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

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

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.

Again, you try to mislead. The only people who would know what the questioning was in relation to, are GA and the PSNI, as we know(and it's all we know, despite your bluffing)the PSNI can't say what they where doing but GA has said that the focus was on his membership. If they cannot prove that, they have nothing.

'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.

Equivocation, says the 'man' who ran a mile from my question, is the killing of somebody you see as a combatant murder? E.g. Those killed at Loughgall.

LOL. Really? That's your pitch? Honestly? :rolleyes:

Do you see SF using the shameful conduct of FG and FF in relation to Dub/Mon as a means of deflection? No, but FG FF(and you) will cheerfully exploit Mrs McConville's death to do just that. Disgusting agenda.

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.

Would you be at all critical of the police for not questioning him with all the 'heaps of evidence' they have?
They and the British have questions to answer too.

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.

Your 'evidence' is misleading because it is bogus, it's been debunked often enough on thread.

No distraction from these quarters - unlike you - Loughgall, Monahan, Dublin, what next?

Says the boy withering about Nicole Simpson

Ayls

I haven't read all the replies here but could someone please explain why the BG throughout the times of the troubles/war, in particular the 1970s/80s, always insisted that they would never engage, meet or talk with members of the IRA (I still remember how GAs voice was silenced in the media) but yet I don't think it's disputed they were in talks with GA since the 70s. So which is it ?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, you try to mislead. The only people who would know what the questioning was in relation to, are GA and the PSNI, as we know(and it's all we know, despite your bluffing)the PSNI can't say what they where doing but GA has said that the focus was on his membership.

And we know Adams to be a liar on this subject.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If they cannot prove that, they have nothing.

If they cannot prove what?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Equivocation, says the 'man' who ran a mile from my question, is the killing of somebody you see as a combatant murder? E.g. Those killed at Loughgall.

Yeah - I'm not interested in entertaining your evasions. Try and stay on topic.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you see SF using the shameful conduct of FG and FF in relation to Dub/Mon as a means of deflection?

FF or FG are not culpable for those bombings. You can't say the same for Adams and this murder. Indeed - those who are trying to do something about this murder - the PSNI, are being threatened by SF on the back of their investigation. Charming.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, but FG FF(and you) will cheerfully exploit Mrs McConville's death to do just that. Disgusting agenda.

Heh. Even you can't be buying this nonsense.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you be at all critical of the police for not questioning him with all the 'heaps of evidence' they have?
They and the British have questions to answer too.

You didn't answer my question - How often has he been questioned with regard to this murder in the last 42 years? Because it seems like you think he's been questioned too much. Once every 42 years is too much for you?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your 'evidence' is misleading because it is bogus, it's been debunked often enough on thread.

Except that it hasn't. Simply saying so doesn't convince anyone - least of all yourself.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Says the boy withering about Nicole Simpson

Well - you dropped your nonsense quick enough when presented with it as an analogy. Job done.

alastair

Ayls wrote: »

I haven't read all the replies here but could someone please explain why the BG throughout the times of the troubles/war, in particular the 1970s/80s, always insisted that they would never engage, meet or talk with members of the IRA (I still remember how GAs voice was silenced in the media) but yet I don't think it's disputed they were in talks with GA since the 70s. So which is it ?

They were both talking to each other and both denying it at the time. The broadcast ban on SF voices didn't have anything to do with the supposed state refusal to enter dialogue with them.

Ayls

alastair wrote: »

They were both talking to each other and both denying it at the time. The broadcast ban on SF voices didn't have anything to do with the supposed state refusal to enter dialogue with them.

Thank you for your reply. I guess it's true what they say, the first casualty of war is the truth. To be honest I didn't really see a threat in Marin McGuiness saying they may wish/want to review police procedure. If there was deemed any irregular use of power would not anyone want to at the very least review. What I don't like is the pressure the Unionists put the Tory party under at each general election in the UK, they know they need their vote & use it to their own advantage which always seems to be at a total disadvantage to Nationalists. It's difficult to get a sense of fairness while they still hold an ace card (or so it seems to me, I stand to be corrected if wrong)

Ayls

alastair wrote: »

They were both talking to each other and both denying it at the time. The broadcast ban on SF voices didn't have anything to do with the supposed state refusal to enter dialogue with them.

Thank you for your reply. I guess it's true what they say, the first casualty of war is the truth. To be honest I didn't really see a threat in Martin McGuiness saying they may wish/want to review police procedure. If there was deemed any irregular use of power would not anyone want to at the very least review. What I don't like is the pressure the Unionists put the Tory party under at each general election in the UK, they know they need their vote & use it to their own advantage which always seems to be at a total disadvantage to Nationalists. It's difficult to get a sense of fairness while they still hold an ace card (or so it seems to me, I stand to be corrected if wrong)

alastair

Ayls wrote: »

Thank you for your reply. I guess it's true what they say, the first casualty of war is the truth. To be honest I didn't really see a threat in Martin McGuiness saying they may wish/want to review police procedure.)

Except that that's not what he said. McGuinness said Sinn Fein would "reflect" and "review" its support for policing in the region if Gerry Adams was charged. That's a threat predicated on the outcome of a legitimate police investigation. He compounded that by asking his supporters to remain calm "until" the police charged him. Lovely.

Ayls wrote: »

If there was deemed any irregular use of power would not anyone want to at the very least review. What I don't like is the pressure the Unionists put the Tory party under at each general election in the UK, they know they need their vote & use it to their own advantage which always seems to be at a total disadvantage to Nationalists. It's difficult to get a sense of fairness while they still hold an ace card (or so it seems to me, I stand to be corrected if wrong)

The DUP have some leverage, but then any party will use their leverage within the political system they operate in. That's the nature of politics. If SF weren't abstentionists, they would have some leverage themselves. It's their choice not to participate in national democracy, and those who vote for them surely know that they stand to lose their voice in Westminster.

Ayls

I kind of get what you're saying, I think, but surely it's not democracy if one sector of your society is being denied their rights & have, in effect, a police force whose only resemblance to a police force (as a democratic society recognises) is the word police in their name & a fancy dress outfit provided by the very government who are refusing your rights, why would that alienated group want to join them ? Not sure if I've explained my confusion well.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

And we know Adams to be a liar on this subject.

We do?
4 days of questioning, heaps of informant info, photos, statements and nothing, no charges.
Your complaint should be about the competence of the PSNI Alastair.

If they cannot prove what?

I think it was you yourself that said that they would have to prove membership to connect him to McConville's killing.

Yeah - I'm not interested in entertaining your evasions. Try and stay on topic.

And you reveal your cowardice again and your disgusting use of this woman's death.
It's a question that reveals why I think this killing is different to an ordinary murder.

FF or FG are not culpable for those bombings.
Heh. Even you can't be buying this nonsense.

Did I say they where? What I referenced was the way they, like you, use the death of this woman to score cheap points when they are under fire. You do that all the time...ask you a question you are too cowardly to answer you fall back to using her as deflection. That is a constant charm on this thread.

You didn't answer my question - How often has he been questioned with regard to this murder in the last 42 years? Because it seems like you think he's been questioned too much. Once every 42 years is too much for you?

I don't have a problem with the PSNI questioning anyone they choose, but I am neither stupid enough or naive enough to believe that the behaviour that got the RUC disbanded in disgrace has disappeared.
The SDLP's 'move along nothing to see here' response was laughable, they where never brave enough to stand their ground though, so no suprise there.

Except that it hasn't. Simply saying so doesn't convince anyone - least of all yourself.

Yes it has been debunked and the PSNI are about to 'debunk' it for good. It is not good enough for a court of law (you know that system we set up to arbitrate in such things?)

Well - you dropped your nonsense quick enough when presented with it as an analogy. Job done.

Well I know that you won't answer the difficult questions and just deflect as usual. Why would I bother, any sane rational reader can see what you are at.

alastair

Ayls wrote: »

I kind of get what you're saying, I think, but surely it's not democracy if one sector of your society is being denied their rights & have, in effect, a police force whose only resemblance to a police force (as a democratic society recognises) is the word police in their name & a fancy dress outfit provided by the very government who are refusing your rights, why would that alienated group want to join them ? Not sure if I've explained my confusion well.

The PSNI aren't refusing anyone's rights though. Who are they supposed to be alienating? It's certainly not democracy when a coalition governing party decide that they might well remove their support for the policing of the state, simply because their party leader might be charged with a crime he's bee implicated in. Who mandated SF to do that? They signed up to support for policing as a prerequisite to governing.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

We do?
4 days of questioning, heaps of informant info, photos, statements and nothing, no charges.
Your complaint should be about the competence of the PSNI Alastair.

I don't see why.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think it was you yourself that said that they would have to prove membership to connect him to McConville's killing.

No. I never said any such thing. I said he's culpable in her murder because of his role in the Belfast IRA. That's not enough to prove him guilty in a court of law however - that just makes him culpable.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you reveal your cowardice again and your disgusting use of this woman's death. They're best placed to make that call.
It's a question that reveals why I think this killing is different to an ordinary murder.

Oh the irony. Ask her family who's the disgusting cowards in this issue. Your question just exposes your equivocation - nothing more.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did I say they where? What I referenced was the way they, like you, use the death of this woman to score cheap points when they are under fire. You do that all the time...ask you a question you are too cowardly to answer you fall back to using her as deflection. That is a constant charm on this thread.

Yes - as I suspected - complete nonsense and evasion.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the PSNI questioning anyone they choose, but I am neither stupid enough or naive enough to believe that the behaviour that got the RUC disbanded in disgrace has disappeared.
The SDLP's 'move along nothing to see here' response was laughable, they where never brave enough to stand their ground though, so no suprise there.

So you do indeed have a problem with the PSNI questioning Gerry Adams. If you're going to be dishonest, try at least to separate your contradictory claims.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it has been debunked and the PSNI are about to 'debunk' it for good. It is not good enough for a court of law (you know that system we set up to arbitrate in such things?)

Again (this is very tiresome) - he was not being questioned about membership of the IRA - he was being questioned about the murder of a woman. The evidence of his membership has not been debunked whatsoever. And everyone can read it and make up their own minds. A little honesty on your part would have you admit you believe he was a member of the IRA - based on the evidence. But no - contortions to maintain the lie are more your thing.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I know that you won't answer the difficult questions and just deflect as usual. Why would I bother, any sane rational reader can see what you are at.

Exposing hypocrisy. I'm open about it.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I don't see why.

No. I never said any such thing. I said he's culpable in her murder because of his role in the Belfast IRA. That's not enough to prove him guilty in a court of law however - that just makes him culpable.

Distorting and twisting again.
In answer to the question; If Adams was in the IRA in 1972 why is it important to prove it now? here is what you said...

Alastair wrote:

It's not particularly - in isolation - but in the case of the McConville murder - it becomes very important.

Stop bluffing Alastair.

Oh the irony. Ask her family who's the disgusting cowards in this issue. Your question just exposes your equivocation - nothing more.

No, it shows your bias, you refuse to answer a simple question; which I related to a specific event and when you evaded I re-phrased it in a general way. Still no answer because you know that to answer it exposes your hypocrisy and faux condemnation and exploitation of this family and a woman's death.

Yes - as I suspected - complete nonsense and evasion.

I think most reasonable people are disgusted at the way Enda in particular has used this death in our Dail, to do exactly the same thing you do with it.

So you do indeed have a problem with the PSNI questioning Gerry Adams. If you're going to be dishonest, try at least to separate your contradictory claims.

Yes I most certainly do, if it was political policing, anybody who lived through the conflict would see that to allow that to prevail would be a massive step backwards. I think SF where absolutely right to call it as they saw it.
Of course certain parts of a proven hysterical media saw (like you) only what they wanted to see and ignored the entirety of McGuinness's statement and the underlining of it by Adams on his release.

Again (this is very tiresome) - he was not being questioned about membership of the IRA - he was being questioned about the murder of a woman. The evidence of his membership has not been debunked whatsoever. And everyone can read it and make up their own minds. A little honesty on your part would have you admit you believe he was a member of the IRA - based on the evidence. But no - contortions to maintain the lie are more your thing.

You base your belief on spurious photos and statements that have not been cross examined and I am the one contorting? :D

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Distorting and twisting again.
In answer to the question; If Adams was in the IRA in 1972 why is it important to prove it now? here is what you said...



Stop bluffing Alastair.

No distortion there. To be clear - They don't need to prove his membership to find him guilty of involvement in the murder.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, it shows your bias, you refuse to answer a simple question; which I related to a specific event and when you evaded I re-phrased it in a general way. Still no answer because you know that to answer it exposes your hypocrisy and faux condemnation and exploitation of this family and a woman's death

LOL. Such hysterical nonsense. You attempt to dissemble over your inability to recognise a murder, and I'm supposed to entertain that? No thanks. Again - ask the McConville family who the disgusting cowards are. They'll set you straight.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think most reasonable people are disgusted at the way Enda in particular has used this death in our Dail, to do exactly the same thing you do with it.

Support the family in seeking justice? Awful isn't it?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I most certainly do, if it was political policing, anybody who lived through the conflict would see that to allow that to prevail would be a massive step backwards. I think SF where absolutely right to call it as they saw it.

So why pretend you have 'no problem with the PSNI questioning anyone' then? Is consistency a problem for you typically?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course certain parts of a proven hysterical media saw (like you) only what they wanted to see and ignored the entirety of McGuinness's statement and the underlining of it by Adams on his release.

No hysteria in the media that I saw - just straightforward reporting of what McGuinnes did say. Adams' damage control was probably too little, too late. The damage was already done.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You base your belief on spurious photos and statements that have not been cross examined and I am the one contorting? :D

Cross-examined? Are you still confused that this is not a court? The evidence speaks for itself. What led you the believe Adams was a member of the IRA then, of not the evidence?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No distortion there. To be clear - They don't need to prove his membership to find him guilty of involvement in the murder.

Yes, they would need some evidence which they (like you) clearly don't have.

LOL. Such hysterical nonsense. You attempt to dissemble over your inability to recognise a murder, and I'm supposed to entertain that? No thanks. Again - ask the McConville family who the disgusting cowards are. They'll set you straight.

Stating why I don't think this was an ordinary murder in a conflict/war situation is not dissembling, you asked the question, you got your answer and ran a mile when you know that to answer the question I asked, would mean that we both view the killing of combatants the same way.
One family member knows who did it (his words) and clearly isn't courageous enough to tell the people that matter. He just draws attention to himself by insinuating in the same way you do.

Support the family in seeking justice? Awful isn't it?

Yeah right Alastair, your concern is so evident! This death would have been forgotten by you had Gerry Adams not been implicated.

So why pretend you have 'no problem with the PSNI questioning anyone' then? Is consistency a problem for you typically?

I don't have a problem...I do if it is politically motivated.
What is inconsistent about that?

No hysteria in the media that I saw - just straightforward reporting of what McGuinnes did say. Adams' damage control was probably too little, too late. The damage was already done.

We'll will see what damage has been done at the polls. (just like we will see the usefulness of your 'evidence' when the PPS give their decision)

The evidence speaks for itself.

Yes it does...42 years, no evidence, no conviction and still this site allows you to insinuate and exploit.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, they would need some evidence which they (like you) clearly don't have.

All they need to prove is his involvement in the murder - there's no need to prove his membership as a prerequisite to that involvement. Conversely, his membership does not prove guilt in the murder. all it would demonstrate is culpability.

Happyman42 wrote: »

tating why I don't think this was an ordinary murder in a conflict/war situation is not dissembling, you asked the question, you got your answer and ran a mile when you know that to answer the question I asked, would mean that we both view the killing of combatants the same way.
One family member knows who did it (his words) and clearly isn't courageous enough to tell the people that matter. He just draws attention to himself by insinuating in the same way you do. .

Ah, so it's the victims who are the 'disgusting cowards' now? Your ignorance as to who has stated what, within the family is instructive. Your attempt at distraction warranted nothing but dismissal - and spare me the fantasy that I share any attitude to identifying a murder for such, with you. To be clear - I do not.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeah right Alastair, your concern is so evident! This death would have been forgotten by you had Gerry Adams not been implicated..

Given the persistent coverage and focus on it, prior to the Boston Tapes, that's clearly not the case.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't have a problem...I do if it is politically motivated.
What is inconsistent about that?.

You think that's consistent? "I support policing", except when I deem it 'political'?

Happyman42 wrote: »

We'll will see what damage has been done at the polls. (just like we will see the usefulness of your 'evidence' when the PPS give their decision) .

:rolleyes: This became boring a long time ago, but 'my' evidence relates to Adams' membership of the IRA, not to his involvement in the murder of Jean McConville. I've stated that the PSNI have obviously got more information, if only from the decades of informer information they have access to. And the damage to SF on the back of McGuinness' comments is already evident on this forum.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it does...42 years, no evidence, no conviction and still this site allows you to insinuate and exploit.

You're still not grasping the distinction between Adams' membership and guilt of a murder, are you?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

All they need to prove is his involvement in the murder - there's no need to prove his membership as a prerequisite to that involvement. Conversely, his membership does not prove guilt in the murder. all it would demonstrate is culpability.

Just :rolleyes:

Ah, so it's the victims who are the 'disgusting cowards' now? Your ignorance as to who has stated what, within the family is instructive. Your attempt at distraction warranted nothing but dismissal - and spare me the fantasy that I share any attitude to identifying a murder for such, with you. To be clear - I do not.

If my brother was plastered all over the media saying he knew who had abuted and killed herand threatening to name names, but would not tell those who could do something about it, yes, I would find that disgusting and cowardly.
That is my honest opinion, which is much more than you are willingly to do. eg, answering my question.

Given the persistent coverage and focus on it, prior to the Boston Tapes, that's clearly not the case.

What makes her case unique then in your opinion?

You think that's consistent? "I support policing", except when I deem it 'political'?

Absolutely consistent, I support fair and equal policing, I do not support political policing.

:rolleyes: This became boring a long time ago, but 'my' evidence relates to Adams' membership of the IRA, not to his involvement in the murder of Jean McConville. I've stated that the PSNI have obviously got more information, if only from the decades of informer information they have access to. And the damage to SF on the back of McGuinness' comments is already evident on this forum.

And back we go to the 'imaginary evidence'.

You're still not grasping the distinction between Adams' membership and guilt of a murder, are you?

Are you saying you haven't tried to connect the two on this thread?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

If my brother was plastered all over the media saying he knew who had abuted and killed herand threatening to name names, but would not tell those who could do something about it, yes, I would find that disgusting and cowardly.
That is my honest opinion, which is much more than you are willingly to do. eg, answering my question.

Blame the victim. How unsurprising.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What makes her case unique then in your opinion?

Never said it was. Don't believe it is.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely consistent, I support fair and equal policing, I do not support political policing.

What you deem to be 'political policing'. That's some highly selective 'support' alright.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And back we go to the 'imaginary evidence'.

You didn't imagine it. It's all documented. So what made you believe that Adams was a member of the IRA?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying you haven't tried to connect the two on this thread?

In relation to his culpability - sure. In relation to his guilt of the murder in a court of law - no.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Blame the victim. How unsurprising.

Blame the victim for not assisting in getting the justice he sasy he wants?
Yes, I do. What is your problem with that?

Never said it was. Don't believe it is.

You'll have those runners worn out!

What you deem to be 'political policing'. That's some highly selective 'support' alright.

Where did I sign up to uncritical support again?

You didn't imagine it. It's all documented. So what made you believe that Adams was a member of the IRA?

You need to make sense.

In relation to his culpability - sure. In relation to his guilt of the murder in a court of law - no.

That's a handy get out of jail clause isn't it?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Blame the victim for not assisting in getting the justice he sasy he wants?

Blame the victim in the face of IRA threats. Or are you pretending those threats are imagined?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, I do. What is your problem with that?

None for you, it seems.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You'll have those runners worn out! ?

How's that? I've been consistent. It's you who's trying to put words in my mouth.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where did I sign up to uncritical support again?

You didn't offer any support.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You need to make sense.

It's pretty elementary stuff. Try reading it again.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's a handy get out of jail clause isn't it?

Not at all.

So what was it, of not the evidence, that led you to believe Adams was a member of the IRA?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Blame the victim in the face of IRA threats. Or are you pretending those threats are imagined?

None for you, it seems.

The IRA don't exist, so threats from the IRA are imagined.
If he can tell the media he knows then he can tell the police. To imagine that somebody who you think is going to hurt you if you tell is going to take a chance that you might change your mind or be convinced to tell is just too big of a stretch for me.

How's that? I've been consistent. It's you who's trying to put words in my mouth.

You 'consistently' run away from answers that you know will expose your hypocrisy over this.

You didn't offer any support.

Excuse me?

It's pretty elementary stuff. Try reading it again.

No it doesn't make any sense, please elaborate.
You've obviously found some 'evidence' that I said something that revealed I believe Adams was in the IRA...spit it out and stop playing your childish games.

Godge

Ayls wrote: »

I kind of get what you're saying, I think, but surely it's not democracy if one sector of your society is being denied their rights & have, in effect, a police force whose only resemblance to a police force (as a democratic society recognises) is the word police in their name & a fancy dress outfit provided by the very government who are refusing your rights, why would that alienated group want to join them ? Not sure if I've explained my confusion well.

There is quite a contrast between the Sinn Fein response to the Adams arrest in Northern Ireland and to the problems with AGS in the South.

In the South, they are calling for reform but they are not threatening to withdraw support for the Gardai. It is the content and tone of the response in Northern Ireland - a kneejerk reversion to the language of the Troubles - that has caused many people to pause and think about SF and how normal it has or hasn't become.

toxicity234

Sorry. i only dropped back in this for the last few pages.
The question this thread ask is What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

The answer is simple to most people in here and from reading the last few page and reading early the answer is most people just don't care if Adam was in the IRA.
I don't care at all.

The question move on to the Mc Conville murder and where Adams was involved.
Now the PSNI have the Boston Tapes. They Question other people about this.
Adams name is mentioned as someone in commanded for the IRA by from what i understand people who have a grunge against Adams and the Peace possess.
that doesn't make the allegation lies.
PSNI has sent the file to the DPP in northern ireland and its being accessed.
But it unlikely to lead to any charges.
So if you read between the line. They got f**k all or nothing they can prove.
So if the Mc Conville family have more info they should go to the PSNI and tell them. If they have info and want someone charge they have no choice, they have to go and give the PSNI the info.

alastair

toxicity234 wrote: »

PSNI has sent the file to the DPP in northern ireland and its being accessed.
But it unlikely to lead to any charges.
So if you read between the line. They got f**k all or nothing they can prove.
So if the Mc Conville family have more info they should go to the PSNI and tell them. If they have info and want someone charge they have no choice, they have to go and give the PSNI the info.

Maybe you missed that Ivor Bell has been charged with her murder on what appears to be very similar evidence? I wouldn't be so sure that they have nothing they can prove with regard to Adams. What is true however is that the PPS can choose to pass over a compelling book of evidence in the 'broader public good', so Adams may get another political pass.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There is quite a contrast between the Sinn Fein response to the Adams arrest in Northern Ireland and to the problems with AGS in the South.

In the South, they are calling for reform but they are not threatening to withdraw support for the Gardai. It is the content and tone of the response in Northern Ireland - a kneejerk reversion to the language of the Troubles - that has caused many people to pause and think about SF and how normal it has or hasn't become.

McGuinness was calling for further reform in NI as well, reform that will see the cabal of elements from the failed, disgraced RUC finally got rid of.
He was careful not to tar everyone in the PSNI with the same brush but of course and as usual the hysterical only saw what they wanted to see.

If this arrest and questioning was based on decades old, spurious info and hearsay(of the type Alastair is bandying about) then who is reverting to the actions of the troubles...never mind the language?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you missed that Ivor Bell has been charged with her murder on what appears to be very similar evidence?.

Give us a source for this please? Or are you guessing yet again? :rolleyes:

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Give us a source for this please? Or are you guessing yet again? :rolleyes:

Yet more about this case you're ignorant of? How unsurprising.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jean-mcconville-former-ira-man-ivor-bell-charged-with-aiding-and-abetting-murder-is-granted-high-court-bail-30127724.html

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Yet more about this case you're ignorant of? How unsurprising.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/jean-mcconville-former-ira-man-ivor-bell-charged-with-aiding-and-abetting-murder-is-granted-high-court-bail-30127724.html

And the similarity?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the similarity?

More contortions? Figure it out for yourself. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

More contortions? Figure it out for yourself. :rolleyes:

So none that you can show...guessing again. Figures.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you missed that Ivor Bell has been charged with her murder on what appears to be very similar evidence? .

How do you know what evidence Bell has been charged based on and what evidence they have Gerry? Do you have info on the PSNI investigations?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So none that you can show...guessing again. Figures.

Really? You're honestly happy to play this game?

The case against him is based on an interview he allegedly gave to researchers at a US college.

Several former paramilitaries were interviewed about their roles in the Northern Ireland conflict as part of a project undertaken by Boston College.

Although transcripts were not to be published until after the deaths of those who took part, last year a US court ordered that the tapes be handed over to PSNI detectives investigating Mrs McConville's killing.

She was seized by the IRA from her Divis Flats home in west Belfast in 1972, shot dead and then secretly buried.

The court was told today that one of the Boston interviewees, given the title Z, spoke about the circumstances surrounding the decision to abduct her.

Based on jigsaw identification, prosecution counsel David Russell alleged that this person was Bell.

A former IRA hunger striker, Brendan Hughes, alleges the Sinn Féin president was one of the heads of a unit that kidnapped, killed and buried west Belfast woman Jean McConville. Hughes, who died in 2008, is recorded as saying: "There was only one man who gave that order for that woman to be executed – and that man is now the head of Sinn Féin." Hughes also says that Adams went to the McConville children after their mother was abducted and promised an internal IRA investigation. "That man is the man who gave the order for that woman to be executed. I did not give the order to execute that woman. He did."

"I'll see you in court too, Gerry Adams” — that’s the vow from a daughter of IRA Disappeared murder victim Jean McConville yesterday.

Helen McKendry expressed her hope of seeing the Sinn Fein boss in the dock as a veteran republican was refused bail after being charged over her mum’s abduction and murder.

Ex-IRA chief Ivor Bell, 77, is the first person to appear in court accused of involvement in the December 1972 murder.

It emerged that his arrest was based on recorded interviews — known as the Boston College tapes — that he gave to researchers.

A PSNI detective claimed the tapes indicated Bell had “played a critical role in the aiding, abetting, counsel and procurement of the murder of Jean McConville”.

Bell was part of an IRA delegation — alongside Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness — who had secret talks with the British government back in 1972.

Yesterday at Belfast Magistrates Court, the grey-haired father of three was charged with aiding and abetting those who killed the defenceless mother of ten.

Bell, who lives in Andersonstown, west Belfast was also charged with PIRA membership at the time of the murder.

Wearing a casual grey jacket top, the mustachioed grandfather only spoke to confirm that he understood the charges.He sat impassively through the hour-long hearing — only raising his arm to acknowledge family and friends waving at him from the public gallery.

In an interview with Sunday Life, one of Jean McConville’s daughters described the proceedings as “a start in the right direction”.

She expressed the hope that the charging of Bell will be followed by the arrest of others — including Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams, who has repeatedly denied any connection to Jean McConville’s death or to ever being a member of the IRA.

McKendry said: “He (Ivor Bell) stared at me and he should thank his friend Gerry Adams, if you ask me.”

She added that she also wanted to see Adams appear in court charged in connection with the case.

“Yes, he should and that is what I aim for,” said Mrs McKendry.

Asked if she believed more prosecutions could happen, she added: “I do, yes because there wasn’t just the one person involved in my mother’s murder. There were quite a few. There are people out there still alive today who know what happened.

“People have the right to know what happened. We need to have some sort of justice for our loved ones.”

During yesterday’s proceedings, the validity of the ‘Boston tapes’ — an archive of Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’- related interviews — was questioned by Bell’s solicitor.

Peter Corrigan said that a man codenamed ‘Mr Z’, who he said the prosecution claim is Bell, had denied involvement in the murder: “Mr Z clearly said in these transcripts: ‘I had nothing to do with Jean McConville’s murder’.”

...

PSNI Detective Inspector Sossick claimed there was a “real risk” of Bell absconding from Northern Ireland.

“The IRA has an all-Ireland network and I have no doubt that he could flee this jurisdiction”, he said.

He revealed that the former Maze internee had twice been involved in escaping or helping others to escape from jail in 1974.

District Judge Amanda Henderson said she was persuaded by the prosecution in this case to refuse bail and remanded Bell in custody to appear in court again by |videolink on April 11. Relatives of Jean McConville including her sons, Michael and James and grandchildren, Sean and Sinead McKendry, were in court for the historic proceedings.

Speaking to Sunday Life minutes after Bell was refused bail, Helen McKendry said: “Let’s hope this leads somewhere.

...

Widow Jean McConville was dragged out of her Divis Flats home in front of her petrified children in December 1972.

The IRA claimed that the Protestant mum had been an informer but this claim was formally rejected in a Police Ombudsman office report in 2006. Mrs McConville’s body was found on a Louth beach in 2003 after a walker spotted a piece of her tweed coat poking out of the sand. She had been shot in the head.

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams was accused by now dead IRA members Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price of directly ordering Mrs McConville’s death.

...

IRA members Brendan Hughes and later Dolours Price, both of whom are now dead, named Gerry Adams as giving the order to murder their mother.

Acting on the McConville complaint, the PSNI used an international treaty between Britain and the US to access the recordings, which are stored at Boston College.

The handover of some of the tapes was completed last year, giving detectives a treasure trove of information about the McConville killing and other IRA operations.

Having possession of this invaluable information, which came straight from the mouths of IRA icons like Hughes and Price, they arrested Ivor Bell.

In court yesterday it was suggested that the pensioner has also made a tape in which he may have incriminated himself.

In his recording lodged with Boston College, Brendan Hughes said of Ivor Bell: “I know one particular person on the Belfast brigade at the time, Ivor [Bell] argued for [Jean McConville] to be shot, yes, but to be left on the street. Because to take her away and bury her would serve no purpose, people wouldn’t know.”

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/gerry-adams-youre-next-jean-mcconvilles-daughter-tells-sinn-fein-president-hell-follow-ira-veteran-ivor-bell-to-dock-30118353.html

alastair

Villain wrote: »

How do you know what evidence Bell has been charged based on and what evidence they have Gerry? Do you have info on the PSNI investigations?

The evidence against Ivor Bell was outlined when he was brought before the court.

Similar evidence is in the public domain with regard to Hughes implicating Adams. I'd go wildly out on a limb here and suggest that if such evidence is sufficient for charging Bell, it's likely it would be equally sufficient for charging Adams.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Really? You're honestly happy to play this game?






http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/gerry-adams-youre-next-jean-mcconvilles-daughter-tells-sinn-fein-president-hell-follow-ira-veteran-ivor-bell-to-dock-30118353.html

How is it 'similar'.
The prosecution will have to prove that it is Bell himself that is talking on the tapes and there cross examine him. That is all they seem to have in that case.
Brendan Hughes and Dolores Price are both dead. So no cross examaination.
Not remotely similar in terms of a trial.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

The evidence against Ivor Bell was outlined when he was brought before the court.

Similar evidence is in the public domain with regard to Hughes implicating Adams. I'd go wildly out on a limb here and suggest that if such evidence is sufficient for charging Bell, it's likely it would be equally sufficient for charging Adams.

Oh so there is recorded tapes of Adams talking too??

Oh no you just tried to pretend it's the same evidence when in fact it isn't at all!

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

McGuinness was calling for further reform in NI as well, reform that will see the cabal of elements from the failed, disgraced RUC finally got rid of.
He was careful not to tar everyone in the PSNI with the same brush but of course and as usual the hysterical only saw what they wanted to see.

If this arrest and questioning was based on decades old, spurious info and hearsay(of the type Alastair is bandying about) then who is reverting to the actions of the troubles...never mind the language?

It doesn't get away from the fact that in light of one arrest that they don't like, Sinn Fein are threatening to withdraw support for policing in Northern Ireland while after several scandals that they have used to strongly criticise the government, they are still publicly supporting the Gardai.

Like on water charges and so many other issues, they speak with two voices or they are two-faced.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

It doesn't get away from the fact that in light of one arrest that they don't like, Sinn Fein are threatening to withdraw support for policing in Northern Ireland while after several scandals that they have used to strongly criticise the government, they are still publicly supporting the Gardai.

Like on water charges and so many other issues, they speak with two voices or they are two-faced.

They are still supporting the PSNI but have concerns about elements within it.
Which is a much more honest and on message stance than the SDLP's 'everything is hunky dory because we sit on the policing board,' one.
There is a 'process' underway that will normalise NI institutions but it is still very much a process and is by no means complete.
SF will finish the job, the SDLP will relax in the comfy seats.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are still supporting the PSNI but have concerns about elements within it.
Which is a much more honest and on message stance than the SDLP's 'everything is hunky dory because we sit on the policing board,' one.
There is a 'process' underway that will normalise NI institutions but it is still very much a process and is by no means complete.
SF will finish the job, the SDLP will relax in the comfy seats.

I still don't get how the arrest of one man is worse that the scandals that resulted in the resignation of the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and that resulted in a Commission of Investigation?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I still don't get how the arrest of one man is worse that the scandals that resulted in the resignation of the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and that resulted in a Commission of Investigation?

The problem in the AGS is corruption and incompetence and can be fixed by sorting out the management.
The problem in the PSNI is political and needs to be dealt with at a political level. Therein lies the problem in the whole of NI. Political cabals attempting to hold on to the last vestiges of their supremacist powers. The misuse of those powers led to 40 years of bloodshed and violence. Nobody wants to go back there...so root it out by whatever means are necessary.

LordSutch

Villain wrote: »

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

... but does that dual citizenship mean you automatically an Irish Citizen, even if you are a red white & blue flag waving Unionist with a British passport? Or is the case that if you want to be an Irish citizen you can apply to be one if you live on the island of Ireland?

and vice versa of course re Nationalists & their automatic British citizenship.

Bongalongherb

The war is over. The old IRA that fought to protect this Island from takeover is integrated in the peace process now and going forward in a good way. The past... let it go. Ireland is a multicultural society now, and soon there will be many different eastern nationality Irish citizens running this country when they get voted into power in the future.

People want/need evidence of Gerry Adams association with the old IRA ? feck that, he is a spokesperson, and just because he is a spokesperson doesn't mean he had main involvement with the old IRA. If you have solid proof that Gerry Adams was a member of the old IRA then forward it, otherwise it's just a theory.

I remember my great grandfather in the war defending his country Ireland, only to be shot dead and buried in Britain, it took many decades to get his body exported from Britain back to his homeland here in Ireland, and this was part of the peace process. His name was Thomas Traynor.

All of this bickering whether Gerry Adams was part of the old IRA is just old sh!te, It's time to move on with the peace process.

LordSutch

Bongalongherb wrote: »

The war is over. The old IRA that fought to protect this Island from takeover is integrated in the peace process now and going forward in a good way. The past... let it go. Ireland is a multicultural society now, and soon there will be many different eastern nationality Irish citizens running this country when they get voted into power in the future.

People want/need evidence of Gerry Adams association with the old IRA ? feck that, he is a spokesperson, and just because he is a spokesperson doesn't mean he had main involvement with the old IRA. If you have solid proof that Gerry Adams was a member of the old IRA then forward it, otherwise it's just a theory.

I remember my great grandfather in the war defending his country Ireland, only to be shot dead and buried in Britain, it took many decades to get his body exported from Britain back to his homeland here in Ireland, and this was part of the peace process. His name was Thomas Traynor.

All of this bickering whether Gerry Adams was part of the old IRA is just old sh!te, It's time to move on with the peace process.

I suspect you are confusing your IRAs . . . .

In the beginning there was the old IRA (during the so called war of independence), then there was the Provisional IRA who formed in the late 60s/ early 70s, and it is with this rather nasty incarnation of the IRA that Adams & McGuinness are associated with, hence the venum aimed at Adams to this day. "The Provo's" as they became known really did have a vicious agenda which ranged from knee cappings in their own community, to tar & feathering (followed by a hole in the head), to bus bombs, car bombs, pub bombs, maimings, + all sorts of associated dealings, like bank robberies kidnappings, armed post office raids, the list is endless . . . . . .

Thankfully the old IRA are very old history, and the PIRA (Adams gang) are now recent history, but Adams lives on, in his new life as a nice shiny "peacemaker" and politictian.

Bongalongherb

LordSutch wrote: »

I suspect you are confusing your IRAs . . . .

In the beginning there was the old IRA (during the so called war of independence), then there was the Provisional IRA who formed in the late 60s/ early 70s, and it is with this rather nasty incarnation of the IRA that Adams & McGuinness are associated with, hence the venum aimed at Adams to this day. "The Provo's" as they became known really did have a vicious agenda which ranged from knee cappings in their own community, to tar & feathering (followed by a hole in the head), to bus bombs, car bombs, pub bombs, maimings, + all sorts of associated dealings, like bank robberies kidnappings, armed post office raids, the list is endless . . . . . .

Thankfully the old IRA are very old history, and the PIRA (Adams gang) are now recent history, but Adams lives on, in his new life as a nice shiny "peacemaker" and politictian.

Hang on a second there, the so-called ? It was a war of independence. I have not confused anything. You can bash the old IRA or the Provisional IRA all you want 'as in your opinion of which is respected', but the only thing I care about now is the escalation of the peace process.

You and others can attack Adams all you want, but he will be getting my no.1 vote on the 23rd.

LordSutch

My point still stands that Adams wasn't in the Old IRA.

Agreed?

Bongalongherb

LordSutch wrote: »

My point still stands that Adams wasn't in the Old IRA.

Agreed?

Sure I couldn't answer that question either way without solid proof documentation regarding the issue.

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

You and others can attack Adams all you want, but he will be getting my no.1 vote on the 23rd.

That's great, but he's not actually running on the 23rd.

Weathering

So many people in Southern Ireland have a superiority complex over people who identify as Irish in the North. I also find it rich when the same people look at the Ira of the 1970's with disgust yet reverve the Ira which won them independence from the crown.

I in no way support the present day IRA's actions. Goals can be achieved through politics now unlike the past

Bongalongherb

alastair wrote: »

That's great, but he's not actually running on the 23rd.

Let me just clarify... I'll be voting sinn fein. Is this clarification suitable for you ?.

@ weathering

So many people in Southern Ireland have a superiority complex over people who identify as Irish in the North. I also find it rich when the same people look at the Ira of the 1970's with disgust yet reverve the Ira which won them independence from the crown.

I in no way support the present day IRA's actions. Goals can be achieved through politics now unlike the past

Excellent comment.

alastair

Weathering wrote: »

So many people in Southern Ireland have a superiority complex over people who identify as Irish in the North. I also find it rich when the same people look at the Ira of the 1970's with disgust yet reverve the Ira which won them independence from the crown.

I in no way support the present day IRA's actions. Goals can be achieved through politics now unlike the past

It's worth pointing out that the current situation was won through politics, not violence. The PIRA campaign of the 70's was no more admirable than the current RIRA/CIRA campaign, and just as unmandated.

alastair

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Let me just clarify... I'll be voting sinn fein. Is this clarification suitable for you ?.

So - we're both clear that Adams won't be getting your No.1 then.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that the current situation was won through politics, not violence. The PIRA campaign of the 70's was no more admirable than the current RIRA/CIRA campaign, and just as unmandated.

'Politics' (such as it was allowed) failed NI, the violence was the result of a suprematist statlet failing and falling apart. The attempt by the British to shore it up also failed abjectly and was exacerbated by the continued failure to recognise the rights of a significant minority at the 'politics' table.

Had the main players recognised(The British, The Unionists/Loyalists and indeed the SDLP as a party) that earlier the violence could have been stopped earlier.
Violence in a society is typically a symptom of an underlying problem. Remove the underlying problem and you remove the symptoms. The GFA process is the method to remove the problem, the British prescence in Ireland.