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

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Given that they were the organisations involved, and made their own decisions, it's hard to see how else you would read it.

Her allegations are against named individuals.
Just a few of the questions I would like asked of Maria Cahill that our journalist class haven't gotten around to;

Why did she wait so long to bring these allegations to the police.
Why did she continue to seek help from members of the IRA up until at least 2005, if she had felt traumatised and threatened by that organisation.
And a suggestion for what they should be inquiring into. What was the real reason for the collapse of the court case?
Her stated reason - that a witness decided they where going to give evidence on behalf of the defendant and the solicitor issued statement on behalf of the 4 accused : that she declined to be cross examined on her testimony suggests there is an anomaly here, that warrants journalistic investigation.

What should be the journalistic priorities ( i.e. seeking the truth) are once again taking a back seat in order to satisfy a very transparent agenda. Compare and contrast the treatment of it in The Irish Times and the Independent. It is quite clear that one newspaper has a more sensationalist attitude than the other.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Compare and contrast the treatment of it in The Irish Times and the Independent. It is quite clear that one newspaper has a more sensationalist attitude than the other.

Indo more lowbrow than Irish Times shocker!

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What should be the journalistic priorities ( i.e. seeking the truth) are once again taking a back seat in order to satisfy a very transparent agenda. Compare and contrast the treatment of it in The Irish Times and the Independent. It is quite clear that one newspaper has a more sensationalist attitude than the other.

The Irish Times has been late to the party, two reasons for that, one, annoyance at missing the scoop of that story, and two, a few sympathetic "republican" columnists. However belatedly, they are seeing the woods for the trees.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-evangelical-zeal-and-appeal-of-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.1976166?page=1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ma%C3%ADria-cahill-unanswered-questions-1.1975905

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-presses-gerry-adams-over-abuse-claims-1.1976229

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/questions-for-gerry-adams-and-sinn-f%C3%A9in-to-answer-in-response-to-ma%C3%ADria-cahill-1.1970477

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/where-do-ma%C3%ADria-cahill-s-disclosures-leave-sinn-f%C3%A9in-north-and-south-1.1976162?page=2

"Revelations still to come cannot but seriously damage Sinn Féin’s long-term standing in the Republic."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fintan-o-toole-tough-questions-for-adams-on-child-protection-1.1970440

Fintan O'Toole goes to town on Gerry Adams.

RTE, BBC, Independent, Irish Times, only An Phoblacht left defending the SF/IRA child sex abuse scandal.

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

The Irish Times has been late to the party, two reasons for that, one, annoyance at missing the scoop of that story, and two, a few sympathetic "republican" columnists. However belatedly, they are seeing the woods for the trees.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-evangelical-zeal-and-appeal-of-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.1976166?page=1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ma%C3%ADria-cahill-unanswered-questions-1.1975905

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-presses-gerry-adams-over-abuse-claims-1.1976229

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/questions-for-gerry-adams-and-sinn-f%C3%A9in-to-answer-in-response-to-ma%C3%ADria-cahill-1.1970477

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/where-do-ma%C3%ADria-cahill-s-disclosures-leave-sinn-f%C3%A9in-north-and-south-1.1976162?page=2

"Revelations still to come cannot but seriously damage Sinn Féin’s long-term standing in the Republic."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fintan-o-toole-tough-questions-for-adams-on-child-protection-1.1970440

Fintan O'Toole goes to town on Gerry Adams.

RTE, BBC, Independent, Irish Times, only An Phoblacht left defending the SF/IRA child sex abuse scandal.

And nobody outside this banana republic has even the slightest interest in the smear politics tactics of FFail and FG and their pathetic supporters and media buddies.

IrishCentral has it right.
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/Get-Gerry-Adams-campaign-reaches-a-crescendo-in-Ireland.html

Fooled by a disso Godge.
The embarrassment must be killing you.

Godge

Fr. Ned wrote: »

And nobody outside this banana republic has even the slightest interest in the smear politics tactics of FFail and FG and their pathetic supporters and media buddies.

IrishCentral has it right.
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/Get-Gerry-Adams-campaign-reaches-a-crescendo-in-Ireland.html

Fooled by a disso Godge.
The embarrassment must be killing you.

Ah, yes, the delusional old man Niall O'Dowd. When he got to "Sinn Fein is in power in the North and may well be the majority party there in a decade", I laughed out loud, looked at who was writing the piece and realised it was adding nothing to the sum of knowledge on this subject.

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

Ah, yes, the delusional old man Niall O'Dowd. When he got to "Sinn Fein is in power in the North and may well be the majority party there in a decade", I laughed out loud, looked at who was writing the piece and realised it was adding nothing to the sum of knowledge on this subject.

He knows enough to see through you and your fellow travellers pathetic agenda though.
Your posts over the last week have been a disgrace even by your low standards.

RED L4 0TH

Godge wrote: »

Ah, yes, the delusional old man Niall O'Dowd

Complaining about posts supposedly laced with misogyny in another thread, but yet have no problem indulging in a bit of crude ageism if it suits you. Well done......

oscarBravo

Fr. Ned wrote: »

And nobody outside this banana republic has even the slightest interest in the smear politics tactics of FFail and FG and their pathetic supporters and media buddies.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/10/rape-allegations-ira-paramilitary-justice-201410268157783955.html

Godge

Fr. Ned wrote: »

He knows enough to see through you and your fellow travellers pathetic agenda though.
Your posts over the last week have been a disgrace even by your low standards.

Once again you have nothing to add to the debate except personal abuse.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Indo more lowbrow than Irish Times shocker!

No. the Indo tells lies, simple as. They routinely publish inflammatory material with nothing more than 'sources said, and 'it was claimed' as back-up. It also has a very biased editorial policy that a 5 day old cabbage could detect.
Here's some advise for you when you read something there, take yourself over to the Irish Times and if it isn't repeated there you can be sure it's bull****. Being proud of it's reputation it won't publish nonsense.
The Irish Times reporting of this is toatally at odds with the hysterical, sensationalist nonsense emanating from the indo.

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

And nobody outside this banana republic has even the slightest interest in the smear politics tactics of FFail and FG and their pathetic supporters

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/europe/sinn-fein-leader-is-accused-of-covering-up-rape-by-ira-member.html?_r=1

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No. the Indo tells lies, simple as. They routinely publish inflammatory material with nothing more than 'sources said, and 'it was claimed' as back-up. It also has a very biased editorial policy that a 5 day old cabbage could detect.
Here's some advise for you when you read something there, take yourself over to the Irish Times and if it isn't repeated there you can be sure it's bull****. Being proud of it's reputation it won't publish nonsense.
The Irish Times reporting of this is toatally at odds with the hysterical, sensationalist nonsense emanating from the indo.

Except for the facts of the matter, of course - where there's the expected cohesion of reporting between the two papers. Ignore the editorials - how does this look for SF? Denis O'Brien didn't land them in this mess - it's entirely one of their own making.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Except for the facts of the matter, of course - where there's the expected cohesion of reporting between the two papers. Ignore the editorials - how does this look for SF? Denis O'Brien didn't land them in this mess - it's entirely one of their own making.

The Indo and facts....good one!

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Indo and facts....good one!

So, your position is that the Indo group papers are entirely fact-free? Is that supposed to be a credible argument, or could it be that you'd rather not engage with the actual culpable parties in this affair being newsworthy enough for any calibre of newspaper?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

So, your position is that the Indo group papers are entirely fact-free? Is that supposed to be a credible argument, or could it be that you'd rather not engage with the actual culpable parties in this affair being newsworthy enough for any calibre of newspaper?

Are you saying everything they print is free from influence? Are you saying they don't have a long time agenda when it comes to SF?
Answer carefully, your credibility is at stake here. I have listened to many unsympathetic to SF, analysts say it in the last week alone, never mind the last 30 years.

I have said on the thread that I will pass judgement on Adams if and when any of the allegations are proven.
So far there isn't a jot of proof here.
What there is plenty of proof of, is a concerted effort by FG and FF to politicise an alleged rape and the subsequent allegations.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying everything they print is free from influence? Are you saying they don't have a long time agenda when it comes to SF?

I'm saying that there are unambiguous facts reported in those newspapers - alongside editorialisation. Obviously the Indo has never been a friend of SF's - it doesn't pretend otherwise - as is it's right.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Answer carefully, your credibility is at stake here.

It is? Gosh! The pressure!

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have listened to many unsympathetic to SF, analysts say it in the last week alone, never mind the last 30 years.

Say what?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have said on the thread that I will pass judgement on Adams if and when any of the allegations are proven.

People will make up their own minds, they don't need a court to guide them in this. Adams is a long-term liar, and it's unlikely his litany of lies will ever be exposed in a courtroom, but that really doesn't make him any less of a liar.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So far there isn't a jot of proof here.

Proof of what? Adams has hoisted himself with his own petard. Unless he suddenly lost his marbles, people will form their opinion on Cahill's and Adams' respective narratives.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What there is plenty of proof of, is a concerted effort by FG and FF to politicise an alleged rape and the subsequent allegations.

When did this rape become an 'alleged' one. No-one disputes the rape happened. As to other parties taking political advantage of SF's failings - do you honestly think SF would do any different if the tables were turned? So - no, no-one is entitled to shed tears for SF in that regard.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm saying that there are unambiguous facts reported in those newspapers - alongside editorialisation. Obviously the Indo has never been a friend of SF's - it doesn't pretend otherwise - as is it's right.

Thank you...so on the subject of allegations(where there are no proven 'facts') against SF, it is likely to be undependable.

People will make up their own minds, they don't need a court to guide them in this.


Proof of what? Adams has hoisted himself with his own petard. Unless he suddenly lost his marbles, people will form their opinion on Cahill's and Adams' respective narratives.


When did this rape become an 'alleged' one. No-one disputes the rape happened. As to other parties taking political advantage of SF's failings - do you honestly think SF would do any different if the tables were turned? So - no, no-one is entitled to shed tears for SF in that regard.

It is quite possible to believe that she was raped without requiring proof, however when she or others puts a name out there of an alleged attacker then ordinary human rights, requires that it be proven. A man has been deprived of his good name by a media witch hunt for another man and political football from 2 parties intent on beating SF at any cost.

And yes, I do think FG and FF have crossed the Rubicon on this. Timmy Dooley being the latest to disgrace himself on the week in politics with shrill and hysterical barracking rather than listen.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thank you...so on the subject of allegations(where there are no proven 'facts') against SF, it is likely to be undependable.

All we have are the facts of the allegations and statements. From which we can form conclusions. As I said, on the basis of these, there's the expected degree of crossover in how the story has been factually reported by all the papers.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is quite possible to believe that she was raped without requiring proof, however when she or others puts a name out there of an alleged attacker then ordinary human rights, requires that it be proven.

Human rights? Care to refer to the specific right you're referring to?

Happyman42 wrote: »

A man has been deprived of his good name by a media witch hunt for another man and political football from 2 parties intent on beating SF at any cost.

A rapist has been exposed. Not by a media witch hunt, but by his victim. If he has a problem with this, he can always sue for libel or slander.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And yes, I do think FG and FF have crossed the Rubicon on this. Timmy Dooley being the latest to disgrace himself on the week in politics with shrill and hysterical barracking rather than listen.

Ymmv.

Howjoe1

Everybody Knows....


the only confused person is deluded Gerry;)

Fr. Ned

Godge wrote: »

Once again you have nothing to add to the debate except personal abuse.

And a couple of facts about your hero.;)



BTW, I put enough examples of your personal abuse towards me on the other thread.
Do you want me to post more? There's a lot of it there.
Crying about me pointing out how disgraceful your 'kangaroo court' type posts over the last week were doesn't really wash.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

All we have are the facts of the allegations and statements. From which we can form conclusions. As I said, on the basis of these, there's the expected degree of crossover in how the story has been factually reported by all the papers.

The Independent frequently adds to the 'facts'. A simple read of the relevant articles will show you that.
The Irish Times will use 'alleged' in it's reportage, where something is unproven. That is responsible journalism. The Indo isn't so careful.

Human rights? Care to refer to the specific right you're referring to?

Article 10 should cover it.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

alastair wrote:

A rapist has been exposed. Not by a media witch hunt, but by his victim. If he has a problem with this, he can always sue for libel or slander.

An alleged rapist has been exposed by using elements of the media that are not interested in a fair and impartial trial.
As you say yourself;

. Obviously the Indo has never been a friend of SF's - it doesn't pretend otherwise

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying everything they print is free from influence? Are you saying they don't have a long time agenda when it comes to SF?
Answer carefully, your credibility is at stake here. I have listened to many unsympathetic to SF, analysts say it in the last week alone, never mind the last 30 years.

I have said on the thread that I will pass judgement on Adams if and when any of the allegations are proven.
So far there isn't a jot of proof here.
What there is plenty of proof of, is a concerted effort by FG and FF to politicise an alleged rape and the subsequent allegations.

The allegation that Gerry Adams lies is proven.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fintan-o-toole-tough-questions-for-adams-on-child-protection-1.1970440

Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times puts it clearly, factually and unambiguously.

Are you going to accept that Gerry Adams lied in the TV documentary? He wasn't convicted of perjury after the court case so if told the truth in court, he lied in the documentary.

Once we have established that you are prepared to accept the proof that Gerry Adams lied, we can move on to the other allegations.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Independent frequently adds to the 'facts'. A simple read of the relevant articles will show you that.
The Irish Times will use 'alleged' in it's reportage, where something is unproven. That is responsible journalism. The Indo isn't so careful.

By 'adding to the facts', you mean editorialising? This is something unfamiliar to you? The Irish Times don't bother with 'alleged' in the case of Jimmy Saville - who has never been convicted of any crime. So are they irresponsible journalists in that regard, or is it in fact purely a matter of not exposing the paper to litigation?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Article 10 should cover it.

Not really. That option is open to Martin Morris. No-one is denying that right to him.

Happyman42 wrote: »

An alleged rapist has been exposed by using elements of the media that are not interested in a fair and impartial trial.
As you say yourself;

Nope - a rapist has been exposed by their victim. That's the crux of the matter.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

By 'adding to the facts', you mean editorialising? This is something unfamiliar to you? The Irish Times don't bother with 'alleged' in the case of Jimmy Saville - who has never been convicted of any crime. So are they irresponsible journalists in that regard, or is it in fact purely a matter of not exposing the paper to litigation?

No I don't mean editorialising, I mean sensationalist reporting with little to back it up.

Not really. That option is open to Martin Morris. No-one is denying that right to him.

Maria Cahill did not give the alleged rapist his oppurtunity to defend himself and decided instead to vilify him in the press.

Nope - a rapist has been exposed by their victim. That's the crux of the matter.

At the end of the day, somebody has made an untested allegation and everybody from Enda to the Sindo has taken that to be a fact.
You want to try doing that here or anywhere else about somebody and see what happens?
None of us has any idea how the alleged rapist will respond.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I don't mean editorialising, I mean sensationalist reporting with little to back it up.

Subjective considerations of what constitutes sensationalism aside, you're talking about editorialising. All newspapers do it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maria Cahill did not give the alleged rapist his oppurtunity to defend himself and decided instead to vilify him in the press.

How exactly is she stopping him from going to court on a libel charge? She isn't.

Happyman42 wrote: »

At the end of the day, somebody has made an untested allegation and everybody from Enda to the Sindo has taken that to be a fact.
You want to try doing that here or anywhere else about somebody and see what happens?
None of us has any idea how the alleged rapist will respond.

Everybody from Enda, to the Sindo, to SF, to any neutral observer. Morris has been named as the rapist all over, just as Adams has been named as an Ex-IRA member all over, because there's credible cause to identify them as such.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Subjective considerations of what constitutes sensationalism aside, you're talking about editorialising. All newspapers do it.

The blind eyes that can be turned when it suits. :rolleyes:

How exactly is she stopping him from going to court on a libel charge? She isn't.

One way or another she took a decision that meant he didn't get his chance in a court of law to defend her charge against him and chose instead the media circus route. That could be looked on as sinister in the extreme.

Everybody from Enda, to the Sindo, to SF, to any neutral observer. Morris has been named as the rapist all over, just as Adams has been named as an Ex-IRA member all over, because there's credible cause to identify them as such.

And you are justifying that method which tells it's own story about agendas here.
I am delighted that SF as a party will not capitulate to this agenda laden method just to buy votes.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The blind eyes that can be turned when it suits. :rolleyes:

I'm not blind to editorialising. I'm pointing out that it's the norm for newspapers to do so. Where am I supposed to be turning a blind eye? I'm just intrigued that you've failed to notice this standard practice of newspapers.

Happyman42 wrote: »

One way or another she took a decision that meant he didn't get his chance in a court of law to defend her charge against him and chose instead the media circus route. That could be looked on as sinister in the extreme.

If you wish. But she's certainly not in a position to stop him clearing his name in court, so where is the problem, and what 'human right' is she impeding in exposing her rapist?

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you are justifying that method which tells it's own story about agendas here.
I am delighted that SF as a party will not capitulate to this agenda laden method just to buy votes.

Ah - the 'agenda'. Best of luck with that. People will judge the merits of Cahill's issues for themselves. And SF have no-one to blame for that, but themselves.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

If you wish. But she's certainly not in a position to stop him clearing his name in court, so where is the problem, and what 'human right' is she impeding in exposing her rapist?

His right to his good name is arguably being infringed by Mairia Cahill's actions. However, he has the right to vindicate his good name by suing her in court under defamation, slander and common law actions. Until he does so, under Happyman's view of the world, she should be considered innocent until proven guilty of infringing his human rights. By the logic that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Happyman has to maintain the dichotomy of believing everything Mairia Cahill says (nobody has proved she is lying), believing most of what Gerry Adams says about Mairia Cahill (he is a proven liar on some of what he said and on Liam Adams but nobody have proved he is lying on the rest), what the rapist and the kangaroo court say (nobody has proved they are lying). It is an impossible burden for him to bear given his principles.

The rest of us use common sense and reason to inform judgment on who is telling porkies and where the truth lies.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

His right to his good name is arguably being infringed by Mairia Cahill's actions. However, he has the right to vindicate his good name by suing her in court under defamation, slander and common law actions. Until he does so, under Happyman's view of the world, she should be considered innocent until proven guilty of infringing his human rights. By the logic that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Happyman has to maintain the dichotomy of believing everything Mairia Cahill says (nobody has proved she is lying), believing most of what Gerry Adams says about Mairia Cahill (he is a proven liar on some of what he said and on Liam Adams but nobody have proved he is lying on the rest), what the rapist and the kangaroo court say (nobody has proved they are lying). It is an impossible burden for him to bear given his principles.

The rest of us use common sense and reason to inform judgment on who is telling porkies and where the truth lies.

Regardless of whether he chooses to sue or not, it is a given that she has named somebody as a rapist, without that claim being tested in a court of law, which she had the opportunity to do, but declined.
It was her and her alone who short circuited this man's right to defend himself. And that is wrong even if it does turn out he is guilty.
Would you like it if somebody did it to you, is the simple test.

Fr. Ned

Happyman42 wrote: »

Regardless of whether he chooses to sue or not, it is a given that she has named somebody as a rapist, without that claim being tested in a court of law, which she had the opportunity to do, but declined.
It was her and her alone who short circuited this man's right to defend himself. And that is wrong even if it does turn out he is guilty.
Would you like it if somebody did it to you, is the simple test.

Why don't the posters who took Cahill's word as gospel explain to us why she pulled out of her alleged rape case?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you like it if somebody did it to you, is the simple test.

That's certainly a simple test, but not one that really matters one way or another. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you were her rapist either. It doesn't speak to legitimacy of her claim, nor to the absence of a legal route for him to clear his name, should he choose to go that route.

Fr. Ned

What's the relationship between Mairia Cahill and Eilis O'Hanlon of the infamously anti-Adams/Sinn Fein Sunday 'Independent'?
(Independent?? ROTFL)

Fr. Ned

Who organised all the press briefings, meetings with TD's, party leaders and indeed the taoiseach of this country?

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

What's the relationship between Mairia Cahill and Eilis O'Hanlon of the infamously anti-Adams/Sinn Fein Sunday 'Independent'?
(Independent?? ROTFL)

Keep trying the whataboutery Ned. It's working a storm!

Fr. Ned

Can anyone explain why no media outlet has reported on Mairia Cahill's links with dissidents or her position as secretary of the high council (Ard Chomhairle) the RNU?
A group who doesn't recognisr the Belfast agreement, the peace process, the PSNI, the Gardai or the laws of this country.

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Who organised all the press briefings, meetings with TD's, party leaders and indeed the taoiseach of this country?

I'm on the edge of my seat to discover how the Indo and 'he who must not be named' (heh - such nonsense) were required to facilitate a meeting between Cahill and anyone. Cahill has no difficulty in getting the ear of anyone in media or politics - for obvious reasons (SF painting themselves into such damaging territory).

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Keep trying the whataboutery Ned. It's working a storm!

Not wanting to know the answers to what Ned posted illuminates murky agendas even further.
Questions about motivation are entirely relevant when dealing with unproven allegations.

Fr. Ned

All questions that need to be answered, but called 'whataboutery' on here by posters with obvious agenda's.
Must be terrible to have been had and then not have the good grace or manners to admit to it.
'Scarlet for ya's' as the saying goes.

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Can anyone explain why no media outlet has reported on Mairia Cahill's links with dissidents or her position as secretary of the high council (Ard Chomhairle) the RNU?
A group who doesn't recognisr the Belfast agreement, the peace process, the PSNI, the Gardai or the laws of this country.

Because no-one cares. Her politics were clear from the start.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not wanting to know the answers to what Ned posted illuminates murky agendas even further.
Questions about motivation are entirely relevant when dealing with unproven allegations.

Now, what possible motivation could drive the rape victim, let down by a political organisation, culpable in dumping sex offenders into unknowing communities? Quite a mystery.

Fr. Ned

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not wanting to know the answers to what Ned posted illuminates murky agendas even further.
Questions about motivation are entirely relevant when dealing with unproven allegations.

Whataboutery is all these people have now.
Baseless accusations against people who have had their names cleared in a court of law.
People who harp on about law and order and the democratic process spending weeks now on here subverting that very process.
Who are the real subversives in this country?

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Whataboutery is all these people have now.
Baseless accusations against people who have had their names cleared in a court of law.
People who harp on about law and order and the democratic process spending weeks now on here subverting that very process.

That's quite a turnabout for you Ned. You now don't believe she was raped? Perhaps you should let SF know this startling news?

Fr. Ned

The woman's politics have never once been mentioned by the sindo or any of the Sinn Fein haters on these threads.

Fr. Ned

Nordies with an agenda.
Have we not had enough of these people, their twisted view of things and their yearning for the dark days?

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The woman's politics have never once been mentioned by the sindo or any of the Sinn Fein haters on these threads.

Because they're irrelevant. She had exactly the same political beliefs in 2000 - when her issues with SF stem from. Incidentally, political beliefs expounded by SF also.

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Nordies with an agenda.

Adams?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Because they're irrelevant. She had exactly the same political beliefs in 2000 - when her issues with SF stem from. Incidentally, political beliefs expounded by SF also.

Which begs yet another question...why go the route of a media circus which will probably ensure her alleged attacker and interrogators go free, for all time.
The court route was not closed to her, and her complaint to the ombudsman was not adjudicated on, yet she choose this route...why?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which begs yet another question...why go the route of a media circus which will probably ensure her alleged attacker and interrogators go free, for all time.
The court route was not closed to her, and her complaint to the ombudsman was not adjudicated on, yet she choose this route...why?

Perhaps you need to re-acquaint yourself with the sequence of events she laid out in Spotlight?

Fr. Ned

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which begs yet another question...why go the route of a media circus which will probably ensure her alleged attacker and interrogators go free, for all time.
The court route was not closed to her, and her complaint to the ombudsman was not adjudicated on, yet she choose this route...why?

The fact that any trial of either her alleged attacker or her alleged interrogators is now doomed to failure would suggest there is ulterior motives ok.
It'll all come out eventually, the backtracking will be spectacular.

alastair

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The fact that any trial of either her alleged attacker or her alleged interrogators is now doomed to failure would suggest there is ulterior motives ok.
It'll all come out eventually, the backtracking will be spectacular.

Hang on there Ned. A moment ago you were telling us that her claims were baseless and that the man had been cleared in a court of law? Why would she go to court if that were the case?