Sinn Féin's attitude toward Real IRA arrests.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

I said in my initial reply to Fenian Army

'I would agree with you in thinking SF don't have much time for anti-GFA dissidents'

What's emerged since then, and kept the thread going are backward views like yours which suggest that RIRA embody a pure republicanism and that the Brits are a bigger problem than these murdering thugs. Your words betray your claim that you don't support them. I agree with Gerry Afams on a few things, with you not so much. You have a warped idea of what republicanism means

Gerry Adams is wrong and is playing with this for his own reasons, he is capitalising on the Daily Mail type shrills who only want to kick this problem down the road because they and their kind never wanted to deal with it in the first place.
Adams knows that if the GFA fails or fails to make progress, he and SF will carry the can and cede power to those who never came off ceasefire, who never gave up the militant fight. Keeping RIRA suppressed at any cost keeps him safe on the middle ground. That is why SF have the 'attitude' they have.
'Criminals' do not bring 'extra' heat on their activities, subversive militant activity brings a whole lot of extra scrutiny and hassle. It's ludicrious to suggest that is all that is happening here. Not only are people falling for the media guff, they are falling for simple political spin from people they formerly charactherised as liars and enemies of the state. You couldn't write it! :rolleyes:

p.s. (^^^^Which is fully on thread. Who I support, whether you agree with me or not, or how warped my 'republicanism' is, ISN'T. You are not the moral policeman/woman of politics, it is your self appointed superman fixated cross examination and accusation of posters that is pulling a myriad of threads off topic.)

MakeEmLaugh

Happyman42 wrote: »

Gerry Adams is wrong and is playing with this for his own reasons, he is capitalising on the Daily Mail type shrills who only want to kick this problem down the road because they and their kind never wanted to deal with it in the first place.
Adams knows that if the GFA fails or fails to make progress, he and SF will carry the can and cede power to those who never came off ceasefire, who never gave up the militant fight. Keeping RIRA suppressed at any cost keeps him safe on the middle ground. That is why SF have the 'attitude' they have.
'Criminals' do not bring 'extra' heat on their activities, subversive militant activity brings a whole lot of extra scrutiny and hassle. It's ludicrious to suggest that is all that is happening here. Not only are people falling for the media guff, they are falling for simple political spin from people they formerly charactherised as liars and enemies of the state. You couldn't write it! :rolleyes:

p.s. (^^^^Which is fully on thread. Who I support, whether you agree with me or not, or how warped my 'republicanism' is, ISN'T. You are not the moral policeman/woman of politics, it is your self appointed superman fixated cross examination and accusation of posters that is pulling a myriad of threads off topic.)

If that were a verbal comment, you'd have been a bit excessive with the air quotes!

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Gerry Adams is wrong and is playing with this for his own reasons, he is capitalising on the Daily Mail type shrills who only want to kick this problem down the road because they and their kind never wanted to deal with it in the first place.
Adams knows that if the GFA fails or fails to make progress, he and SF will carry the can and cede power to those who never came off ceasefire, who never gave up the militant fight. Keeping RIRA suppressed at any cost keeps him safe on the middle ground. That is why SF have the 'attitude' they have.
'Criminals' do not bring 'extra' heat on their activities, subversive militant activity brings a whole lot of extra scrutiny and hassle. It's ludicrious to suggest that is all that is happening here. Not only are people falling for the media guff, they are falling for simple political spin from people they formerly charactherised as liars and enemies of the state. You couldn't write it! :rolleyes:

p.s. (^^^^Which is fully on thread. Who I support, whether you agree with me or not, or how warped my 'republicanism' is, ISN'T. You are not the moral policeman/woman of politics, it is your self appointed superman fixated cross examination and accusation of posters that is pulling a myriad of threads off topic.)

You are expressing your opinion. Your opinion is entirely open to cross examination. I think you are speaking with a forked tongue. Your attitude towards SFs stance (or at least Adams comments) belies your supposed support for peaceful resolutions. Adams is calling the criminals because they are criminals. He has also called them paramilitaries and said there is no place for that any more - obviously in light of the GFA resolution. You say you support the GFA but make comments about 'kicking problems down the road'. What problem? Saying people were left behind is a little vague. What problem do people not want to deal with?

Any other SFers want to row in behind Adams?

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

You are expressing your opinion. Your opinion is entirely open to cross examination. I think you are speaking with a forked tongue. Your attitude towards SFs stance (or at least Adams comments) belies your supposed support for peaceful resolutions. Adams is calling the criminals because they are criminals. He has also called them paramilitaries and said there is no place for that any more - obviously in light of the GFA resolution. You say you support the GFA but make comments about 'kicking problems down the road'. What problem? Saying people were left behind is a little vague. What problem do people not want to deal with?

Any other SFers want to row in behind Adams?

All subversive groups are and where involved in 'criminality' it's how they fund their operations around the world. That includes the IRA.
Gerry is having his cake and eating it here, they (RIRA) are doing nothing different.


Again: My views on the GFA are not relevant here or to the topic at hand. Get over yourself.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

All subversive groups are and where involved in 'criminality' it's how they fund their operations around the world. That includes the IRA.
Gerry is having his cake and eating it here, they (RIRA) are doing nothing different.

They are. The IRA operated where there was no GFA. RIRA operate in spite of the GFA. Do you accept RIRA operate in defiance of the people of Ireland?

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

All subversive groups are and where involved in 'criminality' it's how they fund their operations around the world

No need for quotations. Criminal activity such as extortion, racketeering, murder, vigilantism, kidnapping, armed robbery cannot be justified in any way whatsoever, even if an acceptable standard in your point of view.

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

They are. The IRA operated where there was no GFA. RIRA operate in spite of the GFA. Do you accept RIRA operate in defiance of the people of Ireland?

Of course they are in defiance of the majority who voted for the GFA. What of it? It's what you propose doing about it that is important....not pointlessly condemning people for breaking an agreement THEY DIDN'T MAKE. You are chasing your tail, again.

JustinDee wrote: »

No need for quotations. Criminal activity such as extortion, racketeering, murder, vigilantism, kidnapping, armed robbery cannot be justified in any way whatsoever, even if an acceptable standard in your point of view.

Criminality is part of what the RIRA are about, not the only thing, hence the quotations.
Again, (and this is getting tiresome in the extreme), you'll have to find and 'quote' where I ever said it is an 'acceptable standard' or is 'justified'?
Can you not come down of the high moral ground for a second and discuss what is actually happening, because it is happening, no matter what your opinion of it is?

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course they are in defiance of the majority who voted for the GFA. What of it? It's what you propose doing about it that is important....not pointlessly condemning people for breaking an agreement THEY DIDN'T MAKE. You are chasing your tail, again.

They didnt make? So? I didnt 'make' the law against murder, i still have to abide by it or face the consequences. Continue to downplay it. Democracy isn't about you respecting the decisions you agree with. It's about respecting majority agreements like the GFA.

The law should be used to pursue, disrupt, prosecute and dismantle RIRA. Same as any other criminal gang. Philip Collopy, that genius gangster that accidentally shot himself was given a 'republican' funeral with gun salute and Irish flag. Should the government negotiate with the limerick gangs?

Happyman42

Laminations wrote: »

They didnt make? So? I didnt 'make' the law against murder, i still have to abide by it or face the consequences. Continue to downplay it. Democracy isn't about you respecting the decisions you agree with. It's about respecting majority agreements like the GFA.

I couldn't care less about your moral standpoint, it isn't going to solve the problem.

Back on topic, could you show me where Gerry Adams condemned or criticised the IRA when they 'raised funds'?
He is spinning here for political reasons.

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

I couldn't care less about your moral standpoint, it isn't going to solve the problem.

The gardai and courts will solve the problem. Like they did McKevitt. Or Gilligan. Or Dundon

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

Criminality is part of what the RIRA are about, not the only thing, hence the quotations.
Again, (and this is getting tiresome in the extreme), you'll have to find and 'quote' where I ever said it is an 'acceptable standard' or is 'justified'?
Can you not come down of the high moral ground for a second and discuss what is actually happening, because it is happening, no matter what your opinion of it is?

I am discussing what is happening.
There is only one more tenet to what this unelected and unsanctioned minority organisation are involved with and that is willful ignorance of the wishes of the majority.
No need to be so chippy, whatever your name is. If you can't stop playing the victim, can't quit pigeon-holing and cannot accept other views then I'd suggest desistance.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

I couldn't care less about your moral standpoint, it isn't going to solve the problem

The wishes of the majority should be protected. Not those of an illegal and criminal organisation. Instead of limp-noodle acquiescence, surely people should stop making excuses for them and actually take a stand as they cannot be reasoned with. They allegedly want what is currently impossible although if it was granted, I would guess they'd find something else as an excuse for the rackets, murder contracts, kidnapping . . . etc . . . etc

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

I am discussing what is happening.
There is only one more tenet to what this unelected and unsanctioned minority organisation are involved with and that is willful ignorance of the wishes of the majority.
No need to be so chippy, whatever your name is. If you can't stop playing the victim, can't quit pigeon-holing and cannot accept other views then I'd suggest desistance.

What has your opinion or Laminations opinion of RIRA, or both your opinions of my opinion got to do with Sinn Fein's attitude towards Real IRA arrests?
These threads do not exist for you people to pontificate. :rolleyes:

Laminations

Happyman42 wrote: »

What has your opinion or Laminations opinion of RIRA, or both your opinions of my opinion got to do with Sinn Fein's attitude towards Real IRA arrests?
These threads do not exist for you people to pontificate. :rolleyes:

They exist to discuss and debate, in this case SFs attitude to RIRA. If they were merely SFs attitude to RIRA then it would be suffice to post Martin Ferris' comments and Gerry Adams comments and close thread. So it may inconvenience you but our opinions have everything to do with it.

You think SFs attitude is weak politicking - and that RIRA represent a purer republicanism, another sign of your admiration for them. I think it's responsible condemnation of what is cintinuing violence and common criminality in the wake of a widely acceptad resolution.

Happyman42

another sign of your admiration for them.

Reported, sick of this nonsense.

Laminations wrote: »

They exist to discuss and debate, in this case SFs attitude to RIRA. If they were merely SFs attitude to RIRA then it would be suffice to post Martin Ferris' comments and Gerry Adams comments and close thread. So it may inconvenience you but our opinions have everything to do with it.

You think SFs attitude is weak politicking - and that RIRA representI think it's responsible condemnation of what is cintinuing violence and common criminality in the wake of a widely acceptad resolution.

I don't think it is weak at all, I think it is clever manipulation of an event, for the reasons stated earlier.
Have you found Gerry Adam quotes where he critices or condemns the IRA for ordinary criminal activity? If you do, then you can say he is being entirely sincere otherwise he is just spinning to suit another agenda. That it rhymes with the Daily Mail type hysteria, is a nice bonus for SF, for now.

Border-Rat

The PIRA has killed members of the RIRA in the past. BTW just looked at the RIRA Wiki - 600-700 members. LOL. Right. :pac:

Dubhlinner

Ferris in an awkward position. He'll likely be attending funerals like this one over the next few years. From what I can tell Sinn Fein and even SDLP will attend paramilitary themed funerals so long as the person isn't linked to a group still in favour of armed struggle. At the funeral of an inla man a few months back shots were fired over the coffin with an armalite & an sdlp mla carried the coffin.

Reality is Martin Ferris own funeral will look very similar to that of Alan Ryans

Dubhlinner

Border-Rat wrote: »

The PIRA has killed members of the RIRA in the past. BTW just looked at the RIRA Wiki - 600-700 members. LOL. Right. :pac:

LOL. As one journalist said "the provos didn't have that many members when they nearly wiped out half of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet"

Fitzerb

Laminations wrote: »

I doubt it but the support for Price is terribly misguided. Her cause and behaviour should not be supported and she should not be defended from the consequences of her actions. She was re imprisoned for breaking the terms of her release license. This did not need a trial to decide, it merely needed the approval of the secretary of state. That's how license releases and revocations work and it was clear in the GFA that prisoners were released on licensed and expected to reject dissident paramilitarism. They then moved it on to her health, she is allergic to prison it seems. Martin Corey was released on health grounds after incessant complaints about how he was deteriorating. Now that he is out, not a whisper about his poor health, likely because it ain't so poor no more.

That is factually incorrect.... She was charged with encouraging support for a paramilitary organisation after holding a statement from which a masked Real IRA man read at an Easter Rising commemoration in Derry.

A court granted her bail on that offence — the charge has since been dismissed –

The woman is in fact interned without trial. She is also dying with no more than months to live. I don't agree with the woman's views but I do accept that she has a right not to support the peace process. What I find sickening is the SF attitude to this. Adams and Co were happy to use internment and hunger strikes as a propaganda vehicle to recruit members to the IRA. Now when it suits their diluted idealism they are happy to allow one of their former colleagues remain interned in a British prison. How can Gerry Kelly who bombed the Old Bailey with Price sit by and say nothing...... Nor has the issue been raised in the Dail by SF....It tells me all I need to know about the honor and idealism of SF......

Hannibal

Fitzerb wrote: »

That is factually incorrect.... She was charged with encouraging support for a paramilitary organisation after holding a statement from which a masked Real IRA man read at an Easter Rising commemoration in Derry.

A court granted her bail on that offence — the charge has since been dismissed –

The woman is in fact interned without trial. She is also dying with no more than months to live. I don't agree with the woman's views but I do accept that she has a right not to support the peace process. What I find sickening is the SF attitude to this. Adams and Co were happy to use internment and hunger strikes as a propaganda vehicle to recruit members to the IRA. Now when it suits their diluted idealism they are happy to allow one of their former colleagues remain interned in a British prison. How can Gerry Kelly who bombed the Old Bailey with Price sit by and say nothing...... Nor has the issue been raised in the Dail by SF....It tells me all I need to know about the honor and idealism of SF......

This is also incorrect.

"Speaking after a demonstration in Dublin today to demand the release of Marian Price, Sinn Féin TD for Dublin North West, Dessie Ellis called on the new British secretary of state for the North to act on her case and those of Martin Corey and Gerry McGeough.
“The wrongful imprisonment of Marian Price, Martin Corey and Gerry McGeough continues to cause serious concern, particularly so as Marian Price is not well.
"These citizens are entitled to due process which they have been denied. They should be released and the North’s deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness, is raising these with the new British Secretary of State.”
Sinn Féin continues to be proactive on these prisoners and is in contact with Marian Price’s legal team. Sinn Féin’s Raymond McCartney and Jennifer McCann have made representation to Marian Price’s parole board and also met the US consul regarding her case.
The party will continue to do all it can to secure the release of these prisoners.
ends"


"Martin McGuinness to raise Price and Corey with new secretary of state: Gerry Adams speaking after his party’s ard comhairle meeting in Dublin today, Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams TD, commented on the appointment of a new British Secretary of State for the North: Theresa Villiers MP.
Deputy Adams said:
“I hope that Theresa Villiers will bring a new and more progressive focus to the issues which need attention now. They were not dealt with properly by her predecessor, Owen Paterson.
“There are outstanding matters from the Good Friday and Hillsborough Agreements, such as a bill of rights for the North, corporation tax and cross-border development, which the British government needs to deliver on.
The Sinn Féin leader also highlighted the continued imprisonment of Marian Price and Martin Corey, saying: “These citizens are entitled to due process, which they have been denied. They should be released and Sinn Féin will be raising their case with the new secretary of state. The Irish government also needs to seek their release.”

Laminations

Fitzerb wrote: »

A court granted her bail on that offence — the charge has since been dismissed

This is irrelevant, she wasn't imprisoned on the back of breaking the law she was imprisoned because her license was revoked for breaking the terms of that license.

Dotsey wrote: »

"These citizens are entitled to due process which they have been denied. They should be released

What due process is involved in the revocation of a license that was not followed? If SF want to argue about the lack of due process in the probation/parole services or in the release license system then they should do it for everyone who has been returned to prison after breaching the terms of their license.

Johnny Adair had his license revoked in 2003
Sean Kelly had his early release license revoked in 2005
Terence McCafferty (RIRA) had his license revoked in 2008

Know the difference between reimprisonment by recall and imprisonment by conviction.

http://www.offendersfamilieshelpline.org/index.php/recall-to-prison/

There have been papers reviewing the system of recall, a better approach than cherry picking and championing a case that suits you.

Laminations

Just to hammer home this point

From the paper linked above

(1) The Secretary of State may, in the case of any prisoner who has been released on licence under this Chapter, revoke his licence and recall him to prison.
(2) A person recalled to prison under subsection (1)
(a) may make representations in writing with respect to his recall, and
(b) on his return to prison, must be informed of the reasons for his recall and of his right to make representations.
[...]
(6) On the revocation of the licence of any person under this section, he shall be liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence and, if at large, is to be treated as being unlawfully at large.
(7) Nothing in this section applies in relation to a person recalled under section 255. The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were in fact very complex, and have been much changed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (which further complicated the law4).
In essence, decisions to recall are taken administratively.

So if this is not fair for Price then it is also not fair for anyone arrested and imprisoned through the recall system.

According to that paper that's almost 14000 people in 2010-2011.

Why is Price special?

Fenian Army

What about Martin Corey? he hasn't been told why he is back in jail.

you are still overlooking the fact that she was released in 1980 - if her license (I don't believe she is on one, but anyways) said she couldn't go to Republican commemorations or demonstrations or whatever, why wasn't she arrested years and years ago?

I don't think people should be returned to jail unless they commit a crime (im old fashioned like that ) Marian Price has committed no crime since her release in 1980. I was at the March in Dublin, as were many other fair thinking people - at least 3 tds were there, that I saw, Thomas Pringle, Clare Daly and Dessie Ellis. Normally when a td takes a ****e it's gets coverage, the media ignored the march, which had a v.good turnout.

SaoriseBiker

Laminations wrote: »

Just to hammer home this point

From the paper linked above

(1) The Secretary of State may, in the case of any prisoner who has been released on licence under this Chapter, revoke his licence and recall him to prison.
(2) A person recalled to prison under subsection (1)
(a) may make representations in writing with respect to his recall, and
(b) on his return to prison, must be informed of the reasons for his recall and of his right to make representations.
[...]
(6) On the revocation of the licence of any person under this section, he shall be liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence and, if at large, is to be treated as being unlawfully at large.
(7) Nothing in this section applies in relation to a person recalled under section 255. The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were in fact very complex, and have been much changed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (which further complicated the law4).
In essence, decisions to recall are taken administratively.

So if this is not fair for Price then it is also not fair for anyone arrested and imprisoned through the recall system.

According to that paper that's almost 14000 people in 2010-2011.

Why is Price special?

Price is in prison because she was holding a piece of paper a guy in military dress read from. If that's not a perversion of justice what is It's selective imprisonment for an anti Republican agenda, nothing to do with justice of any sort, but regardless the Sunday Independent ' nationalists ' will support the Brits to the last !!!!!

Laminations

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Price is in prison because she was holding a piece of paper a guy in military dress read from. If that's not a perversion of justice what is It's selective imprisonment for an anti Republican agenda, nothing to do with justice of any sort, but regardless the Sunday Independent ' nationalists ' will support the Brits to the last !!!!!

Price is in prison because she broke the terms of her license - perhaps one too many times. This guy in military dress was a RIRA member, a group that has claimed responsibility for numerous murders and bombings. And what he read amounted to a death threat. Please stop downplaying it. Holding paper is not illegal. Standing beside men in masks is not illegal. You do not need to do anything 'illegal' to have your release license revoked. It happens to thousandsof people across Britain every year. It can be for failure to turn up at a certain place, failure to stay out of a certain place, failure to stay away from certain people - none of which are illegal.

Your problem is quite clearly with the licensing system and recall. A system that existed before Price and has incarcerated thousands of people who haven't gotten 'republicans' march for their release.

@ Fenian Army
For an indeterminate sentence, you can only be released on license.

I wonder when Dessie Ellis was campaigning and canvassing did he let his constituents know that he would be using their time to campaign for terrorists?

Laminations

Also from the paper linked above, Prices case is clearly not unique nor do the charges being dropped protect her from prison

The recall may be challenged before the Parole Board, which has complicated rules on whether a case will be considered on the papers only by a single member, or by an oral hearing with two or three members. There is no formal appeal from the decision of the Parole Board, though it may be challenged by way of „judicial review‟ in the High Court, from which there is the possibility of further appeal to the Court of Appeal and exceptionally to the Supreme Court. Judicial review is a hugely important route by which the legality of decisions of the executive may be reviewed, but it is costly and no substitute for a „real‟ appeal structure. For those interested in studying how the system works the case law is, of course, revealing. However, from the perspective of the prisoner, these applications are often unrewarding. Thus, simply by way of example, in R (Bektas) v Secretary of State for Justice, Probation Service [2009] EWHC 2359 (Admin) a prisoner, serving 8 years for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, was remanded in custody a few months after his release on licence when he was charged with threatening to kill his wife. His licence was not immediately revoked, but it had been by the time the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had dropped the charges against him. The judge hearing his application to challenge the legality of the decision to recall him to prison as a „standard‟ case, and not a „fixed term‟ recall, held that this decision was one which the Secretary of State was entitled to take. Some nine months later, by the time this application for judicial review was heard in court, the allegations had been dropped: yet the prisoner was still in prison, awaiting an oral hearing before the Parole Board. The judicial review, which held that the decision to recall him was neither unlawful nor irrational, did not help!
Many recalled offenders are recalled because they are arrested and charged with a fresh offence. One important question in practice concerns why they are returned to prison on recall, and not as unconvicted prisoners awaiting a fresh trial (unconvicted prisoners have more privileges in prison than convicted prisoners). Of even more concern, is what happens when the police decide to drop the charge, either on the advice of the CPS or on their own initiative. Once recalled, there is no presumption that if the charges are dropped (or indeed if the prisoner is later acquitted at trial) that he will be re-released. Once recalled, the prisoner awaits the decisions of both Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice with no control over the timetable of their decision- making. From the prisoners‟ perspective this is often outrageously unfair: they were perhaps arrested because they were „set up‟ by someone (a rival drug dealer, for example, or angry ex-partner). The police may readily agree, having made further investigations, to drop the charges, but the prisoner remains in prison. Some time later, when the Parole Board considers the case, the prisoner may still remain in prison, as the Parole Board will be considering the „risks‟ of further offending, not the grounds for recall.

As far as I'm aware she has had her appeal heard by the parole board and is now requesting a judicial review of the case. So where is due process not being observed? And by due process I mean the same process open to everyone else subject to a standard recall of their release license.

Fenian Army

What about Martin Corey? he hasn't been told why his license was revoked, so he can't judicially review it. A judge said this was in breach of his human rights and ordered his release. Owen Patterson overruled the judge and prevented his release .

How is the above fair?

Fenian Army

What about Martin Corey? he hasn't been told why his license was revoked, so he can't judicially review it. A judge said this was in breach of his human rights and ordered his release. Owen Patterson overruled the judge and prevented his release .

How is the above fair?

Laminations

Fenian Army wrote: »

What about Martin Corey? he hasn't been told why his license was revoked, so he can't judicially review it. A judge said this was in breach of his human rights and ordered his release. Owen Patterson overruled the judge and prevented his release .

How is the above fair?

I'm not familiar with his case so I'll have to look it up and get back to you. But it's quite clear this unfairness is not limited to Corey, so I doubt it's a discriminatory practice. Your point has never been 'the system is unfair', an argument I might sympathise with, it has always been 'the system is treating these republicans unfairly'

Once recalled, the prisoner awaits the decisions of both Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice with no control over the timetable of their decision- making. From the prisoners‟ perspective this is often outrageously unfair