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

alias no.9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet she won't name the rapist, or any of the other alleged criminals she apparently knows of, not even to protect past and future victims.
I notice you have also completely failed to explain why. Join the club.

The various media outlets may not be prepared to allow her. Her solicitor may have advised her that it may damage the chance of an eventual prosecution if she does so. She's certainly given more than enough clues without being specific.

It's perfectly plausible that she sees the republican leadership as the biggest barrier to a successful prosecution and that she needs to break that down in order to empower the witnesses she needs to speak in court to do so.

Dan_Solo

alias no.9 wrote: »

The various media outlets may not be prepared to allow her. Her solicitor may have advised her that it may damage the chance of an eventual prosecution if she does so. She's certainly given more than enough clues without being specific.

It's perfectly plausible that she sees the republican leadership as the biggest barrier to a successful prosecution and that she needs to break that down in order to empower the witnesses she needs to speak in court to do so.

Then why haven't her lawyers brought any actions in relation to this? Witness intimidation? Obstructing the course of justice?
It's a 100% trial by media campaign. Is she also to intimidated by the PSNI to bother involving them?

alias no.9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then why haven't her lawyers brought any actions in relation to this? Witness intimidation? Obstructing the course of justice?
It's a 100% trial by media campaign. Is she also to intimidated by the PSNI to bother involving them?

I can only imagine the level of desperation that she feels to have left this as her only option. She has been let down by the PSNI who no doubt have to pussyfoot around instances of witness intimidation by republicans due to fears of accusations of political policing but you might note that she's opened a case with the police ombudsman too.

Dan_Solo

alias no.9 wrote: »

I can only imagine the level of desperation that she feels to have left this as her only option. She has been let down by the PSNI who no doubt have to pussyfoot around instances of witness intimidation by republicans due to fears of accusations of political policing but you might note that she's opened a case with the police ombudsman too.

In fairness, accusations of political policing having made a blind bit of difference in the past when it comes to SF leaders.

Godge

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The woman apparently has a load of information on people who have access to children 'right now' according to herself, yet she's not going to the PSNI or the Gardai with this information.
She's going to every media outlet who'll listen.
Why's that?
This has nothing to do with 'circling the wagons' or 'blind faith' in anyone, I'm asking a very simple question, If she has information regarding possible sexual abuse of children that, in her own words, may be happening right now, why hasn't she reported it to the authorities?

Quite simple, as has been pointed out by women's groups over the last couple of days, women in the North are still afraid to go to the police and report the involvement of senior IRA members in rape and sexual abuse cases.

This issue needs leadership from SF/IRA. They need to come clean to the authorities about what they know and what information they gathered from their kangaroo courts.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

This has been pointed out on numerous occasions to you - no-one (as far as I can tell) is claiming Maria Cahill wasnt raped, and yet you keep banging on with this guff.

But they are claiming she is a liar, including yourself and others on here.

Question for you: Is Mairia Cahill telling the truth about her rape and her subsequent treatment by SF/IRA, the PSNI and Gerry Adams? The issues are intrinsically linked and if she is to be believed on one, she must be believed on them all. Do you believe all she says?

maccored

When did I claim she lied about her rape?

why must she be believed on all?

Did the republican movement deal with such things themselves and not to to the RUC? Obviously. Could that be called a coverup? technically - but lets remember even Maria Cahill wouldnt have went to the RUC then either so I cant see how its a cover up. especially if its already been to court a few times.

I am - to be honest - not too sure what her beef with Adams is.

Godge wrote: »

But they are claiming she is a liar, including yourself and others on here.

Question for you: Is Mairia Cahill telling the truth about her rape and her subsequent treatment by SF/IRA, the PSNI and Gerry Adams? The issues are intrinsically linked and if she is to be believed on one, she must be believed on them all. Do you believe all she says?

K-9

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

Says the man who believes in the paranormal..........:rolleyes:

Mod:

That was a bit below the belt!

Everybody, less of the personal posts please, try and keep to the topic please.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't know if Adams is lying or not and never said I believed him. Stop jumping to conclusions. I am not prepared to hang any man or woman based on allegations.
If GA is lying he needs to go and needs to face a trial. But we need it to be proved.

Do you believe Adams told her to go to the RUC in 2000? Do you find that credible?

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Do you believe Adams told her to go to the RUC in 2000? Do you find that credible?

In the instance of an alleged rape, yes, I believe it is credible. People in 2000 dealt with the police on ordinary civil matters all the time. The police would not be able to ignore it, and the evidence suggests they didn't when a complaint was eventually made, bringing charges against the alleged rapist and interrogators.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

To me its quite clear what is happening, and its an attempt (again) at a political assasination. I fully believe that unfortunate woman suffered terrible abuse - I dont doubt her on that for a second. Everything else though, rings alarm bells. first is why now? How is a trial by media going to help her. Second is why focus on adams? if it was the IRA covering up, thats one thing, but it seems the debate is solely about if she discussed the abuse at one particular meeting with adams. isnt there much, much more important aspects to look at? Third is where is the critical evidence that Maria Cahil has stated she has. Add to that, what happened the other two court cases? Trial by media again seems to be preferred over the legal system. Fourthly, just look at the political climate, the fear of Sinn Fein kicking ass in the elections and the latest calls for Adams to stand down. It now makes sense of whyt his is happening now. Maria is once again being abused, this time by people scoring cheap political points, with the likes of Enda and Michael taking pot shots in the Dail.

I think the even bigger travesty to that of this poor woman being abused in the first place, is other people taking advantage of her anger - and trying to save their own political asses - to take down their opposition. Absolutely disgraceful carryon.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But whatever you do, don't answer the question.
Why is she after Adams and not the rapist?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said it earlier...just because she was raped (and I believe she probably was) does not mean everything she says is true.

Happyman42 wrote: »

She clearly wants GA to take the fall for this over and above her rapist who she allowed to walk free from a court of law (the only place she was going to get justice.
In all her interviews I hace only heard her talk about her attacker once, the IRA squad a few times and GA over an over again.
Michael Martin choose GA as the point of his attack, not mentioning the rapist at all.
Ditto Enda.
Ditto numerous Sindo articles.
The only person whose core response to Maria Cahill was that 'justice should be done for the crime of rape committed against her, was Peter Robinson.

Priorities are skewed completely on this, hence my in-built bull**** detector is irritable

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/10/20/mairia-cahill-uncomfortable-truths-for-sinn-fein/


A lot of people on here seem to have some rather strange theories about Mairia Cahill and they don't seem to have read what she has said. It is in the above link. Some extracts from it to help you understand why she is targetting SF/IRA and why there is no way she is being manipulated.

"I came to Dublin to thank Micheal Martin for the support I received from him when I was trying to convince people that the IRA did indeed investigate cases of abuse, and that I was seriously worried about perpetrators in Ireland and further afield, who the IRA had moved on, having access to other children."

"I have been accused of making this a political issue.

Let me be very clear. The only people who are politiking on this issue are the very party who have tried all manner of tactics to stop this issue raising its ugly head. Sinn Fein have behaved shamefully. They have attacked me repeatedly, tried to deflect from the issue, tried to discredit me by denying what happened to me, and they have been more than economical with the truth."

"And they are attacking me, because they know there are other victims out there who exist, and they are trying to frighten them off in coming forward."

"Equally, if Gerry Adams had told me to go to the RUC in 2000, I would have taken that as a green light to do so. He didn’t. And he now expects people to believe that his private views on the RUC were different to what he was uttering very publicly? Seriously? His credibility is in tatters."

I could go on but is makes you sick reading it, seeing what was done to that poor women by evil men in the IRA. There is no other word for them than evil. And before I get the usual piety from the usual suspects that nothing has been proven, there are plenty of others saying the same as me. Here is the directory of Foyle Women's Aid.

http://www.newstalk.com/Director-of-Foyle-womens-aid-believes-that-there-are-more-women-who-have-not-received-justice-or-support

Her is Anthony McIntyre:

https://www.newstalk.ie/Former-IRA-volunteer-claims-RUC-would-not-have-dealt-with-sexual-abuse-cases-fairly

And there will be more. This is like the early days of the church denying covering-up child abuse and moving abusers on that they had dealt with through their own canon law procedures.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/10/20/mairia-cahill-uncomfortable-truths-for-sinn-fein/


A lot of people on here seem to have some rather strange theories about Mairia Cahill and they don't seem to have read what she has said. It is in the above link. Some extracts from it to help you understand why she is targetting SF/IRA and why there is no way she is being manipulated.

"I came to Dublin to thank Micheal Martin for the support I received from him when I was trying to convince people that the IRA did indeed investigate cases of abuse, and that I was seriously worried about perpetrators in Ireland and further afield, who the IRA had moved on, having access to other children."

"I have been accused of making this a political issue.

Let me be very clear. The only people who are politiking on this issue are the very party who have tried all manner of tactics to stop this issue raising its ugly head. Sinn Fein have behaved shamefully. They have attacked me repeatedly, tried to deflect from the issue, tried to discredit me by denying what happened to me, and they have been more than economical with the truth."

"And they are attacking me, because they know there are other victims out there who exist, and they are trying to frighten them off in coming forward."

"Equally, if Gerry Adams had told me to go to the RUC in 2000, I would have taken that as a green light to do so. He didn’t. And he now expects people to believe that his private views on the RUC were different to what he was uttering very publicly? Seriously? His credibility is in tatters."

I could go on but is makes you sick reading it, seeing what was done to that poor women by evil men in the IRA. There is no other word for them than evil. And before I get the usual piety from the usual suspects that nothing has been proven, there are plenty of others saying the same as me. Here is the directory of Foyle Women's Aid.

http://www.newstalk.com/Director-of-Foyle-womens-aid-believes-that-there-are-more-women-who-have-not-received-justice-or-support

Her is Anthony McIntyre:

https://www.newstalk.ie/Former-IRA-volunteer-claims-RUC-would-not-have-dealt-with-sexual-abuse-cases-fairly

And there will be more. This is like the early days of the church denying covering-up child abuse and moving abusers on that they had dealt with through their own canon law procedures.

Could you do us a favour here Godge and quote me a line in anything Mary Lou or Gerry Adams has said on this issue that could even be remotely perceived as an 'attack' on Maria Cahill?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

In the instance of an alleged rape, yes, I believe it is credible. People in 2000 dealt with the police on ordinary civil matters all the time. The police would not be able to ignore it, and the evidence suggests they didn't when a complaint was eventually made, bringing charges against the alleged rapist and interrogators.

This is possibly the biggest lie told by Gerry Adams. He expects us to believe that he was privately telling Mairia Cahill in 2000 to go to the RUC when at the same time he and Sinn Fein were publicly criticising that organisation, calling it a violently sectarian organisation.

http://republican-news.org/archive/2000/June29/29fron.html

"On the issue of the RUC, the widely reported batoning of Sinn Féin Assembly member Gerry Kelly on the Springfield Road again highlighted the violently sectarian nature of that organisation."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2933941.stm

"21 May 2000: Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams says that he cannot fully support the Police Bill, saying it waters down the Patten Commission's recommendations."


http://dcu.ie/~cis/PDF/projects/Doyle_-_politics_of_Patten.pdf

"Sinn Fein refused to......support the PSNI at this time...", taken from a 2001 Irish Times article.

There are plenty more examples of this, so I have to ask myself, is Gerry Adams a liar or a hypocrite, or is there some other plausible explanation?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you do us a favour here Godge and quote me a line in anything Mary Lou or Gerry Adams has said on this issue that could even be remotely perceived as an 'attack' on Maria Cahill?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-accused-of-despicable-behaviour-over-abuse-claims-1.1966531

"Pearse Doherty came out and said those claims were unfounded and untrue."

Yet two days later Gerry was admitting there were kangaroo courts dealing with sex abuse cases.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is possibly the biggest lie told by Gerry Adams. He expects us to believe that he was privately telling Mairia Cahill in 2000 to go to the RUC when at the same time he and Sinn Fein were publicly criticising that organisation, calling it a violently sectarian organisation.

http://republican-news.org/archive/2000/June29/29fron.html

"On the issue of the RUC, the widely reported batoning of Sinn Féin Assembly member Gerry Kelly on the Springfield Road again highlighted the violently sectarian nature of that organisation."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2933941.stm

"21 May 2000: Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams says that he cannot fully support the Police Bill, saying it waters down the Patten Commission's recommendations."


http://dcu.ie/~cis/PDF/projects/Doyle_-_politics_of_Patten.pdf

"Sinn Fein refused to......support the PSNI at this time...", taken from a 2001 Irish Times article.

There are plenty more examples of this, so I have to ask myself, is Gerry Adams a liar or a hypocrite, or is there some other plausible explanation?

Here is Adams response to that:

Despite the alienation from the RUC it was the accepted de facto practice that they dealt with traffic accidents, car insurance and such matters. Incidents of rape were also reported to them in some cases and no thinking person would have made a case against that. But many victims or families of victims were reluctant to bring cases of child abuse forward. This was part of the larger problem all society and particularly victims faced at that time. But where a case emerged there was the added problem for some about reporting this to the RUC. They wanted the community or the IRA to take actions.

I find that credible because I experienced it myself, having to deal with the RUC almost every second day in relation to a job I had at the time, between roughly 1987 to 1990-91.
Some things you wouldn't go to the RUC about, others you did, that is how it worked in actuality.
I am sure a roving reporter (with the truth as motivation) with a mic would find that out and verify it by walking through almost any nationalist area of NI and talking to odinary people.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

When did I claim she lied about her rape?

why must she be believed on all?

Did the republican movement deal with such things themselves and not to to the RUC? Obviously. Could that be called a coverup? technically - but lets remember even Maria Cahill wouldnt have went to the RUC then either so I cant see how its a cover up. especially if its already been to court a few times.

I am - to be honest - not too sure what her beef with Adams is.

Read my post again. You are claiming she is a liar.

Godge wrote: »

But they are claiming she is a liar, including yourself and others on here.

Question for you: Is Mairia Cahill telling the truth about her rape and her subsequent treatment by SF/IRA, the PSNI and Gerry Adams? The issues are intrinsically linked and if she is to be believed on one, she must be believed on them all. Do you believe all she says?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here is Adams response to that:




I find that credible because I experienced it myself, having to deal with the RUC almost every second day in relation to a job I had at the time, between roughly 1987 to 1990-91.
Some things you wouldn't go to the RUC about, others you did, that is how it worked in actuality.
I am sure a roving reporter (with the truth as motivation) with a mic would find that out and verify it by walking through almost any nationalist area of NI and talking to odinary people.

You only make my point clearer.

Gerry Adams says that in 2014.

In 2000, as I have shown, he was telling people not to go to the RUC/PSNI.

Winners write history? Cover-up of wrongs? Whatever, he was telling one thing to Mairia Cahill in private and another thing to the world in public in 2000 or he is lying in 2014. It is difficult to think of another explanation but maybe somebody will - Hans Christian Anderson or Walt Disney might have a go.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-accused-of-despicable-behaviour-over-abuse-claims-1.1966531

"Pearse Doherty came out and said those claims were unfounded and untrue."

Yet two days later Gerry was admitting there were kangaroo courts dealing with sex abuse cases.

How is denying her specific claim an 'attack'? It is a simple defence of her claims about how she claimed she was treated.

Are you telling me now that nobody knew 'kangaroo courts' happened, that this is somehow a revelation? Kangaroo courts have been in the public domain for years.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

In 2000, as I have shown, he was telling people not to go to the RUC/PSNI.

Could you show us a source for that? Because it isn't in any of the links you posted.
People dealt with the RUC all the time, simply because they had to for certain things.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you show us a source for that? Because it isn't in any of the links you posted.
People dealt with the RUC all the time, simply because they had to for certain things.

It is implicit in everything he and SF/IRA publicly said in 2000 about the RUC. There were plenty of other examples.

Here is a task for you. While you are looking for the top ten of the 100 reasons why Mairia Cahill might be telling a lie or be manipulated, you could find the earliest possible statement from SF and Gerry Adams that is was ok to go to the RUC.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

It is implicit in everything he and SF/IRA publicly said in 2000 about the RUC. There were plenty of other examples.

Here is a task for you. While you are looking for the top ten of the 100 reasons why Mairia Cahill might be telling a lie or be manipulated, you could find the earliest possible statement from SF and Gerry Adams that is was ok to go to the RUC.

So, no proof that he said anywhere, 'Do not go to the RUC' :rolleyes:

Again...people had to go to the RUC for many things and did.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you telling me now that nobody knew 'kangaroo courts' happened, that this is somehow a revelation? Kangaroo courts have been in the public domain for years.

Somebody forgot to tell Pearse Doherty.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, no proof that he said anywhere, 'Do not go to the RUC' :rolleyes:

Again...people had to go to the RUC for many things and did.

There are hundreds of examples of SF and Gerry Adams calling the RUC a sectarian, divisive force and incapable of policing right up until the mid-2000s. All consistent with the message delivered at local level not to go to the RUC and reinforced with punishment beatings and worse (disappearance) to those that did. Here are another few:

http://www.sinnfein.ie/ga/contents/205

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15187

"I want to say clearly today that the Policing Bill is not acceptable and we cannot and will not advocate membership of or support for the police force envisaged in such legislation"

Pat Doherty in 2000.

You are unable to produce one statement from Gerry Adams or SF that supports the RUC from the relevant period. That is understandable because there are none.

All that Gerry Adams and SF are on record in talking about the RUC in 2000 is critical. They never said it was ok to go to them for any issue (until the other night).

As I have already said, without evidence to show something different, it is difficult to find a third credible explanation for Gerry Adams other than he was a hypocrite in 2000 or a liar in 2014. Find one for me and I will consider it.

beeno67

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you show us a source for that? Because it isn't in any of the links you posted.
People dealt with the RUC all the time, simply because they had to for certain things.

How about when Robert McCartney was killed (5 years after the 2000 rape). Adams hardly encouraged people to go to RUC. Had he lost faith in the RUC since 2000 or did he believe it was ok to go to RUC about rapes involving IRA members but not about murders involving IRA members.

Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin, urged witnesses to come forward to "the family, a solicitor, or any other authoritative or reputable person or body"./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000080]11[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000080 Adams continued, "I want to make it absolutely clear that no one involved acted as a republican or on behalf of republicans." He suspended twelve members of Sinn Féin. Adams stopped short of asking witnesses to contact the police directly. The usefulness of making witness statements to the victim's family or to a solicitor was derided by the McCartneys and by a prominent lawyer and SDLP politician, Alban Maginness, soon afterwards

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

How is denying her specific claim an 'attack'? It is a simple defence of her claims about how she claimed she was treated.

Are you telling me now that nobody knew 'kangaroo courts' happened, that this is somehow a revelation? Kangaroo courts have been in the public domain for years.

Pearse Doherty, November 2013

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sf-knows-that-republicans-investigated-cases-of-abuse-i-know-because-it-happened-to-me-29799024.html

"‘UNFOUNDED and untrue” was Pearse Doherty’s answer when asked whether the republican movement investigated alleged abuse perpetrated internally by republicans."


http://www.thejournal.ie/pearse-doherty-micheal-martin-claims-1197052-Nov2013/?utm_source=facebook_short

"SINN FÉIN FINANCE spokesperson Pearse Doherty has said that claims from the Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin that there were alleged cases of abuse in the Republican movement that were dealt with internally are “unfounded and untrue”.


Gerry Adams, October 2014

http://leargas.blogspot.ie/

"IRA 'policing' was most evident in those areas where it had strongest support. The bulk of this activity involved mediation between those in dispute, and went unreported.

However, the IRA often punished petty criminals, car thieves, burglars and drug dealers. The IRA, inevitably also made mistakes.

Despite the high standards and decency of the vast majority of IRA volunteers, IRA personnel were singularly ill-equipped to deal with these matters. This included very sensitive areas such as responding to demands to take action against rapists and child abusers. The IRA on occasion shot alleged sex offenders or expelled them."

Who is telling the truth - Pearse Doherty or Gerry Adams?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There are hundreds of examples of SF and Gerry Adams calling the RUC a sectarian, divisive force and incapable of policing right up until the mid-2000s. All consistent with the message delivered at local level not to go to the RUC and reinforced with punishment beatings and worse (disappearance) to those that did. Here are another few:

http://www.sinnfein.ie/ga/contents/205

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/15187

"I want to say clearly today that the Policing Bill is not acceptable and we cannot and will not advocate membership of or support for the police force envisaged in such legislation"

Pat Doherty in 2000.

You are unable to produce one statement from Gerry Adams or SF that supports the RUC from the relevant period. That is understandable because there are none.

All that Gerry Adams and SF are on record in talking about the RUC in 2000 is critical. They never said it was ok to go to them for any issue (until the other night).

As I have already said, without evidence to show something different, it is difficult to find a third credible explanation for Gerry Adams other than he was a hypocrite in 2000 or a liar in 2014. Find one for me and I will consider it.

Without evidence to show that Adams was advising anybody DO NOT GO TO THE RUC'
your point is moot. The simple fact is that nationalist people went to and dealt with the RUC for a whole ranges of things not considered 'political'. You simply could not function as an ordinary person without dealing with them in some capacity throughout the conflict.

beeno67 wrote: »

How about when Robert McCartney was killed (5 years after the 2000 rape). Adams hardly encouraged people to go to RUC. Had he lost faith in the RUC since 2000 or did he believe it was ok to go to RUC about rapes involving IRA members but not about murders involving IRA members.

Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin, urged witnesses to come forward to "the family, a solicitor, or any other authoritative or reputable person or body"./COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000080]11[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#000080 Adams continued, "I want to make it absolutely clear that no one involved acted as a republican or on behalf of republicans." He suspended twelve members of Sinn Féin. Adams stopped short of asking witnesses to contact the police directly. The usefulness of making witness statements to the victim's family or to a solicitor was derided by the McCartneys and by a prominent lawyer and SDLP politician, Alban Maginness, soon afterwards

The PSNI politicised that incident early on, so that context must be considered. There is nothing political in a rape, so it is entirely credible that somebody who thought that it was beyond the capabilities of what SF could deal with, would advise somebody to either go to social services or the police.

beeno67

Godge wrote: »

Pearse Doherty, November 2013

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sf-knows-that-republicans-investigated-cases-of-abuse-i-know-because-it-happened-to-me-29799024.html

"‘UNFOUNDED and untrue” was Pearse Doherty’s answer when asked whether the republican movement investigated alleged abuse perpetrated internally by republicans."


http://www.thejournal.ie/pearse-doherty-micheal-martin-claims-1197052-Nov2013/?utm_source=facebook_short

"SINN FÉIN FINANCE spokesperson Pearse Doherty has said that claims from the Fianna Fail leader Micheál Martin that there were alleged cases of abuse in the Republican movement that were dealt with internally are “unfounded and untrue”.


Gerry Adams, October 2014

http://leargas.blogspot.ie/

"IRA 'policing' was most evident in those areas where it had strongest support. The bulk of this activity involved mediation between those in dispute, and went unreported.

However, the IRA often punished petty criminals, car thieves, burglars and drug dealers. The IRA, inevitably also made mistakes.

Despite the high standards and decency of the vast majority of IRA volunteers, IRA personnel were singularly ill-equipped to deal with these matters. This included very sensitive areas such as responding to demands to take action against rapists and child abusers. The IRA on occasion shot alleged sex offenders or expelled them."

Who is telling the truth - Pearse Doherty or Gerry Adams?

That is shocking from Doherty. Can he really have been unaware of this? Even Mary Lou knew it was going on. Shocking that neither Mary Lou or Gerry corrected him.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mary-lou-mcdonald-i-was-aware-of-ira-sex-abuse-courts-30677176.html

Mary Lou said today
"McDonald said that while she wasn't condoning the actions taken by the IRA regarding kanagaroo courts into sex abuse allegations, she believed it was inevitable in the absence of a police service".

But..... if there was an absence of a police service as Mary Lou says then why did Gerry Adams tell Maria to go to the police????

beeno67

Happyman42 wrote: »

Without evidence to show that Adams was advising anybody DO NOT GO TO THE RUC'
your point is moot. The simple fact is that nationalist people went to and dealt with the RUC for a whole ranges of things not considered 'political'. You simply could not function as an ordinary person without dealing with them in some capacity throughout the conflict.



The PSNI politicised that incident early on, so that context must be considered. There is nothing political in a rape, so it is entirely credible that somebody who thought that it was beyond the capabilities of what SF could deal with, would advise somebody to either go to social services or the police.

You are really clutching at straws here

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Without evidence to show that Adams was advising anybody DO NOT GO TO THE RUC'
your point is moot. The simple fact is that nationalist people went to and dealt with the RUC for a whole ranges of things not considered 'political'. You simply could not function as an ordinary person without dealing with them in some capacity throughout the conflict.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

People went to the RUC to get their passport forms signed and to buy their dog licences and the IRA didn't kneecap them so that means it was ok to go to the RUC and report that you were raped by a senior IRA man. Seriously? Really? Do you want to retain any credibility on this forum?

If this wasn't such a serious issue, your post would be satire.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The PSNI politicised that incident early on, so that context must be considered. There is nothing political in a rape, so it is entirely credible that somebody who thought that it was beyond the capabilities of what SF could deal with, would advise somebody to either go to social services or the police.

There is nothing political in a rape carried out by a senior IRA man, subject to an IRA kangaroo court, with the punishment being off you go to drink pints in Donegal and a cover-up and denial of the incident by SF/IRA?

Sometimes Happyman, you make me pause to think with your points, on this issue your posts have lost any semblance of sense.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

People went to the RUC to get their passport forms signed and to buy their dog licences and the IRA didn't kneecap them so that means it was ok to go to the RUC and report that you were raped by a senior IRA man. Seriously? Really? Do you want to retain any credibility on this forum?

If this wasn't such a serious issue, your post would be satire.

Eh, Godge, the IRA regularly shot their own members if found guilty of something. Adams and McG as leaders of SF are on record as trying to stop that kind of 'justice' and where right to be trying to stop it.

There is nothing political in a rape carried out by a senior IRA man, subject to an IRA kangaroo court, with the punishment being off you go to drink pints in Donegal and a cover-up and denial of the incident by SF/IRA?

Sometimes Happyman, you make me pause to think with your points, on this issue your posts have lost any semblance of sense.

Raping a defenceless girl of 16 would go beyond any political loyalty. You might believe that IRA men where sadistic animals, but I don't and I know that if a crime like that was proven that most IRA men and most SF men would not stomach it, regardless of political loyalties.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Eh, Godge, the IRA regularly shot their own members if found guilty of something. Adams and McG as leaders of SF are on record as trying to stop that kind of 'justice' and where right to be trying to stop it.

The IRA also regularly shot, kneecapped and disappeared people who had any contact with the RUC or the British Army, have you forgotten the likes of Jean McConville so quickly?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Raping a defenceless girl of 16 would go beyond any political loyalty. You might believe that IRA men where sadistic animals, but I don't and I know that if a crime like that was proven that most IRA men and most SF men would not stomach it, regardless of political loyalties.

I don't see how you can say that when raping your own daughter (Liam Adams) and abusing your step-daughter (Briege "Meehan") were stomached thanks to political loyalties.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The IRA also regularly shot, kneecapped and disappeared people who had any contact with the RUC or the British Army, have you forgotten the likes of Jean McConville so quickly?

Jean McConville was a spy in the eyes of the IRA which is a bit different to 'having contact with' wouldn't you say?

I don't see how you can say that when raping your own daughter (Liam Adams) and abusing your step-daughter (Briege "Meehan") were stomached thanks to political loyalties.

I disagree with you on this, and I really am not bothered going over that case and the way it too was also used politically by some, for the same purposes as this latest case has been used by some politically.
It has a thread of it's own.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Jean McConville was a spy in the eyes of the IRA which is a bit different to 'having contact with' wouldn't you say?.

She wasn't the only person disappeared for going to the police or the Army. Everyone knew what would happen.

Pretending otherwise does you no justice.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I disagree with you on this, and I really am not bothered going over that case and the way it too was also used politically by some, for the same purposes as this latest case has been used by some politically.
It has a thread of it's own.

Yeah, funny that, how anyone politically connected with the SF/IRA elite doesn't get shot for child sexual abuse and then that allows you to say twenty years later that raising it means it is being used politically. Convenient, lame and despicable.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

She wasn't the only person disappeared for going to the police or the Army. Everyone knew what would happen.

Pretending otherwise does you no justice.

Yeh people where shot all the time for going to the RUC on civil matters. :rolleyes: Are you sure you lived through the conflict and didn't get all you know about it from the Daily Mail or Sindo?

beeno67

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh people where shot all the time for going to the RUC on civil matters. :rolleyes: Are you sure you lived through the conflict and didn't get all you know about it from the Daily Mail or Sindo?

Would you call accusing a member of the IRA if rape as a "civil matter"?
Do you think the IRA would have?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh people where shot all the time for going to the RUC on civil matters. :rolleyes: Are you sure you lived through the conflict and didn't get all you know about it from the Daily Mail or Sindo?

Being raped by a senior IRA man is not a civil matter.

It is silly and ridiculous to pretend that because it is ok to go the police station to get your passport form signed or buy your dog licence or some other innocuous triviality, that you can just waltz in and report you were raped by a senior IRA man responsible for the local innovative community justice system and expect that the IRA will think that is OK.

People were shot, kneecapped or beaten for less, much less. Look how many of them there were.

http://www.economist.com/node/184247

326 in one year alone.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/victims-of-punishment-beatings-only-14-years-old-26244023.html

It is not something people like me down south were much aware of during the SF/IRA terrorist campaign but it seems the abuse of children by IRA members wasn't only sexual in nature.

alias no.9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Without evidence to show that Adams was advising anybody DO NOT GO TO THE RUC'
your point is moot. The simple fact is that nationalist people went to and dealt with the RUC for a whole ranges of things not considered 'political'. You simply could not function as an ordinary person without dealing with them in some capacity throughout the conflict.



The PSNI politicised that incident early on, so that context must be considered. There is nothing political in a rape, so it is entirely credible that somebody who thought that it was beyond the capabilities of what SF could deal with, would advise somebody to either go to social services or the police.

You'll find that the testimony of Maria Cahill is in fact evidence. Do you dispute it?

Godge

alias no.9 wrote: »

You'll find that the testimony of Maria Cahill is in fact evidence. Do you dispute it?

It is not only Mairia Cahill, it is Anthony McIntyre, it is Foyle women's Aid. they all repeat that you couldn't go to the RUC with a rape allegation about a senior IRA man.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

It is not only Mairia Cahill, it is Anthony McIntyre, it is Foyle women's Aid. they all repeat that you couldn't go to the RUC with a rape allegation about a senior IRA man.

But whatever you do, don't blame the RUC for that, eh?

alias no.9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But whatever you do, don't blame the RUC for that, eh?

Classic whataboutary. Do you dispute Maria Cahill's testimony?

Dan_Solo

alias no.9 wrote: »

Classic whataboutary. Do you dispute Maria Cahill's testimony?

Oh dear.
If the alleged uselessness of the RUC is "whataboutery" it's a damn crying shame your mate Godge brought it up then isn't it?
Again, strangely enough there was no savaging by a dead sheep when your mate did this... how curious.

alias no.9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh dear.
If the alleged uselessness of the RUC is "whataboutery" it's a damn crying shame your mate Godge brought it up then isn't it?
Again, strangely enough there was no savaging by a dead sheep when your mate did this... how curious.

So you accept her testimony then?

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But whatever you do, don't blame the RUC for that, eh?

Sure, the RUC need to shoulder some of the blame. Will you accept that the IRA are also to blame?

Happyman42

alias no.9 wrote: »

So you accept her testimony then?

In as much as her testimony affects SF and Gerry Adams the testimony is very much not accepted by both of them. Where have you been the last couple of days.

alias no.9

Happyman42 wrote: »

In as much as her testimony affects SF and Gerry Adams the testimony is very much not accepted by both of them. Where have you been the last couple of days.

Do you accept her testimony?

Happyman42

alias no.9 wrote: »

Do you accept her testimony?

Not as it relates to SF and GA. Doesn't stack up for me so far.

Godge

alias no.9 wrote: »

Do you accept her testimony?

Happyman is saying she is a liar. So are numerous other posters, yet they don't have the cojones to actually state that. They hide behind semantics.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Happyman is saying she is a liar. So are numerous other posters, yet they don't have the cojones to actually state that. They hide behind semantics.

No Godge, calm down. I said I don't as yet accept her testimony. I need to see the irrefutable evidence she says she has about a SF cover-up.
That is all SF are answerable for here.

Esel

A bit late to the thread, but anyway... post #1000:

Just on the current topic:

I watched the BBC program, but was a bit distracted during the part where it said that she withdrew her evidence (and therefore the trial collapsed) when she learned that a particular person was going to give evidence for the defence. Can anyone elaborate on that?

Kangaroo etc. notwithstanding - it is a basic precept of justice that the accused is entitled to be confronted by their accuser. I doubt, however, that this was adhered to in every/most/even some IRA 'courts'.

Let us not forget who ran the Internal Security department for many years - John Joe and Scap. Punch and Judy. Enough said.

I would think it very likely that there are contemporaneous notes, and recordings, in existence of this and other 'trials' or 'enquiries'. There are probably copies too - some in dumps, others in the catalogued basement storage area of some apparently innocuous building offshore.

One does not have to eat the pudding to know what it tastes like.

The gentlemen will now retire to the smoking room, while the ladies are free to powder their noses.

Q: Does your dog bite?
A: No.
Q: Ouch! I thought you said your dog didn't bite?
A: That is not my dog.

Case closed.

alias no.9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not as it relates to SF and GA. Doesn't stack up for me so far.

So you're saying she's lying then?