Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…910121415…26

Comments

  • #552
    golfball37
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭golfball37


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

    I'm only reporting what they reported. I don't think the BBC would lead with something as a headline on their main national news that wasn't accurate, but perhaps they would?


  • #553
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    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.

    If you are even remotely right in your guesswork, it begs the question...why now? Are you suggesting the RUC/PSNI have been sitting on their hands in relation to this killing for 42 years?
    The allegations that GA was involved have been around for years, and he has never been brought in and questioned until now? Stinks to high heaven.


  • #554
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    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.


    You are just good for a laugh at this stage!

    They presumably have nothing, or they would have charged him. Time will tell if ther is any dirt, if this gets to court you could be proven right, if he gets convicted, then hats off to you.


    Hard to see it though, based on the complete lack of evidence.


  • #555
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,725 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Ah, the old "i insinuated it but i never said it' routine.
    alastair wrote: »
    No-one said otherwise.


  • #556
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,725 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    and the odd person touting means the IRA control the public .... thats a giant leap for mankind that one.
    alastair wrote: »
    And yet - reporting IRA activities immediately makes you a tout. So no - it's no different at all.


  • #557
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,725 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Adams claims he was questioned on IRA membership
    alastair wrote: »
    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.


  • #558
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,725 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    or you .... EDIT ... I see you already addressed this by saying you dont. Ergo - since you dont have any information bar whats in this thread, I'd give up if I were you
    alastair wrote: »
    That would be the file that neither the BBC or RTE are privy to the contents of?


  • #559
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Pff. Does it really matter whether an elderly UK citizen was or wasn't in some fanatical grouping in his youth? We all make mistakes; such is the folly of youth.


  • #560
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,725 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    are we all meant to get annoyed you claim him to be a UK citizen?
    old hippy wrote: »
    Pff. Does it really matter whether an elderly UK citizen was or wasn't in some fanatical grouping in his youth? We all make mistakes; such is the folly of youth.


  • #561
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    relaxed wrote: »
    then hats off to you.


    I did have a snigger :)


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    are we all meant to get annoyed you claim him to be a UK citizen?

    Is there something wrong with being a UK citizen?


  • #563
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    old hippy wrote: »
    Is there something wrong with being a UK citizen?

    Not at all but it might be worth pointing out citizens of Northern Ireland have dual citizenship so he is also an Irish Citizen :)


  • #564
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    old hippy wrote: »
    Is there something wrong with being a UK citizen?

    This wumming style was funny and original back in the 1990's, not any more.


  • #565
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    maccored wrote: »
    and the odd person touting means the IRA control the public .... thats a giant leap for mankind that one.

    Most people find the threat of death fairly persuasive.


  • #566
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    maccored wrote: »
    Adams claims he was questioned on IRA membership

    He was arrested for questioning with regard to the murder of Jean McConville. Adams can say what he likes - no-one is in a position to say otherwise. The PSNI can't really go into details of a confidential inquiry


  • #567
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Looks like a civil case is coming.
    "Sinn Fein don't communicate with us any more, we never worked with them, we had meetings with them," he said.

    "The first meeting we had with them, Helen gave him (Adams) the names of those that she knew abducted her mother. Adams just went through all the names and said: 'No, I know her, she's a great girl, definitely not her'. All while he looked at the floor, he didn't even look at her.

    "He dismissed her like the proverbial bit of s*** on his shoe.

    "Of course, there are people in Sinn Fein who are disgusted with the disappearance of Jean. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I would describe as diehard republicans who have shaken my hand and said 'No one can fault you for what you are doing.'" The McKendrys plan to launch a civil action against Gerry Adams within weeks.

    They have been offered help and advice by families of the Omagh bomb victims, who successfully sued those arrested for the 1998 blast.

    "We have specifically asked that nothing goes into motion until it is incredibly well thought out," he said. "The Omagh victims have passed word on to us that we are more than welcome to go up and discuss with them how they won their case."

    Helen said, after years of living in fear, she was determined to finally get justice for her mother.

    "I have been living in fear for far too long.

    "I thought to hell with them, they did this, they killed my mother, now they have to pay for it," she said.
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jean-mcconvilles-daughter-tells-of-fears-over-40-years-after-ira-killing-im-relieved-my-mother-hasnt-been-forgotten-30246116.html


  • #568
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    He was arrested for questioning with regard to the murder of Jean McConville. Adams can say what he likes - no-one is in a position to say otherwise. The PSNI can't really go into details of a confidential inquiry

    So your saying Adams is lying about the events of his 4 days under arrest?

    Why would he when he can easily to be shown to be lying if he is charged and it goes to trial??

    You seem to be ignoring the posts which comment on what happened as they don't match what your idea of being arrested and interrogated is!


  • #569
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    So your saying Adams is lying about the events of his 4 days under arrest?

    Why would he when he can easily to be shown to be lying if he is charged and it goes to trial??

    You seem to be ignoring the posts which comment on what happened as they don't match what your idea of being arrested and interrogated is!
    I'm saying Adams has free reign to make whatever claim he likes about the questioning, safe in the knowledge that no-one can say otherwise. So that needs to be taken into consideration. He's not exactly shy with regard to selective recall.

    He isn't going to be charged with membership. They have clearly decided, a good while back, that there's no mileage in going after Adams or McGuinness for simple membership. If there's a charge, it'll be for something related to the murder of McConville, or directing terrorism. Personally, I think a criminal charge will be difficult to bring, and the civil case would offer much more opportunity for a conviction.


  • #570
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm saying Adams has free reign to make whatever claim he likes about the questioning, safe in the knowledge that no-one can say otherwise. So that needs to be taken into consideration. He's not exactly shy with regard to selective recall.

    A court case would easily show it as a lie, you know anyone without bias who reads his report would at least consider he is telling the truth and I really can't see why he would take such a gamble to lie.

    You think someone in the PSNI wouldn't leak a report on what happened if it could show he was lying!
    alastair wrote: »
    He isn't going to be charged with membership. They have clearly decided, a good while back, that there's no mileage in going after Adams or McGuinness for simple membership. If there's a charge, it'll be for something related to the murder of McConville, or directing terrorism. Personally, I think a criminal charge will be difficult to bring, and the civil case would offer much more opportunity for a conviction.

    But with all the so called evidence you have presented and the evidence you say the PSNI must have surely a charge and conviction would be very easy??


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    A court case would easily show it as a lie, you know anyone without bias who reads his report would at least consider he is telling the truth and I really can't see why he would take such a gamble to lie.
    If it went to court, that would be the last of his concerns. Put it this way - he's already prepared to lie about his membership of the IRA - a lie that would be obviously exposed in court, so we know he has form already. He also lied about his, and SF's relationship to his brother. Fool me once...
    Villain wrote: »
    You think someone in the PSNI wouldn't leak a report on what happened if it could show he was lying!
    It's possible, but they would either risk their job in doing so, and going public, or remain anonymous, and be written off as an unsubstantiated source.
    Villain wrote: »
    But with all the so called evidence you have presented and the evidence you say the PSNI must have surely a charge and conviction would be very easy??
    Why do you think so? The evidence of his membership still relies on testimony, which isn't the best route to a conviction in court. But then, no-one is suggesting he be brought to trial for membership - just stop the hypocrisy of lying about it.

    If there's evidence he was involved in the murder of someone - then he should face trial for that. And the facts of the matter are he has been implicated in the murder of Jean McConville, so it's entirely appropriate that the PSNI question him in that regard.


  • #572
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    Personally, I think a criminal charge will be difficult to bring,


    LOL! So much for your stacks of evidence then.


  • #573
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    relaxed wrote: »
    LOL! So much for your stacks of evidence then.
    Oh the evidence is there alright. Which is why everyone - yourself included, if you're to be honest - understands that he's lying about his membership. The truth of the matter, and getting a conviction in court - two different things. There was plenty of evidence against OJ too.


  • #574
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    If it went to court, that would be the last of his concerns. Put it this way - he's already prepared to lie about his membership of the IRA - a lie that would be obviously exposed in court, so we know he has form already. He also lied about his, and SF's relationship to his brother. Fool me once...

    It's possible, but they would either risk their job in doing so, and going public, or remain anonymous, and be written off as an unsubstantiated source.


    Why do you think so? The evidence of his membership still relies on testimony, which isn't the best route to a conviction in court. But then, no-one is suggesting he be brought to trial for membership - just stop the hypocrisy of lying about it.

    If there's evidence he was involved in the murder of someone - then he should face trial for that. And the facts of the matter are he has been implicated in the murder of Jean McConville, so it's entirely appropriate that the PSNI question him in that regard.

    The thing is you have a clear bias against Gerry, you have said there is evidence already available and the PSNI have more evidence yet you don't expect charges and trial.

    So you are sitting in front of a keyboard claiming a Man is lying, claiming he was a member of IRA and alleging he was connected to the murder of a woman yet you don't expect him to be charged because if that does turn out to be the outcome you can still make the claims and say you never expected him to be charged.

    You can't have it both ways, you either have evidence that proves what you say and charges and a case should follow or you simply have a biased opinion and choose to believe everything negative which supports what you say.

    The latter being fine but don't try and tell others that your opinion is right and correct.


  • #575
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh the evidence is there alright. Which is why everyone - yourself included, if you're to be honest - understands that he's lying about his membership. The truth of the matter, and getting a conviction in court - two different things. There was plenty of evidence against OJ too.

    Yawn, yawn, yawn, "oh the evidence is there alright" but you don't think he will be charged, there's stacks of evidence from decades of informers, nada, nada, nada

    Either produce some evidence beyond a bit of a photograph and heresay or stop sounding like a badly scratched record.


  • #576
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    relaxed wrote: »
    Yawn, yawn, yawn, "oh the evidence is there alright" but you don't think he will be charged, there's stacks of evidence from decades of informers, nada, nada, nada

    Either produce some evidence beyond a bit of a photograph and heresay or stop sounding like a badly scratched record.

    The evidence is in the thread. Feel free to review again, if you like.
    So what led you to believe Adams was in the IRA, if not the evidence?


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    The thing is you have a clear bias against Gerry,
    I do? Not really. I don't like the hypocrisy, but I critique him in exactly the same way I would critique any other person.
    Villain wrote: »
    you have said there is evidence already available and the PSNI have more evidence yet you don't expect charges and trial.
    There may well be, I'm simply stating that the obstacles to forming a criminal case against him are considerable. I do expect a civil case to be brought.
    Villain wrote: »
    So you are sitting in front of a keyboard claiming a Man is lying,
    He's obviously been lying about his membership, and he's lied about other matters - his brother for instance. That's just a matter of fact.
    Villain wrote: »
    claiming he was a member of IRA
    Yes.
    Villain wrote: »
    and alleging he was connected to the murder of a woman
    He is connected to the murder. He's been implicated by others involved in the murder. He's also connected through the responsibility of his role in the Belfast IRA at the time. Whether that means he's guilty of a specific crime with regard to her murder is for a court to decide. But he's culpable, to some extent.
    Villain wrote: »
    yet you don't expect him to be charged because if that does turn out to be the outcome you can still make the claims and say you never expected him to be charged.
    If I don't expect him to be charged, it's not because of any claims I might make or otherwise. It's because the book of evidence won't be sufficient to gain a conviction. I'll still hold the same opinions, one way or another.
    Villain wrote: »
    You can't have it both ways, you either have evidence that proves what you say and charges and a case should follow or you simply have a biased opinion and choose to believe everything negative which supports what you say.
    He's not under investigation for membership of the IRA. It's a murder investigation. There's ample evidence for his membership, but charges would be based on directly linking him with the murder. It's entirely reasonable to 'have it both ways' it's two distinct matters. Bias doesn't enter into it.
    Villain wrote: »
    The latter being fine but don't try and tell others that your opinion is right and correct.
    The evidence tells it's own story. No need for opinion in judging it on it's own merits.


  • #578
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »

    The evidence tells it's own story.

    Not to anyone that matters.


  • #579
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Not to anyone that matters.

    The wilfully blind?


  • #580
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Bias doesn't enter into it.

    The evidence tells it's own story. No need for opinion in judging it on it's own merits.
    The evidence isn't proof it's circumstantial at best yet you say the man is lying you say he was a member of the IRA and is connected to the Murder of a woman.

    I tell you that's some serious opinion to hold never mind state on an open public forum and then to say you aren't biased!!


  • #581
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    The evidence is in the thread. Feel free to review again, if you like.
    So what led you to believe Adams was in the IRA, if not the evidence?

    There's no evidence of note in this thread or he would have been charged with it, it's your imaginary stacks of evidence from informers that's tripping you up. It appears not to exist as you don't think he will be charged.

    Either you are able to furnish us with these stacks of evidence or we must assume it exists only in your imagination.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    The wilfully blind?

    Actually no, the cops can find nothing useful in it it seems.


  • #583
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    relaxed wrote: »
    Actually no, the cops can find nothing useful in it it seems.

    And in almost all other cases that would be the end of it. But not here on Boards it seems.


  • #584
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    relaxed wrote: »
    Actually no, the cops can find nothing useful in it it seems.
    They're investigating a murder. It's entirely possible that there won't be enough evidence to connect him directly with that murder, but then again, the opposite is possible as well.


  • #585
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    They're investigating a murder....

    ...for 42 years and haven't managed to convict anybody yet, despite having heaps and mountains of 'evidence'.


  • #586
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    ...for 42 years and haven't managed to convict anybody yet, despite having heaps and mountains of 'evidence'.

    Yes. And?

    The same is true of Bloody Sunday, and all of the other 'dissemble from McConville' reference points for the IRA apologists. Imagine if people hadn't been threatened if they went to the RUC all those years?


  • #587
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    The evidence isn't proof it's circumstantial at best yet you say the man is lying you say he was a member of the IRA and is connected to the Murder of a woman.

    I tell you that's some serious opinion to hold never mind state on an open public forum and then to say you aren't biased!!

    Of course he is lying about his membership of the IRA. Why do you believe he was a member? And he is connected to the murder - he's been implicated in ordering it by his fellow IRA members. The victim's daughter believes he shares culpability. That's a clear connection.

    Now how do acknowledging either of those things make me biased?


  • #588
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    alastair wrote: »
    Of course he is lying about his membership of the IRA. Why do you believe he was a member? And he is connected to the murder - he's been implicated in ordering it by his fellow IRA members. The victim's daughter believes he shares culpability. That's a clear connection.

    Now how do acknowledging either of those things make me biased?

    Just point us to your stacks of evidence and you will quieten us all fairly quick.

    Not the old photograph and a few memoirs, but all the new stuff you claim these informers have.

    Either sh1t out your stacks of evidence or get off the proverbial pot.


  • #589
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    relaxed wrote: »
    Just point us to your stacks of evidence and you will quieten us all fairly quick.

    Not the old photograph and a few memoirs, but all the new stuff you claim these informers have.

    Either sh1t out your stacks of evidence or get off the proverbial pot.

    Really? You think I have access to the information IRA informers have provided the PSNI with? :pac:

    I have some mutual friends of Mrs Scappaticci, does that count?


  • #590
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Yes. And?

    The same is true of Bloody Sunday, and all of the other 'dissemble from McConville' reference points for the IRA apologists. Imagine if people hadn't been threatened if they went to the RUC all those years?
    We always had evidence capabLe of convicting those who killed on Bloody Sunday but there was a cover up.and the British have been reluctant to convict any soldier of wrongdoing in NI in 40 years.
    We don't have evidence to do the same in relation to Mrs McConviLe or convicting G Adams of IRA membership.
    It really is simple Alastair.


  • #591
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    alastair wrote: »
    Of course he is lying about his membership of the IRA. Why do you believe he was a member? And he is connected to the murder - he's been implicated in ordering it by his fellow IRA members. The victim's daughter believes he shares culpability. That's a clear connection.

    Now how do acknowledging either of those things make me biased?

    You have an opinion based on weak and circumstantial evidence and are unwilling to even consider the opposite to what you think.

    You have a biased view on Adams and tbh I don't think there is any point discussing this any further. Plus the accusations you have made here could end up in a libel case at some point so I think it's best I leave it at that.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    We always had evidence capabLe of convicting those who killed on Bloody Sunday but there was a cover up.and the British have been reluctant to convict any soldier of wrongdoing in NI in 40 years.
    We don't have evidence to do the same in relation to Mrs McConviLe or convicting G Adams of IRA membership.
    It really is simple Alastair.

    We?

    It's really nowhere as simple as you claim, but then everything is simple when you close your eyes to the uncomfortable facts. There's a murder case that's lasted as long as it has, because your dear leader, Gerry Adams, was complicit in a real cover-up. The 'disappearing' of those awkward victims of a self-initiated and sustained campaign of violence against the democratic wishes of the majority. That tends to slow down an investigation.


  • #593
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Villain wrote: »
    You have an opinion based on weak and circumstantial evidence and are unwilling to even consider the opposite to what you think.
    Is it sofa psychology time? Actually, no. I'm open to all possibilities, but when I have to contort myself into implausible faith against common sense, I know where my opinion goes.
    Villain wrote: »
    You have a biased view on Adams and tbh I don't think there is any point discussing this any further. Plus the accusations you have made here could end up in a libel case at some point so I think it's best I leave it at that.
    I've no bias against Adams, other than disliking his hypocrisy, and believing he should be tried for any involvement in a murder, if it transpires there's enough evidence to try him, either in criminal or civil court. There won't be any libel case - anything I've said is supported by the posted evidence. Libel requires some element of false claims.


  • #594
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    We?

    It's really nowhere as simple as you claim, but then everything is simple when you close your eyes to the uncomfortable facts. There's a murder car that's lasted as long as it has, because your dear leader, Gerry Adams, was complicit in a real cover-up. The 'disappearing' of those awkward victims of a self-initiated and sustained campaign of violence against the democratic wishes of the majority. That tends to slow down an investigation.
    And you have no evidence capable of proving that theory. That is the end of it. Insinuate and accuse at your own risk.


  • #595
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And you have no evidence capable of proving that theory. That is the end of it. Insinuate and accuse at your own risk.

    All of the above is a matter of record. Nothing to insinuate, and no risk associated.


  • #596
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    All of the above is a matter of record. Nothing to insinuate, and no risk associated.

    Evidence = Conviction
    No evidence = No Conviction (although that never bothered the British in a number of notable cases)


  • #597
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Evidence = Conviction
    Nicole Brown Simpson might not agree.


  • #598
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Nicole Brown Simpson might not agree.

    You have to pluck a case from a different judicial system and a case heavily influenced by the bull**** of celebrity to illustrate your meaningless point?
    Desperation or what?

    Your faux outrage and real agenda was underlined again this morning when RTE finally (and probably reluctantly) gave some airtime to the victim families and survivors of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
    Think about them maybe, every time Enda (indulging in the same nasty insinuation you do) deflects in the Dail or when you are shuffling through you spurious and clearly useless 'evidence'.
    It was interesting to hear who they find hardest to forgive as a result of what they suffered...the Irish Government, why? because they never stood up to Britain on their behalf and demanded answers and justice.

    But what odds, Gerry has to be got for something...anything at all.
    Disgusting, isn't adequate as a word to describe it.


  • #599
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You have to pluck a case from a different judicial system and a case heavily influenced by the bull**** of celebrity to illustrate your meaningless point?
    Desperation or what?
    Not at all. It just puts the lie to the nonsense that evidence will always result in a conviction - pick from any case you like to contradict that.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Your faux outrage
    It's a genuine disgust. Particularly with your brand of contortion over murder.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    and real agenda
    LOL. Paranoid much?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    was underlined again this morning when RTE finally (and probably reluctantly)
    Yep - that would be paranoia alright.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    gave some airtime to the victim families and survivors of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
    How is that supposed to underline my 'agenda'?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Think about them maybe, every time Enda (indulging in the same nasty insinuation you do) deflects in the Dail or when you are shuffling through you spurious and clearly useless 'evidence'.
    Ah - right this is just a stream of consciousness rant, with no actual point. Gotcha.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It was interesting to hear who they find hardest to forgive as a result of what they suffered...the Irish Government, why? because they never stood up to Britain on their behalf and demanded answers and justice.
    Did they mention anything about overlooking Adams' implication in the murder of a woman? Nope? Then this would be a complete red herring?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    But what odds, Gerry has to be got for something...anything at all.
    Or, guff removed - he should pay the price for his own responsibilities, where he broke the law. Same as everyone else.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Disgusting, isn't adequate as a word to describe it.
    This attempt at distraction? Nope - inept is how I would describe it.


  • #600
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Not at all. It just puts the lie to the nonsense that evidence will always result in a conviction - pick from any case you like to contradict that.
    It bears no similarity to this case whatsoever. There was evidence in the Simpson case that should have lead to a conviction, there is none in the McConville case that can even get Adams charged. .
    It's a genuine disgust. Particularly with your brand of contortion over murder.
    Selective, bias fueled disgust.


    How is that supposed to underline my 'agenda'?
    Because the same petty 'agenda' (Get Adams at all costs)has served to see the ordeal of the victim's families and the survivors ignored and forgotten.
    Ah - right this is just a stream of consciousness rant, with no actual point. Gotcha.

    Did they mention anything about overlooking Adams' implication in the murder of a woman? Nope? Then this would be a complete red herring?

    Or, guff removed - he should pay the price for his own responsibilities, where he broke the law. Same as everyone else.
    Yes he should pay the price, if he broke the law...but when does it become wrong to stop asking him to pay a price if you cannot produce any compelling evidence?
    This attempt at distraction? Nope - inept is how I would describe it.

    Well take a look at the thread and the amount of times you where caught out misleading viewers with 'evidence' you have gathered. Then talk to me about 'distraction'. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It bears no similarity to this case whatsoever. There was evidence in the Simpson case that should have lead to a conviction, there is none in the McConville case that can even get Adams charged.
    Ah, so you're not saying "Evidence = Conviction" after all. Glad we nailed that nonsense. Adams wasn't being questioned for membership of the IRA. I'm not sure how many times you need to be reminded of this fact. He was being questions with regard to a murder he's been implicated in. Charges may, or may not be brought against him - that's in the hands of the PPS.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Selective, bias fueled disgust.
    'Unselective' disgust would be a bit bizarre, to say the least, but there's no bias in being disgusted with your brand of equivocation regarding the murder of a woman.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Because the same petty 'agenda' (Get Adams at all costs)has served to see the ordeal of the victim's families and the survivors ignored and forgotten.
    LOL. Really? That's your pitch? Honestly? :rolleyes:
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes he should pay the price, if he broke the law...but when does it become wrong to stop asking him to pay a price if you cannot produce any compelling evidence?
    How often has he been questioned with regard to this murder in the last 42 years? Too little, too much? With regard to his dishonesty regarding his membership of the IRA - it'll last as long as he keeps up the pretence he wasn't a member. That's his choice, no-one else's.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Well take a look at the thread and the amount of times you where caught out misleading viewers with 'evidence' you have gathered.
    I've mislead no-one. Links please. And again - the evidence speaks for itself.
    It's the reason I , you, and everyone else, who's informed, and honest, believes he was a member of the IRA.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Then talk to me about 'distraction'. :rolleyes:
    No distraction from these quarters - unlike you - Loughgall, Monahan, Dublin, what next?


Advertisement