Dessie Ellis - The Sinn Fein TD who is linked to 50 murders

Grudaire

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This really is the essence of it. If someone is looking for your vote, it's a perfectly legitimate question.

Y'see I can fully understand your position, and caution in having someone who has historically been involved in terrorism in a position of power.

However.

As a country we have decided that we want to bring physical force nationalists into politics. (ie turn them into constitutional nationalists).

This makes perfect sense all around.

But it does mean that we have to accept that these nationalists have been previously involved in terrorism. Without acceptance of this fact there is no incentive for people like this to get into constitutional nationalism.

As much as I dislike SF policies in the first place (I believe their budgetary figures as much as I believed Bertie :-\ ) I do have to say that they have brought Republicanism back into politics and away from the gun.

golfball37

Dessie Ellis has never denied he was a senior member of the IRA so how is this front page headline news?
He was extradited to Britain on foot of these charges in 1982 but acquitted in a British court.

Its worthy of being reported but its hardly a headline. Unless of course the Indo are pushing an agenda at the behest of somebody with a vested interest?

tipptom

Dont think anybody who was involved in in a war for whatever reason and is running for public office would feel they should be going around giving imformation on how man "kills" they had and rightly so.

dvpower

tipptom wrote: »

Dont think anybody who was involved in in a war for whatever reason and is running for public office would feel they should be going around giving imformation on how man "kills" they had and rightly so.

They wouldn't want to be giving out this information because their electorate might take it into account when marking their ballot.

Ghandee

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

What evidence is there to suggest that Ellis has changed his principles? I have never heard him expressing regret for the actions he contributed to during the troubles. I am not even sure if I have ever heard him express remorse for the dozens of innocent people who died at the hands of the IRA, he certainly doesn't believe that the IRA did wrong by the looks of things. His 'I cant be bothered' remark in regards this latest allegations seems to indicate that much at least.

Bearing in mind that these allegations were made by the very people the IRA were defending themselves against, I'd say he's quite within his rights to dismiss it, especially as they've not bothered to charge him for any of the alleged activities contained in the report.

I would hazard a guess on where his principles now lie as the IRA as an army, have now disbanded, and embraced political means only would be a strong hint as to where Dessie stands on the matter.

dvpower

golfball37 wrote: »

Its worthy of being reported but its hardly a headline.

"Serving TD linked to 50 murders". Sounds like a headline to me.

tipptom

dvpower wrote: »

They wouldn't want to be giving out this information because their electorate might take it into account when marking their ballot.

In a lot of eletorates over the years,the higher the tally against the enemy meant more votes.

Gosub

dvpower wrote: »

Nobody is talking about charging anybody with anything.
Just looking for the truth of the matter. Is that not reasonable and understandable?

I'm sure we would all like the truth behind some of the shenanigans that took place in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. I'm sure the British government have held back the documents that would embarrass them. When all the cards are on the table the game will be fair. Until that time, these releases are best ignored.

golfball37

dvpower wrote: »

"Serving TD linked to 50 murders". Sounds like a headline to me.

But he was tried for most of these crimes in a British court and acquitted making this allegation completely redundant imo. Why would the Indo not put that bit in for balance?

Its newsworthy but not a headline unless you are promoting an agenda- in my opinion.

Chips Lovell

Cliste wrote: »

Y'see I can fully understand your position, and caution in having someone who has historically been involved in terrorism in a position of power.

However.

As a country we have decided that we want to bring physical force nationalists into politics. (ie turn them into constitutional nationalists).

This makes perfect sense all around.

But it does mean that we have to accept that these nationalists have been previously involved in terrorism. Without acceptance of this fact there is no incentive for people like this to get into constitutional nationalism.

I agree, the abandonment of violence is to be welcomed. All I'm saying is that it's a legitimate question for voters to ask what these people were involved in. So if someone is standing for election, isn't it only fair that they be forthcoming on whether they'd murdered someone, or been involved in any murders, or been involved in racketeering or whatever?

I can accept that they may never be prosecuted for the sake of peace and reconciliation. I can accept that they may not even want to be specific, with regard to the names of victims etc, for fear of reprisals, I'd just like to see a little more honesty.

tipptom

Gosub wrote: »

I'm sure we would all like the truth behind some of the shenanigans that took place in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. I'm sure the British government have held back the documents that would embarrass them. When all the cards are on the table the game will be fair. Until that time, these releases are best ignored.

You can be sure all the "kills" that the british government set up for the Loyalists hit squads was redacted and that would not be the sort of story that the Independant or the Sindo would prefer to cover.

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I agree, the abandonment of violence is to be welcomed. All I'm saying is that it's a legitimate question for voters to ask what these people were involved in. So if someone is standing for election, isn't it only fair that they be forthcoming on whether they'd murdered someone, or been involved in any murders, or been involved in racketeering or whatever?

I can accept that they may never be prosecuted for the sake of peace and reconciliation. I can accept that they may not even want to be specific, with regard to the names of victims etc, for fear of reprisals, I'd just like to see a little more honesty.

If you don't like him, don't vote for him. Its quite simple.

spikethedog

Gosub wrote: »

I'm sure we would all like the truth behind some of the shenanigans that took place in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. I'm sure the British government have held back the documents that would embarrass them. When all the cards are on the table the game will be fair. Until that time, these releases are best ignored.

I'd like the truth behind the shenanigans that took place over the last 15 years in political life in Ireland.
That caused more damage to the country than any of the troubles did.

Sponge Bob

It is probably a perfectly accurate assessment by the Brits if they said Dessie belonged to a unit that was responsible for 50 deaths. This was 30 years ago, so what. The IRA has been on ceasefire for over half that time.

Mike Jackson as in General Sir Michael was adjutant of the Paras on Bloody Sunday, shall we start a thread to have that knighthood withdrawn on the grounds that he helped organise 13 gratuitous murders....or do we simply accept that this was in the past....just the same as Dessies antics were.

Nodin

dvpower wrote: »

I'd like to know the full extent of any terrorist activities he may have been involved in. That's all.
Obviously I couldn't say what the reaction might be to any information he was forthcoming with - but that's getting way into hypotheticals.

I don't even want to see him charged and punished for any operations he might have been involved in (if he was). I just want the truth laid bare and people can make their own minds up. Personally, I think it would be better for SF if those who were involved in IRA activities would step aside, buts that up to the party and their electors to decide.

....you'll pardon me for believing that the first step following any disclosures by Mr Ellis would be hands-in-the-air outrage from the usual suspects. I'd also suspect that any threads on such revelations would feature contributions not stating 'O - I'm glad I now know the full extent of his activities' but more attacks, and demands for confessions from all members of SF.

Chips Lovell

GRMA wrote: »

If you don't like him, don't vote for him. Its quite simple.

It isn't really a question of whether Ellis is likeable or not, more whether voters have a right to know if he's murdered anyone or been involved in murder. That's all.

dvpower

Gosub wrote: »

I'm sure we would all like the truth behind some of the shenanigans that took place in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. I'm sure the British government have held back the documents that would embarrass them. When all the cards are on the table the game will be fair. Until that time, these releases are best ignored.

And until then, people will view individuals with murky pasts with deep suspicion. And quite understandably so.

I think SF will eventually decide to retire these people. I can't see them making any major breakthrough until they do.

GRMA

He was in the IRA who fought a war and killed people, he says he was an important member... isn't that enough information to go on? Voters know he is in the IRA. They know he was jailed for making/having bombs.

GRMA

dvpower wrote: »

And until then, people will view individuals with murky pasts with deep suspicion. And quite understandably so.

I think SF will eventually decide to retire these people. I can't see them making any major breakthrough until they do.

That sounds familiar, in fact I recall hearing that many times in the north and down here, and would you know, the people who said it were wrong every time.

You think these people would be tired of being wrong at this stage.

nlgbbbblth

May we have the 50 names?

dvpower

Nodin wrote: »

....you'll pardon me for believing that the first step following any disclosures by Mr Ellis would be hands-in-the-air outrage from the usual suspects. I'd also suspect that any threads on such revelations would feature contributions not stating 'O - I'm glad I now know the full extent of his activities' but more attacks, and demands for confessions from all members of SF.

It depends.
If Dessie Ellis was involved, say, in the murder of a soldier, the response would be muted.
If he was involved in some of the awful atrocities where innocent civilians were killed, then there would be outrage - that would be only natural when the full details are known and people can make the emotional connection.

It might actually benefit SF. They'd take an almighty kicking but they might get back up stronger.

Nodin

dvpower wrote: »

And until then, people will view individuals with murky pasts with deep suspicion. And quite understandably so.

I think SF will eventually decide to retire these people. I can't see them making any major breakthrough until they do.

Dessie seems to be doing ok so far.

UDP

I cannot understand how Nelson Mandela is praised by many Irish people who at the same time repeatedly condemn ex-IRA members who moved a terrorist organisation from using violence as a means of achieving equal rights to one that used politics and dialogue instead.

Do the same people that condemn the likes of Ellis and other ex-members or leaders of the IRA condemn Mandela too?

This country expects the people of Northern Ireland to move on but yet it looks like many in this country are unable to.

bluecode

rainbowdash wrote: »

There was massive anti Irish sentiment in the UK in the early 1980's, so yes documents about Irish people were biased, the best examples being the Birmingham 6 "confessions"

Why do you think there was 'massive anti Irish' sentiment in the UK? It might have been something to do with the activities of Dessie Ellis and his murderous friends.

There does seem to be a lot of collective amnesia in this country relating the IRA campaign of terror. They were vicious cold blooded murderers and they shamed this country for years with their activities.

So I think it's a good thing that we are reminded the some of the smiling SF TDs sitting in the Dail have the blood of innocents on their hands and have never been convicted for it.

The fact the many of them realised it was the wrong way finally is neither here nor there. They were mass murderers. There is no getting away from it.

Think of that when you consider voting for Sinn Fein.

tipptom

dvpower wrote: »

And until then, people will view individuals with murky pasts with deep suspicion. And quite understandably so.

I think SF will eventually decide to retire these people. I can't see them making any major breakthrough until they do.

I think this is a quandry for SF and I dont think they will make any big party gains until Gerry Adams steps aside.

One thing they are consistent on though is loyalty to memebers who went out and backed up their convictions at a great personal loss to themselves and their familys and they are looked after today because of that, and I dont think any younger members would try to change that.

GRMA

The people who should be ashamed are those who stood idly by when Irish people were being burned out of their homes, shot, discriminated against and beaten off the streets. The PIRA came about out of necessity. Its symbol is a phoenix arising from the ashes.... of Bombay Street.

GRMA

tipptom wrote: »

I think this is a quandry for SF and I dont think they will make any big party gains until Gerry Adams steps aside.

One thing they are consistent on though is loyalty to memebers who went out and backed up their convictions at a great personal loss to themselves and their familys and they are looked after today because of that, and I dont think any younger members would try to change that.

How can you say that when in recent years they have made massive gains?

dvpower

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It is probably a perfectly accurate assessment by the Brits if they said Dessie belonged to a unit that was responsible for 50 deaths. This was 30 years ago, so what. The IRA has been on ceasefire for over half that time.

Mike Jackson as in General Sir Michael was adjutant of the Paras on Bloody Sunday, shall we start a thread to have that knighthood withdrawn on the grounds that he helped organise 13 gratuitous murders....or do we simply accept that this was in the past....just the same as Dessies antics were.

If Mike Jackson ran for election here, his involvement in the Bloody Sunday atrocity would completely overshadow his campaign.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you wouldn't 'simply accept that this was in the past'.

bluecode

UDP wrote: »

I cannot understand how Nelson Mandela is praised by many Irish people who at the same time repeatedly condemn ex-IRA members who moved a terrorist organisation from using violence as a means of achieving equal rights to one that used politics and dialogue instead.

Do the same people that condemn the likes of Ellis and other ex-members or leaders of the IRA condemn Mandela too?

This country expects the people of Northern Ireland to move on but yet it looks like many in this country are unable to.

That comparison is always used as if it was some excuse for the actions of the PIRA. There is no comparison and I very much doubt Mandela would mandate the no warning bombs in crowded streets or any of the other atrocities committed by the PIRA.

There is no excuse for the actions of those people. Ellis has no right to been seen as an honourable man or compared to a leader like Mandela. Only a tiny number of people supported the actions of the IRA at the time.

Chuck Stone

dvpower wrote: »

If Mike Jackson ran for election here, his involvement in the Bloody Sunday atrocity would completely overshadow his campaign.

And if he ran for office in the UK?

dvpower

golfball37 wrote: »

But he was tried for most of these crimes in a British court and acquitted making this allegation completely redundant imo. Why would the Indo not put that bit in for balance?

Its newsworthy but not a headline unless you are promoting an agenda- in my opinion.

This piece of 'information' changes my perspective somewhat.
What were the names of the >25 murders that he was acquitted of?

Chips Lovell

GRMA wrote: »

Voters know he is in the IRA. They know he was jailed for making/having bombs.

Do they?

RATM wrote: »

Not at all- I didn't as I was born when he was an active member and I only just found out the extent of his membership through this article.

....

I never knew that he was allegedly a bomb maker for the IRA until this article, I'm in a little bit of shock now at finding out. .

dvpower

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And if he ran for office in the UK?

I'd say there would be a fair bit of controversy, but in a solid CON constituency, he might get elected.

There would certainly be a thread on it here. It would be titled 'Butcher of Derry seeks election...'

bluecode

GRMA wrote: »

The people who should be ashamed are those who stood idly by when Irish people were being burned out of their homes, shot, discriminated against and beaten off the streets. The PIRA came about out of necessity. Its symbol is a phoenix arising from the ashes.... of Bombay Street.

Nonsense, pure propaganda. Go and read the history. In the end, irony of ironies. It was the British army that came to protect those people. The IRA were nowhere. I Ran Away was the joke.

Plus for an organisation that styled themselves protectors of the Irish people. They killed an awful lot of us.

The more I read stuff like I'm seeing on this thread the more I realise we Irish have learned nothing. There is a whole younger generation out there who never went through the troubles and are now inclined to see it as some kind of heroic episode rather the sordid bloody slaughter it was.

tipptom

GRMA wrote: »

How can you say that when in recent years they have made massive gains?

Aw,you cant say massive gains really,last election was inner city and border areas really,they need to make some head way in the middle class vote to become a serious party.I could never understand them bringing gerry Adams down here and making him party leader.

COYW

Cliste wrote: »

He plays the right game in helping constituents like yourself.

And if a FF or FG politician pulls the exact same strokes to help a constituent it's ok I suppose? Screw the decent everyday punter who goes by the book once again.

With people like this in their party how can SF ever expect to gain favour with the middle classes.

Chuck Stone

bluecode wrote: »

Nonsense, pure propaganda. Go and read the history. In the end, irony of ironies. It was the British army that came to protect those people. The IRA were nowhere. I Ran Away was the joke.

Initially the BA came to protect Nationalists from Unionists and their murderous militias and proxies. Subsequently the British Army simply became a tool of the Unionist junta.

Go and read the history.

OCorcrain

bluecode wrote: »

There is no comparison and I very much doubt Mandela would mandate the no warning bombs in crowded streets or any of the other atrocities committed by the PIRA.

You will find that in a lot cases when the RUC received warnings they did not pass it on because of their desire to demonise the nationalists even the nationalists who did not support violence.

Remember the Omagh bombing? The RUC did not act on the warning that was given them. Here is the article

I do not support violence, the planting of bombs, with warnings or vice-versa but the RUC had a duty to protect the citizens and act upon the warnings given to them, but they as an institution of a sectarian statelet valued propaganda and politics above people's lives.

OCorcrain

bluecode wrote: »

It was the British army that came to protect those people.

They did an excellent job protecting the civil rights marchers didn't they?

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Do they?

I live in his constituency.


Yes, they do. Unless they have their head under a rock. He was high profile too, sure he went on hungerstrike and there was a big campaign about him and his extradition

He has never shyed away from saying he was in the IRA.

GRMA

bluecode wrote: »

Nonsense, pure propaganda. Go and read the history. In the end, irony of ironies. It was the British army that came to protect those people. The IRA were nowhere. I Ran Away was the joke.

Plus for an organisation that styled themselves protectors of the Irish people. They killed an awful lot of us.

The more I read stuff like I'm seeing on this thread the more I realise we Irish have learned nothing. There is a whole younger generation out there who never went through the troubles and are now inclined to see it as some kind of heroic episode rather the sordid bloody slaughter it was.

What nonsense. The British army were against the Irish people. After the falls road curfew in particular they were never again welcome.

The PIRA were the only people who protected nationalists from pogroms etc thats why it was established. Subsequently they identified the removal of Britain from Ireland as the only way for a lasting peace and and end to second class citizenship for nationalists. They were right too

Shouldnt have been left up to them of course

What a dirtbag. At least when they redraw the boundaries I wont have to share my local TD's with the like who vote for individuals such as this.

UDP

bluecode wrote: »

That comparison is always used as if it was some excuse for the actions of the PIRA. There is no comparison and I very much doubt Mandela would mandate the no warning bombs in crowded streets or any of the other atrocities committed by the PIRA.

I am not making an excuse for the actions of the PIRA but I am showing the cognitive dissonance displayed by many Irish people who think Mandela is great but those who brought the PIRA from violence to peace are evil murders. Mandela was the leader of a terrorist organisation that killed and tortured many people. The PIRA appeared to have a policy of issuing warnings before bombs exploded which could be seen from the many warnings issued. Whether the RUC passed on the warnings is another story.

bluecode wrote: »

There is no excuse for the actions of those people. Ellis has no right to been seen as an honourable man or compared to a leader like Mandela. Only a tiny number of people supported the actions of the IRA at the time.

I guess this is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.

I am not saying Ellis is an honorable man but he is no worse than the likes of Mandela who is held with high regards by hypocrites who continue to condemn ex-PIRA members who brought the IRA from violence to peace.

I neither support Sinn Fein due to weak policies nor supported PIRA in any way but I do understand why the PIRA existed and accept that if we are to ask the people of Northern Ireland to move on then people in the Republic should not be hypocrites and refuse to do so.

Gosub

bluecode wrote: »

Nonsense, pure propaganda. Go and read the history. In the end, irony of ironies. It was the British army that came to protect those people. The IRA were nowhere. I Ran Away was the joke.

Plus for an organisation that styled themselves protectors of the Irish people. They killed an awful lot of us.

The more I read stuff like I'm seeing on this thread the more I realise we Irish have learned nothing. There is a whole younger generation out there who never went through the troubles and are now inclined to see it as some kind of heroic episode rather the sordid bloody slaughter it was.

No, I can't let this post stand!

I stood and watched the British troops hold back the householders while the loyalist gangs burned the houses on Bombay St. I saw the poor families try to salvage their meagre possessions before their homes fell under the torch. Don't you dare tell me this is propoganda!

When the British army were brought into the north, they were welcomed as protectors. That didn't last long. The actions of the army made it clear to the Catholic minority that they were there to protect the crown, not the nationalist community.

There was sordid bloody murder. It was a war and the killers were on both sides. I wonder how many Irish citizens, both north and south, were murdered by the clandestine actions of the British government. I wonder who was really behind the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It sure wasn't the ill-equipped and disorderly loyalist organisation that ended up carrying the can.

I have seen a lot of bad stuff over the years, but I am prepared to put it all in the past and move forward. If only everyone would do the same, this would be a better country.

Luca Brasi

dvpower wrote: »

I'd like to know if he was involved in any murders, and of so, what his involvement was?

He was convicted of the possession of explosives. It doesnt take much to link explosives with bombs. What good is getting specific murder details. If he was making bombs or bomb components in the 70s and 80s its fair to assume that these were subsequently used in explosions.

Luca Brasi

GRMA wrote: »

What nonsense. The British army were against the Irish people. After the falls road curfew in particular they were never again welcome.

The PIRA were the only people who protected nationalists from pogroms etc thats why it was established. Subsequently they identified the removal of Britain from Ireland as the only way for a lasting peace and and end to second class citizenship for nationalists. They were right too

Shouldnt have been left up to them of course

And the Good Friday Agreement has copperfastened partition and provided permanent Unionist Governement. It was worth the three thousand plus deaths so

GRMA

If you say so

dvpower

Luca Brasi wrote: »

He was convicted of the possession of explosives. It doesnt take much to link explosives with bombs. What good is getting specific murder details. If he was making bombs or bomb components in the 70s and 80s its fair to assume that these were subsequently used in explosions.

If there is information linking him to specific bombings to specific victims then that is probably of interest to the victims and to his electorate.

Would we gloss over any other area of criminality?
"Sure we know that counciller was involved in planning corruption, but we don't need to know how much he got and who else benefited."
or
"That priest raped some kids, but it doesn't really matter who they were"

Rascasse

UDP wrote: »

I am not making an excuse for the actions of the PIRA but I am showing the cognitive dissonance displayed by many Irish people who think Mandela is great but those who brought the PIRA from violence to peace are evil murders. Mandela was the leader of a terrorist organisation that killed and tortured many people. The PIRA appeared to have a policy of issuing warnings before bombs exploded which could be seen from the many warnings issued. Whether the RUC passed on the warnings is another story.
...
I am not saying Ellis is an honorable man but he is no worse than the likes of Mandela who is held with high regards by hypocrites who continue to condemn ex-PIRA members who brought the IRA from violence to peace.

Comparing IRA/SF leadership to Mandela/MK/ANC is a popular comparison, but one that doesn't add up. Mandela was locked up after a couple of years of taking up arms and was largely incommunicado. A better comparison with MK would be people like Chris Hani, Joe Slovo and Robert McBride. Also the scale of the attacks committed by MK are nothing compared to the Troubles. In all MK were responsible for a bit over 200 deaths in 30 years. When they found they were killing civilians they would try to change tactics and not plow on regardless .

The reason many look up to Mandela as one of the greatest statesmen is the way he conducted himself on release. In interviews on the day after he was released he spoke to the white population to reassure them and backed it with his actions in the years following. There's been peace in the north now for what, 15 years? And all have (from both sides) is childish arguing and finger pointing, as exemplified by Ellis' response to the Indo's questions. I'm not suggesting he needed to admit anything, but he could have used words a little more sympathetic or contrite than "I don't want to comment on anything said by the Brits. I wouldn't be bothered.".

freddiek

good man Charlie Flanagan...

the Brits could always rely on fine gael to do what they asked of them in the 26 counties