Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

It is? Oh, wait. It's not. They've made no comment at all.

Woefully uninformed again.

If you were unaware of the Ombudsman's involvement, maybe you should spend some time researching.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Woefully uninformed again.

If you were unaware of the Ombudsman's involvement, maybe you should spend some time researching.

Maybe you should inform yourself. There has been no comment by the British.
The Ombundsman's office is a NI one, accountable to the NI assembly.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For the purposes of the question I asked, 'why has there been no civil cases' it suffices. As what she has so far told the solicitors has no effect whatsoever on the answer to that question - there has been no civil case taken against Adams in his 40 year career.


The only time you would know is when they end up like Mr Donaldson.

All that being said it would seem that Adams has the laziest lawyers in the world.

He has promised to sue at least eleven times by my reckoning and not one action has yet to take place. Maria's lawyers are Olympic sprinters in comparison.

brickmauser

How sad do you have to be to swallow the crap SF and Adams spin.
The British and Loyalists were and are murdering scum and Northern Ireland is a failed state.
But we are supposed to have a united Ireland run by a delusional narcisstic psychopath and his clapping seals as an alternative?
I've read Lost Lives cover to cover which should be required reading for anybody who has a brain and wants to use it and live reality rather than in a mythological universe.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you should inform yourself. There has been no comment by the British.
The Ombundsman's office is a NI one, accountable to the NI assembly.

The Ombudsman's office is an office of the state. And the state is?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

All that being said it would seem that Adams has the laziest lawyers in the world.

He has promised to sue at least eleven times by my reckoning and not one action has yet to take place. Maria's lawyers are Olympic sprinters in comparison.

He will never sue over allegations about being in the IRA. That would just be silly and imo damaging in terms of holding together a disparate band of people. A job he and McGuinness are still doing.

As we seen with Maria and all those who claim the evidence is stacked against Gerry Adams in a litany of cases...that doesn't mean a lot when it comes to a court case.

JustTheOne

IrishProd wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/donaldson-murder-police-say-provos-not-to-blame-genuine-surprise-at-bbc-allegations-35072008.html

"No one, and I mean no one, on either side of the border believes this claim has an ounce of truth in it," he added. "The guards say it's nonsense and the PSNI believe the same. The so-called Real IRA did this."

The usual hacks revelling in saying Adams was responsible despite all the glaring contradictions can shut up now and pull their heads out of their own arses for a change.

The gard's, the psni and numerous ex IRA members claim Adams was in the ra but people like yourself discredit their claims.

So do we believe them all of a sudden?

FrancieBrady

JustTheOne wrote: »

The gard's, the psni and numerous ex IRA members claim Adams was in the ra but people like yourself discredit their claims.

So do we believe them all of a sudden?

Where have the Gardai said what they believe on this? Or the PSNI for that matter? Would be interested to see that as I have never seen them publically comment on it.
And 'numerous' ex IRA members? Do they outnumber the numerous ex members who haven't contradicted Adams?
I can only think of 3 or 4.

JustTheOne

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have the Gardai said what they believe on this? Or the PSNI for that matter? Would be interested to see that as I have never seen them publically comment on it.
And 'numerous' ex IRA members? Do they outnumber the numerous ex members who haven't contradicted Adams?
I can only think of 3 or 4.

OK if you're going down that road then what about the psni claims the provos are still an outfit who murdered last year and have control over sinn fein.

Truth or lies?

FrancieBrady

JustTheOne wrote: »

OK if you're going down that road then what about the psni claims the provos are still an outfit who murdered last year and have control over sinn fein.

Truth or lies?

What?
I asked for links to your claims.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Ombudsman's office is an office of the state. And the state is?

It's an office that's answerable to the NI Assembly - a devolved parliament.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

It's an office that's answerable to the NI Assembly - a devolved parliament.

The Police ombudsman is appointed by the head of state. https://www.policeombudsman.org/About-Us/Corporate-Governance

The family reject the Ombudsman's findings too BTW believing he was outed.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Police ombudsman is appointed by the head of state. https://www.policeombudsman.org/About-Us/Corporate-Governance

The family reject the Ombudsman's findings too BTW believing he was outed.

From your link:

The Police Ombudsman is accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Minister for Justice.

Last I heard, the assembly (including the minister for justice) was a devolved body.
What the family reject or otherwise, has nothing to do with supposed 'British narratives' on the matter, given that none actually exists. They've said nothing about it.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

From your link:

Last I heard, the assembly (including the minister for justice) was a devolved body.
What the family reject or otherwise, has nothing to do with supposed 'British narratives' on the matter, given that none actually exists. They've said nothing about it.

Not a bit of wonder the poor people of NI are confused. They are British, now they are not British to suit an argument.

Whatever, I am not going to argue the point. You have 'accepted a narrative' about what happened from those who were running a spy and unlike the man's family you have accepted it unquestioningly.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not a bit of wonder the poor people of NI are confused. They are British, now they are not British to suit an argument.

Whatever, I am not going to argue the point. You have 'accepted a narrative' about what happened from those who were running a spy and unlike the man's family you have accepted it unquestioningly.

You're not going to argue the point, because you don't actually have a point. There's been no 'British narrative'. That's a figment of your imagination.

blinding

I got absolutely hammered the other night..

I can't really remember fook all

Something has come back to me..I am not sure if it was the fella beside the fella beside the fella near the fella...but er...twas Gerry that done it .

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

You're not going to argue the point, because you don't actually have a point. There's been no 'British narrative'. That's a figment of your imagination.

Yes, that little bit of pedantry means you don't have to answer pertinent questions. Excellent.

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

I got absolutely hammered the other night..

I can't really remember fook all

Something has come back to me..I am not sure if it was the fella beside the fella beside the fella near the fella...but er...twas Gerry that done it .

I think the 'programme' (Spotlight) was the final nail in the coffin of BBC NI and it's pretence to be an independent journalistic entity. It has, like the Irish Independent, become a laughing stock in it's zeal to 'get Gerry'.
I'm sure Martin the shy whistleblower will get a nice cushy job as a 'journalist' now to peddle his agenda.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that little bit of pedantry means you don't have to answer pertinent questions. Excellent.

Just calling out nonsense where I find it. Speaking of, the post above is more of the same.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Just calling out nonsense where I find it. Speaking of, the post above is more of the same.

Here is a test of their journalistic 'standards' when it comes to Adams, would the programme have just stated or taken it from an anonymous source that Frank Cushnahan had accepted 40,000 from a Nama developer in a Belfast carpark? Would that have been acceptable to the viewer?

*not answering by saying it was a 'Newry or Portadown carpark' and therefore the subtance of the question is wrong, is not acceptable.

K-9

Mod:

Attack the post, not the poster please. Personal attacks will be deleted from now on so not much point getting an ould dig in.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is a test of their journalistic 'standards' when it comes to Adams, would the programme have just stated or taken it from an anonymous source that Frank Cushnahan had accepted 40,000 from a Nama developer in a Belfast carpark? Would that have been acceptable to the viewer?

Journalists run with the information they're given. They had a source on the NAMA story prepared to reveal his identity. They've had many story's before with anonymous whistle blowers or sources. They've been perfectly acceptable to the viewer. This particular programme isn't prime Spotlight, but it's not exceptional in any way, and there's nothing, beyond paranoia, to suggest they have double standards with regard to Adams.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Journalists run with the information they're given. They had a source on the NAMA story prepared to reveal his identity. They've had many story's before with anonymous whistle blowers or sources. They've been perfectly acceptable to the viewer. This particular programme isn't prime Spotlight, but it's not exceptional in any way, and there's nothing, beyond paranoia, to suggest they have double standards with regard to Adams.

'They had' to have 'a source on the NAMA story prepared to reveal his identity' before they would in all journalistic conscience, run with the story.

I genuinely don't think they would accuse somebody of being involved with a murder/or ordering a murder on the flimsy grounds that they did.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'They had' to have 'a source on the NAMA story prepared to reveal his identity' before they would in all journalistic conscience, run with the story.

I genuinely don't think they would accuse somebody of being involved with a murder/or ordering a murder on the flimsy grounds that they did.

They didn't 'have' to have a source prepared to go public on the NAMA story - they just had one. And once again, they have used anonymous sources many times before, where they don't have a source prepared to go public. This isn't a scenario reserved for Adams alone, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

They didn't 'have' to have a source prepared to go public on the NAMA story - they just had one. And once again, they have used anonymous sources many times before, where they don't have a source prepared to go public. This isn't a scenario reserved for Adams alone, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Well then it will be easy for you to show another instance where they accused somebody of murder/ordering a murder on similar secondhand (the source did not see or hear Adams order the murder remember) grounds.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then it will be easy for you to show another instance where they accused somebody of murder/ordering a murder on similar secondhand (the source did not see or hear Adams order the murder remember) grounds.

Straw man argument. Spotlight didn't accuse anyone of murder. But they certainly have aired anonymous sources who have made accusations with regard to third parties in the past. This isn't anything new.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Straw man argument. Spotlight didn't accuse anyone of murder. But they certainly have aired anonymous sources who have made accusations with regard to third parties in the past. This isn't anything new.

Where? Spotlight 'facilitated' the accusation of involvement in a post peace agreement murder. Show us a comparable instance of this.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

They didn't 'have' to have a source prepared to go public on the NAMA story - they just had one. And once again, they have used anonymous sources many times before, where they don't have a source prepared to go public. This isn't a scenario reserved for Adams alone, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

There have been many anonymous sources used by Spotlight to highlight and expose atrocities on both sides. I find it difficult to understand why SF/IRA/Gerry Adams have focussed attention on this particular point arising from the programme, it is as if they have no other alternative counterpoints. More and more it seems that Adams is still under the control of elements in the IRA, be they from Belfast or South Armagh. Quite a chilling thought.

A Little Pony

The only thing which will get Gerry Adams is time. He will answer for his crimes in one way or another.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

There have been many anonymous sources used by Spotlight to highlight and expose atrocities on both sides. I find it difficult to understand why SF/IRA/Gerry Adams have focussed attention on this particular point arising from the programme, it is as if they have no other alternative counterpoints. More and more it seems that Adams is still under the control of elements in the IRA, be they from Belfast or South Armagh. Quite a chilling thought.

The reason the programme is being derided is that there is nothing of substance to focus on. Another petty storm in a teacup ala so many others.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason the programme is being derided is that there is nothing of substance to focus on. Another petty storm in a teacup ala so many others.

I don't think that there is just perpetual storms in a teacup.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/under-fire-from-all-sides-gerry-adams-distrusted-by-dissidents-and-democrats-35074972.html


"This pattern was on display when Mr Adams was accused of directing the abduction, murder and disappearance of the widowed mother of 10 children, Jean McConville. We saw it in deeply disturbing responses to sexual abuse allegations involving his own brother, Liam.

It was evident again in the Republican leadership's dreadful non-response to sex abuse victims like Maíria Cahill and Paudie McGahon.
A week after the 68-year-old Sinn Féin president told us for the first time that he planned to quit, without telling us when, he is once more at the centre of more serious allegations linked to Republicans. This time it is of much more recent vintage, dating from 2006, and the killing of a man called Denis Donaldson."

Those couple of paragraphs really sum it up. There is a stench following Gerry Adams around - a stench of corruption and criminality. Yes, it is overlaid by the perfume of the peace process, as some point out. However, the underlying stench is ingrained and persistent and will never go away.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

I don't think that there is just perpetual storms in a teacup.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-downing/under-fire-from-all-sides-gerry-adams-distrusted-by-dissidents-and-democrats-35074972.html


"This pattern was on display when Mr Adams was accused of directing the abduction, murder and disappearance of the widowed mother of 10 children, Jean McConville. We saw it in deeply disturbing responses to sexual abuse allegations involving his own brother, Liam.

It was evident again in the Republican leadership's dreadful non-response to sex abuse victims like Maíria Cahill and Paudie McGahon.
A week after the 68-year-old Sinn Féin president told us for the first time that he planned to quit, without telling us when, he is once more at the centre of more serious allegations linked to Republicans. This time it is of much more recent vintage, dating from 2006, and the killing of a man called Denis Donaldson."

Those couple of paragraphs really sum it up. There is a stench following Gerry Adams around - a stench of corruption and criminality. Yes, it is overlaid by the perfume of the peace process, as some point out. However, the underlying stench is ingrained and persistent and will never go away.

So you quote the prime inventors of the stench to attempt to validate the claim.

Can you post a comparable Spotlight programme that allowed the good name of investigative journalism to be sullied by allowing somebody to claim that they heard someone else say that a politician was responsible for ordering the killing of a man?

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you quote the prime inventors of the stench to attempt to validate the claim.

I posted a link, refute it, rather than just criticising the link.

The stench is there, there is a long list of unanswered allegations about Mr. Adams, whether one likes him or not.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you post a comparable Spotlight programme that allowed the good name of investigative journalism to be sullied by allowing somebody to claim that they heard someone else say that a politician was responsible for ordering the killing of a man?

How can someone do that? There is no other politician on this earth (except maybe Castro or some other despot) about whom you could make that allegation. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find a Mugabe documentary that made similar allegations in a similar way about him. Adams is an exceptionally nasty person and these sort of things follow him around because of the person he is and the things that he has done. At this stage, most ordinary people would conclude that there is no smoke without fire.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

I posted a link, refute it, rather than just criticising the link.

The stench is there, there is a long list of unanswered allegations about Mr. Adams, whether one likes him or not.

The name of the newspaper is enough to refute it. At this stage does anybody take their rants seriously?

How can someone do that? There is no other politician on this earth (except maybe Castro or some other despot) about whom you could make that allegation. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find a Mugabe documentary that made similar allegations in a similar way about him. Adams is an exceptionally nasty person and these sort of things follow him around because of the person he is and the things that he has done. At this stage, most ordinary people would conclude that there is no smoke without fire.

So it could quite easily be alleged that that is the objective. Vilification by insinuation.
There is more actual evidence to suggest that than there is anything of substance in the myriad of allegations against this man.
The Indo has long since become a joke even among journalists for it's obsession with one man.
Now the BBC is falling over itself in attempts to get him before he retires. They will have to try harder.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So it could quite easily be alleged that that is the objective. Vilification by insinuation.
There is more actual evidence to suggest that than there is anything of substance in the myriad of allegations against this man.
The Indo has long since become a joke even among journalists for it's obsession with one man.
Now the BBC is falling over itself in attempts to get him before he retires. They will have to try harder.

Except that it is not just the Indo and the BBC, that is just the default reaction of the SF/IRA heirarchy - shoot the messenger.

Here is FF quoted in the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-not-a-democratic-party-says-miche%C3%A1l-martin-1.2799766

"Sinn Féin is “not a democratic party” and nor is it fit for government, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said in the wake of the BBC Spotlight investigation into the murder of former Republican activist and British agent Denis Donaldson."

Is it really necessary to reprint articles from every legitimate news source in Ireland (and many abroad) to nail the lie that it is only the Indo that has a problem with Gerry Adams and his murky past?

The Examiner (another newspaper?) makes a very good point about Gerry's refusal to account for his past:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/gerry-adams-is-a-politician-without-a-past-422603.html

"While Micheál Martin can be forced to account for his time overseeing reckless behaviour in the economy, and Kenny and Howlin are frequently forced to defend their approach to austerity, Adams is never personally called to account for how he wielded power over life and death through most of the 30-year conflict."

"He can accuse opponents of allowing people to die on trolleys, but he doesn’t have to defend his role in the IRA, in which senior figures routinely ordered people to be killed."

Best of all is this bit:

"Spotlight was a reminder how morally bankrupt, even on their own warped terms, the leaders of the provisional movement grew over time. The rewriting of history by Sinn Féin portrays the struggle of so-called freedom fighters, glossing over the ethnic cleansing, the base crime, the terror inflicted on their own communities, the protection rackets on businesses, the relocation of favoured paedophiles."

We can add the Labour Party to the list of undesirables:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/latest-allegations-in-bbc-spotlight-programme-in-the-hands-of-my-solicitor-says-gerry-adams-755753.html


All together now, this is all a lie about Gerry, made up by the combined forces of his political enemies in FF, FG, Labour, DUP, SDLP, et al with the conniving support of the joke media made up of RTE, BBC, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Examiner. Am I finally on message?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Except that it is not just the Indo and the BBC, that is just the default reaction of the SF/IRA heirarchy - shoot the messenger.

Here is FF quoted in the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-not-a-democratic-party-says-miche%C3%A1l-martin-1.2799766

"Sinn Féin is “not a democratic party” and nor is it fit for government, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said in the wake of the BBC Spotlight investigation into the murder of former Republican activist and British agent Denis Donaldson."

Is it really necessary to reprint articles from every legitimate news source in Ireland (and many abroad) to nail the lie that it is only the Indo that has a problem with Gerry Adams and his murky past?

The Examiner (another newspaper?) makes a very good point about Gerry's refusal to account for his past:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/gerry-adams-is-a-politician-without-a-past-422603.html

"While Micheál Martin can be forced to account for his time overseeing reckless behaviour in the economy, and Kenny and Howlin are frequently forced to defend their approach to austerity, Adams is never personally called to account for how he wielded power over life and death through most of the 30-year conflict."

"He can accuse opponents of allowing people to die on trolleys, but he doesn’t have to defend his role in the IRA, in which senior figures routinely ordered people to be killed."

Best of all is this bit:

"Spotlight was a reminder how morally bankrupt, even on their own warped terms, the leaders of the provisional movement grew over time. The rewriting of history by Sinn Féin portrays the struggle of so-called freedom fighters, glossing over the ethnic cleansing, the base crime, the terror inflicted on their own communities, the protection rackets on businesses, the relocation of favoured paedophiles."

We can add the Labour Party to the list of undesirables:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/latest-allegations-in-bbc-spotlight-programme-in-the-hands-of-my-solicitor-says-gerry-adams-755753.html


All together now, this is all a lie about Gerry, made up by the combined forces of his political enemies in FF, FG, Labour, DUP, SDLP, et al with the conniving support of the joke media made up of RTE, BBC, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Examiner. Am I finally on message?

Michael Martin's opinion quoted in the IT is an example of groundless and spurious (not one has been proven in a criminal or civil court) investigative journalsm that has been going on for years in the Indo and sectuons of the BBC... Really?

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael Martin's opinion quoted in the IT is an example of groundless and spurious (not one has been proven in a criminal or civil court) investigative journalsm that has been going on for years in the Indo and sectuons of the BBC... Really?

I am not going to rehash the argument. It was suggested that it was only the BBC and the Indo.

I produced links to show it was all over the media and political sphere, that is all. If it is now accepted that the story is commonplace, and not just the Indo and BBC, I will be happy to discuss the details further including what Gerry needs to do now.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

I am not going to rehash the argument. It was suggested that it was only the BBC and the Indo.

I produced links to show it was all over the media and political sphere, that is all. If it is now accepted that the story is commonplace, and not just the Indo and BBC, I will be happy to discuss the details further including what Gerry needs to do now.

The story was put out there by the BBC and that is what the thread is about. You quoted the Indo as a credible source for your argument.

Gerry, imo has answered all the allegations. Until somebody comes up with something concrete to refute his answers I will take what says, because to allow spurious journalism like that which we seen on Spotlight is too dangerous. Anybody could be similarly targeted.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The story was put out there by the BBC and that is what the thread is about. You quoted the Indo as a credible source for your argument.

.

Now we are going round in circles. It is not just the Indo or BBC as my post below with all the links demonstrates. You can't just dismiss the evidence.

It is every politician and every media outlet except An Phoblacht/SF/IRA who are asking questions.

Godge wrote: »

Except that it is not just the Indo and the BBC, that is just the default reaction of the SF/IRA heirarchy - shoot the messenger.

Here is FF quoted in the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-not-a-democratic-party-says-miche%C3%A1l-martin-1.2799766

"Sinn Féin is “not a democratic party” and nor is it fit for government, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said in the wake of the BBC Spotlight investigation into the murder of former Republican activist and British agent Denis Donaldson."

Is it really necessary to reprint articles from every legitimate news source in Ireland (and many abroad) to nail the lie that it is only the Indo that has a problem with Gerry Adams and his murky past?

The Examiner (another newspaper?) makes a very good point about Gerry's refusal to account for his past:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/gerry-adams-is-a-politician-without-a-past-422603.html

"While Micheál Martin can be forced to account for his time overseeing reckless behaviour in the economy, and Kenny and Howlin are frequently forced to defend their approach to austerity, Adams is never personally called to account for how he wielded power over life and death through most of the 30-year conflict."

"He can accuse opponents of allowing people to die on trolleys, but he doesn’t have to defend his role in the IRA, in which senior figures routinely ordered people to be killed."

Best of all is this bit:

"Spotlight was a reminder how morally bankrupt, even on their own warped terms, the leaders of the provisional movement grew over time. The rewriting of history by Sinn Féin portrays the struggle of so-called freedom fighters, glossing over the ethnic cleansing, the base crime, the terror inflicted on their own communities, the protection rackets on businesses, the relocation of favoured paedophiles."

We can add the Labour Party to the list of undesirables:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/latest-allegations-in-bbc-spotlight-programme-in-the-hands-of-my-solicitor-says-gerry-adams-755753.html


All together now, this is all a lie about Gerry, made up by the combined forces of his political enemies in FF, FG, Labour, DUP, SDLP, et al with the conniving support of the joke media made up of RTE, BBC, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and the Examiner. Am I finally on message?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Until somebody comes up with something concrete to refute his answers I will take what says

No accounting for the cult of the personality. Adams is clearly lying through his teeth on multiple matters. How anyone can continue to take anything he says at face value is a mystery. This is the man who was 'unaware' that his brother Liam was working for SF in Andytown, despite being based in the SF office up the road. And that he warned the Clonard Youth Centre about employing Liam, despite the centre having no record of any such warning. That deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball!

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Now we are going round in circles. It is not just the Indo or BBC as my post below with all the links demonstrates. You can't just dismiss the evidence.

It is every politician and every media outlet except An Phoblacht/SF/IRA who are asking questions.

The Indo and now the BBC are feeding this. Off course politicians will exploit it, manna from the media, so to speak. You are being played.

Not one successful criminal or lower standard of proof civil case.
The Irish Times isn't wasting resources on investigation, but allows opinion writers platforms. Is any serious journalist interested in finding real proof, something of actual substance? No, just insinuation and fodder for those who are fond of serial outrage.
If I am wrong point us to a politician who has anything other than political points to score. What ever happened to Regina and her names and Michael Martin and his 40 abusers?

micosoft

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Indo and now the BBC are feeding this. Off course politicians will exploit it, manna from the media, so to speak. You are being played.

Not one successful criminal or lower standard of proof civil case.
The Irish Times isn't wasting resources on investigation, but allows opinion writers platforms. Is any serious journalist interested in finding real proof, something of actual substance? No, just insinuation and fodder for those who are fond of serial outrage.
If I am wrong point us to a politician who has anything other than political points to score. What ever happened to Regina and her names and Michael Martin and his 40 abusers?

What would qualify as real proof in your eyes. Serious question. What exactly would tip you to the point that you accept the Spotlight allegations.

FrancieBrady

micosoft wrote: »

What would qualify as real proof in your eyes. Serious question. What exactly would tip you to the point that you accept the Spotlight allegations.

Genuinely? If somebody denies a charge then I need forensic or compelling testimony to find them guilty.
The problem with the allegations against Adams is they come with agendas behind them. That is suspect from the get go IMO.
I am not yet convinced that the British were involved in the Dublin Monaghan bombings for the same reason, I want it proven beyond doubt.

Did you ever wonder (as I do) why the focus is on Adams? Why not McGuinness who was a member of the IRA?

The reason is because the established power swappers in Ireland, FF and FG can never allow SF to be a normal post conflict political party because that spells the end for one of them.
It will be the same when Mary Lou or Pearse take over...the constant 'did you support the armed struggle' nonsense.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Genuinely? If somebody denies a charge then I need forensic or compelling testimony to find them guilty.
The problem with the allegations against Adams is they come with agendas behind them. That is suspect from the get go IMO.
I am not yet convinced that the British were involved in the Dublin Monaghan bombings for the same reason, I want it proven beyond doubt.

Did you ever wonder (as I do) why the focus is on Adams? Why not McGuinness who was a member of the IRA?

The reason is because the established power swappers in Ireland, FF and FG can never allow SF to be a normal post conflict political party because that spells the end for one of them.
It will be the same when Mary Lou or Pearse take over...the constant 'did you support the armed struggle' nonsense.

By those standards, Charles Haughey was never engaged in gun-running, Michael Lowry has been harshly treated and Denis O'Brien is a fine up-standing member of society. As for Michael Fingleton and Sean Fitzpatrick, how can anyone doubt those pillars of banking and all they did for the State. Enda is a miracle as Taoiseach and poor Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan were unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A wonderful Wonderland, so to speak.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the constant 'did you support the armed struggle' nonsense.

It's no nonsense. Thousands of people killed on the back of an anti-democratic and tawdry campaign of violence. It matters if the people asking for your vote show such little regard for the will of the people, let alone respect basic civil rights.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

By those standards, Charles Haughey was never engaged in gun-running, Michael Lowry has been harshly treated and Denis O'Brien is a fine up-standing member of society. As for Michael Fingleton and Sean Fitzpatrick, how can anyone doubt those pillars of banking and all they did for the State. Enda is a miracle as Taoiseach and poor Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan were unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A wonderful Wonderland, so to speak.

Not the thread to go through all those people and cases. Everyone of them is different and I am surprised you would tar them all with the same brush.
I could, if I listened to some believe the hysteria that goes on about them too. But I don't, I take each case on it's own.

I have a standard of proof, as I just said.
If the person answers the allegations imo, it is then up to the people continuing to make the allegations to present credible, provable facts in their case and prove the allegations.


In Adams case the only remotely credible case for me is in the instance of his membership of the IRA.
And in that case I can accept why he would say he wasn't and see it as being politically advantageous for him not to be a member.
And it also doesn't matter all that much to me if he was.
The question for me is not the fairly useless one of 'what did you do in the war', it is 'what did you do in the peace'. Peace is the future, the conflict imo is over.

The conflict happened, there were terrible things done by all involved but only some worked hard to bring it to an end and one of those was Adams.

Do I want to criminalise Unionist/Loyalist leaders who came willingly to the table and earnestly sought an agreement and who have accepted and apologised for their part in what happened and who are visibly working for peace and normalisation?
No I don't

I want a Truth Commission to serve the purpose of closure here for families and victims. Not a hysterical, one sided and dangerous blame game run by those who couldn't care less what was going on in NI to begin with and care even less today.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

It's no nonsense. Thousands of people killed on the back of an anti-democratic and tawdry campaign of violence. It matters if the people asking for your vote show such little regard for the will of the people, let alone respect basic civil rights.

Most political parties fall from power because they disregard the will of the people.
I would be confident that the people of this island will support those parties they have confidence in.
We, in the south, live in a democracy, and it was because there was no democracy that the conflict happened in NI.
There is a democracy there now, desperately attempting to normalise. Who has been behind that and who keeps kicking and screaming in Never Never politics, you can judge for yourself. It is kinda plain simple who, from where I am standing.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most political parties fall from power because they disregard the will of the people.
I would be confident that the people of this island will support those parties they have confidence in.
We, in the south, live in a democracy, and it was because there was no democracy that the conflict happened in NI.
There is a democracy there now, desperately attempting to normalise. Who has been behind that and who keeps kicking and screaming in Never Never politics, you can judge for yourself. It is kinda plain simple who, from where I am standing.

Nonsense. SF only garnered a significant electoral mandate when they stopped killing and bombing. And there has been democracy in N.I. for many years. The electoral system there has not changed one iota since the GFA, nor indeed since Sunningdale.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Nonsense. SF only garnered a significant electoral mandate when they stopped killing and bombing. And there has been democracy in N.I. for many years. The electoral system there has not changed one iota since the GFA, nor indeed since Sunningdale.

A fledgling political party, censored, intimidated and even had members shot.
Keep your head in the sand about the realities and practicalities of the conflict/war if you wish. But it was not as simplistic as you make out.
You only need to look at Sunningdale to see how 'democracy' functioned at that time and it was much worse in the jerrymandering decades previously.

Unionists didn't like Sunningdale and collapsed it with the aid of british troops.
By the time the GFA came around they couldn't collapse it because their veto had been removed.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A fledgling political party, censored, intimidated and even had members shot.
Keep your head in the sand about the realities and practicalities of the conflict/war if you wish. But it was not as simplistic as you make out.
You only need to look at Sunningdale to see how 'democracy' functioned at that time and it was much worse in the jerrymandering decades previously.

Unionists didn't like Sunningdale and collapsed it with the aid of british troops.
By the time the GFA came around they couldn't collapse it because their veto had been removed.

The oldest party on the island. Censored because they fronted a terrorist group. Who exactly is supposed to have been intimidating them? Which political party in NI didn't have it's members shot? Which is the group responsible for putting a bomb in a party conference hotel? Seems like there's a clear standout in the disregard for the political system and public representatives.

Sunningdale was no different to the current local government parliamentary arrangements, and had as much democratic underpinnings as are in place now. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with anything other than council elections, and was overturned by the British.

The Shinners didn't like Sunningdale either, and the IRA were only too happy to throw their weight behind it's undermining too.