Irishman (19) tortured and sentenced to death in 1973, now declared innocent.

conor.hogan.2

juan.kerr wrote: »

So how is bringing that case up going off topic?

Because it adds nothing except "look what others did, that surely makes this case less bad" which is nonsense from either side.

The history of the troubles is far from written, both (several actually) sides committed horrendous acts but there is power sharing and peace now.

Nodin

juan.kerr wrote: »

I refer you to the following quote:
Hardly constructive.

Even if I were to agree with you on that point, it still doesn't explain

And people who think the IRA are 'innocent irishmen' are deluded

Nobody has stated in this thread that the RA were "innocent". The thread is about an innocent man who was tortured. What, precisely, were you getting at?

Madam_X

juan.kerr wrote: »

Hardly constructive.

But it was what you were essentially saying - and a response in kind.

juan.kerr

Nodin wrote: »

Even if I were to agree with you on that point, it still doesn't explain



Nobody has stated in this thread that the RA were "innocent". The thread is about an innocent man who was tortured. What, precisely, were you getting at?

I think it is pretty clear.

I take extreme offence to the line in the original post that I have quoted numerous times at this stage.

stovelid

Doubt he's the only one unfortunately.

Delighted that his name was cleared although it must be scant recompense for what he went through.

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

Indeed, can I assume that we agree both sides committed horrors that haven't been made public? How many other Jean McConvilles are we not aware of?

juan.kerr wrote: »

I find it hard to believer we know everything. For example IRA involvement in drug dealing & importation.

I'd be surprised if anyone on the island of Ireland thought the British Army was 'squeaky clean'. Perhaps you have heard about a little known incident generally referred to as 'Bloody Sunday'?

juan.kerr wrote: »

Not sure the point you are making.

The IRA would presumably claim that they were disciplined and that their members actions were approved and controlled by the IRA 'army council'.

Or are we saying that the IRA had no control over their 'active duty' members so can't be held responsible for their actions?

juan.kerr wrote: »

That you need the British government to 'acknowledge' an incident like this says it all.

juan.kerr wrote: »

That's a fair point. Perhaps if the OP had left out the line below then the thread may have developed differently:

As for:

Whose arse licking? Better that we stick a bunch of murdering thugs up on a pedestal?

juan.kerr wrote: »

Are you a child? Difficult to believe otherwise when you ask 'whose side are you on'. Cowboys or Indians is it?

Grow up a bit first before responding to this please.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Not sure where you think you are, but you aren't on the Sinn Fein IRA forum.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I've quite clearly answered that in an earlier post.

juan.kerr wrote: »

No idea, I have no interest in it so haven't gone looking but I'm sure it's out there, somewhere. Maybe not on this site...

juan.kerr wrote: »

And people who think the IRA are 'innocent irishmen' are deluded.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I do, but the original poster hijacked / derailed the thread himself by including this little gem:

If he wanted to focus on the single case he would have left out that incendiary comment.

Since he chose to include it he clearly didn't want to focus on that single case so left it open to discuss atrocities committed by all parties.

juan.kerr wrote: »

So you don't think the case of Jean McConville is in any way similar? Torture and murder don't compare to torture and imprisonment?

Take those blinkers off.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Check what it was in response to - thaty might give you as clue.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I didn't.

juan.kerr wrote: »

So how is bringing that case up going off topic?

juan.kerr wrote: »

I refer you to the following quote:

Hardly constructive.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I think it is pretty clear.

I take extreme offence to the line in the original post that I have quoted numerous times at this stage.

WTF is your problem?

juan.kerr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF is your problem?

People like you who think that no one is entitled to hold a different opinion than youself.

Nodin

juan.kerr wrote: »

I think it is pretty clear..

I think it implies the innocent man tortured was supposed to be an IRA member.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I take extreme offence to the line in the original post that I have quoted numerous times at this stage.

I think you just want to take a few pot shots at republicans and seized on the first thing that caught your eye. Certainly the statement I've asked you questions on has nothing to do with it as far as I can see.

Nodin

juan.kerr wrote: »

People like you who think that no one is entitled to hold a different opinion than youself.

Extreme double think is in effect.....

Madam_X

juan.kerr wrote: »

People like you who think that no one is entitled to hold a different opinion than youself.

Different opinion is not the issue here at all. Trivialising the man's treatment at the hands of state officials in order to say that the IRA was as bad is.

juan.kerr

Nodin wrote: »

I think it implies the innocent man tortured was supposed to be an IRA member.


I think you just want to take a few pot shots at republicans and seized on the first thing that caught your eye. Certainly the statement I've asked you questions on has nothing to do with it as far as I can see.

Think what you like. But I recommend you read my first post in isolation before reaching that conclusion. Most of what followed from me was in direct response to posts from you and a few other like minded posters.

I would have been perfectly content to leave it at that one post.

arybvtcw0eolkf

stovelid wrote: »

Doubt he's the only one unfortunately.

Delighted that his name was cleared although it must be scant recompense for what he went through.

I'll be honest, and I'm hardly a bleeding hearted liberal (eh Nodin? lol) but I found just reading the man's account of his ordeal in the first link posted hard reading.. I can't even imagine how he lives with the damage its done to him;

The teenage chef was taken from his home and brought to an army post at Blackmountain school, where he was held for almost five hours.

By the end of his time in military custody, he had agreed to sign a statement admitting he had shot the soldier.

"By the time they were finished with me I would have admitted to killing JFK," he says.

So what did the Army do during that time? Liam Holden says he was subjected to sustained torture and then threatened that he would be shot if he did not confess to the killing.

"I was beaten and they told me to admit I had shot the soldier, but I said that wasn't true because I didn't.

"Then six soldiers came into the cubicle where I was being held and grabbed me. They held me down on the floor and one of them placed a towel over my face, and they got water and they started pouring the water through the towel all round my face, very slowly," he says.

"They repeated that three or four times, but were still getting the same answer. I told them I had not shot the soldier."

Mr Holden, now a father of two, said the soldiers then changed tactics and put a hood over his head and told him he was going to be shot.

"They put me into a car and took me for a drive and said they were bringing me to a loyalist area," he said.

"I couldn't see where I was but I was in a field somewhere. One of the soldiers put a gun to my head and said that if I didn't admit to killing the soldier that they were going to shoot me and just leave me there.

"I had a hood over my head and a gun at my head in the middle of a field and was told I would be killed if I didn't admit it. There were no ifs or buts, I just said I did it.

"I didn't think about going to prison or anything like that, I just confessed to make them stop."

Some refer to him as an innocent man, maybe because I'm an old fart around here but a 19yr old citizen isn't a 'man'.. Life is still preparing the lad for manhood. He was still living with mammy ffs.

Some shocking deeds have been done on this God forsaken rock of an island :mad:

Madam_X

They're not likeminded just because they can see through your agenda.

Something tells me if this thread was about J McConville and someone posted what you did early on about the other side, you wouldn't appreciate it.

Nodin

juan.kerr wrote: »

Think what you like. ..

I will. And I've good grounds too.

juan.kerr wrote: »

But I recommend you read my first post in isolation before reaching that conclusion. Most of what followed from me was in direct response to posts from you and a few other like minded posters..

"like minded"....you mean people who hold opinions different to your own.

juan.kerr wrote: »

I would have been perfectly content to leave it at that one post.

I doubt that very much.

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

People like you who think that no one is entitled to hold a different opinion than youself.

I haven't given my ****ing opinion - people can't get a chance because of your derailing.

Reading the thread is like trying to drive a car with a wasp in it.

You're getting a kick out of the attention aren't you?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Reading the thread is like trying to drive a car with a wasp in it.

I'm soooo going to steal that for a later date

Chuck Stone

Alana Narrow Dolt wrote: »

I'm soooo going to steal that for a later date

I heard it somewhere before in some other context. It's not mine I have to admit.

Tis a good one alright.

Pacing Mule

Apt username.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

Apt username.

Damn the penny just dropped ~ bwahahahahaha

AEDIC

Alana Narrow Dolt wrote: »

All sides in the conflict have acknowledged their part in wrong doings, and this case only hardens my resolve that we should take a long hard look at a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

After the British queen's historic visit last year and her forthcoming meeting with MMG I think the time is not too far off when we'll all look back (those of us old enough to remember the conflict in all its horror) and say 'its about bloody time'.

Those that want to will...unfortunately there are those on both sides that will do and say whatever they can to 'offrail' any progress...people like to have their hatred and misery to hold on to...sadly.

Happyman42

This thread is as good an example as you could get of how partitionists will stick their heads in the sand, to avoid at any cost, facing up to the fact that they stood by (condemming those who stood up and where counted) while stuff like this was going on.
As I always knew, their day of reckoning with whatever conscience they haven't sarcrificed to their inferiority complexes is approaching as more of this stuff surfaces. The irresponsible governance of the British with the collusion and aquiescence of several Dublin governments torched the situation.
Here's more of it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/18/northern-ireland-troubles-memo?newsfeed=true

humanji

juan.kerr, stop posting in this thread. You've been derailing it from the start. The topic is in the OP. Everyone should be discussing this.

tadhg999

yes , terrrible, poor man, having his life robbed, this happens every where

f

stovelid

humanji wrote: »

juan.kerr, stop posting in this thread. You've been derailing it from the start. The topic is in the OP. Everyone should be discussing this.

Actually to be fair, Juan Kerr should have let it go but It's also not exactly true that some of the other posting is not pushing a political agenda.

I just hope that a topic about a similarly awful tragedy or miscarriage of justice that provoked critical republican interjection would be similarly handled. My guess is probably not.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Happyman42 wrote: »

T
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."

Well it looks as though some chicken's are coming home to roost!.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

humanji wrote: »

juan.kerr, stop posting in this thread. You've been derailing it from the start. The topic is in the OP. Everyone should be discussing this.

Actually to be fair, Juan Kerr should have let it go but It's also not exactly true that some of the other posting is not pushing a political agenda.

I just hope that a topic about a similarly awful tragedy or miscarriage of justice that provoked critical republican interjection would be similarly handled. My guess is probably not.

Ps not knocking the topic of the OP which I too am appalled by.

Chuck Stone

It's well known that the British were torturing Catholic/Nationalist people back then. Many of the people tortured died in their 40's and 50's from the trauma. The fact that torture was sanctioned by higher-ups comes as no surprise to many I'd guess.

Patrick Cleburne

He lives to tell the tale. Sadly Jean Mcconville and Jerry Mccabe aren't around any more thanks to Republican aggression.

getzls

The OP states this person was cleared of murder, he wasn't cleared of murder.

Jimoslimos

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

He lives to tell the tale. Sadly Jean Mcconville and Jerry Mccabe aren't around any more thanks to Republican aggression.

Oh you KEITH!!!!

Madam_X

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

He lives to tell the tale. Sadly Jean Mcconville and Jerry Mccabe aren't around any more thanks to Republican aggression.

The guy was tortured. You wouldn't be trying to minimise state torture now would you?

That comment is of no relevance, it merely pushes a "The IRA were worse" agenda and is pretty appalling too. Why the need to say it? Uncomfortable with your precious security forces being depicted in a bad light?

Sunnyisland

getzls wrote: »

The OP states this person was cleared of murder, he wasn't cleared of murder.

has had his conviction for murder quashed by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. Liam Holden (58) had been sentenced to hang for the killing of a British soldier in 1972.

Do you just see what you hope to see .

sinsin

juan.kerr wrote: »

I find it hard to believer we know everything. For example IRA involvement in drug dealing & importation.



I'd be surprised if anyone on the island of Ireland thought the British Army was 'squeaky clean'. Perhaps you have heard about a little known incident generally referred to as 'Bloody Sunday'?

Could you provide some reputable links of seizures and convictions?

getzls

realies wrote: »

has had his conviction for murder quashed by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. Liam Holden (58) had been sentenced to hang for the killing of a British soldier in 1972.

Do you just see what you hope to see .

Still not a not guilty. He says he was tortured, well he would say that.

Spread

getzls wrote: »

Still not a not guilty. He says he was tortured, well he would say that.

Why are most small people angry?

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

Still not a not guilty. He says he was tortured, well he would say that.

Aren't you the lovely fellow.

Sunnyisland

getzls wrote: »

Still not a not guilty. He says he was tortured, well he would say that.

Some of the new material included evidence discovered by a Guardian journalist, Ian Cobain, that water torture was used by the British military at the time, despite repeated denials. The journalist was an expert witness for Mr Holden's legal team.

I would just like one of them to admit it, to acknowledge that they subjected me to what I have said they did. I think that would be almost as good, in my own mind, as the judge saying 'Sorry Mr Holden but you were not guilty," he said.


Why dont you read the ****ing post.

Pure_Cork

You have to laugh at the clowns who ignore the thread topic and persist with bull**** whataboutery. Pathetic.

laoch na mona

the troubles really was a cock up for the british army

getzls

realies wrote: »

Some of the new material included evidence discovered by a Guardian journalist, Ian Cobain, that water torture was used by the British military at the time, despite repeated denials. The journalist was an expert witness for Mr Holden's legal team.

I would just like one of them to admit it, to acknowledge that they subjected me to what I have said they did. I think that would be almost as good, in my own mind, as the judge saying 'Sorry Mr Holden but you were not guilty," he said.


Why dont you read the ****ing post.

I am reading your post and you are just quoting Holdens words. The verdit was quashed. This does not mean not guilty, nor for that matter guilty.

Spread

getzls wrote: »

I am reading your post and you are just quoting Holdens words. The verdit was quashed. This does not mean not guilty, nor for that matter guilty.

Well, in your blinkered eyes, what does it mean? For an Englishman you seem to have a lot of trouble with the English language.

Sunnyisland

getzls wrote: »

I am reading your post and you are just quoting Holdens words. The verdit was quashed. This does not mean not guilty, nor for that matter guilty.

Its not my post you should be reading its the OP,S. Its all there read it,
Its the first post in the thread.

Happyman42

Spread wrote: »

Well, in your blinkered eyes, what does it mean? For an Englishman you seem to have a lot of trouble with the English language.

The verdict was quashed, so he reverts to how he was before the trial; innocent. No other way to read that.