Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that the British were entirely cavalier in their attitude to her safety and well-being? Fine. I have no difficulty in believing that this might have been the case. But this has nothing to do with my point.

And whether Adams was involved or not is not relevant to my point either. I believe he was in the PIRA because it is simply laughable to suggest he was not. But as I say, this is not relevant.

You are unlikely ever gonna know what the British did until they release the information. What age will you be in 2059?

I'm not seeing much condemnation of that as usual.

maccored

REXER wrote: »

So how do you feel about the death sentence?

what exactly is the link between the security forces taking local gossip and turning it into reason to harass and even kill people in republican areas and the death sentence?

maccored

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I believe he was in the PIRA because it is simply laughable to suggest he was not.

What i find laughable is how people dont believe in ghosts because theres no proof - but believe adams was in the IRA when theres no proof.

feargale

maccored wrote: »

What i find laughable is how people dont believe in ghosts because theres no proof - but believe adams was in the IRA when theres no proof.

So tell us - do you believe he was in the IRA or not?

maccored

feargale wrote: »

So tell us - do you believe he was in the IRA or not?

I dont. but I also dont think there is much of a difference between what he was doing in the struggle and actually being in the ira. I would assume when things kicked off there wasnt much of a difference between being a republican and involving oneself in what would later be deemed the structure of the IRA. To try and mark it off in black and white like he was joining and everyday army is a bit naive if you ask me. I dont think he officially joined the IRA - otherwise he would have admitted it. On the other hand, I dont think he wasnt involved in IRA actions. Its a classic case of pedantry if you ask me because who the hell cares at this stage of the game. you wouldnt have had the peace process without him.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

What i find laughable is how people dont believe in ghosts because theres no proof - but believe adams was in the IRA when theres no proof.

Do you apply the same standards to Mrs McConville ?

feargale

maccored wrote: »

I dont. but I also dont think there is much of a difference between what he was doing in the struggle and actually being in the ira. I would assume when things kicked off there wasnt much of a difference between being a republican and involving oneself in what would later be deemed the structure of the IRA.

You make him appear like a sleeper.

maccored wrote: »

you wouldnt have had the peace process without him.

Sounds like you would pin a medal on a man who stopped beating his wife.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are unlikely ever gonna know what the British did until they release the information. What age will you be in 2059?
I'm not seeing much condemnation of that as usual.

So the IRA murder a woman. And you think we should reserve some of our condemnation for the British for not releasing some documents?

maccored wrote: »

What i find laughable is how people dont believe in ghosts because theres no proof - but believe adams was in the IRA when theres no proof.

If by proof you mean court of law standard of proof then no I don’t have this and yet believe Adams was in the IRA. But I also similarly believe many other things – that there was collusion between British forces and loyalists, that there were incidents where IRA members were gunned down when they could have been arrested, even that some paratroopers were guilty of murder on Bloody Sunday.

And I believe all of this, without a court making any findings, because it is a reasonable interpretation of my perception of these events.

When my floor boards creak I don’t believe there is a ghost running loose in my house because that is an unreasonable interpretation.

maccored wrote: »

I dont think he officially joined the IRA - otherwise he would have admitted it.

I think he denies been in the IRA for the same reason that McGuinness admits it, political expediency. McGuinness would have no credibility in joining the calls for the truth about Bloody Sunday to be found if he were to blatantly lie about the time himself.

Adams knows that if he admits being in the IRA then he will struggle to persuade people that he had no involvement in the McConville murder, even if that happened to be true. And that might have impacted upon his performance at the ballot box. That he performs exceptionally well at the ballot box is testament to how well this strategy works.

Anyway, this thread is about the murder of Jean McConville. Perhaps you would like to offer an opinion as to why some would place her murder much lower on the atrocity hierarchy compare to Rosemary Nelson?

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

[/U][/B]

Blinkered vision, still prevails, as you have shown in your post. Realize, it was a war and a very nasty one at that. No one has come out with clean hands at the end. Whingers will always criticize the Nationalist cause to cover the time when they closed their eyes when confronted with government participation in these atrocities. That is where the guilt comes into it.

Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "it was a war, it was a war" at the top of your voice doesn't change the facts.

The provisional ira dragged a widowed mother of ten out of her flat, interrogated her and shot her in the back of the head .

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I agree, but her handlers in the brit army should have removed her out after she was exposed in the first place. If you use Hughes's statement to condemn Adams, then you should come to the conclusion that Hughes gave her a yellow card, when they found the first Sterno radio. Why was she not protected, is that why the Regiments diaries are sealed till 2059, all other military diaries have been released after 30 years, what are the brits covering up.

When did they find a radio?

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When did they find a radio?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthebrokenelbow.com%2F2013%2F07%2F14%2Fplea-to-mcconville-family-join-us-in-bid-for-british-army-papers%2F&ei=MEcxU6GaCKWS7AbWgYHwAg&usg=AFQjCNEeogah46TyqE9EMgfP0F_a5DJ8EQ&bvm=bv.63587204,d.ZGU

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So the IRA murder a woman. And you think we should reserve some of our condemnation for the British for not releasing some documents?

Absolutely, because we need all the information on the table before we get any where near the truth.
That you only think it is important that one side has responsibility for the truth reveals your agenda.
And you don't have the political independence to figure out just how much your chain is being yanked.
Elections; where SF are going to do very well coming up...out come the allegations, whispering and deflection. Remember the Presidential elections, same nonsense, different day.

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When did they find a radio?

Brendan Hughes said a radio was found in her flat.

pablomakaveli

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Brendan Hughes said a radio was found in her flat.

Why trust what he's said? If they found nothing and shot her anyway he's not going to come out and say that is he? Painting her as an informer would suit better for propaganda purposes

maccored

feargale wrote: »

You make him appear like a sleeper.



Sounds like you would pin a medal on a man who stopped beating his wife.

What in gods name are you on about?

maccored

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Anyway, this thread is about the murder of Jean McConville. Perhaps you would like to offer an opinion as to why some would place her murder much lower on the atrocity hierarchy compare to Rosemary Nelson?

Have I done that? No, I didnt think so either.

The question I ask you is why is her murder elevated above all the others? Is it because here down in the south its the only name you collectively know of?

maccored

Nope - by proof I mean proof. Of any kind. from anyone (bar those with axes to grind, since their proof is unprovable anyway)

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So the IRA murder a woman. And you think we should reserve some of our condemnation for the British for not releasing some documents?

If by proof you mean court of law standard of proof then no I don’t have this and yet believe Adams was in the IRA. But I also similarly believe many other things – that there was collusion between British forces and loyalists, that there were incidents where IRA members were gunned down when they could have been arrested, even that some paratroopers were guilty of murder on Bloody Sunday.

And I believe all of this, without a court making any findings, because it is a reasonable interpretation of my perception of these events.

When my floor boards creak I don’t believe there is a ghost running loose in my house because that is an unreasonable interpretation.

I think he denies been in the IRA for the same reason that McGuinness admits it, political expediency. McGuinness would have no credibility in joining the calls for the truth about Bloody Sunday to be found if he were to blatantly lie about the time himself.

Adams knows that if he admits being in the IRA then he will struggle to persuade people that he had no involvement in the McConville murder, even if that happened to be true. And that might have impacted upon his performance at the ballot box. That he performs exceptionally well at the ballot box is testament to how well this strategy works.

Anyway, this thread is about the murder of Jean McConville. Perhaps you would like to offer an opinion as to why some would place her murder much lower on the atrocity hierarchy compare to Rosemary Nelson?

maccored

In what way? I dont think anyone doubts she was murdered by the IRA. Whats your point (or do you have one?)

marienbad wrote: »

Do you apply the same standards to Mrs McConville ?

Busted Flat.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Why trust what he's said? If they found nothing and shot her anyway he's not going to come out and say that is he? Painting her as an informer would suit better for propaganda purposes

If the military diaries were released it would prove it one way or the other, what are the brits ashamed of, another 40 years before they are released. The only regiment to have this sort of restriction on diaries.

Happyman42

Busted Flat. wrote: »

another 40 years before they are released.

That seems to be the standard timeframe before they will tell the truth about anything.

pablomakaveli

Busted Flat. wrote: »

If the military diaries were released it would prove it one way or the other, what are the brits ashamed of, another 40 years before they are released. The only regiment to have this sort of restriction on diaries.

Rather than deflect blame towards the Brits perhaps answering why Brendan Hughes claims should be trusted and taken as evidence that Jean McConville was an informer.

Busted Flat.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Rather than deflect blame towards the Brits perhaps answering why Brendan Hughes claims should be trusted and taken as evidence that Jean McConville was an informer.

Do you mean you are willing to believe only the bits of his story that you like.

guinnessdrinker

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Why trust what he's said? If they found nothing and shot her anyway he's not going to come out and say that is he? Painting her as an informer would suit better for propaganda purposes

I know what you mean. Hughes claims that Mrs McConvilles flat was searched and they found a transmitter but she was let go with a warning. Then shortly afterwards they found out she was given another transmitter by British security forces.

If we dismiss this version of events must we also dismiss Hughes' claim that Adams was involved in her murder?

pablomakaveli

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do you mean you are willing to believe only the bits of his story that you like.

I'd be more willing to believe it if it came from a more reliable source

Busted Flat.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd be more willing to believe it if it came from a more reliable source

Maybe you should ask one of the officers, commanding the First Gloucester Regiment at the time. Oh you can't the diaries are sealed to protect the guilty.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Maybe you should ask one of the officers, commanding the First Gloucester Regiment at the time. Oh you can't the diaries are sealed to protect the guilty.

Talk about clutching at straws. This is a classic example of a heinous murder by the ira, but given a bit of a credible spin by Mr P O'Neil so the fan boys can sleep at night.

In the space of a week, the McConville family moved in to Divis Flats, were discovered spying, warned, caught again and then murdered?

Yeah, right.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely, because we need all the information on the table before we get any where near the truth.

Patent nonsense! The IRA murdered her, plain and simple. That it will be a long time, if ever, before we learn the details of how the British handled, or mishandled her, is irrelevant to that plain truth.

If we were to extend your logic to the Bloody Sunday atrocity we would have to argue that it would be wrong for us to conclude that that indeed was an atrocity until “all the information was on the table” and we knew all the details of the IRA activities in Derry at the time. Nothing the IRA might have done in the lead up to Bloody Sunday diminishes the fact that the blood of those victims are on the hands of the paratroopers. Just as the blood of Jean McConville is on the hands of the IRA.

maccord wrote: »

Have I done that? No, I didnt think so either.

Perhaps you haven’t but others quite clearly have done and do. Read the thread.

maccord wrote: »

Nope - by proof I mean proof. Of any kind. from anyone (bar those with axes to grind, since their proof is unprovable anyway)

So would you put the allegation that Adams was in the IRA alongside the allegation that there was collusion between the British and loyalist paramilitaries? I.e. just allegations, not proven and therefore not to be taken seriously?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Patent nonsense! The IRA murdered her, plain and simple. That it will be a long time, if ever, before we learn the details of how the British handled, or mishandled her, is irrelevant to that plain truth.

How can you pretend to be in search of the 'truth' if you ignore the huge part played by one side in this story? As I said, your agenda is patently obvious.

Busted Flat.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Talk about clutching at straws. This is a classic example of a heinous murder by the ira, but given a bit of a credible spin by Mr P O'Neil so the fan boys can sleep at night.

In the space of a week, the McConville family moved in to Divis Flats, were discovered spying, warned, caught again and then murdered?

Yeah, right.

Try and get some simple facts right.

Fratton Fred

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Try and get some simple facts right.

They moved in to the house from which she was abducted a week before her murder, no?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

How can you pretend to be in search of the 'truth' if you ignore the huge part played by one side in this story? As I said, your agenda is patently obvious.

So would you apply the same thought process to Bloody Sunday?

Godge

William F wrote: »

Until the people in the south treat Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy and Finuncane/Nelson murders with equal disgust and revulsion I'm not in the slightest bit interested in the collective amnesia people in the south of Ireland seem to share.

Everybody knows the circumstances of her death, just like others, it was a total tragedy and unnecessary. What we see here is the British Government's refusal to own up to its part in the conflict and we see this immaturity played out in the Irish media, such as last Friday night, when Tubridy had the gawl to ask Mary Lou McDonald her opinion on the McConville arrest.

Are we honestly expected to believe that what happened in northern Ireland was a terrorist campaign and that the British Government had nothing to answer for? People are moving on with their lives. This happened 42 years ago and yet it still makes headlines. People are so blind in this country and Tubridy is a disgrace. There are vested interests in Ireland and Britain who are concerned with the democratic rise of certain parties and are willing to use all means to destroy the democratic process. That is what people should be concerned with!

Many of us do treat the atrocities on both sides with equal revulsion.

There is absolutely no way that I will vote for a British Army representative in any election down South.
There is absolutely no way that I will vote for a Sinn Fein representative in any election down South.

Just because one is more likely to stand in an election doesn't mean I wouldn't treat them the same in the ballot box.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

So would you apply the same thought process to Bloody Sunday?

Absolutely.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

How can you pretend to be in search of the 'truth' if you ignore the huge part played by one side in this story? As I said, your agenda is patently obvious.

Only one side tortured, shot and killed her.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Only one side tortured, shot and killed her.

The motivation for doing that is important. If she was indeed giving sensitive information that endangered others then unfortunately that has to be taken into account, just as we must take into account how other armies and governments have dealt with informers throughout history.

So the full truth of what happened and ALL the available info has to be offered before anybody can pronounce a judgement.
For all we know she may have been sacrificed by the British for more valuable intel.

maccored

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Perhaps you haven’t but others quite clearly have done and do. Read the thread.

Oh ive read the thread - why are you asking me though?

So would you put the allegation that Adams was in the IRA alongside the allegation that there was collusion between the British and loyalist paramilitaries? I.e. just allegations, not proven and therefore not to be taken seriously?

How about making a point or two, rather than making up questions? Theres plenty of proof of collusion, especially for those who lived up there at the time. Damn sight more proof than there is about adams. You obviously love your whataboutery I see.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The motivation for doing that is important. If she was indeed giving sensitive information that endangered others then unfortunately that has to be taken into account, just as we must take into account how other armies and governments have dealt with informers throughout history.

So the full truth of what happened and ALL the available info has to be offered before anybody can pronounce a judgement.
For all we know she may have been sacrificed by the British for more valuable intel.

She may also have been abducted, tortured and shot by aliens. Who knows?

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely.

Well, I, and I think the vast majority would disagree. Nothing remotely plausible that I might learn about what the IRA might have done in the lead up to Bloody Sunday would likely change my view that to shoot unarmed protestors dead was an appalling atrocity. For this, I don’t need context, or to hear about mitigating circumstances or anything else. This was absolutely wrong.

But I’ll humour you. Can you suggest any actions by the IRA, even a hypothetical one, that would have made the actions of the paratroopers somehow less wrong?

maccord wrote: »

Theres plenty of proof of collusion, especially for those who lived up there at the time. Damn sight more proof than there is about adams.

I would say it is about the same. And it mostly takes the form of opinions of informed observers (and some with agendas of course). Not proof, but evidence.

maccored

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I would say it is about the same. And it mostly takes the form of opinions of informed observers (and some with agendas of course). Not proof, but evidence.

then you obviously cant say adams was in the ira if thats the case then considering theres a woeful lack of evidence

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Well, I, and I think the vast majority would disagree. Nothing remotely plausible that I might learn about what the IRA might have done in the lead up to Bloody Sunday would likely change my view that to shoot unarmed protestors dead was an appalling atrocity. For this, I don’t need context, or to hear about mitigating circumstances or anything else. This was absolutely wrong.

But I’ll humour you. Can you suggest any actions by the IRA, even a hypothetical one, that would have made the actions of the paratroopers somehow less wrong?

The point is, I and everyone else couldn't make a judgement before the full truth was on the table.
I haven't made my mind up about McConville either. I want to know and am entitled to know, all the truth, however unpalatable that truth might be.
If you are serious about moving forward here, then that is what you too should be calling for.
It's why I support SF's call for a truth and reconciliation commission and also why I understand their reluctance to disclose their part in events without full disclosure from all sides.

twowheelsgood

maccored wrote: »

then you obviously cant say adams was in the ira if thats the case then considering theres a woeful lack of evidence

I say he probably was. And I say there was probably collusion. You are the one who are picking and choosing what to believe based on the same standard of evidence.

And as an aside, why is it such a bug bear for republicans to have to repeatedly deal with this vile accusation that Adams was in the IRA?
If you really believe the activities of the IRA were justified then there would be nothing wrong with him being a member, indeed it would be quite a honourable thing for him to do.

Can you imagine someone on the unionist side resolutely defending the RUC or UDR but taking umbrage at the suggestion that they themselves were members? They would surely say “factually I was never a member, but would have been proud to serve”

Of course this is all predicated on the assumption that those that defend the IRA actually do believe their own stories …..

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point is, I and everyone else couldn't make a judgement before the full truth was on the table.
I haven't made my mind up about McConville either. I want to know and am entitled to know, all the truth, however unpalatable that truth might be.
If you are serious about moving forward here, then that is what you too should be calling for.
It's why I support SF's call for a truth and reconciliation commission and also why I understand their reluctance to disclose their part in events without full disclosure from all sides.

Have the IRA opened their records yet, or do they have something to hide, like the possible involvement of a 17 year old hot head who went in to become the darling of Sinn Fein?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have the IRA opened their records yet, or do they have something to hide, like the possible involvement of a 17 year old hot head who went in to become the darling of Sinn Fein?

Did you actually read my post or just hyperventilate?
Why would one side open their records without the other side doing it? The other side being the ones who spout about mandates, democracy and transparency?

The only solution democrats should be seeking is a properly structured accountable process of truth and reconciliation. It won't work any other way, and from what I can see, only one side are hiding from fromally agreeing to that process.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did you actually read my post or just hyperventilate?
Why would one side open their records without the other side doing it? The other side being the ones who spout about mandates, democracy and transparency?

The only solution democrats should be seeking is a properly structured accountable process of truth and reconciliation. It won't work any other way, and from what I can see, only one side are hiding from fromally agreeing to that process.

The IRA murdered her. Yes or no?
The IRA know who pulled the trigger, yes or no?
The IRA are claiming she was a spy, but have offered no evidence to support this. Yes or no?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA murdered her. Yes or no?

The IRA have said they shot her...yes.

The IRA know who pulled the trigger, yes or no?

I have no idea. Ask them.

The IRA are claiming she was a spy, but have offered no evidence to support this. Yes or no?

That information would be in the secret documents of the regiment in the area, why are we not privy to that info?

If all the info was presented then I'm sure a judge could decide.

maccored

revolving door syndrome here. There was collusion - you can easily find evidence of that. You cant easily find evidence of adams being in the IRA

YOU sir, are doing the picking and choosing. I havent changed my position.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I say he probably was. And I say there was probably collusion. You are the one who are picking and choosing what to believe based on the same standard of evidence.

Can you imagine someone on the unionist side resolutely defending the RUC or UDR but taking umbrage at the suggestion that they themselves were members? They would surely say “factually I was never a member, but would have been proud to serve”

Of course this is all predicated on the assumption that those that defend the IRA actually do believe their own stories …..

And as an aside, why is it such a bug bear for republicans to have to repeatedly deal with this vile accusation that Adams was in the IRA?
If you really believe the activities of the IRA were justified then there would be nothing wrong with him being a member, indeed it would be quite a honourable thing for him to do.

I clearly outlined and answered your question regarding this. I obviously wasted my time. then again, ignore the answers you dont like, eh?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The IRA have said they shot her...yes.

I have no idea. Ask them.


That information would be in the secret documents of the regiment in the area, why are we not privy to that info?

If all the info was presented then I'm sure a judge could decide.

The IRA have been asked many times.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA have asked many times.

What?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

What?

Who killed her, why was she killed and where was she buried.

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who killed her, why was she killed and where was she buried.

that was in reference to before you edited your post