Martin McGuinness to meet Britain's queen

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Please indeed.

Since when did Marty give a **** about democracy?

Since he signed up to it....... after ensuring that it actually was a democracy....you know, where all of the people are equal?

Or is your version of democracy still the one the British stood over and endorsed until they were made to adjust it.

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

The IRA wanted everyone in Ulster to join a state which was run by the Roman Catholic Church which is famous for buggering young children and forced its religious beliefs into law and was oppressive to the secular and Atheists of the Irish Republic.

Trying to move a full Island under control of the biggest paedophilia organisation on the planet and to inflict mass amounts of torture on the young children all over the Island by this oppressive and evil criminal gang.

Thankfully they never succeeded and never will.

If they knew the extent of what some of the CC where up to, why wasn't the saintly Ian shouting about it Keith? Like at the EU parliment or on the streets...God knows he was shouting about everything else. :rolleyes:
We did something about the CC when we found out, we didn't dig our heels in and try to maintain the oppression of children and women or call in an army to maintain the discrimination. Know what I'm saying Keith?:D

Happy Monday

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What an utterly useless statistic if it's even true.

Here are more interesting statistics for you.

The BA and 'Loyalists' were far more indiscriminate when it came to murdering civilians.

IRA ~35%
BA ~50%
'Loyalist' death gangs ~85% (a paltry 4% were republicans despite collusion).

What does that say for the class of man the BA recruited?

Not a useless statistic as you have mentioned Catholics killed in previous posts by the British Army.

Check this link out.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

338 Catholics killed by the IRA - who protected their rights as Catholics in the North?

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What an utterly useless statistic if it's even true.

Here are more interesting statistics for you.

The BA and 'Loyalists' were far more indiscriminate when it came to murdering civilians.

IRA ~35%
BA ~50%
'Loyalist' death gangs ~85% (a paltry 4% were republicans despite collusion).

What does that say for the class of man the BA recruited?

so if instead of taking prisoners, the BA executed everyone, as the IRA did, then their stats would have been more "respectable" is that what you are saying?

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

We did something about the CC when we found out, we didn't dig our heels in and try to maintain the oppression of children and women or call in an army to maintain the discrimination.

Did something - :eek: - tell that to the survivors of Magdalene laundries down here who have been refused compensation. Tell that to the young man who was asked by Cardinal Brady if he enjoyed being buggered by a priest. Tell that to the Irish government who have closed our embassy at the Vatican as a direct result of Vatican intransigence in helping putting priests on trial.

indioblack

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

What language did they all speak though?



I didn't know that story but it makes sense, the British deliberately uses Eire with no fada instead of Éire or even Ireland as a political point after the treaty/constitution.

A small point - All my relatives in Ireland put 'England' on their letters to me - not Britain or UK - and for the last 43 years I've written 'Eire' on my letters to them.
No agenda on my part, and, more importantly, the letters reach their destination - must be some very tolerant postmen in Ireland!

bee_keeper

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

The IRA wanted everyone in Ulster to join a state which was run by the Roman Catholic Church which is famous for buggering young children and forced its religious beliefs into law and was oppressive to the secular and Atheists of the Irish Republic.

Trying to move a full Island under control of the biggest paedophilia organisation on the planet and to inflict mass amounts of torture on the young children all over the Island by this oppressive and evil criminal gang.

Thankfully they never succeeded and never will.

i thought the IRA followed a marxist idealogy , never heard them make speeches which involved words like " for rome and ireland "

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if instead of taking prisoners, the BA executed everyone, as the IRA did, then their stats would have been more "respectable" is that what you are saying?

This does your argument no favours.

If anything the fact that the IRA couldn't take prisoners makes the BA's civilian kill count seem worse.

The IRA didn't have the luxury of a judicial apparatus to determine 'guilt'.

Chuck Stone

Happy Monday wrote: »

338 Catholics killed by the IRA - who protected their rights as Catholics in the North?

Not the BA/RUC/UDR that's for sure.

Patrick Cleburne

Happy Monday wrote: »

Did something - :eek: - tell that to the survivors of Magdalene laundries down here who have been refused compensation. Tell that to the young man who was asked by Cardinal Brady if he enjoyed being buggered by a priest. Tell that to the Irish government who have closed our embassy at the Vatican as a direct result of Vatican intransigence in helping putting priests on trial.

Only now is something being done about it. The IRA wanted to force everyone on the Island into that state. Putting thousands of children under threat from paedophile Priests.

Varied

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This does your argument no favours.

If anything the fact that the IRA couldn't take prisoners makes the BA's civilian kill count seem worse.

The IRA didn't have the luxury of a judicial apparatus to determine 'guilt'.

You see, most of the time, when the BA tried to engage the IRA battlewise, most of them went home in Bodybags. So firing at a peaceful protest or engaging in torture of an innocent 19 year old, not to mention interning young men from an early age with absolutely no evidence whatsoever suited them better.

Chuck Stone

Varied wrote: »

You see, most of the time, when the BA tried to engage the IRA battlewise, most of them went home in Bodybags. So firing at a peaceful protest or engaging in torture of an innocent 19 year old, not to mention interning young men from an early age with absolutely no evidence whatsoever suited them better.

Incredibly stupid. What the fuck did they think people would do? Say 'okay, sorry - we accept our second class status and have learned our lesson'.

Did they ****.

Happy Monday

Varied wrote: »

You see, most of the time, when the BA tried to engage the IRA battlewise, most of them went home in Bodybags.

You mean like at Loughgall or in Gibraltar. Only one team heading home in bodybags on those nights.

Pantsface

Martin looks like a sly little pig regardless of his political leanings

Fratton Fred

Varied wrote: »

You see, most of the time, when the BA tried to engage the IRA battlewise, most of them went home in Bodybags. So firing at a peaceful protest or engaging in torture of an innocent 19 year old, not to mention interning young men from an early age with absolutely no evidence whatsoever suited them better.

That's a load of crap.

The IRA didn't take prisoners, yet when the BA killed a "Player" there was a whole load of knicker wetting and accusations of a shoot to kill policy.

This lot were all in prison at the end of the troubles. if the BA had given them the same treatment the IRA gave British soldiers, such as these lads, then the ratio of civilians to service personnel would have been much much different.

Happy Monday

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not the BA/RUC/UDR that's for sure.

That will come as a great comfort to their families I am sure.
Particularly to the young man who was forced to drive a bomb into an army checkpoint. Had he not done that his family would have been murdered.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Did something - :eek: - tell that to the survivors of Magdalene laundries down here who have been refused compensation. Tell that to the young man who was asked by Cardinal Brady if he enjoyed being buggered by a priest. Tell that to the Irish government who have closed our embassy at the Vatican as a direct result of Vatican intransigence in helping putting priests on trial.

When the extent was discovered it was stopped and stopped emphatically.
A priest wouldn't get near a child now. We set up inquirys and tribunals that didn't do a Widjery but delivered damming verdicts on what happened.
btw want to tell me what happened at Kincora Boys Home? Transparent justice or cover up?
Cardinal Brady is a vatican matter, nothing the Irish government can do about that. Although they have severely criticed both the man and the hierarchy.
We closed the embassy and prosecuted the priests and the Church has no influence over state matters.
Now compare and contrast that with the happy families the Unionists and the British played until they where forced to change their ways. And the likes of Keith want that wonderful paragon of society to return. :rolleyes:

Varied

Happy Monday wrote: »

You mean like at Loughgall or in Gibraltar. Only one team heading home in bodybags on those nights.

You mean how they ambushed and shot the men when they attempted to surrender? Yeah real heroes.

I also refer you to my earlier statement regarding your point, it holds no water if you are attempting to oppress and collude with loyalist deathsquads in the murder of Irish/Catholic people.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if the BA had given them the same treatment the IRA gave British soldiers, such as these lads, then the ratio of civilians to service personnel would have been much much different.

They got the 'loyalist' death gangs to do their dirtier work.. like walking into bars/bookies and shooting innocent people for nothing other than that it was likely they were baptised Catholic.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They got the 'loyalist' death gangs to do their dirtier work.. like walking into bars/bookies and shooting innocent people for nothing other than that it was likely they were baptised Catholic.

oh yeah, the british army put them up to that, for sure.:rolleyes:

Most soldiers I've met that served in the north hated the loyalists as much as they did the IRA.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

When the extent was discovered it was stopped and stopped emphatically.
A priest wouldn't get near a child now. We set up inquirys and tribunals that didn't do a Widjery but delivered damming verdicts on what happened.
btw want to tell me what happened at Kincora Boys Home? Transparent justice or cover up?
Cardinal Brady is a vatican matter, nothing the Irish government can do about that. Although they have severely criticed both the man and the hierarchy.
We closed the embassy and prosecuted the priests and the Church has no influence over state matters.
Now compare and contrast that with the happy families the Unionists and the British played until they where forced to change their ways. And the likes of Keith want that wonderful paragon of society to return. :rolleyes:

Nice version of events - sure you weren't working on Widgerey yourself!
No - gardai, politicans and the church hierarchy were aware of what was going on for decades but turned a blind eye. I mean come on the industrial schools were run by the Church on behalf of the state. It was the state's responsibilty to protect these kids but they didn't. The Church was THE power in the Free State and you know it. Michael Woods then indemnified the church in 2002 on the damages amount giving them a get of out jail card courtesy of the government.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh yeah, the british army put them up to that, for sure.:rolleyes:

Par for the course - use one faction of the natives to suppress the other.

Most soldiers I've met that served in the north hated the loyalists as much as they did the IRA.

Yeah sure Fred, because the ones you met were real nice guys. You must have been particularly fortuitous to only meet honourable British soldiers and not the ones who opened fire on civilians and shot little girls and GAA players in the back.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Nice version of events - sure you weren't working on Widgerey yourself!

Which part of that version is wrong?

Happy Monday

Varied wrote: »

You mean how they ambushed and shot the men when they attempted to surrender?

You must be thinking of the Kingsmill massacre when 12 Protestants were murdered in cold blood.
Or Teebane where 6 Protestant workers were bombed on their way home.
Or perhaps the murder of Garda Jerry McCabe who was serving his community.

somairle

Ive family in England and one relative who served in the BA during the troubles, he was only a helicopter repair man, but I can assure you he hated the IRA with a passion and I dont blame him. but at the same time he doesnt seem to have any opinion of the Loyalist terrorists and he will not admit the BA did anything wrong, which I have had many arguments with him over, atrocities on all sides and all that. Im sure there were BA people who hated the loyalist terrorists as much as the IRA, but not in this fellas case. He doesnt say if he condoned them or not, but I sense he feels like ultimately they gave the BA a hand, like it was some sort of fight fire with fire.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which part of that version is wrong?

The part which suggests that Irish governments from the 1920s to the 1980s were willing to investigate the worst excesses of the Church.
There would have never been a need for inquiries had Irish governments done their jobs since independence.
Do you not understand that the industrial schools were state schools?
They paid the church to run them but responsibility rested with the state.
I mention these as I live close to one in Lower Salthill, Galway run by the Christian Brothers.
You want to absolve devout Irish Catholic politicans of crimes over 100 years in the South but condemn Carson et al in the North.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

The part which suggests that Irish governments from the 1920s to the 1980s were willing to investigate the worst excesses of the Church.
There would have never been a need for inquiries had Irish governments done their jobs since independence.
Do you not understand that the industrial schools were state schools?
They paid the church to run them but responsibility rested with the church.
I mention these as I live close to one in Lower Salthill, Galway run by the Christian Brothers.
You want to absolve devout Irish Catholic politicans of crimes over 100 years in the South but condemn Carson et al in the North.

Could you read my post and my question again and get back to me when you have stopped putting words in my mouth? I said none of the above.

Chuck Stone

somairle wrote: »

He doesnt say if he condoned them or not, but I sense he feels like ultimately they gave the BA a hand, like it was some sort of fight fire with fire.

The only problem with this fallacious reasoning is that the loyalist death gangs were as indiscriminate as an airborne virus. The amount of militant republicans they got was insignificant - they were cowards and afraid of the IRA - so they went into pubs, bookies and places of work to get their victims.

I think the disease analogy is very apt in this case.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you read my post and my question again and get back to me when you have stopped putting words in my mouth? I said none of the above.

You said Irish governments took action when they found out.
Recent governments have taken action I accept this.
But to suggest that previous Irish governments didn't know which you are implying is akin to saying that Carson and Craig (or the British government or Irish government for that matter) weren't aware of rampant discrimation against Catholics in the North for decades.

Happy Monday

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only problem with this fallacious reasoning is that the loyalist death gangs were as indiscriminate as an airborne virus. The amount of militant republicans they got was insignificant - they were cowards and afraid of the IRA - so they went into pubs, bookies and places of work to get their victims.

Enniskillen.
Kingsmill.
La Mon.
Care to discuss.

Patrick Cleburne

Happy Monday wrote: »

The part which suggests that Irish governments from the 1920s to the 1980s were willing to investigate the worst excesses of the Church.
There would have never been a need for inquiries had Irish governments done their jobs since independence.
Do you not understand that the industrial schools were state schools?
They paid the church to run them but responsibility rested with the state.
I mention these as I live close to one in Lower Salthill, Galway run by the Christian Brothers.
You want to absolve devout Irish Catholic politicans of crimes over 100 years in the South but condemn Carson et al in the North.

And they wanted British Protestants to join that state. Insane to think they put themselves in that situation. So they decided to fight to defend what they have. Some people don't seem to like it that Protestants fought back.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

You said Irish governments took action when they found out.
Recent governments have taken action I accept this.
But to suggest that previous Irish governments didn't know which you are implying is akin to saying that Carson and Craig (or the British government or Irish government for that matter) weren't aware of rampant discrimation against Catholics in the North for decades.

Sigh:(
Keith made the spurious and ridiculous claim that the IRA where attempting to push the north under the control of a church ruled republic.
I responded by asking why Paisley wasn't shouting about paedo priests (because he also didn't know the extent)
Nobody knew the extent because the church covered it up so well. Show me sources which indicate the governments covered up? I insist you do that.
When focus and pressure groups brought to light individual cases of abuse even they didn't know how systematic it was. The inquiry's uncovered that.
WHEN THE EXTENT WAS KNOWN action was taken, there was NO Widgery style cover up, no Kincora style fudging (excuse the pun). Action was taken, the priests where tried remorselessly and legislative change was made to make sure it never happened again.
Now, care to contrast that with what happened up north?

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They got the 'loyalist' death gangs to do their dirtier work.. like walking into bars/bookies and shooting innocent people for nothing other than that it was likely they were baptised Catholic.

I'm sure you've proof of that claim.

Same ould ****e on these threads, one side as bad as the other.

Chuck Stone

Enniskillen.

Awful, callous, attack resulting in innocent civilians being killed.

Kingsmill.

Sectarian massacre of civilians.

La Mon.

Botched attack resulting in tragic loss of life.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Care to discuss

I'm not sure how this pathetic whataboutery is relevant to my post but I'll entertain you regardless.

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

And they wanted British Protestants to join that state. Insane to think they put themselves in that situation. So they decided to fight to defend what they have. Some people don't seem to like it that Protestants fought back....................

.....and formed The Chuckle Brothers, great fight that!


p.s, you seem to disrespect Protestants at the drop of a hat Keith by misrepresenting them, which of course is your perogative. My wife is a Protestant and would have no truck with Unionism or Loyalism.
And by the way, SF and IRA have never hid their aim of changing the way this island is governed. So enough of the trolling nonsense.

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

.....and formed The Chuckle Brothers, great fight that!


p.s, you seem to disrespect Protestants at the drop of a hat Keith by misrepresenting them, which of course is your perogative. My wife is a Protestant and would have no truck with Unionism or Loyalism.
And by the way, SF and IRA have never hid their aim of changing the way this island is governed. So enough of the trolling nonsense.

Patrick.

And it is true. They fought back and some don't like it.

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure you've proof of that claim.

Security force collusion with loyalist death gangs is well established at this stage.

one side as bad as the other.

I disagree.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure you've proof of that claim.

Same ould ****e on these threads, one side as bad as the other.

Would this convince you that it was possible? Of course Keith and Happy Monday will find a way to keep living in denial but time will reveal all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/18/northern-ireland-troubles-memo?newsfeed=true

A secret memo that urged the army to shed its inhibitions in the "war" against the IRA and be "suitably indemnified" could prompt a fresh wave of legal action, lawyers in Northern Ireland have said.

The expression of enthusiasm for military action with apparent disregard for any legal consequences, at the height of the Troubles in July 1972, has surprised human rights groups, who are still pursuing justice for victims.

Released through the public records office in Belfast, the minutes record a meeting at Stormont Castle chaired by Willie Whitelaw, then Northern Ireland secretary. Also in attendance were the GOC (the most senior army officer in the province), Paul Channon MP, the deputy chief constable and senior civil servants.

The document, marked "secret", has only recently come to the attention of campaign groups and lawyers who, in the wake of the inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, have focused on re-examining killings by the security forces.

It was a pivotal moment in the Troubles. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and other republican leaders had just returned from abortive face-to-face talks with Whitelaw at Channon's home in Chelsea. That weekend fighting had broken out between troops and the IRA over the allocation of houses in west Belfast.

Dated Monday 10 July 1972, the three-page paper lists "conclusions" of a meeting immediately following the breakdown of the Provisional IRA's two-week-long truce.

It notes that Whitelaw would reveal the existence of the clandestine talks, "put the blame for the ending of the 'truce' fairly and squarely on the Provisionals who must now take the consequences", and "announce the government's intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour".

It added: "The GOC would see UDA [the loyalist paramilitary Ulster Defence Association] leaders and impress upon them that while their efforts as vigilantes in their own areas were acceptable, their presence in any riot or shooting situation could not be tolerated."

In terms of military response, it ordered that: "The army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."

Mark Thompson, director of Relatives for Justice, which campaigns on behalf of victims, said: "The discovery of this document indemnifying British soldiers from the threat of court proceedings whilst they took their 'war' to nationalist communities with the 'utmost vigour' is the first official documented evidence of a policy amounting to impunity.

"It is a clear amnesty being put in place for what would later occur, the inevitable loss of life. In 1972 the British army killed 79 people. Not one soldier was held to account for these killings.

"This document provides an important insight into the mindset of the British government and those directly involved in and responsible for 'security' and its policy development – a policy that went on to have disastrous consequences for our entire community. Many observers will view this document as sectarian in its outlook and strategic approach.

"Despite their involvement in sectarian murders, the UDA was not [at that time] a proscribed organisation. They were permitted to patrol areas and exist alongside the RUC and British army at a time when intelligence would have clearly shown the UDA to be involved in sectarian murders."

That Sunday in July 1972, in fact, five people had been shot dead by republican paramilitaries, and six Catholics, including a priest, were killed by the British army.

Kevin Winters, a Belfast solicitor who represents relatives seeking justice, said: "It will lead to a request for the police's historical enquiries team to re-examine all the army killings that they have looked at to date.

"The consequences of the document should permeate a lot of their investigations. It potentially strengthens grounds for fresh inquests. It could generate a huge amount of legal proceedings. If that was the mindset ... it would be grounds for a series of [out of time] civil actions for unlawful killings."

Paul O'Connor, of the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry, which also examines files from the period, said: "This document tells us something about the culture [at the time]. We deal with cases of people who were being kidnapped at UDA checkpoints and who were tortured and murdered. That ties in with allowing UDA members to join the Ulster Defence Regiment. It was the worst months of the Troubles."

Patrick Cleburne

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would this convince you that it was possible? Of course Keith and Happy Monday will find a way to keep living in denial but time will reveal all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/18/northern-ireland-troubles-memo?newsfeed=true

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Yes Keith, both governments abdicated their reponsibilities and are reponsible in large part for what happened, I have been saying that all along. The cover-ups and hypocrisy's are being revealed one by one. A soveriegn government is more accountable by virtue of the fact that what they do is done in your name and my name.


Rank and file Gardai colluded with the IRA, undoubtedly, but it wasn't systematic. Successive Irish governments colluded with a criminal British government, that was systematic. Your status was shored up by my governments inaction and the British governments criminality.

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Security force collusion with loyalist death gangs is well established at this stage.

Well aware of that, well, well, aware of it. I don't need a condescending history lesson from Happymans one sided view.

They got the 'loyalist' death gangs to do their dirtier work.. like walking into bars/bookies and shooting innocent people for nothing other than that it was likely they were baptised Catholic.

Any proof on these specific allegations Chuck or was this just muck thrown?

goodie2shoes

this kinda reminds me of a story about 2 Northside girls Jacinta & Rhianna who are about to return home to Finglas after their first holiday to Ibiza.
Jacinta wants to smuggle 2 pets, a snake & a skunk she's borrowed from the local zoo. Rhianna will "hide" the cobra around her waist, and pretend it's a belt. Easy peazy.

Jacinta decides to secrete her new pet skunk down her trousers in her knickers guessing the customs will never check there.
Rhianna objects saying "Jacinta! are ye fricken mad? what abou the awful awful fricken smell?"
Jacinta allays her fears " It's ok Rhianna, I'll change me kaks before I leave!"

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Well aware of that, well, well, aware of it. I don't need a condescending history lesson from Happymans one sided view.



Any proof on these specific allegations Chuck or was this just muck thrown?

What's it gonna take for fellow Irish men and women to give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow Irish men and women?
What exactly do you need to shift the onus of responsibility for what happened onto those who had the ACTUAL power to change things?

It's a genuine question.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's it gonna take for fellow Irish men and women to give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow Irish men and women?
What exactly do you need to shift the onus of responsibility for what happened onto those who had the ACTUAL power to change things?

It's a genuine question.

Are you actually Irish?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you actually Irish?

Struggling AGAIN Fred?

Any spin for us on the Willie Whitelaw memo there?, for entertainment purposes of course!

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

Any proof on these specific allegations Chuck or was this just muck thrown?

What is it you want K-9? The UDR (A regiment of the British army) colluded with loyalist death gangs - that's just what we know about.

There is another thread that highlights how the torture of innocent people was effectively sanctioned by the British.

If Colonel Gaddaffi is implicated in the deaths of IRA victims then aren't the British responsible for the deaths of people sitting in the pub watching a match, people betting on horses, or men trying to make a living driving a taxi?

What standards would you like to employ?

Fenian Army

Lads can we get back to talking about Marty meeting Windsor?

imme

just another politician to shake hands with a head of state,
shock horror :eek:

Sinn Fein really do take themselves too seriously.

They keep trying to promote themselves as the cleanest greenest 'movement' ( the title 'politicians' does sound a bit dirty these days).

Like nobody but them could do what they are doing, they're the last best hope for mankind!

:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Struggling AGAIN Fred?

Any spin for us on the Willie Whitelaw memo there?, for entertainment purposes of course!

Willie Whitelaw was a ****.

Are you Irish, or one.of those yanks that likes to stick their nose in where its not wanted?

You have been to Ireland haven't you, because you made a bot of an ass of yourself with the clerical abuse statement.

SmilingLurker

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Bloody hell, what do you want the man to do.

Resign from public life. Apologise for being part of an organisation that killed gardai, civilians, and british service personnel when there was a democratic alternative. Possibly get his party to put together a budget that was balanced and an alternative to the current government.

I believe in a republic, but not one where you tolerate politicians that actively campaigned against democratic politics.

As for the handshake, of course he should shake her hand. The question is should she shake his?

Sorry, you asked.