Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

twowheelsgood

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The sdlp had a larger percentage of people that actually voted. A lot of people did not vote nor wanted to participate in the sham that tried to pass itself off as a political process pre 1998. A large bulk of people felt completely disenfranchised and this only changed after the gfa

The political objective of the IRA was a united Ireland. The constituency who needed to mandate this was the people of Ireland. And whether you take them separately in two states or on the island as a whole they did not give this mandate.

holyhead

Happyman Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes both prominent Republicans whose statements surely cant be dismissed on the grounds that they disagreed with Gerry or can it?

I suppose it can if it suits your viewpoint. Politically the death of Ms McConville will shadow Gerry until the truth is definitively established.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The political objective of the IRA was a united Ireland. The constituency who needed to mandate this was the people of Ireland. And whether you take them separately in two states or on the island as a whole they did not give this mandate.

And? This alters what happened in reality how?

maccored

so the north is a separate state when it suits, and then its part of ireland at other times - again when it suits? Fantastic logic!

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The political objective of the IRA was a united Ireland. The constituency who needed to mandate this was the people of Ireland. And whether you take them separately in two states or on the island as a whole they did not give this mandate.

maccored

How would you bring down the peace process? start by bringing down adams. whats the quickest way of doing that? accusing him of killing someone.

holyhead wrote: »

Happyman Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes both prominent Republicans whose statements surely cant be dismissed on the grounds that they disagreed with Gerry or can it?

I suppose it can if it suits your viewpoint. Politically the death of Ms McConville will shadow Gerry until the truth is definitively established.

Happyman42

holyhead wrote: »

Happyman Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes both prominent Republicans whose statements surely cant be dismissed on the grounds that they disagreed with Gerry or can it?

It patently has been dismissed as not credible....no arrest on either count.

I suppose it can if it suits your viewpoint. Politically the death of Ms McConville will shadow Gerry until the truth is definitively established.

SF in the ascendancy in both jurisdictions and Gerry party leader. Yeh, them is big shadows alright.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

It would to them which is the important thing. The fact is, they are not waiting to be legitimised by the state they are fighting.

Or the people they represent, because ultimately, nationalism will unify them all for the greater good.

I believe Mussolini shared the same view.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

It patently has been dismissed as not credible.

Hang on, Brendan Hughes was the beacon of truth earlier, now he's a liar?

Make your mind up.

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or the people they represent, because ultimately, nationalism will unify them all for the greater good.

I believe Mussolini shared the same view.

Terribly close to godwins law there

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

And? This alters what happened in reality how?

You choose to ignore my argument that an army, guerrilla, or regular needs legitimacy. You may as well also ignore why PIRA lacked legitimacy.

maccord wrote: »

so the north is a separate state when it suits, and then its part of ireland at other times - again when it suits? Fantastic logic!

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it. The IRA did not have the support of the people of Ireland. Whether you take the island as a whole or the two jurisdictions.

They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller jurisdiction.

Fratton Fred

maccored wrote: »

Terribly close to godwins law there

Skillfully avoided I thought!

holyhead

Happyman42 wrote: »

It patently has been dismissed as not credible....no arrest on either count.



SF in the ascendancy in both jurisdictions and Gerry party leader. Yeh, them is big shadows alright.

The truth relating to Ms McConville's murder needs to be established.

maccored

twowheelsgood wrote: »

They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller jurisdiction.

which was being treated like ****. treat people like ****, and they rebel violently.

maccored

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Skillfully avoided I thought!

Im not too sure since he was one of them .... technically your argument is dead

twowheelsgood

maccored wrote: »

treat people like ****, and they rebel violently.

Rebelling violently I can understand and accept (even if it is counter-productive and is nearly always is).

It's the whole bit where the presumed to act for the people of Ireland that irks some of us somewhat.

maccored

I really dont think people in the north, when they were being shot at and burned out of houses, gave a flying fig what 'some of us' thought 40 years later. If you had been one of them, Im sure your attitude would be different.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Rebelling violently I can understand and accept (even if it is counter-productive and is nearly always is).

It's the whole bit where the presumed to act for the people of Ireland that irks some of us somewhat.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hang on, Brendan Hughes was the beacon of truth earlier, now he's a liar?

Make your mind up.

Sorry? Whose beacon of truth? You getting confused again Fred?

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

You choose to ignore my argument that an army, guerrilla, or regular needs legitimacy. You may as well also ignore why PIRA lacked legitimacy.

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it. The IRA did not have the support of the people of Ireland. Whether you take the island as a whole or the two jurisdictions.

They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller jurisdiction.

And my question still is...so what? What difference does all that make to what happened and is happening.

holyhead wrote: »

The truth relating to Ms McConville's murder needs to be established.

Absolutely...the full truth. Gerry has offered to help all he can. Has anybody on the other side of this done similar?

ChicagoJoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is murdering a widowed mother of ten defending nationalists?

Instead of the whataboutry, how's about answering where the nationalists supposed have gathered around first and questioned if they had a mandate to defend themselves when their homes came under attack in August 1969 from the RUC and unionist mobs in the initial violence coming of course form the unionists that sparked the 25 years of the troubles.

gallag

maccored wrote: »

if the Tooting Popular Front had enough popular support to avoid the authorities for years, then you would have to consider it a mandate of sorts. If the Tooting Popular Front didnt have popular support they would be caught and rounded up quickly. If they existed that is.

So people not grassing or turning in IRA men was a show of support? Avoiding the authorities is a mandate from the people? Or, as Jean found out, fear is the reason the community protected them?

Happyman42

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Instead of the whataboutry, how's about answering where the nationalists supposed have gathered around first and questioned if they had a mandate to defend themselves when their homes came under attack in August 1969 from the RUC and unionist mobs in the initial violence coming of course form the unionists that sparked the 25 years of the troubles.

Lynch sent troops to the border and threatened to send them in...supposedly that was mandated by the people of the south. He welched, leaving those in the North on their own...that was the mandate of the people of the South as well.

'The Grand Old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men, he marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.....'

We had 40 years of it while the 'honourable' people dittered.

maccored

Let use this thing called logic. how can people the police are looking for, not get caught? By local people protecting them.

There. Can I dumb it down any further for you?

gallag wrote: »

So people not grassing or turning in IRA men was a show of support? Avoiding the authorities is a mandate from the people? Or, as Jean found out, fear is the reason the community protected them?

guinnessdrinker

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hang on, Brendan Hughes was the beacon of truth earlier, now he's a liar?

Make your mind up.

This is the problem with Brendan Hughes version of events.

SF supporting Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account where he accuses Mrs McConville as being an informer and non Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account that implicates Adams.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

And my question still is...so what? What difference does all that make to what happened and is happening.

It goes to the heart of whether the campaign by PIRA was justified or not.

If they set about to act as a militia to defend Catholics under attack then they had a mandate.

But they undertook a political project to end the British presence in Ireland and for this they did not have a mandate.

Perhaps you think lofty things like legitimacy and mandates have no place in the real world you keep telling us you live in but I trust you don't come over all indignant at instances of the British using unjustified violence?

ChicagoJoe

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Brendan Hughes said a radio was found in her 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

And the very same people who believe Brendan Hughes when he says Gerry Adams ordered her death at the very same ones who do not believe Brendan Hughes when he says she informer with a radio in the house !!!

Regardless Jean McConville was innocent beyond doubt, it's a pity that her death is been used by the very defenders of loyalist and British murderers but nothing better could be expected. And maybe even worse again when Sinn Fein get Kenny or Gilmore in a tight spot in the Dail over the economy, HSE, Penalty points etc that they use her name to try and avoid questioning.

maccored

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

This is the problem with Brendan Hughes version of events.

SF supporting Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account where he accuses Mrs McConville as being an informer and non Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account that implicates Adams.

He had nothing to gain from lying (if he was, I dont know) about mrs mcconville, but he had something to gain from lying about adams.

ChicagoJoe

twowheelsgood wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it. The IRA did not have the support of the people of Ireland. Whether you take the island as a whole or the two jurisdictions.

The British certainly did not have the support of the people of Ireland but that of course doesn't occur to you.

They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller jurisdiction.

Because they were the ones most on the receiving end of unionist and British violence and didn't have the option to philosophise about " standing idly by " over a cup of herbal tea and the Irish Times or something.

K-9

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

This is the problem with Brendan Hughes version of events.

SF supporting Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account where he accuses Mrs McConville as being an informer and non Republicans seem to want to only believe the part of his account that implicates Adams.

Indeed, those making an issue about Hughes's credibility are making a moot and probably hypocritical point. Most people seem to be picking the bits to suit from what he said.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

It goes to the heart of whether the campaign by PIRA was justified or not.

If they set about to act as a militia to defend Catholics under attack then they had a mandate.

But they undertook a political project to end the British presence in Ireland and for this they did not have a mandate.

Perhaps you think lofty things like legitimacy and mandates have no place in the real world you keep telling us you live in but I trust you don't come over all indignant at instances of the British using unjustified violence?

It doesn't go to the 'heart' of anything but your grandstanding.

The IRA happened, the campaign happened.
The 'legitimacy' of it is irrelevant to this discussion. My question therefore stands....so what?
Please tell us how it being legitimate or mandated makes one jot of difference to real people who lived and sadly died, through it?

maccored

All sides of the debate are picking the bits that suit. Thats probably because humans have been known to tell the truth about some things and tell lies about other things

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, those making an issue about Hughes's credibility are making a moot and probably hypocritical point. Most people seem to be picking the bits to suit from what he said.

ChicagoJoe

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, those making an issue about Hughes's credibility are making a moot and probably hypocritical point. Most people seem to be picking the bits to suit from what he said.

Agreed, in fairness to Brendan Hughes and Dolores Price, their was a serious question over their mental state at the time of the allegations and recollections from 40 years previous over the events regarding Jean McConville.

Won't stop some from the political rivals of SF and supporters of loyalist and British murderers from trying to use them of course, but little else could be expected.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which, despite the eloquence, means diddly squat, if they believe themselves to have been and behaved as an army then that is that. Nothing you or I can do will change that.
That old thing called 'reality' again.

Again, you don't make sense.

Yes, we can all agree that the IRA saw themselves as an army and at war. Fine the SF/IRA axis agreed together with a number of sympathisers.

That does not make it a fact that the IRA was at war. In reality, if you look at it in the cold light of day, statistics and the wider perception outside of this island, there was a minor insurgence by a small poorly-supported terrorist organisation in a relatively minor remote part of the UK. That is the outside view of it (apart from nostalgic Americans).

Nothing significant compared to countless other "wars" elsewhere in the world.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As long as living people are affected you will never get one sided disclosure.
That is the 'reality' again.

You will never get disclosure from the SF/IRA. If there is a truth and reconiliation commission, most of the reconciling will be trying to reconcile which pack of lies with which group of half-truths that comes out of the mouths of the participants.

The only real disclosure will be government papers. Which by the way have continuously demonstrated Gerry Adam's role in representing the IRA, the organisation he knows nothing about.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not calling on anybody to 'treat' both sides equally. The 'reality' (that old word again!) is that people will always have a side.
What I am calling for is both sides to agree to a properly structured commission to discover the truth, because the REALITY is that that is the only way to proper and lasting reconciliation.
No side is going to offer that on it's own.....that is living in ...eh, what's the word??...eh...eh....guess!

But the thing is, when someone like me comes along and says plague on all your houses and I will never vote for any party or politician associated with "The Troubles" up North from the late sixties until now, you have a problem and revert back to everyone has a side. The old "If you are not with me, you're against me" argument.

If we cut the people involved out of public life, that is the end of it. No need for sides, they are all hasbeens.

holyhead

In seeking to clear up the connection Gerry Adams did/didn't have to Jean McConville it is reasonable to ask that Gerry's assertion that the Britsh Army colluded in the attempt on his life in 1984 be investigated in the interest of dealing an even hand. What's god for the goose is good for the gander etc.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The IRA happened, the campaign happened.
The 'legitimacy' of it is irrelevant to this discussion. My question therefore stands....so what?
Please tell us how it being legitimate or mandated makes one jot of difference to real people who lived and sadly died, through it?

I think you sometimes forget what you post in a thread. Here is a reminder from earlier.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which, despite the eloquence, means diddly squat, if they believe themselves to have been and behaved as an army then that is that. Nothing you or I can do will change that.
That old thing called 'reality' again.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The fact is, or again, the reality is, that they saw themselves as an army at war.
Doesn't really matter what you think.

I think the "reality" is that you can't make up your mind whether it is relevant that the IRA were in a war or not. When it suits you, it is an important point, when it doesn't it isn't relevant.

maccored

This is what he said the other day about it:

"Due process prevents me from commenting on the recent charging of a man in relation to the death of Jean McConville. This is now a matter for the courts.

However, the killing of Jean McConville and the disappearing of her remains was wrong and a grievous injustice to her family.
The injustice suffered by the McConville family is one of many legacy issues relating to the conflict.

We must bear in mind in all of this that there has been a virtual amnesty for British armed forces including state and state-sponsored killings.
It is Sinn Féin’s view that legacy issues and dealing with the past, including past conflict events, are best addressed through an independent, international, truth recovery process.

In the absence of that, we have agreed to and are seeking the implementation of the Haass compromise proposals. These include the right of families to choose whether to pursue legal action or to seek maximum truth recovery."

ie - lets not just focus on one issue, lets deal with them all. I think thats a fair enough request.

holyhead wrote: »

In seeking to clear up the connection Gerry Adams did/didn't have to Jean McConville it is reasonable to ask that Gerry's assertion that the Britsh Army colluded in the attempt on his life in 1984 be investigated in the interest of dealing an even hand. What's god for the goose is good for the gander etc.

maccored

There was a war between the british crowned forces and the IRA. Do the british send the SAS in for the craic of it, or into domestic disputes? No. They dont.

Godge wrote: »

I think you sometimes forget what you post in a thread. Here is a reminder from earlier.

I think the "reality" is that you can't make up your mind whether it is relevant that the IRA were in a war or not. When it suits you, it is an important point, when it doesn't it isn't relevant.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Again, you don't make sense.

Yes, we can all agree that the IRA saw themselves as an army and at war. Fine the SF/IRA axis agreed together with a number of sympathisers.

That does not make it a fact that the IRA was at war. In reality, if you look at it in the cold light of day, statistics and the wider perception outside of this island, there was a minor insurgence by a small poorly-supported terrorist organisation in a relatively minor remote part of the UK. That is the outside view of it (apart from nostalgic Americans).

Nothing significant compared to countless other "wars" elsewhere in the world.

I wish some of you would at least have a go at the 'so what?' question. What possible difference does it make if the IRA's adversaries gave them legitimacy or not. It made not one bit of difference that the IRA gave no legitimacy to the British presence.

You will never get disclosure from the SF/IRA. If there is a truth and reconiliation commission, most of the reconciling will be trying to reconcile which pack of lies with which group of half-truths that comes out of the mouths of the participants. The only real disclosure will be government papers. Which by the way have continuously demonstrated Gerry Adam's role in representing the IRA, the organisation he knows nothing about.

You wouldn't be a bit biased in that assessment by any chance. They have collaborated satisfactorily with the Disappeared commission (can't remember the full title) Adams has offered himself for questioning in relation to Jean McConville etc etc.

And he has never made a secret of his association with the IRA.
Why not reveal the papers now, why make them secret for a further 40 years?
Hardly a threat to security anymore are they?
Would it be because they are sensitive to persons still alive?

But the thing is, when someone like me comes along and says plague on all your houses and I will never vote for any party or politician associated with "The Troubles" up North from the late sixties until now, you have a problem and revert back to everyone has a side. The old "If you are not with me, you're against me" argument.

If we cut the people involved out of public life, that is the end of it. No need for sides, they are all hasbeens.

So we get rid of those who lead through the troubles and we all live happily ever after? Is that what you are saying?

K-9

maccored wrote: »

All sides of the debate are picking the bits that suit. Thats probably because humans have been known to tell the truth about some things and tell lies about other things

Ah yeah, it's politics after all!

It seems the common denominator is both sides don't particularly want to see Hughes as that creditable.

Tbh, I've no problem in believing that the IRA thought she was an informant, I really don't think they had no reason to do what they did.

I suppose the problem is the IRA cover up which made finding the truth extremely difficult, and with the passage of time probably impossible. (we get the usual sleight of hand of British secrets to point away from what actually happened)

I suppose we can say Hughes had a vendetta and motive against Adams and SF. Then again, Adams has a motive in totally denying the allegations. The way I look at it is that a lot of stuff points to Adams being heavily involved with the IRA, we've IRA figures saying he was at least aware of the McConville abduction. We'll probably never get the truth to satisfy a court.

I'm sure some people didn't need the same type of proof for other politicians, Haughey an example. The dogs on the street knew something was going on, maybe if Ben Dunne hadn't had his tete-a-tete with an escort girl in Florida and some coke, we never would have got proof and some would still be saying nothing was ever proven!

twowheelsgood

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The British certainly did not have the support of the people of Ireland but that of course doesn't occur to you.

They had the support of the people of the UK (including a majority of people in Northern Ireland) who elected the government who in turn directed the army.
The PIRA had no such authority. And there was no uncertainly about what the people wanted. Those that favoured Irish unity overwhelmingly rejected violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wish some of you would at least have a go at the 'so what?' question.

It is this quaint notion of democracy that some of us have something of a fondness for but which many republicans seem mystified by.

Granted, they like to talk about it, and can work up a right indignation at George Bush wading into Iraq without one but dare to suggest to republicans that maybe the fate of Ireland should be decided by the Irish and that the PIRA did not have this and you'll be asked "So what?"

K-9

maccored wrote: »

We must bear in mind in all of this that there has been a virtual amnesty for British armed forces including state and state-sponsored killings.
It is Sinn Féin’s view that legacy issues and dealing with the past, including past conflict events, are best addressed through an independent, international, truth recovery process.

That's all very noble and May well be needed if the North can move on, the problem is we seem to be having great difficulty in getting to the bottom of the truth in this particular case, which involves the IRA!

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Lynch sent troops to the border and threatened to send them in...supposedly that was mandated by the people of the south. He welched, leaving those in the North on their own...that was the mandate of the people of the South as well.

'The Grand Old Duke of York, he had ten thousand men, he marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.....'

We had 40 years of it while the 'honourable' people dittered.

By this logic we can expect Ukraine to invade Russia any day now ?

And you talk about reality ? Get real

walshb

Nodin wrote: »

It was believed at the time that she was an informant. It wasn't done out of spite, malice or evil, or celebrated with cackles.

I think a certain amount of evil was there. To take a human, and to shoot her dead, and to orphan 9-10 children does indeed take some amount of evil.

maccored

K-9 wrote: »

That's all very noble and May well be needed if the North can move on, the problem is we seem to be having great difficulty in getting to the bottom of the truth in this particular case, which involves the IRA!

and for some reason we seem to be fixated with JUST this case ... there were many more kinds of atrocities on both sides and all need to be looked at. i think thats what he was saying.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wish some of you would at least have a go at the 'so what?' question. What possible difference does it make if the IRA's adversaries gave them legitimacy or not. It made not one bit of difference that the IRA gave no legitimacy to the British presence.

You are the one who makes a statement that the reality is it was war and repeat it with the only basis being the IRA said it was a war so it was a war. By any normal definition, it was not a war. Get over it, it still wouldn't have legitimised the torturing and killing of Jean McConville. In fact, she would have been treated better as a prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You wouldn't be a bit biased in that assessment by any chance. They have collaborated satisfactorily with the Disappeared commission (can't remember the full title) Adams has offered himself for questioning in relation to Jean McConville etc etc.

And he has never made a secret of his association with the IRA.
Why not reveal the papers now, why make them secret for a further 40 years?
Hardly a threat to security anymore are they?
Would it be because they are sensitive to persons still alive?

Ha, ha, that is a good one, they "collaborated" (strange word) with the Disappeared Commission. I suppose you had the choice between Adam's testimony to the Disappeared Commission and his testimony in his brother's incestual rape case to choose from in order to demonstrate his good faith. The best that can be said is that you made the least bad choice.

Nobody believes a word out of his mouth. As for the papers, they will come out, eventually, the truth from the IRA will never come out. How many of the disappeared are still missing? How many bodies have yet to be brought home?

Happyman42 wrote: »

So we get rid of those who lead through the troubles and we all live happily ever after? Is that what you are saying?

Yes, the first thing that SF must do is get rid of the dinosaurs and anyone else who was ever "active" to use their terminology. The second thing they must do is renounce violence and apologise for their previous support of violence. The third thing they must do is tone down the rhetoric on the North. Only then will they be seen as a credible political party by the vast majority of people.

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

at some of us have something of a fondness for but which many republicans seem mystified by.

Granted, they like to talk about it, and can work up a right indignation at George Bush wading into Iraq without one but dare to suggest to republicans that maybe the fate of Ireland should be decided by the Irish and that the PIRA did not have this and you'll be asked "So what?"

You can talk away about it all you want, I talk about democratic mandates all the time, but that isn't going to alter the history. It happened, regardless of the moral imperatives.

maccored

Godge wrote: »

Yes, the first thing that SF must do is get rid of the dinosaurs and anyone else who was ever "active" to use their terminology. The second thing they must do is renounce violence and apologise for their previous support of violence. The third thing they must do is tone down the rhetoric on the North. Only then will they be seen as a credible political party by the vast majority of people.

Ive heard this touted before - basically people might vote for SF if they do what all the other parties do - lie through their teeth. and then we wonder about the crap governments we vote in.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can talk away about it all you want, I talk about democratic mandates all the time, but that isn't going to alter the history. It happened, regardless of the moral imperatives.

It is still relevant because republicans invariably insist that the past efforts of PIRA in attempting to bring about a united Ireland by force, though a majority disapproved of force, was justified.

And if it wasn't wrong in the past, why would it be wrong in the future, if their desired ends fail to be realized by constitutional politics?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You are the one who makes a statement that the reality is it was war and repeat it with the only basis being the IRA said it was a war so it was a war. By any normal definition, it was not a war. Get over it, it still wouldn't have legitimised the torturing and killing of Jean McConville. In fact, she would have been treated better as a prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions.

The subtle changing of what I said....which was, 'they believed it was a war'.
My own opinion was not offered.

Ha, ha, that is a good one, they "collaborated" (strange word) with the Disappeared Commission. I suppose you had the choice between Adam's testimony to the Disappeared Commission and his testimony in his brother's incestual rape case to choose from in order to demonstrate his good faith. The best that can be said is that you made the least bad choice.

Nobody believes a word out of his mouth. As for the papers, they will come out, eventually, the truth from the IRA will never come out. How many of the disappeared are still missing? How many bodies have yet to be brought home?

Yes, they will come out when nobody is left to get justice.
The ICLVR have stated clearly that they are satisfied with the co-operation given by the IRA. There are many understandable obstacles to finding these remains.

Yes, the first thing that SF must do is get rid of the dinosaurs and anyone else who was ever "active" to use their terminology.

It isn't up to you or me to tell a democratic party what they 'must' do.

The second thing they must do is renounce violence and apologise for their previous support of violence. The third thing they must do is tone down the rhetoric on the North. Only then will they be seen as a credible political party by the vast majority of people.

SF have said the war is over and have made what ever apologies are necessary from what I can see. Are they currently a violent threat to either state...imo No.

Seen as a credible party by 'some' of the people. I think they have a growing political mandate that doesn't seem to need what those 'some' want.

guinnessdrinker

K-9 wrote: »

That's all very noble and May well be needed if the North can move on, the problem is we seem to be having great difficulty in getting to the bottom of the truth in this particular case, which involves the IRA!

The other serious issue around this case is the question of why was Mrs McConville's disappearance not investigated by the RUC until the 1990's?

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

The other serious issue around this case is the question of why was Mrs McConville's disappearance not investigated by the RUC until the 1990's?

Nuala O'Loan's report is pretty saddening actually. A mother of ten disappeared and no one gave a damn. It sounds as though even social services ignored them for a while.

Remembering of course, this all happened ten months after the kid's father died.

In three years, they were chased out of their home in west Belfast, put in temporary accomodarion, then their father died, they were moved again and a week later their mother was murdered.

And people wonder why this case is high profile.