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

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 3:05pm

Strange bedfellows for FG and FF.
Secretary for an hour?
So we have a proven member (her own admission) of a dissident group making allegations about the activities of an unproven, alleged member of a defunct group and nobody, neither the media or FG or FF are asking her any questions at all.
I expect Enda and Michael to be the first to go quiet on all this, starting this week.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Mairia-Cahills-link-to-dissident-IRA-group-is-revealed-by-newspaper.html#

MouseTail · 27-10-2014 3:35pm

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.

Not true. The Mail did a big article on it last week.

Fr. Ned · 27-10-2014 3:37pm

MouseTail wrote: »

Not true. The Mail did a big article on it last week.

Fair enough, I didn't see it.

MouseTail · 27-10-2014 3:44pm

Any thoughts on the fragrant pen1s tweet? Do you think that is appropriate, or did you not see that either?

alastair · 27-10-2014 3:46pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

I expect Enda and Michael to be the first to go quiet on all this, starting this week.

I expect otherwise - and why you'd believe otherwise is a bit of a riddle. This isn't anything to do with Cahill's politics - it's about events that happened under SF's watch, when she was a card-carrying member of SF, and when they all shared a common political perspective. No-one cares about this - SF included.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 3:57pm

alastair wrote: »

I expect otherwise - and why you'd believe otherwise is a bit of a riddle. This isn't anything to do with Cahill's politics - it's about events that happened under SF's watch, when she was a card-carrying member of SF, and when they all shared a common political perspective. No-one cares about this - SF included.

And Sinn Fein have consistently denied a covering-up abuse. And I can't see anybody, including Maria Cahill producing proof that they did.
Enda and Michael should not have been involved before a conviction here.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 3:57pm

MouseTail wrote: »

Any thoughts on the fragrant pen1s tweet? Do you think that is appropriate, or did you not see that either?

What are you on about?

alastair · 27-10-2014 3:59pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

And Sinn Fein have consistently denied a covering-up abuse. And I can't see anybody, including Maria Cahill producing proof that they did.
Enda and Michael should not have been involved before a conviction here.

I think they're more than able to determine what they should, and shouldn't get involved in. And people will determine for themselves what SF were, or were not covering up - on the basis of their own contradictory statements and back-pedalling, it's not looking too good for them so far.

Tragedy · 27-10-2014 4:00pm

Didn't see this posted here:

It is very strange to see myself being described as a dissident republican, when I would not even consider myself a republican anymore.

The Irish Mail On Sunday story correctly states that I was, involved with a group going by the name “Republican Network for Unity”. The story however, was inaccurate and slanted. I was indeed the National Secretary of RNU – for a period of a few hours in 2010, until I resigned the position. This can be confirmed by the former chair, Danny Mc Brearty. I did continue to attend a series of meetings for a period of a few months. I was opposed to “outside influences”, in what was a perfectly legal pressure group, and was extremely vocal in this regard. Indeed, this was the reason that I left. I am on record consistently as being opposed to illegal armed actions. I am taking robust legal action against the people who have printed or posted this information in relation to me – it is inaccurate, and based on dubious information at worst, and at best, a mistake on a website.

I have never denied my involvement, even though I have long moved on from involvement in any political activism. I did not hide it from the BBC Spotlight makers, and have been open and upfront about all of my experiences in life.

There was nothing illegal about RNU. It was not involved in any armed action. It was a long time after I left the group, that they were publicly associated with supporting one particular grouping. My opposition to violence has been consistent throughout my life, even, though some people might find this strange, when I was in Sinn Fein.

For Sinn Fein to attempt to use this story now to smear me as some sort of dangerous dissident is particularly objectionable considering that many of them were long standing supporters of the Provisional IRA campaign which killed most of those who died as a result of the Troubles. Gerry Adams was himself a senior leader of the IRA, and again praised the organisation very strongly in his speech in Belfast at the weekend.

I, by contrast with Mr Adams, have never been a member of any illegal organisation, and I do not support violence in any way, shape or form.

To say that I am opposed to the police in Northern Ireland is equally ridiculous. I completely support the rule of law and order, North and South. The proof of this is that I made criminal complaints in 2007, and 2009 in relation to two matters concerning me. I also acted to call police in my role as a community worker in Belfast – and crucially, I attended a meeting with a solicitor and a barrister in 2009 to give information in relation to a suspected republican money laundering operation in West Belfast. I have continued to work alongside them in matters of community policing. I did not, as has been suggested by Sinn Fein, leave the party over their stance on policing. I left the party as a card carrying member in 2001. I did work on three by elections in years afterwards as a favour to a friend who was within the organisation. I continued to sit with Sinn Fein members – and with members of other political parties on various community organisations.

I have stated repeatedly that I fully respect anyone’s right to have a political opinion. I have met every single political party on this island (with the exception of Sinn Fein) in relation to the cover up of sex abuse by Sinn Fein, and my experiences. I have interacted with them all, and also have friends from all walks of life. I have conducted myself with dignity, and those parties have all put politics aside in order to try and deal with the wider concerning issue of child protection. This is the way it should be.

I have a clear, unblemished criminal record. I have never been involved in violence, of any sort. In fact, I campaigned alongside IRA victim Ann Travers to bring in the SPAD legislation in the Northern Assembly, which ensures that no one with a criminal record can hold a job advising any member of Government. I am proud of my involvement in that campaign.

I don’t however support bad policing – I suspect nobody does, and I feel badly let down by the criminal justice system in relation to my recent court cases. That does not change my stance however – all criminal activity should be reported to the police. Full stop.
Indeed, the weeks that I was involved with RNU actually coincided with the weeks between my first interview with Suzanne Breen in the Sunday Tribune and the time I finally found the courage to report what had happened to the PSNI.

I believe that this story has been deliberately circulated by people whose only desire is to draw attention away from the fact that, when IRA/SF learned that I had been raped by a senior republican volunteer, they forced me into a brutal investigation against my will before engaging in a systematic cover up to silence me and members of my family.

Sinn Fein and those out to defend their handling of my case - and the many other cases involving the moving around of sex offenders to safe houses in the Republic and elsewhere to abuse again - are trying to paint me as some sort of dangerous Dissident with a capital D who supports criminal organisations such as Real IRA and Continuity IRA in order to tarnish my credibility. I reject all such groups root and branch and will swiftly take legal action should anyone wishing to allege or imply that I have any support for violence. I absolutely do not.

I refer to a piece that I wrote some time ago, and which is available online, in which I heavily criticised armed dissident groups. In it I wrote, “It’s time for militant dissident republicans to wake up. They claim to be fighting for a United Ireland, yet they are the diehards, the ones who refuse to accept that support for violence in whatever name, is a thing of the past. People just want to live their lives, and God knows its hard enough in some parts of West Belfast to do so. They don’t want to be put at risk by a few maniacs who care more about getting a “hit”, than about improving the quality of life of those around them. People just want to live. Let them.”

I would not, nor could not lend my support to any illegal organisation. It is not relevant to my own sexual abuse, nor my forced investigation into that abuse – nor my forced confrontation by the IRA into that either.

It is wrong, I have always been consistent in matters of child abuse and child protection- no person or organisation should internally investigate cases of abuse. The proper agency for doing that is the police. People should bring forward whatever information they have.#

Likewise, my background in community work, or as a trainee counsellor, a person who worked with adults with learning disabilities, or any other professional job I have held has no bearing on what happened to me either.

Simply. I was abused. An illegal internal investigation was conducted into that abuse. I was forced to attend a confrontation by the IRA as a traumatised 18 year old in a room with my rapist.

That is the issue. I raised it very publicly, at great personal cost to myself. I am now homeless and in debt. Nothing about this has brought me any personal benefit. I have been attacked for doing so and have made a complaint to the Gardai. All manner of false rumour and innuendo and completely ludicrous allegations, including the fact that I supposedly had an affair with a male dissident while I was heavily pregnant (not true), enticed my rapist (not true), and had an affair with a female victim of the IRA (not true) have been peddled about. All of this is designed to increase pressure on me to go away and stop publicly raising the issue of child abuse.

It wont work. It is very distressing at times, and frustrating, moreso for my family - but I know that the people who matter know the truth. And if someone wants to peddle libellous information about me, then there is little I can do to stop it being written - but I most certainly will pursue it through my solicitor, and the police.

It says more about the motivation of the peddlers of inaccurate and in most cases completely untruthful information, than it does about me.

And I won’t be silenced because of it.

Finally, I want to again thank the Irish people for the support which has helped to sustain me against the ongoing organised internet smear campaign against me conducted by Sinn Fein supporters - and I call on that party to condemn this campaign.

See the underlined bit for an explanation of Fr Ned's posts today.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 4:04pm

alastair wrote: »

I think they're more than able to determine what they should, and shouldn't get involved in.

Their track records would suggest otherwise.

And people will determine for themselves what SF were, or were not covering up - on the basis of their own contradictory statements and back-pedalling, it's not looking too good for them so far.

Yes they will as they did before with these cyclical get Gerry allegations. If only Maria had stated her case and left it at that, she would now be better off.
Her strident calls for Adams to be the biggest villain of the piece will be her un-doing I think.

alastair · 27-10-2014 4:10pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Their track records would suggest otherwise.

Ohh - what a zinger! What would Gerry Adams' personal track record with cover-ups of sex offenders suggest to you then?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes they will as they did before with these cyclical get Gerry allegations. If only Maria had stated her case and left it at that, she would now be better off.
Her strident calls for Adams to be the biggest villain of the piece will be her un-doing I think.

Gerry attracts cyclical allegations, because he's unfortunate enough to have the skeletons in the cupboard to point to. Kind of hard to blame anyone, but himself for that. It's not for you or I to tell Cahill what she would be better off doing. She's the one who's been raped and shafted by her party - so I'm pretty sure she's given the matter more thought than either of us. Her 'undoing'? Do tell.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 4:12pm

I believe that this story has been deliberately circulated by people whose only desire is to draw attention away from the fact that, when IRA/SF learned that I had been raped by a senior republican volunteer, they forced me into a brutal investigation against my will before engaging in a systematic cover up to silence me and members of my family.

She, by not recognising the police, was involved in covering up her abuse herself. Why would the IRA or SF have anything to worry about from somebody who wouldn't go to the police and give evidence?

I could possibly believe IRA intimidation was an issue whenever she had her Paulian conversion to recognising law and order. Even in 2010 she was a member of a group who refused to recognise them as legitimate.
Her story is all over the shop at this stage.

Tragedy · 27-10-2014 4:17pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

She, by not recognising the police, was involved in covering up her abuse herself. Why would the IRA or SF have anything to worry about from somebody who wouldn't go to the police and give evidence?

I could possibly believe IRA intimidation was an issue whenever she had her Paulian conversion to recognising law and order. Even in 2010 she was a member of a group who refused to recognise them as legitimate.
Her story is all over the shop at this stage.

Nothing in your posts bears any relation to any public information or facts.

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-10-2014 4:21pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

She, by not recognising the police, was involved in covering up her abuse herself. Why would the IRA or SF have anything to worry about from somebody who wouldn't go to the police and give evidence?

I could possibly believe IRA intimidation was an issue whenever she had her Paulian conversion to recognising law and order. Even in 2010 she was a member of a group who refused to recognise them as legitimate.
Her story is all over the shop at this stage.

For someone who claims not to do victim blaming you sure do blame the victim a LOT!

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 4:27pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

For someone who claims not to do victim blaming you sure do blame the victim a LOT!

Wanting questions asked of her is not victim bashing. And I am not questioning her claim to have been raped. Merely pointing out that when she 'names' somebody then proof has to be supplied because somebody's good name and right to a defence is being thrashed.
The frequent SF bashers don't have a problem with that, as per usual.

Try alleging something about the activity of the British and it's a different story though...that HAS to be proved. Joke politics as per usual.

alastair · 27-10-2014 4:31pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wanting questions asked of her is not victim bashing. And I am not questioning her claim to have been raped. Merely pointing out that when she 'names' somebody then proof has to be supplied because somebody's good name and right to a defence is being thrashed.

His right to a defence is completely unhindered.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The frequent SF bashers don't have a problem with that, as per usual.

Because it's a claim that has no merit.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try alleging something about the activity of the British and it's a different story though...that HAS to be proved. Joke politics as per usual.

Feel free to move on, if you don't like it.

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-10-2014 4:42pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wanting questions asked of her is not victim bashing. And I am not questioning her claim to have been raped. Merely pointing out that when she 'names' somebody then proof has to be supplied because somebody's good name and right to a defence is being thrashed.
The frequent SF bashers don't have a problem with that, as per usual.

Try alleging something about the activity of the British and it's a different story though...that HAS to be proved. Joke politics as per usual.

If you were accused of rape would you just say nothing and hope the accusations went away or would you have your accuser in court for defamation/slander? His silence on the accusations of rape against him speaks volumes imo.

Phoebas · 27-10-2014 4:52pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

She, by not recognising the police, was involved in covering up her abuse herself.

You are really plumbing the depths of victim blaming by suggesting that rape victims who for whatever reason don't report their own rapes are covering up abuse.

Let's remember what she actually said about reporting her rape to the RUC: she was ordered by the IRA not to tell anyone, not even her parents. And when she was planning to go to the RUC, she said the IRA threatened to let her rapist 'loose' on her.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 4:53pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you were accused of rape would you just say nothing and hope the accusations went away or would you have your accuser in court for defamation/slander? His silence on the accusations of rape against him speaks volumes imo.

Ah here we go with this man now. If I don't sue therefore I am guilty?

MouseTail · 27-10-2014 5:09pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What are you on about?

Happyman, if you are setting yourself up as a defender, you need to know what and who you are defending.
Gerry Adams tweeted, whilst in the middle of a child abuse scandal about fragrant penis1s.
I dont know what he meant either, but its creepy as hell.

Fr. Ned · 27-10-2014 5:18pm

Tragedy wrote: »

Didn't see this posted here:

See the underlined bit for an explanation of Fr Ned's posts today.

Was she or was she not a member of the RNU?

Fr. Ned · 27-10-2014 5:19pm

MouseTail wrote: »

Happyman, if you are setting yourself up as a defender, you need to know what and who you are defending.
Gerry Adams tweeted, whilst in the middle of a child abuse scandal about fragrant penis1s.
I dont know what he meant either, but its creepy as hell.

Do you know who Michael Harding is?

alastair · 27-10-2014 5:24pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Was she or was she not a member of the RNU?

Basic comprehension alert!

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 5:24pm

MouseTail wrote: »

Happyman, if you are setting yourself up as a defender, you need to know what and who you are defending.
Gerry Adams tweeted, whilst in the middle of a child abuse scandal about fragrant penis1s.
I dont know what he meant either, but its creepy as hell.

He quoted a piece by Michael Harding in relation to something else entirely.
Are you an adolescent giggling because somebody mentioned penis? :rolleyes:

MouseTail · 27-10-2014 5:35pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

He quoted a piece by Michael Harding in relation to something else entirely.
Are you an adolescent giggling because somebody mentioned penis? :rolleyes:

What was it in relation to, do you think it was appropriate??

yipeeeee · 27-10-2014 5:37pm

Taking this back to the original op.

Any sort of evidence would do, but that seems unlikely.

Happyman42 · 27-10-2014 5:42pm

MouseTail wrote: »

What was it in relation to, do you think it was appropriate??

To a joke about his own 'kip'. Gerry is tweeting away on many subjects, Michael Harding is a regular contributor to Irish Times (I think). Is it appropriate for the Irish Times to publish it in the same edition as a rape story?

Sorry, take that as a rhetorical question, I ain't wasting my bank holiday answering on this one.

alastair · 27-10-2014 6:18pm

yipeeeee wrote: »

Taking this back to the original op.

Any sort of evidence would do, but that seems unlikely.

Evidence to convict him in a court? Unlikely alright.
Evidence to demonstrate his membership outside a court? Ample.

Fr. Ned · 27-10-2014 6:22pm

LOL:rolleyes:

These anti-SF lads actually believe in kangaroo courts.
The rule of law means nothing to them.

alastair · 27-10-2014 6:24pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

LOL:rolleyes:

These anti-SF lads actually believe in kangaroo courts.
The rule of law means nothing to them.

No kangaroo court required - just the application of standard critical faculties. People don't generally need a court to tell them that something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs out with all the other duck, is probably a duck alright.

Godge · 28-10-2014 1:30am

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.

No Happyman, you can't have it both ways.

Either Mairia Cahill gets the benefit of being innocent until proven guilty like everyone else or else you use your judgment to decide.

Dan_Solo · 29-10-2014 8:06pm

alastair wrote: »

No kangaroo court required - just the application of standard critical faculties. People don't generally need a court to tell them that something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hangs out with all the other duck, is probably a duck alright.

Are you talking about Cahill and dissident Republicans here?

alastair · 30-10-2014 10:47am

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you talking about Cahill and dissident Republicans here?

Nope. But then I don't buy into any spin about her 'dissidence' in any case. She seems to have not changed her political outlook from the time she was a poster girl for SF.

maccored · 30-10-2014 12:47pm

she admitted herself she was aligned to a dissident group.

alastair wrote: »

Nope. But then I don't buy into any spin about her 'dissidence' in any case. She seems to have not changed her political outlook from the time she was a poster girl for SF.

Tragedy · 30-10-2014 2:43pm

maccored wrote: »

she admitted herself she was aligned to a dissident group.

No she didn't, she stated that the group wasn't dissident at the time.

Why are you lying?

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 3:10pm

Tragedy wrote: »

No she didn't, she stated that the group wasn't dissident at the time.

Why are you lying?

What has the RNU changed in it's political philosophy since forming in 2007?

RNU is determined to design our own contribution to the struggle for Irish freedom using whatever tactics are required to ensure the social and economic liberation of the Irish people.

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:20pm

maccored wrote: »

she admitted herself she was aligned to a dissident group.

Did she say that she shifted her political beliefs from those she held within SF?

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 3:29pm

alastair wrote: »

Did she say that she shifted her political beliefs from those she held within SF?

IN 2001- 2005 SF where not;

determined to design our own contribution to the struggle for Irish freedom using whatever tactics are required to ensure the social and economic liberation of the Irish people.

maybe that is why she left - to find a party that would 'use whatever tactics are required'? Although why a person who, in her own words, 'was always against violence to achieve a political aim' would leave a party who had just enshrined that principle to join one that was less than clear on what they where prepared to do is a mystery, even to little old me.

Warrants a question or two from our legions of concerned journalists, does it not?

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:34pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

IN 2001- 2005 SF where not;

When she was a poster girl for SF?

Happyman42 wrote: »

maybe that is why she left - to find a party that would 'use whatever tactics are required'?

Given that this is contrary to what she has said her relationship with the group, I'll have to call straw man argument there.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Although why a person who, in her own words, 'was always against violence to achieve a political aim' would leave a party who had just enshrined that principle to join one that was less than clear on what they where prepared to do is a mystery, even to little old me.

Now I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe that party's role in her interrogation, and subsequent cover up of her rape, might have had some bearing on the decision? Did anyone in the GNU rape her, or subsequently cover it up?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Warrants a question or two from our legions of concerned journalists, does it not?

Good thing it's already been covered, reported, and answered, then eh?

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 3:43pm

alastair wrote: »

Given that this is contrary to what she has said her relationship with the group, I'll have to call straw man argument there.

Oh yeh, she is a victim and I can't question what she says. I forgot! :rolleyes:

Now I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe that party's role in her interrogation, and subsequent cover up of her rape, might have had some bearing on the decision? Did anyone in the GNU rape her, or subsequently cover it up?

Maybe, if she had joined the ICA or something or even no group at all. But to join one that 'would use whatever tactics neccesary'?

Good thing it's already been covered, reported, and answered, then eh?

I have read her statement on this, but I haven't heard her questioned on it...link?

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:49pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh yeh, she is a victim and I can't question what she says. I forgot! :rolleyes:

You can certainly chose not to believe her. What you can't do is ascribe your own fabricated intent on her behalf, and pretend it's anything other than your imagination articulated.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have read her statement on this, but I haven't heard her questioned on it...link?

http://www.newstalk.com/EXCLUSIVE:-Mairia-Cahill-tells-Newstalk-

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 3:54pm

alastair wrote: »

You can certainly chose not to believe her. What you can't do is ascribe your own fabricated intent on her behalf, and pretend it's anything other than your imagination articulated.

:D Says the man that spent yesterday 'interpreting' what Gerry Adams said.

:D You have a hard neck, I'll give you that.

http://www.newstalk.com/EXCLUSIVE:-Mairia-Cahill-tells-Newstalk-[/QUOTE]
Cheers for actually supplying a link...I'll have a listen.

alastair · 30-10-2014 3:58pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D Says the man that spent yesterday 'interpreting' what Gerry Adams said. :D You have a hard neck, I'll give you that.

Oh dear. As I pointed out - there was no interpretation required. The logic of the quotes should have been self-evident. It's your contention that 'interpretation' was called for.

Can people please stop with the straw man arguments? It's just boring.

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 4:07pm

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear. As I pointed out - there was no interpretation required. The logic of the quotes should have been self-evident. It's your contention that 'interpretation' was called for.

Yes, you contended that Gerry Adams conceded 'she was raped by an IRA man' and never produced a quote where he conceded that point.
But you did imaginatively 'interpret' a statement he made, accepting that 'allegations had been made' alright.

alastair · 30-10-2014 4:24pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, you contended that Gerry Adams conceded 'she was raped by an IRA man' and never produced a quote where he conceded that point.

Except I did.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But you did imaginatively 'interpret' a statement he made, accepting that 'allegations had been made' alright.

No. I poster Adam's own words - stating an IRA man was involved in the alleged rape (ahead of the kangaroo court this is), and his subsequent admission that she had suffered abuse. I really don't need to keep repeating this, do I?

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 4:32pm

alastair wrote: »

Except I did.

No. I poster Adam's own words - stating an IRA man was involved in the alleged rape (ahead of the kangaroo court this is), and his subsequent admission that she had suffered abuse. I really don't need to keep repeating this, do I?

Yes, yes Alastair you did what even the Sindo couldn't do, you proved that Gerry Adams conceded 'that she was raped by an IRA man' even though the alleged IRA man and rapist is denying both membership and rape.
Effectively you have proved that Gerry has ratted out a member of the RA!

:D:D

Or maybe, just maybe, you imaginatively interpreted 'I am aware that allegations have been made about abuse by the IRA'...to mean all the above.

alastair · 30-10-2014 4:40pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, yes Alastair you did what even the Sindo couldn't do, you proved that Gerry Adams conceded 'that she was raped by an IRA man' even though the alleged IRA man and rapist is denying both membership and rape.
Effectively you have proved that Gerry has ratted out a member of the RA!
:D:D

Once again (sigh), he was very careful not to implicate any individual in her rape. He 'ratted out' nobody.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Or maybe, just maybe, you imaginatively interpreted 'I am aware that allegations have been made about abuse by the IRA'...to mean all the above.

That's not a quote from Adams. He was clear that the IRA were involved, before he called in Joe Cahill.

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 4:56pm

alastair wrote: »

Once again (sigh), he was very careful not to implicate any individual in her rape. He 'ratted out' nobody.

That's not a quote from Adams. He was clear that the IRA were involved, before he called in Joe Cahill.

Here is the original quote you used from the Sindo:

Gerry Adams: “Absolutely. And I met her at the request of a, of a family member who was concerned about her and as I’ve said, on quite a number occasions, when I learned subsequently, and remember, Mairia Cahill was an adult at this time, and I was well intended in meeting with her. I met her to help her. Anybody else she’s named from Sinn Fein who I’ve spoken to has assured me that they tried to help her and were well intended in dealing with her.

“And she’s acknowledged that her uncle Joe asked her to go to the RUC and it was at my request that she did that because once, once it became clear to me, subsequently, that there was this entire situation of alleged abuse, of the IRA, of all of this, I went to Joe and said: ‘Joe that needs to go to the RUC’.”

And here is how you butchered it and added in some other unlinked stuff to come up with you assertion 'that Gerry Adams conceded she was raped by an IRA man'

Martin Morris was an IRA man. Gerry Adams said "once it became clear to me, subsequently, that there was this entire situation of alleged abuse, of the IRA, of all of this, I went to Joe". Gerry Adams also said "I am very conscious that a young woman is at the centre of this controversy so let me be very, very clear, abuse is wrong". He also said that he was "mindful of the trauma she had suffered". He went on to say, in the context of Cahill's treatment, that "IRA actions did fail victims of abuse". So given that we are all clear what the nature of Cahill's abuse was (rape)', let's not pretend that Adams hasn't accepted the reality of her abuse. That Martin McGuinness manages to be a bit more forthright is welcome, but Gerry's own words make clear that she was both abused, and that there was IRA involvement (ie: Martin Morris).

alastair · 30-10-2014 5:01pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here is the original quote you used from the Sindo:

Indeed Gerry's own words - stating IRA involvement.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And here is how you butchered it and added in some other unlinked stuff to come up with you assertion 'that Gerry Adams conceded she was raped by an IRA man'

No butchery - just highlighting the relevant passage. They're all Gerry's own words. If he's clear at the outset that it's an IRA man accused of the rape, and he's clear at the outset that the victim was, indeed, abused, the logic of his quotes requires no interpreation.

Happyman42 · 30-10-2014 5:10pm

alastair wrote: »

Indeed Gerry's own words - stating IRA involvement.

Where does he confirm or concede IRA involvement in that passage?

that there was this entire situation of alleged abuse, of the IRA, of all of this,

That bit is just an acknowledgement that there was an allegation, it is not, no matter what way you read it, an admission or concession.

, the logic of his quotes requires no interpreation.

So why did you have to butcher them to get them to mean what you wanted?

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

Comments