What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

maccored

where i came from they did. if the nationalist community didnt support them, how did they evade capture? You point makes no sense there alastair - though admittedly Im getting used to that.

alastair wrote: »

The Nationalist community in NI didn't support the IRA's campaign of violence though. So what you end up with is the grubby reality a criminal gang of vigilantes murdering people without a mandate.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

Indeed - and they were dwarfed by the Nationalist vote for the SDLP - year after year..

Why are you posting something you should know is incorrect, unless you know nothing about NI politics. Of course the SDLP dwarfed SF prior to 1983, as SF contested very few elections, save the odd protest election such as Bobby Sands election as an MP in 1981. Once SF became active in politics after 1983, the picture changed and changed dramatically.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm

This graph is only up to 2004, and the swing to SF is even more extreme since. I know this does not fit with your warped view of NI politics, but its never too late to educate yourself. I know this is hard for certain segments of the population in the ROI to accept, but SF are the only credible political party for large segments of the population on the island of Ireland, and their support is only going in one direction. You and people like you just need to get used to it, its called democracy.

maccored

Many, many people gave their daily support to republicans, but not all would necessarily vote for SF. Thats just the way it was.

alastair wrote: »

It's called the polling booth.


Indeed - and they were dwarfed by the Nationalist vote for the SDLP - year after year..

Happyman42

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are you posting something you should know is incorrect, unless you know nothing about NI politics. Of course the SDLP dwarfed SF prior to 1983, as SF contested very few elections, save the odd protest election such as Bobby Sands election as an MP in 1981. Once SF became active in politics after 1983, the picture changed and changed dramatically.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm

This graph is only up to 2004, and the swing to SF is even more extreme since. I know this does not fit with your warped view of NI politics, but its never too late to educate yourself. I know this is hard for certain segments of the population in the ROI to accept, but SF are the only credible political party for large segments of the population on the island of Ireland, and their support is only going in one direction. You and people like you just need to get used to it, its called democracy.

I don't think I have ever seen such a warped view of history as Alastair's version either on here or in print.
The 'grubby criminal gang of vigilantes' got an awful lot out of the British who continue to swallow all their moral grandstanding over the years in order to keep in with them. Ditto the Unionists.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

where i came from they did. if the nationalist community didnt support them, how did they evade capture? You point makes no sense there alastair - though admittedly Im getting used to that.

It's quite the mystery eh?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-son-fears-to-tell-police-truth-about-ira-victim-jean-mcconville-30236481.html

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are you posting something you should know is incorrect, unless you know nothing about NI politics. Of course the SDLP dwarfed SF prior to 1983, as SF contested very few elections, save the odd protest election such as Bobby Sands election as an MP in 1981. Once SF became active in politics after 1983, the picture changed and changed dramatically.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm

This graph is only up to 2004, and the swing to SF is even more extreme since. I know this does not fit with your warped view of NI politics, but its never too late to educate yourself. I know this is hard for certain segments of the population in the ROI to accept, but SF are the only credible political party for large segments of the population on the island of Ireland, and their support is only going in one direction. You and people like you just need to get used to it, its called democracy.

What do you think happened that allowed for that electoral boost in 2004? Any ideas?

During the IRA's campaign of violence SF came nowhere near the level of support the SDLP received from the nationalist community.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's quite the mystery eh?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-son-fears-to-tell-police-truth-about-ira-victim-jean-mcconville-30236481.html

If he won't go to the police what is it he expects to be done?

And it's just bewildering actually that somebody who tells the world that he knows who killed his mother is fearful for his safety.
Tbh I don't believe he really knows anything, probably just a desperate attempt to keep a sad story in the news, as the interest from the hysterical (with another agenda) fades away.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen such a warped view of history as Alastair's version either on here or in print.
The 'grubby criminal gang of vigilantes' got an awful lot out of the British who continue to swallow all their moral grandstanding over the years in order to keep in with them. Ditto the Unionists.

They got nothing out of the British, except being spared outright humiliation. Last I noticed they've handed in their weapons, packed their bags, and NI remains part of the UK.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he won't go to the police what is it he expects to be done?

And it's just bewildering actually that somebody who tells the world that he knows who killed his mother is fearful for his safety.
Tbh I don't believe he really knows anything, probably just a desperate attempt to keep a sad story in the news, as the interest from the hysterical (with another agenda) fades away.

I guess he's another instance of those 'exploiting Jean McConville' eh? Nice to know that you have a better insight as to his fears than he does.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

Many, many people gave their daily support to republicans, but not all would necessarily vote for SF. Thats just the way it was.

In your imagination, clearly.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They got nothing out of the British, except being spared outright humiliation. Last I noticed they've handed in their weapons, packed their bags, and NI remains part of the UK.

Power sharing, parity of esteem, equal opportunities and the right to a UI when the demographic changes and they get to lead, not the SDLP.
Humiliating alright.

Dr.Tank Adams

I don't believe there are many people who would genuinely believe Adams was not in the IRA. Whether that effects their opinions on him or not is another thing, I can't say it's something I lose any amount of sleep over to be honest. It's not exactly unusual for political parties/leaders to be born out of violent conflict and violent organisations. Sure weren't the two leading parties in the south and many of the most prominent politicians in the early year's of the state from the very same background? But of course that's completely different...

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Power sharing, parity of esteem, equal opportunities and the right to a UI when the demographic changes and they get to lead, not the SDLP.
Humiliating alright.

Nothing there that wasn't available years beforehand - and rejected in favour of a cloud cuckoo belief in a 'long war'. The spared humiliation is in not constantly reminding them of that fact.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Nothing there that wasn't available years beforehand - and rejected in favour of a cloud cuckoo belief in a 'long war'. The spared humiliation is in not constantly reminding them of that fact.

Ah yes, the SDLP solutions that the Unionists left in tatters. As I say, a warped view of history.

nagirrac

alastair wrote: »

What do you think happened that allowed for that electoral boost in 2004? Any ideas? During the IRA's campaign of violence SF came nowhere near the level of support the SDLP received from the nationalist community.

Can you not actually read and interpret the graph? When they first started contesting elections across NI in 1982/83 SF jumped to >25% of the nationalist vote from effectively 0%, and from then to the late 90s their share of the nationalist vote varied from 25 to 40%. They have been steadily climbing since 1996 and are now the largest political party in NI, not just larger than the SDLP.

I would agree by the way that SF working towards a peaceful end to the NI conflict was a big factor in their gaining increased support, however nothing magical happened in 2004. If you smooth out the data SF has been steadily gaining in popularity since 1982. The same thing is now happening in the ROI, which is the main reason people like yourself are getting their knickers in a twist.

Villain

Villain wrote: »

You present evidence and question the suspect on that evidence to establish if the evidence is usable. No point just preventing all the evidence at a trial and have the suspect explain it all away.

Is seems obvious from the report Gerry wrote that the PSNI have no evidence to link him to the abduction murder and burial of Jean McConville so they are trying to prove he was a leader of the IRA at the time and thus by proxy must have been involved.

The only evidence they have that he was a member is based on a photo of him at a funeral and opinions of commentators and past members who are openly against him and the peace process.

You can talk around the issue and keep coming back to "everyone knows he was" but that thankfully for me, you and everyone else is not enough to convict someone in a normal court.

Now if he was to stand trial down here in the special criminal court that might be a different story, although the fact that former Minister for Justice McDowell had to use Dail privilege to accuse him of membership says a lot about what evidence actually exists he is lying.

This thread is wondering off in different directions. alstair did you miss my response to you or just avoiding the fact you seem to have a misunderstanding on interrogations work and your constant assumption that the PSNI have years of evidence on Adams?

relaxed

alastair wrote: »

I guess he's another instance of those 'exploiting Jean McConville' eh? Nice to know that you have a better insight as to his fears than he does.

Exploiting her is exactly what you are doing too.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ah yes, the SDLP solutions that the Unionists left in tatters. As I say, a warped view of history.

The SDLP solutions that currently pertain in NI. Seems pretty successful to me.

alastair

nagirrac wrote: »

Can you not actually read and interpret the graph? When they first started contesting elections across NI in 1982/83 SF jumped to >25% of the nationalist vote from effectively 0%, and from then to the late 90s their share of the nationalist vote varied from 25 to 40%. They have been steadily climbing since 1996 and are now the largest political party in NI, not just larger than the SDLP.

I would agree by the way that SF working towards a peaceful end to the NI conflict was a big factor in their gaining increased support, however nothing magical happened in 2004. If you smooth out the data SF has been steadily gaining in popularity since 1982. The same thing is now happening in the ROI, which is the main reason people like yourself are getting their knickers in a twist.

While the IRA had a campaign of violence the SDLP always dwarfed the SF vote, the only reason SF's vote increased was because they curtailed the IRA campaign. That, in anyone's eyes, indicates just how mandated they were to continue a campaign of violence. The improved SF vote in '97was borne of the progress made in the Downing Street agreement and IRA ceasefire. Compare how SF did in the '93 election - Adams lost his seat. The success of SF at the ballot box was entirely related with how active the IRA's violence was.

The curve of SF's electoral success was anything but smooth. And I'm entirely unconcerned about how well they're doing in the current elections. More power to them.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

This thread is wondering off in different directions. alstair did you miss my response to you or just avoiding the fact you seem to have a misunderstanding on interrogations work and your constant assumption that the PSNI have years of evidence on Adams?

I'd suggest that you don't know how interviews work in contexts like these. If they can corroborate information they have without Adams, then they'll have no need, or desire to let Adams know what information they do have, until it goes to court. My constant assumption that they have years of evidence is based on the undisputed fact that they had informers operating within the IRA for all those years, and they are rather unlikely to ignore that evidence in their investigation.

alastair

relaxed wrote: »

Exploiting her is exactly what you are doing too.

So that's her son and myself 'exploiting' her. Gotcha. Meanwhile you're engaged in advocacy for those that murdered her. Nice.

maccored

yes, and it remains so considering your link tells me nothing. As someone who grew up in a nationalist/republican area, I can categorically tell you the IRA didnt threaten people in order to keep themselves hid. You really need to get your head around the fact that they had public support, in the north anyway.

alastair wrote: »

It's quite the mystery eh?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-son-fears-to-tell-police-truth-about-ira-victim-jean-mcconville-30236481.html

maccored

it wont go to court unless they charge him alastair. They had the chance to and they didn't.

alastair wrote: »

I'd suggest that you don't know how interviews work in contexts like these. If they can corroborate information they have without Adams, then they'll have no need, or desire to let Adams know what information they do have, until it goes to court. My constant assumption that they have years of evidence is based on the undisputed fact that they had informers operating within the IRA for all those years, and they are rather unlikely to ignore that evidence in their investigation.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

it wont go to court unless they charge him alastair. They had the chance to and they didn't.

The 'chance' to charge him is in the hands of the PPS. It 'hasn't gone away, you know'.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

yes, and it remains so considering your link tells me nothing. As someone who grew up in a nationalist/republican area, I can categorically tell you the IRA didnt threaten people in order to keep themselves hid. You really need to get your head around the fact that they had public support, in the north anyway.

It's called intimidation. Maybe you missed all those graffitied threats to 'informers' and 'touts' that were a standard feature of nationalist areas? Maybe that was some extra-special area you grew up in?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The SDLP solutions that currently pertain in NI. Seems pretty successful to me.

There was only ever one solution in NI, getting the Unionists to behave like democrats and getting the British to withdraw.
The first has been achieved and the second is a work in progress.
That the SDLP where one of the first to rule out any chance that this was 'political policing' is par for the course for a party that never had any idea when it came to actually achieving anything for nationalists.
To categorically rule out the existence of a cabal of the old guard of the RUC, JUST because they are sitting on the policing board points to their now pathetic status of trying to gain political capital anywhere, even at the expense of their fellow nationalists.
They have forgotten, because they are in the comfy seats they always wanted, that this is a 'process' not a done deal.

alastair wrote: »

So that's her son and myself 'exploiting' her. Gotcha. Meanwhile you're engaged in advocacy for those that murdered her. Nice.

I think, as well as the hysterical on here, that some of her family are exploiting her and I have no problem saying it.
I think most normal people would do whatever had to be done to get justice for a parent.
Telling the world that you know her killers while not telling the people who can do something about it...the police, deserves to be questioned.
He is asking us to believe that somebody he thinks is going to harm him if he tells the police is going to sit patiently while he dithers about it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

maccored

technically yes - though I presume that to be a face saving exercise more than anything else.

In reality though, if they had anything to charge him with, they would have charged him. They didn't.

Is that back to not being innocent but not being guilty again?

alastair wrote: »

The 'chance' to charge him is in the hands of the PPS. It 'hasn't gone away, you know'.

relaxed

alastair wrote: »

I'd suggest that you don't know how interviews work in contexts like these. If they can corroborate information they have without Adams, then they'll have no need, or desire to let Adams know what information they do have, until it goes to court. My constant assumption that they have years of evidence is based on the undisputed fact that they had informers operating within the IRA for all those years, and they are rather unlikely to ignore that evidence in their investigation.

You are not the sharpest are you?

If they don't present the evidence it won't get to court.

I note now you are only making an assumption that they have evidence.

Previously you stated they had stacks of it.

You say they had informers in the IRA, that's great, it's a pity Adams wasn't in it, "for all those years"

maccored

The area I grew up in wasnt extra special. touts and informers were touts and informers, so I dont know why you're throwing them into the mix. Im talking about the average general public. the IRA did not intimidate locals in order to remain a secret organisation. to say that is just bull****.

alastair wrote: »

It's called intimidation. Maybe you missed all those graffitied threats to 'informers' and 'touts' that were a standard feature of nationalist areas? Maybe that was some extra-special area you grew up in?

alastair

relaxed wrote: »

You are not the sharpest are you?

If they don't present the evidence it won't get to court.

I note now you are only making an assumption that they have evidence.

Previously you stated they had stacks of it.

You say they had informers in the IRA, that's great, it's a pity Adams wasn't in it, "for all those years"

They don't need to present any evidence at an interview. They just need to present it to the court.

Of course they have stacks of evidence. That's what years of informers produce.

Spare me the nonsense of Adams not being in the IRA - the evidence is repeatedly posted in this thread.

maccored

I think it's all a windup. alastair is probably sitting in front of his computer laughing at us actually bothering to respond to his comments.

relaxed wrote: »

You are not the sharpest are you?

If they don't present the evidence it won't get to court.

I note now you are only making an assumption that they have evidence.

Previously you stated they had stacks of it.

You say they had informers in the IRA, that's great, it's a pity Adams wasn't in it, "for all those years"

maccored

How can they present it in court if no-one is charged? Also, it'd be pretty stupid not to confront someone with a charge before going to court, especially if it ended up the suspect had a logical and acceptable answer. theres no evidence in this thread either alastair - bar the plain evidence that you dont have any.

alastair wrote: »

They don't need to present any evidence at an interview. They just need to present it to the court.

Of course they have stacks of evidence. That's what years of informers produce.

Spare me the nonsense of Adams not being in the IRA - the evidence is repeatedly posted in this thread.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

The area I grew up in wasnt extra special. touts and informers were touts and informers, so I dont know why you're throwing them into the mix. Im talking about the average general public. the IRA did not intimidate locals in order to remain a secret organisation. to say that is just bull****.

Quite how is someone supposed to have reported the IRA then, without being threatened by the IRA (for touting). That's why I pointed out it wasn't any mystery. You say I'm not the sharpest?

alastair

maccored wrote: »

How can they present it in court if no-one is charged? Also, it'd be pretty stupid not to confront someone with a charge before going to court, especially if it ended up the suspect had a logical and acceptable answer. theres no evidence in this thread either alastair - bar the plain evidence that you dont have any.

What has a charge being brought, and presenting evidence to the court, got to do with disclosing evidence at an interview, prior to either?

Deny the evidence in the thread if you like - but it's there for everyone to read. Head in the sand generally doesn't work as a strategy.

maccored

eehhhh ... nope. i dont think I ever said anything about you and sharpness. though now when I think of it .....

Someone touting is a completely different thing than the IRA intimidating locals. You really should read up on it or something. Its getting embarrassing having to try to explain these things to you.

alastair wrote: »

Quite how is someone supported to have reported the IRA then, without being threatened by the IRA (for touting). That's why I pointed out it wasn't any mystery. You say I'm not the sharpest?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They don't need to present any evidence at an interview. They just need to present it to the court.

Of course they have stacks of evidence. That's what years of informers produce.

Spare me the nonsense of Adams not being in the IRA - the evidence is repeatedly posted in this thread.

40 years Alastair, Even when the troubles where at their darkest hour, they couldn't bring this man to court? And you claim there is some dossier of gathered intelligence and info somewhere? They must be some bunch of incompetents in the RUC/PSNI.
You are having a laugh I'm thinking too.

*awaits the conspiracy theory now.

relaxed

alastair wrote: »

They don't need to present any evidence at an interview.

So what did they do for 4 days, drink coffee and play darts?

maccored

if someone isn't charged they wont be in court in the first place. Man, I have work to do - if I stop replying to your more silly posts, dont take it personally.

alastair wrote: »

What has a charge being brought, and presenting evidence to the court, got to do with disclosing evidence at an interview, prior to either?

alastair

maccored wrote: »

if someone isn't charged they wont be in court in the first place.

No-one said otherwise.

alastair

relaxed wrote: »

So what did they do for 4 days, drink coffee and play darts?

Questioned him. Which doesn't imply that they exhausted or revealed the entirety of their evidence. They clearly would only reveal what they deemed sufficient for their purposes.

alastair

maccored wrote: »

eehhhh ... nope. i dont think I ever said anything about you and sharpness. though now when I think of it .....

Someone touting is a completely different thing than the IRA intimidating locals. You really should read up on it or something. Its getting embarrassing having to try to explain these things to you.

And yet - reporting IRA activities immediately makes you a tout. So no - it's no different at all.

Happyman42

I wonder if he isn't charged would this site and others like it rule out the admissibility of Alastairs 'categorical proof'(snaphots and hearsay) and try and restore some integrity.
I doubt it, the fearful need their muck.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wonder if he isn't charged would this site and others like it rule out the admissibility of Alastairs 'categorical proof'(snaphots and hearsay) and try and restore some integrity.
I doubt it, the fearful need their muck.

Adams wasn't questioned over IRA membership - which we all know is a given, but over a murder investigation. Whether charges are brought against him in that regard, or not, doesn't change anything about the evidence of his membership. I know you'd like it to be so, but it isn't.

If there's anyone fearful of the truth here, it's those contorting themselves to pretend Adams wasn't in the IRA.

golfball37

BBc news reported last Tuesday as their headline at 6 that he will not be charged with anything based on the file sent, which they claim was more an account of what occured over the four days of detention.

RTE are still sticking to the line- A file has been sent, more in hope than anything else though you'd imagine.

alastair

golfball37 wrote: »

BBc news reported last Tuesday as their headline at 6 that he will not be charged with anything based on the file sent, which they claim was more an account of what occured over the four days of detention.

RTE are still sticking to the line- A file has been sent, more in hope than anything else though you'd imagine.

That would be the file that neither the BBC or RTE are privy to the contents of?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

That would be the file that neither the BBC or RTE are privy to the contents of?

Or you!
Adams, the only one there, says that the emphasis in questioning was on his membership of the IRA. They would have to prove he was a leader in Belfast to connect him in any way to the killing.
Your 'evidence' clearly isn't enough or in the least bit reliable to achieve that and hasn't been over 40 years.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Or you!

Didn't claim otherwise.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Adams, the only one there,

Not so. It's just that the others there are constrained from discussing anything that was asked of Adams.

Happyman42 wrote: »

says that the emphasis in questioning was on his membership of the IRA. They would have to prove he was a leader in Belfast to connect him in any way to the killing.
Your 'evidence' clearly isn't enough or in the least bit reliable to achieve that and hasn't been over 40 years.

He was arrested on evidence relating to the murder. Whether he's charged or not, and whether that charge would result in a conviction are currently unknown.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Didn't claim otherwise.

You have 'claimed' to know several times what the PSNI had and what they know.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have 'claimed' to know several times what the PSNI had and what they know.

No I haven't. I've repeatedly said that they have everything on this thread, and a stack of additional information. Given the years of informers feeding them information, it would be remarkably blinkers to suggest otherwise. But there you go - blinkered is your default, along with misrepresentation.

Villain

Lol Alastair I'm not sure how you think you know how arrest and interrogation works but it is not as you outlined.

The main evidence is always presented during the interrogation why you think otherwise is beyond me.

Gerry Adams has said the questioning was in relation to his alleged membership and role in the IRA and that the PSNI are trying to prove he was directing terrorism at the time and thus was involved in directing the murder.

Gerry Adams knows what happened during those 4 days as does the PSNI and now the DPP, are you seriously saying that Gerry is writing lies that can easily be refuted by the PSNI or DPP and in fact he was questioned about direct evidence linking him to the Murder and also that the PSNI has concrete evidence but didn't present it during the interrogation ??

I'm sorry but I think you are either being ignorant (literal meaning) to the process or just ignoring what has come to light so you can blindly debate your side without considering all the information available