sackville Street but, God Bless 'Em :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

yeah why it take so long?

Victor

Mad Finn wrote: »

Would this not have been rendered moot as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement and the general amnesty for political prisoners/POWs/terrorists?

The Good Friday Agreement only applies to those convicted before the agreement.

Riddle101

Justice if a very slow thing, and i guess their response would be, that it's bad enough dealing with things today let alone a crime that took place 25 years ago

meathstevie

Victor wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement only applies to those convicted before the agreement.

And acts committed before the signing of the agreement as well if I recall correctly. Isn't that why the Bloody Sunday Enquiry is what it is instead of a criminal investigation ?

McDaid--1916

Mad Finn wrote: »

Prominent IRA man Brendan "Bik" McFarlane is currently being tried for his alleged part in the kidnapping of businessman Don Tidey 25 years ago, which led to a shootout in which two members of the Irish security forces were killed.

He did what he had to do, as would any gardi if he/she was in the same position. If it was a dead IRA man the cop would have got a promotion. I have no sympathy for the victims.

Mad Finn wrote: »

None of the newspaper reports I have seen have addressed the issue of why this case is being brought to trial. Would this not have been rendered moot as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement and the general amnesty for political prisoners/POWs/terrorists? (delete according to viewpoint)

I think i would and should. But knowing the tactics of the british government i would he'll be interned for the rest of his life, under some bull**** scheme.

Mad Finn wrote: »

Personally I think any old fecker who abducted a widowed man, as Tidey was, at gunpoint in front of his children and is found guilty of a related crime should be locked up and the key thrown away but why are people guilty of much worse atrocities walking around free as air while this case is being tried? What's so special about it?

You comment yet u dont know much about what actually happened. As you said it was 25 years ago how can you possible comment on something back then unless you were there of course??

Political landscape was far different than now...some of the comments from you and others in this forum is typical of a west brit culture that is sadly taken over the south. You have only got a taste of teh troubles yet you ridicule the IRA and other freedom fighters at every turn labling them as terrorists!

Mad Finn wrote: »

And can the state really win this one? It was 25 years ago. It may be hard to prove. And can you imagine the gloating from the Shinners if he gets acquitted?

They will congradulate Bik on his release and will hold the government to account on why he is being harrassed even after his release under the GFA.

McDaid--1916

meathstevie wrote: »

And acts committed before the signing of the agreement as well if I recall correctly. Isn't that why the Bloody Sunday Enquiry is what it is instead of a criminal investigation ?

There is no comparison between the two things. Bloody sunday was a sad day when CRIMINALS shot dead the innocent. No one can twist it any other way.

stovelid

I also agree that convictions like this case or the McCabe shooting (which in any case supposedly contravene the IRA standing order on engaging southern security forces) shouldn't come under the GFA.

McDaid - it's perfectly acceptable to criticize the IRA without being a 'West-brit' stooge.

Fratton Fred

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

There is no comparison between the two things. Bloody sunday was a sad day when CRIMINALS shot dead the innocent. No one can twist it any other way.

oh the irony. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

He did what he had to do, as would any gardi if he/she was in the same position. If it was a dead IRA man the cop would have got a promotion. I have no sympathy for the victims.

Wow, you're a really nice guy aren't you :mad:

Liam Byrne

There have been lots of "vaguely republican topic" threads diluted by people wondering if the neanderthals are still around, and republicans wondering why people still assume that all republicans are apologists and undermining those republicans who want to move on, and here's a perfect example of why that's still an issue.

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

He did what he had to do, as would any gardi if he/she was in the same position. If it was a dead IRA man the cop would have got a promotion. I have no sympathy for the victims.

Blinkered and biased. A garda would be doing his job, with the full support of the country and the government, doing what was required to keep us safe.

A criminal / kidnapper / terrorist is not.

What he had to do, could just as easily be viewed as "put down the guns and surrender".

If it were NOT an IRA member, would you admit that they were caught doing an illegal act and deserved to face the consequences ?

I think i would and should. But knowing the tactics of the british government i would he'll be interned for the rest of his life, under some bull**** scheme.

Or better still, if he's found guilty, he'll be convicted and sentenced accordingly for the crimes that he committed.

You comment yet u dont know much about what actually happened. As you said it was 25 years ago how can you possible comment on something back then unless you were there of course??

It was a kidnapping and an attempt at extortion, and therefore illegal. He's being tried, and if guilty will be convicted. I don't know the details either, but he's being treated like anyone else who would have done the same thing; he can't ask for more than that.

Political landscape was far different than now...some of the comments from you and others in this forum is typical of a west brit culture that is sadly taken over the south. You have only got a taste of teh troubles yet you ridicule the IRA and other freedom fighters at every turn labling them as terrorists!

As stated by a million people a million times at this stage; if someone attacks "an enemy", they can have some credence in claiming to be freedom fighters.....if they kill innocent people or law enforcement or are caught doing illegal acts, then they are criminals. There's a distinction, and it's valid, and it doesn't suit some people, but tough!

They will congradulate Bik on his release and will hold the government to account on why he is being harrassed even after his release under the GFA.

If they do then they will be ridiculed by normal people. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Victor

Oh, he was charged in 1998, it is he who delayed the process through legal challenges.

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

But knowing the tactics of the british government i would he'll be interned for the rest of his life, under some bull**** scheme.

What does the British Government have to do with this case?

DublinDes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As stated by a million people a million times at this stage; if someone attacks "an enemy", they can have some credence in claiming to be freedom fighters.....if they kill innocent people or law enforcement or are caught doing illegal acts, then they are criminals. There's a distinction, and it's valid, and it doesn't suit some people, but tough!

" if they kill innocent people or law enforcement or are caught doing illegal acts, then they are criminals. " Jayus, the IRA of 1916 - 1921 did plenty of illegal acts, killing law enforcement and indeed innocent people ( though not resulting in death, tarring and feathering of women having a relationship with British soldiers was one of the commonest tatics all around the country ). Ineed showing the stupidity of your statement, what do resisitance, insurgents, terrorists or whatever you want to call them, do but kill those who carry out the enforcement of law of the occupying power ???????

( BTW, I don't include the ordinary Guards or the Army as those carry out the enforcement of law of the occupying power. Mind you the thugs of the Special Branch are another thing. Anyone who says they didn't carry on with Republicans in the south like they did with the McBrearty's etc in Donegal is a liar. Ofcourse the lovely Gerry McCabe and co. were'nt thugs in any manner I'm sure)

stovelid

DublinDes wrote: »

but kill those who carry out the enforcement of law of the occupying power ???????

How exactly can kidnapping an Irish citizen and shooting members of the Irish army and Gardai be classified as an insurgent action against the Brits?

Liam Byrne

DublinDes wrote: »

Ineed showing the stupidity of your statement, what do resisitance, insurgents, terrorists or whatever you want to call them, do but kill those who carry out the enforcement of law of the occupying power ???????

There's stupidity there alright, but it isn't on my part....as stated above, it was an Irish person that kidnapped and and Irish guy that was shot, not an "occupying power".

DublinDes wrote: »

BTW, I don't include the ordinary Guards or the Army as those carry out the enforcement of law of the occupying power. Mind you the thugs of the Special Branch are another thing. Anyone who says they didn't carry on with Republicans in the south like they did with the McBrearty's etc in Donegal is a liar. Ofcourse the lovely Gerry McCabe and co. were'nt thugs in any manner I'm sure)

Careful.....the sarcasm there could be viewed as slander/libel, and the disgusting implication that you supported the murder of Gerry McCabe will ensure that you absolutely no credibility. The scum who did that were (supposedly) robbing OUR money and murdered one of OUR Gardai.

Proof of corruption in the Gardai is one thing from someone who might indeed be on morally sound ground to question the activities of the Gardai, but coming from someone who seems to condone much worse than any Garda ever did (e.g. apparently supporting murder with the sarcasm above and the reference to Gerry McCabe) then you can't expect to be taken seriously if you complain about lesser activities, however dubious.

Laughable.

It's like saying "that Garda shouldn't have arrested me for mugging an old lady in the pub, because he was smoking at the time".

And that's even ASSUMING that you have proof - which you didn't offer.

I'm not gonna say much more, because I'm so disgusted that someone could come on here and slander and attempt to cast doubt over Gerry McCabe - murdered while doing his job by scum who got off with far too light sentences (capital punishment is, AFAIK, still available for killing a Garda) - that I'm likely to say something that would get me banned and prevent anyone from challenging despicable views like yours.

If the Special Branch have had to cross some lines to protect us from organised crime and scum, then so be it - fair play to them.

But again, there's no proof of that, and you've offered none, other than a cowardly and snide slanderous remark ; as it stands, they did their job, protecting us, and fair play to them.

Gerry McCabe, R.I.P; and thanks.

Mad Finn

McDaid--1916 wrote: »

You comment yet u dont know much about what actually happened. As you said it was 25 years ago how can you possible comment on something back then unless you were there of course??

Depends what you mean by "there". I wasn't out scouring the woods of Leitrim but I was certainly following the news coverage at the time. I remember it all vividly. I remember the BBC/ITN news readers' inability to pronounce Ballinamore, Co Leitrim properly (It came out as Ball-IN-amore County Latrine, but that was probably just to wind up republicans).

I remember the fact that Tidey's wife had died a few years previously.

I remember Sinn Fein's hysterical claims that the dead garda and soldier had been shot by their own men (never proven, let's see if it comes out at the trial) with the clear implication that it was their own fault for daring to look for a kidnapped man. Kind of ironic when you remember (if you were around at the time) the British claims that all injuries suffered by IRA men during interrogation at Castlereagh were self inflicted and nothing to do with us really.

I remember when few people in Derry (on the city side that is, not even the Waterside) had any time at all for the IRA. (So don't call me a West Brit. I know where the Top of the Hill is ) Even Martin McGuinness never had the cojones to run in Derry because he knew he'd have his arse handed to him. That even endures to this day. Who's your MP again?

I remember the triumphalist attitude of SF supporters to every "victory" they claim (they even claim the No vote on Lisbon was all their doing) so I am living in fear that both McFarlane and the guys in the McCartney case will walk. It's going to be a bit painful.

oscarBravo

DublinDes wrote: »

Ofcourse the lovely Gerry McCabe and co. were'nt thugs in any manner I'm sure

If you have to resort to snide remarks about a dead man who was murdered in cold blood, you're not demonstrating a whole lot of faith in your argument.

This case is sub judice, and this thread is going nowhere. Locked.