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

maccored

Imagine if the allies had that attitude in WW2 - 'Oh dont go there, they might get angry!'

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Ignoring political realities?

This from the poster who thinks Britain would not have responded to a foreign army matching on their territory.

Brillant!

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Ignoring political realities?

This from the poster who thinks Britain would not have responded to a foreign army matching on their territory.

Brillant!

Yes, you are ignoring several political realities of the time in favour of the hysterical redtop interpretation of what Jack Lynch said. He never mentioned or inferred an 'invasion'. He was committed to a policy of unity by consent.
Any incursion would have been flagged as a humanitarian mission.

The other political reality you ignore is that Britain was deeply concerned about (among other things) causing instability in the South. Wiping out an Irish battalion on a clear humanitarian mission would have been hugely counterproductive and the British knew it at the time.
What he said is widely credited for forcing Wilson to send in British troops shortly after.
It is not as clear cut as the hysterical might have you believe.
IMO if Lynch had sent troops into Derry we would not have had 40 years of conflict and 3000 deaths. But that would have required brave men and there where none in the Irish government.

Perhaps you need to leave down your redtops and do some proper reading about the period.

twowheelsgood

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, you are ignoring several political realities of the time in favour of the hysterical redtop interpretation of what Jack Lynch said. He never mentioned or inferred an 'invasion'. He was committed to a policy of unity by consent.
Any incursion would have been flagged as a humanitarian mission.

The other political reality you ignore is that Britain was deeply concerned about (among other things) causing instability in the South. Wiping out an Irish battalion on a clear humanitarian mission would have been hugely counterproductive and the British knew it at the time.
What he said is widely credited for forcing Wilson to send in British troops shortly after.
It is not as clear cut as the hysterical might have you believe.
IMO if Lynch had sent troops into Derry we would not have had 40 years of conflict and 3000 deaths. But that would have required brave men and there where none in the Irish government.

Perhaps you need to leave down your redtops and do some proper reading about the period.

I genuinely cannot tell if you actually believe the nonsense you are peddling here. I suspect not (why would bravery be called for on the part of Lynch if it were to play out as you suggest?)

But it might be possible that you actually do. People have the capacity to believe all sorts of loopy things because they want to - there are some (many) who believe the US’s adventure in Iraq was about bringing them freedom fries, there are a few who deny the reality of child abuse in Ireland, heck I’ve even heard some arguing there isn’t enough evidence that Suarez chewed a bit of Cian Healy! :pac: There is not really much you can say to such people. :rolleyes:

But of course you are not alone in misreading how Britain would respond to an incursion on to their territory no matter what the pretence. There were a few buffoons in Lynch’s government at the time proposing the same lunacy. And a decade later, it is possible that some Argentines thought that Britain would not come to defend an island that most Britons probably hadn’t even heard off.

It is not just Britain of course. No nation would ignore a violation of its territory if they had the capacity to resist it. Anyone would even a basic understanding of these matters would appreciate that - it is not something you learn from reading any accounts of the particulars of this incident.

And that is before you factor in that Britain’s history would tell us that they are more rather than less likely to tolerate such violations of their own territory. It also tells us that they are not unduly concerned about that the rest of the world thinks of them. And their history in Northern Ireland tells us that a hoping that a humanitarian instinct or an empathy for the plight of Northern nationalists might have led them to behave differently in this case is simply ludicrous.

Anyway, all of this is off topic. I asked you the question to ascertain if I should be taking you seriously. I think I have my answer. You either believe this rubbish, or you are pretending you do. Either way…..

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I genuinely cannot tell if you actually believe the nonsense you are peddling here. I suspect not (why would bravery be called for on the part of Lynch if it were to play out as you suggest?)

But it might be possible that you actually do. People have the capacity to believe all sorts of loopy things because they want to - there are some (many) who believe the US’s adventure in Iraq was about bringing them freedom fries, there are a few who deny the reality of child abuse in Ireland, heck I’ve even heard some arguing there isn’t enough evidence that Suarez chewed a bit of Cian Healy! :pac: There is not really much you can say to such people. :rolleyes:

But of course you are not alone in misreading how Britain would respond to an incursion on to their territory no matter what the pretence. There were a few buffoons in Lynch’s government at the time proposing the same lunacy. And a decade later, it is possible that some Argentines thought that Britain would not come to defend an island that most Britons probably hadn’t even heard off.

It is not just Britain of course. No nation would ignore a violation of its territory if they had the capacity to resist it. Anyone would even a basic understanding of these matters would appreciate that - it is not something you learn from reading any accounts of the particulars of this incident.

And that is before you factor in that Britain’s history would tell us that they are more rather than less likely to tolerate such violations of their own territory. It also tells us that they are not unduly concerned about that the rest of the world thinks of them. And their history in Northern Ireland tells us that a hoping that a humanitarian instinct or an empathy for the plight of Northern nationalists might have led them to behave differently in this case is simply ludicrous.

Anyway, all of this is off topic. I asked you the question to ascertain if I should be taking you seriously. I think I have my answer. You either believe this rubbish, or you are pretending you do. Either way…..

Who said anything about 'ignore'? As I pointed out already you have a unique capacity for willfully misinterpreting what is being said.

Of course they wouldn't have ignored it. Neither would they have launched a lethal counterattack, that is not supported by anything I can find in my reading of British attitudes to NI at the time, plenty of bluster since of course, but at the time...nothing. Relations between the two governments where cordial and several informal chats between Lynch and Wilson are out there if you care to look past the bluster.
What would have happened would have been a process of diplomatic interventions and ultimatums and an eventual withdrawal. But the point would have been made, we weren't going to stand idly by, the IRA (who were not interested...'I Ran Away' etc) would not have filled the vacuum and we would have involved ourselves much quicker.
Britain was under pressure at the timme internationally to intervene, their concern was not to exacerbate at any cost. They did not want a South up in arms.

junder

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?164224-quot-If-Lynch-had-invaded-quot-9-35PM-RTE-1

maccored

"Michael Dewar, a retired lieutenant colonel who served with 3rd Royal Green Jackets in Northern Ireland, said the Irish army would have been squashed. “It is an absurdity to think that a puny military force like the Irish army could in any form take on the British Army,”

The gall of such people. I think that statement says it all when it comes to the attitude of the british army. besides - the idea of the irish defence forces invading the north should really have been a last ditch effort. The irish government really should have taken a much harder political line with the british at the time.

K-9

Stuff like the Arms Trial wouldn't have helped any ideas of humanitarian efforts by the Irish government. These things don't occur in a vacuam.

eire4

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said anything about 'ignore'? As I pointed out already you have a unique capacity for willfully misinterpreting what is being said.

Of course they wouldn't have ignored it. Neither would they have launched a lethal counterattack, that is not supported by anything I can find in my reading of British attitudes to NI at the time, plenty of bluster since of course, but at the time...nothing. Relations between the two governments where cordial and several informal chats between Lynch and Wilson are out there if you care to look past the bluster.
What would have happened would have been a process of diplomatic interventions and ultimatums and an eventual withdrawal. But the point would have been made, we weren't going to stand idly by, the IRA (who were not interested...'I Ran Away' etc) would not have filled the vacuum and we would have involved ourselves much quicker.
Britain was under pressure at the timme internationally to intervene, their concern was not to exacerbate at any cost. They did not want a South up in arms.

I would tend to agree that the Lynch governments failure to really press the British certainly was part of the problem which ultimately exploded into the hell that followed. The IRA simply did not exist in any meaningful way at the time.

twowheelsgood

eire4 wrote: »

I would tend to agree that the Lynch governments failure to really press the British certainly was part of the problem which ultimately exploded into the hell that followed. The IRA simply did not exist in any meaningful way at the time.

Diplomatic lobbying is quite a bit removed from sending your troops into another state.

And Lynch and his government could press all they wanted. If the British took the line that it was an internal matter that they would sort out themselves there was little they could do about that.

But again, this is OT.

Sand

maccored wrote: »

Imagine if the allies had that attitude in WW2 - 'Oh dont go there, they might get angry!'

The Allies did acknowledge they might get angry. That's why they brought more tanks. More artillery. More bombers. More fighters. Not the childish idea that if they just claimed to be on a humanitarian mission that the Germans would not object.

The Irish army had nothing like the forces required to successfully fight the British army. At best, it would have been a glorious suicide mission. Well, actually, at best the poor bastards sent on such a mission would have been smart enough to surrender before getting wiped out.

I can see though the credibility of the political views and input of some are fully illuminated by their advocating that a single, poorly equipped Irish battalion invade Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles.

@Happyman42

The other political reality you ignore is that Britain was deeply concerned about (among other things) causing instability in the South. Wiping out an Irish battalion on a clear humanitarian mission would have been hugely counterproductive and the British knew it at the time.

I'd say they were *more* deeply concerned about defending their sovereignty. Any armed incursion by a foreign state - for any claimed reason - would be a violation of British sovereignty and if not firmly defeated would have critical implications far beyond Northern Ireland.

And lets not forget, despite your belief the British were anxious to avoid destabilising the south, you also believe the British government colluded with terrorists and planned and supported terrorist attacks on Ireland. They cant be both.

maccored

Sand wrote: »

The Allies did acknowledge they might get angry. That's why they brought more tanks. More artillery. More bombers. More fighters. Not the childish idea that if they just claimed to be on a humanitarian mission that the Germans would not object.

As I already mentioned, talk of invading the north should really have been a very last ditch, tried everything else policy. Not enough political pressure was applied by the government in the south. Mainly because - much the same as the governments we've had since - they are more concerned about what other countries think moreso than anything else.

Lastlight.

Those Southerners would have been sent packing if they have tried to invade Ulster.

eire4

maccored wrote: »

As I already mentioned, talk of invading the north should really have been a very last ditch, tried everything else policy. Not enough political pressure was applied by the government in the south. Mainly because - much the same as the governments we've had since - they are more concerned about what other countries think moreso than anything else.

I would agree with that. The current and previous Irish governments have time and again shown themselves quite happy to turn their backs on large groups of Irish people for their own petty interests as the church scandals and the treatment of those forced to emigrate show very clearly.

revisionist

Lastlight. wrote: »

Those Southerners would have been sent packing if they have tried to invade Ulster.

Ulster? Surely you are referring to the 6 counties?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said anything about 'ignore'? As I pointed out already you have a unique capacity for willfully misinterpreting what is being said.

Of course they wouldn't have ignored it. Neither would they have launched a lethal counterattack, that is not supported by anything I can find in my reading of British attitudes to NI at the time, plenty of bluster since of course, but at the time...nothing. Relations between the two governments where cordial and several informal chats between Lynch and Wilson are out there if you care to look past the bluster.
What would have happened would have been a process of diplomatic interventions and ultimatums and an eventual withdrawal. But the point would have been made, we weren't going to stand idly by, the IRA (who were not interested...'I Ran Away' etc) would not have filled the vacuum and we would have involved ourselves much quicker.
Britain was under pressure at the timme internationally to intervene, their concern was not to exacerbate at any cost. They did not want a South up in arms.

That is a load of horse manure.

One hour after the "humanitarian mission" as you call it had begun, the Irish would have got a phone call to tell them, get out in one hour or we will launch a counter-offensive.

You have to remember that we were still in the Cold War era and there is no way any NATO country could have tolerated any "humanitarian mission". Sure the Soviets could launch 20 of them the next day. You know, there are wider geopolitical concerns for the UK than Northern Ireland. Look at the example of the Falklands as already posted.

The narrow parochial focus of so-called Irish republicans (most of whom don't understand the word republican) leads to some really naive and dubious conclusions.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That is a load of horse manure.

One hour after the "humanitarian mission" as you call it had begun, the Irish would have got a phone call to tell them, get out in one hour or we will launch a counter-offensive.

How do you know this?

You have to remember that we were still in the Cold War era and there is no way any NATO country could have tolerated any "humanitarian mission". Sure the Soviets could launch 20 of them the next day. You know, there are wider geopolitical concerns for the UK than Northern Ireland. Look at the example of the Falklands as already posted.

Surely the point is proved by the cold war, Cuba etc...plenty of bluster, posturing, aggressive words, but sorted by diplomacy because the greater imperative was to avoid an un-winable clash. As stated the actual evidence shows the British were very concerned about inflaming passions in the south, an attack on a clearly flagged humanitarian mission would have had done that.

The narrow parochial focus of so-called Irish republicans (most of whom don't understand the word republican) leads to some really naive and dubious conclusions.

If you read the history and look at the mindsets of Wilson and the British at the time, there is nothing to show that they would have met a humanitarian mission with aggression, please show us evidence if it is the case.

maccored

I think this typifies the kind of attitude that was around at the time. dont do anything because the british might get angrwy. leave those in the north to fend for themselves and then give out about the IRA years later.

Godge wrote: »

That is a load of horse manure.

One hour after the "humanitarian mission" as you call it had begun, the Irish would have got a phone call to tell them, get out in one hour or we will launch a counter-offensive.

You have to remember that we were still in the Cold War era and there is no way any NATO country could have tolerated any "humanitarian mission". Sure the Soviets could launch 20 of them the next day. You know, there are wider geopolitical concerns for the UK than Northern Ireland. Look at the example of the Falklands as already posted.

The narrow parochial focus of so-called Irish republicans (most of whom don't understand the word republican) leads to some really naive and dubious conclusions.

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

Surely the point is proved by the cold war, Cuba etc...plenty of bluster, posturing, aggressive words, but sorted by diplomacy because the greater imperative was to avoid an un-winable clash.

A British-Irish clash in the early 1970s was far from an unwinable clash. The British Army would have reached Cork even before the Army of the Rhine was recalled. An army and state frustrated by years of no fixed targets would have postively relished the opportunity to manoeuvre and capture cities. Repelling and utterly defeating a foreign invasion of UK territory? It would have delivered the jingoistic post-Falklands victory buzz to the UK government 10 years early. Any British politician would have leaped at the chance to defend the realm from foreign aggression.

You're demonstrating the same sort of "It'll all be over by Christmas" naivety that led to civilised, peaceful European neighbours engaging in 4 years of mayhem and bloodshed on an industrial scale. Your entire vision hinges on the quite frankly ludicrous belief that the other side will be less crazy than you are. You are really destroying your own credibility by persisting with this nonsense.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

A British-Irish clash in the early 1970s was far from an unwinable clash. The British Army would have reached Cork even before the Army of the Rhine was recalled. An army and state frustrated by years of no fixed targets would have postively relished the opportunity to manoeuvre and capture cities. Repelling and utterly defeating a foreign invasion of UK territory? It would have delivered the jingoistic post-Falklands victory buzz to the UK government 10 years early. Any British politician would have leaped at the chance to defend the realm from foreign aggression.

You're demonstrating the same sort of "It'll all be over by Christmas" naivety that led to civilised, peaceful European neighbours engaging in 4 years of mayhem and bloodshed on an industrial scale. Your entire vision hinges on the quite frankly ludicrous belief that the other side will be less crazy than you are. You are really destroying your own credibility by persisting with this nonsense.

And your argument hinges on an nonexistent and never intended 'invasion' and a simplistic world view. It is quite clear that the British government at the time where very concerned about stoking up the south.
The imperative for the Irish government at the time, should have been to demonstrate that we where not going to 'stand idly by' even if that meant the loss of life of some of the Irish people's 'defence forces'.
It would have radically altered the path the conflict took for a whole raft of reasons.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you know this?.

If you read the history and look at the mindsets of Wilson and the British at the time, there is nothing to show that they would have met a humanitarian mission with aggression, please show us evidence if it is the case.

You can quote history books all you like but I lived through most of that period and can rely on memory.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And your argument hinges on an nonexistent and never intended 'invasion' and a simplistic world view. It is quite clear that the British government at the time where very concerned about stoking up the south.
The imperative for the Irish government at the time, should have been to demonstrate that we where not going to 'stand idly by' even if that meant the loss of life of some of the Irish people's 'defence forces'.
It would have radically altered the path the conflict took for a whole raft of reasons.

Keep dreaming, drawing lines on maps and drawing up mythological Irish armies to invade.

The Irish Army in 1970 was more akin to Dad's Army on TV than a real fighting force. The "conflict" would have been over in days with a reunified Ireland under British military rule.

Maybe you could enlighten us by showing how well equipped and battle-hardy the Irish army was compared to the British one. Or are you still maintaining the fantasy that there would have been no response and the British would have said, go on take as much or our territory as you like? Really? No response from the proud jingoistic Brits? Seriously, when over the next thirty years, the IRA subjected them to terror in their own cities targetting civilians in Birmingham and elsewhere.

flutered

Sand wrote: »

A British-Irish clash in the early 1970s was far from an unwinable clash. The British Army would have reached Cork even before the Army of the Rhine was recalled. An army and state frustrated by years of no fixed targets would have postively relished the opportunity to manoeuvre and capture cities. Repelling and utterly defeating a foreign invasion of UK territory? It would have delivered the jingoistic post-Falklands victory buzz to the UK government 10 years early. Any British politician would have leaped at the chance to defend the realm from foreign aggression.

You're demonstrating the same sort of "It'll all be over by Christmas" naivety that led to civilised, peaceful European neighbours engaging in 4 years of mayhem and bloodshed on an industrial scale. Your entire vision hinges on the quite frankly ludicrous belief that the other side will be less crazy than you are. You are really destroying your own credibility by persisting with this nonsense.

i have to agree with you, the might of a battle hardned army against a group of untrained unequipped unmanaaged soldiers, remember hoe an irish contingent was sent to the congo, in their full irish uniform, great coats meant to keep someone heated in a cold winter had to be worn in the jungle, that kind of leadership would definatly work against a battle hardened leadership, yeah ted.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You can quote history books all you like but I lived through most of that period and can rely on memory.



Keep dreaming, drawing lines on maps and drawing up mythological Irish armies to invade.

The Irish Army in 1970 was more akin to Dad's Army on TV than a real fighting force. The "conflict" would have been over in days with a reunified Ireland under British military rule.

Maybe you could enlighten us by showing how well equipped and battle-hardy the Irish army was compared to the British one. Or are you still maintaining the fantasy that there would have been no response and the British would have said, go on take as much or our territory as you like? Really? No response from the proud jingoistic Brits? Seriously, when over the next thirty years, the IRA subjected them to terror in their own cities targetting civilians in Birmingham and elsewhere.

I and nobody else including Jack Lynch (committed always to unity by consent) has ever suggested an aggressive 'invasion'. I also have gone to the trouble of explaining that I never said there would be 'no response'.
Please try and understand the point being made.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I and nobody else including Jack Lynch (committed always to unity by consent) has ever suggested an aggressive 'invasion'. I also have gone to the trouble of explaining that I never said there would be 'no response'.
Please try and understand the point being made.

Essentially, your point is that there would have been a passive response in the face of international pressure.

Well, that is horse manure as I said. There would have been an aggressive response based on NATO protocols at the time and and as was seen a decade later in the Falklands, international pressure had no effect on Britain.

maccored

the result probably would have been even worse for the british, considering how much hassle they got from the provos

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Essentially, your point is that there would have been a passive response in the face of international pressure.

Well, that is horse manure as I said. There would have been an aggressive response based on NATO protocols at the time and and as was seen a decade later in the Falklands, international pressure had no effect on Britain.

Harold Wilson was not Maggie Thatcher.
As I say read the history and the contemporary papers and you will see that it was unlikely that they would have responded to a clearly flagged humanitarian incursion aggressively.
Read the primary sources alluded to here http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/01/northernireland.freedomofinformation and you will see that it was a very complicated scenario where an aggressive response to humanitarian aid was not the likely response. Niall O'Dowd states here http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/odo10-31.htm that:

A few years back Harold Wilson stated that he would not have opposed Irish troops if they had been sent over the border to defend nationalist areas at the time and that in fact British troops would have been under orders not to do so.

I don't have time to find the primary source for that today, but I have no reason to dis-believe it either.

There isn't 'one' scenario of how it all might have worked out is my point. And even if it failed and they where driven back at human cost, it was still, in my opinion, the right thing to do and would have changed the course of events to all our advantage.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Harold Wilson was not Maggie Thatcher.
As I say read the history and the contemporary papers and you will see that it was unlikely that they would have responded to a clearly flagged humanitarian incursion aggressively.
Read the primary sources alluded to here http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/01/northernireland.freedomofinformation and you will see that it was a very complicated scenario where an aggressive response to humanitarian aid was not the likely response. Niall O'Dowd states here http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/odo10-31.htm that:



I don't have time to find the primary source for that today, but I have no reason to dis-believe it either.

There isn't 'one' scenario of how it all might have worked out is my point. And even if it failed and they where driven back at human cost, it was still, in my opinion, the right thing to do and would have changed the course of events to all our advantage.

There is every reason to disbelieve Niall O'Dowd on something like that - he has an agenda like so many.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There is every reason to disbelieve Niall O'Dowd on something like that - he has an agenda like so many.

leave that to one side then...tell me where in the cabinet papers and other contemporaneous accounts there is evidence that they would have aggressively attacked a humanitarian mission?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

leave that to one side then...tell me where in the cabinet papers and other contemporaneous accounts there is evidence that they would have aggressively attacked a humanitarian mission?

As you well know, there are redacted papers from that time.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

As you well know, there are redacted papers from that time.

I do, but there are plenty in the public domain. Can you point to anything that supports you contention that the British would have definitely reacted to a humanitarian mission with aggressive force?
It is quite clear that the British looked at every possible solution including an independent NI, a unified Ireland etc. There is never in the papers and contemporaneous accounts mention of attacking the south and it is quite clear that there is an over riding concern, not to antagonise the Southern government or people.

junder

Any incursion over the border would have been stopped in its tracks. There would have been a short window for the irish forces to withdraw, failure would have led to arrest, resistance would have ment arrest by force

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I do, but there are plenty in the public domain. Can you point to anything that supports you contention that the British would have definitely reacted to a humanitarian mission with aggressive force?
It is quite clear that the British looked at every possible solution including an independent NI, a unified Ireland etc. There is never in the papers and contemporaneous accounts mention of attacking the south and it is quite clear that there is an over riding concern, not to antagonise the Southern government or people.

I am not stupid to fall for that one.

There are UK Cabinet and other papers withheld from that time. Do you seriously think that they would release papers relating to plans to respond with force to any incursion?

maccored

So your claim is that its all on invisible paper that no-one - including yourself - has read. Thats pure genius.

Godge wrote: »

I am not stupid to fall for that one.

There are UK Cabinet and other papers withheld from that time. Do you seriously think that they would release papers relating to plans to respond with force to any incursion?

mrty

Yawn

Godge

Rather than start another thread about Gerry Adams and his wrongdoing, did anybody see the Spotlight programme last night?

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/gerry-adams-is-drawn-into-ira-sex-abuse-row-in-bbc-spotlight-probe-1-6355676

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29631344

I didn't but I was wondering what people thought?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Rather than start another thread about Gerry Adams and his wrongdoing, did anybody see the Spotlight programme last night?

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/gerry-adams-is-drawn-into-ira-sex-abuse-row-in-bbc-spotlight-probe-1-6355676

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29631344

I didn't but I was wondering what people thought?

Why did she go to the police and then drop her evidence?

Curious thing to do.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why did she go to the police and then drop her evidence?

Curious thing to do.

I am amazed that she went to the police considering she was questioned by the IRA several times a week for months and they brought the accused into the room with her. The poor woman was dreadfully treated.

There are many examples of people curiously dropping their complaints against IRA members over the years. I am curious as to how it continually happens too.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I am amazed that she went to the police considering she was questioned by the IRA several times a week for months and they brought the accused into the room with her. The poor woman was dreadfully treated.

There are many examples of people curiously dropping their complaints against IRA members over the years. I am curious as to how it continually happens too.

Yeh, she drops her case and then goes to the BBC instead to attempt to get justice. Curious.

Berserker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh, she drops her case and then goes to the BBC instead to attempt to get justice. Curious.

Interesting that SF seemed to have been briefing their sworn enemies in London about it. Political policing? I see the victim wants to see an investigation in Republican cover ups of child abuse. This is the kind of thing that could really cause SF bother, if the media down here bother reporting it.

Fuzzy Clam

Godge wrote: »

Rather than start another thread about Gerry Adams and his wrongdoing, did anybody see the Spotlight programme last night?

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/gerry-adams-is-drawn-into-ira-sex-abuse-row-in-bbc-spotlight-probe-1-6355676

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29631344

I didn't but I was wondering what people thought?

I watched it. Nothing there to dispel my belief that Gerry was (is) in the IRA. Nice footage of him with Joe Cahill. :rolleyes:

Berserker

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

I watched it. Nothing there to dispel my belief that Gerry was (is) in the IRA. Nice footage of him with Joe Cahill. :rolleyes:

He is a silly man. He will have to admit to his role in the IRA eventually and he really doesn't want to be forced to do this with an election looming. Countless ex-IRA men, high ranking members, have said that he was a big hitter within the organisation. I don't get what he is trying to achieve by not admitting it.

Happyman42

I thought the programme was about a girl who alleged she was raped?
Silly me, seems it was about Gerry's alleged membership.

Not like the BBC at all. :rolleyes:

Berserker

Happyman42 wrote: »

I thought the programme was about a girl who alleged she was raped?
Silly me, seems it was about Gerry's alleged membership.

Not like the BBC at all. :rolleyes:

It was. Did you watch it? His membership was a minor side issue, which fits into this thread.

Happyman42

Berserker wrote: »

It was. Did you watch it? His membership was a minor side issue, which fits into this thread.

No, I didn't watch it. Just going on the posts here.

Fuzzy Clam

Berserker wrote: »

He is a silly man. He will have to admit to his role in the IRA eventually and he really doesn't want to be forced to do this with an election looming. Countless ex-IRA men, high ranking members, have said that he was a big hitter within the organisation. I don't get what he is trying to achieve by not admitting it.

If he actually admitted what most of us know, I would have a great deal more respect for the man. I might even then vote for his party.
There have been people who have admitted to their terrorist past, and i respect them for it.
But this is Gerry.......

Berserker

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

If he actually admitted what most of us know, I would have a great deal more respect for the man. I might even then vote for his party.
There have been people who have admitted to their terrorist past, and i respect them for it.
But this is Gerry.......

I wouldn't vote for them ever but I do have some respect for those who have been honest about their past. I am completely against their left-wing nonsense, so I would never vote for them. I prefer reality to pie-in-sky idealism.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I didn't watch it. Just going on the posts here.

Watch the show and then pass comment on it. What happened to that lady was a disgrace.

Happyman42

Berserker wrote: »

Watch the show and then pass comment on it. What happened to that lady was a disgrace.

I was passing comment on the comments about the programme (which I said I didn't watch)

Your eventual concern for the lady alleged to have been raped is touching however.

Savage93

Agnes ****in' bored now !!!!!!!

A Dub in Glasgo

Didn't see it either, does it confirm if there is evidence of IRA membership which is the topic of the thread?

maccored

I think its defined when they said:

"No-one apart from Maria Cathal and Martin Morris can be certain of the whole truth about what happened."

I've no idea either and my thoughts where no-one apart from Maria Cathal and Martin Morris can be certain of the whole truth about what happened. I certainly wouldnt use it in a thread about gerry adams' apparent IRA membership.

Godge wrote: »

Rather than start another thread about Gerry Adams and his wrongdoing, did anybody see the Spotlight programme last night?

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/gerry-adams-is-drawn-into-ira-sex-abuse-row-in-bbc-spotlight-probe-1-6355676

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29631344

I didn't but I was wondering what people thought?

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

I certainly wouldnt use it in a thread about gerry adams' apparent IRA membership.

"Apparent" being the word.