Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

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.

SF had no input in Sunningdale and even though it was lunacy to think it would work it still doesn't hide the fact that when Unionism didn't like what it proposed to do, they vetoed it, violently.

If you cannot accept that the genesis of the conflict/war was intrinsically linked to the failure of democracy in NI there is no point debating with you. It is clear that your agenda is to blame one side.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you cannot accept that the genesis of the conflict/war was intrinsically linked to the failure of democracy in NI there is no point debating with you. It is clear that your agenda is to blame one side.

That is a simplistic narrative that doesn't take account of the wider causes of the conflict.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

That is a simplistic narrative that doesn't take account of the wider causes of the conflict.

A veritable haven of democratic perfection since partition was NI

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A veritable haven of democratic perfection since partition was NI

Read my post again, I never said it was. Didn't disagree that it was one of the many causes of the conflict, how important it was is another debate.

It is a very simplistic SF revisionist narrative to suggest that the democratic issues in local government in Northern Ireland were the main cause of the conflict.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Read my post again, I never said it was. Didn't disagree that it was one of the many causes of the conflict, how important it was is another debate.

It is a very simplistic SF revisionist narrative to suggest that the democratic issues in local government in Northern Ireland were the main cause of the conflict.

I didn't specifically mention local government. The entire suprematist society was undemocratic.
But that is a non argument and has been accepted even by the late Ian Paisley.
It fuelled the conflict and the IRA drew their support from it.

Off topic though so I'm not getting drawn in.

FrancieBrady

Looking at the England manager debacle prompts me to ask a question. How come our stalwart investigative journalists have never managed a similar sting with Adams.
If they truly believe, how come not one conversation, instruction etc has never been filmed or recorded by '800' spies and a battalion of journos.
No criminal or civil cases and no actual incriminating evidence in 40 years. Curious isn't it or at the very least incompetent when you think of all the people from Nixon to Aldardice brought down by good investigative journalism.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Looking at the England manager debacle prompts me to ask a question. How come our stalwart investigative journalists have never managed a similar sting with Adams.
If they truly believe, how come not one conversation, instruction etc has never been filmed or recorded by '800' spies and a battalion of journos.
No criminal or civil cases and no actual incriminating evidence in 40 years. Curious isn't it or at the very least incompetent when you think of all the people from Nixon to Aldardice brought down by good investigative journalism.

The 800 agents weren't working for journalists, so quite why you'd expect any recordings to make their way to the media from them, is a bit of a head scratcher. If you truly don't believe that Adams was running a terrorist campaign, and manage to combine that with a belief that the BBC are rewarding anonymous sources with jobs, then it says rather more about your gullibility than any actual criticism of the quality of journalism in NI.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

The 800 agents weren't working for journalists, so quite why you'd expect any recordings to make their way to the media from them, is a bit of a head scratcher. If you truly don't believe that Adams was running a terrorist campaign, and manage to combine that with a belief that the BBC are rewarding anonymous sources with jobs, then it says rather more about your gullibility than any actual criticism of the quality of journalism in NI.

The 'current' spy has given his knowledge to the BBC and was presumably paid for his time if not for what he gave them There are 800 other ones out there, allegedly, and not one of them got anything of substance that can be used by either journalists or the authorities to prove their case?

And you call me gullible?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'current' spy has given his knowledge to the BBC and was presumably paid for his time if not for what he gave them There are 800 other ones out there, allegedly, and not one of them got anything of substance that can be used by either journalists or the authorities to prove their case?

And you call me gullible?

One more time. I'm sure the 800 moles have provided lots of recordings etc, just not to journalists. The authorities clearly preferred keeping their moles in place over exposing them by using evidence they provided in a court of law. The 'secret' part of 'secret agent' is the clue here.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

One more time. I'm sure the 800 moles have provided lots of recordings etc, just not to journalists. The authorities clearly preferred keeping their moles in place over exposing them by using evidence they provided in a court of law. The 'secret' part of 'secret agent' is the clue here.

The 'agent' on the programme was a 'secret agent' but in his agency he never managed to gather any concrete information?
There are 800 (allegedly) agents out there and not one has come forward with information?
There is a battalion of journalists masquerading under the title of 'investigative journalists' and in 40 years have never come up with anything concrete or more credible than hearsay and insinuation?
There are former members who are now dissidents who would like nothing more than see the demise of Adams and they haven't been able to produce anything?
The British security forces employed 800 (allegedly) and never managed to convict this man in court?

I'd be feeling a little had, if it was me tbh.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'agent' on the programme was a 'secret agent' but in his agency he never managed to gather any concrete information?
There are 800 (allegedly) agents out there and not one has come forward with information?
There is a battalion of journalists masquerading under the title of 'investigative journalists' and in 40 years have never come up with anything concrete or more credible than hearsay and insinuation?
There are former members who are now dissidents who would like nothing more than see the demise of Adams and they haven't been able to produce anything?
The British security forces employed 800 (allegedly) and never managed to convict this man in court?

I'd be feeling a little had, if it was me tbh.

I would guess that if any of the 800 were stupid enough to turn up at a meeting with Gerry wearing a wire or carrying concealed surveillance equipment they are buried in a bog somewhere.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

I would guess that if any of the 800 were stupid enough to turn up at a meeting with Gerry wearing a wire or carrying concealed surveillance equipment they are buried in a bog somewhere.

Presumably one of the tasks of a 'secret agent' would be to let their handlers know where and when meetings take place, no?

Surveillance has come a bit of a ways since wires and cameras in a ballpoint pen.
800 people prepared to tout is an awful lot of people and info coming in. And no case was assembled in 40 years. If that isn't a curious anomaly to an 'enquiring' mind then I am not sure what is.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Presumably one of the tasks of a 'secret agent' would be to let their handlers know where and when meetings take place, no?

Surveillance has come a bit of a ways since wires and cameras in a ballpoint pen.
800 people prepared to tout is an awful lot of people and info coming in. And no case was assembled in 40 years. If that isn't a curious anomaly to an 'enquiring' mind then I am not sure what is.

Are you saying modern surveillance technology was available when Gerry Adams was ordering the murder of Jean McConville?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Are you saying modern surveillance technology was available when Gerry Adams was ordering the murder of Jean McConville?

It was certainly available when 'he was ordering the killing of Denis'. Not one of these people, brave enough to be IRA operatives and brave enough to risk life touting for the British, managed to get anything other than secondhand hearsay?

Maybe the MI5 handlers should resign for hiring 800 wholly incompetent staff? You would have to in any other job after all.

Walter H Price

How'd he manage that , every dog on the street knows Gerry was never involved in the IRA hahahahahahaha tbh those voting Sinn Fein wont care, their too distracted by rhetoric, soundbites and promises of more social welfare then they can shake a can of dutch gold at to care about Uncle Gerrys shady past.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was certainly available when 'he was ordering the killing of Denis'. Not one of these people, brave enough to be IRA operatives and brave enough to risk life touting for the British, managed to get anything other than secondhand hearsay?

Maybe the MI5 handlers should resign for hiring 800 wholly incompetent staff? You would have to in any other job after all.

Why should the MI5 handlers resign? It may have taken a while but by the end the IRA gave up.

davycc

A Little Pony wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37425809

No surprise really.

Save yourself 14 page of the usual bile it's a non story by BBC, even Garda,psni, and Donaldson own family have called the spotlight allegations a load of crap ,

Link here to an excellent reply from the Belfast telegraph which completely Mythbusts the entire farce

http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.belfasttelegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnorthern-ireland%2Fdonaldson-murder-police-say-provos-not-to-blame-genuine-surprise-at-bbc-allegations-35072008.html&h=RAQHvChYw&enc=AZMReiIl8QfjFfUuc0ZXgV-j9nvvSTwmgkkj9lSetiBjsgHDzrHO_tLOdaeW34sHGoDZjyOHMok5E6_x_2cDkDZvVWVkXpALzd2Z5CHr56YyzxQpbg-UrJTxYqXwXhGWKP58bDprVMppvUV7Mo1eOC21WR1E96L63YsjDsMY0ePWzDJ7kCasv0PFwKm2ufGUM7jZ2Wk_CT_LzFlY8D7sg2O1MxjerpW-UL4_YdwwFbCh3tQz0bR2UiNEt4IzPLxJv_GGKNhDGMrPjEKmLbzAnXTS&s=1

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

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was certainly available when 'he was ordering the killing of Denis'. Not one of these people, brave enough to be IRA operatives and brave enough to risk life touting for the British, managed to get anything other than secondhand hearsay?

Once again - they presumably 'got' lots of information. They just didn't share that information with journalists. When they did, they didn't provide proof, which wasn't their stock in trade - information was. Freddie Scappaticci certainly talked to the media, but that landed him in much hot water, and despite admitting to an involvement in multiple murders (and implicating Martin McGuinness in the same), he's only now coming under investigation for them.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Once again - they presumably 'got' lots of information.

Yes, I am sure they did, not enough to convince either a judge or a jury of anything against Adams in 40 years though. Curious.

Nor could a battalion of journalists. Curious

Nor did dissidents who want an end to Adams. Curious.


A reasonable person might have to conclude that most of it is smoke and noise.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Why should the MI5 handlers resign? It may have taken a while but by the end the IRA gave up.

I thought your latest premise (based on investigative journalism) was that the 'RA were running SF?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I am sure they did, not enough to convince either a judge or a jury of anything against Adams in 40 years though. Curious.

Nor could a battalion of journalists. Curious

Nor did dissidents who want an end to Adams. Curious.


A reasonable person might have to conclude that most of it is smoke and noise.

A reasonable person would deduce that moles (or their handlers) weren't ever in the business of providing evidence for trials, or stories for journalists, but rather were used to undermine the IRA's activities. But keep building that straw man.

micosoft

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.

• Forensic evidence only arises for the person who did the murdering. Nobody is suggesting that he killed him personally or drove the getaway car. Unless he decided to record himself giving the instruction or signed a document. You are demanding levels of evidence you know to be impossible.
  
• Compelling testimony? Entirely subjective. You choose to believe who is compelling or not.

TBH Your answer is that you won't believe any reasonable evidence that would connect a senior IRA commander to an "operation" and you are being facetious suggesting that a convenient trail of evidence in a professional terrorist organisation would be left behind.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

No because it is accepted by the vast majority of people in the North and South that Gerry Adams was in the IRA and held a leadership position. Of course by your standards unless somebody finds his "IRA Membership Card" he stored with his Xtravision card no level of reasonable proof would persuade you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

No it's not. It's because there was a bloody campaign of murder and mayhem led by the IRA and a lot of people were killed. We thought we had an agreement to stop that but the IRA continued killing people to settle scores post GFA. A man was murdered post GFA in a cottage in Donegal. The citizens of the Republic are perfectly entitled to answers particularly if said person who ordered this is sitting in our parliament.

TBH your replies demonstrate that there is no possibility of you recognising the legitimate concerns here. Nothing other than an impossible level of proof will convince you otherwise. And you play the conspiracy card when challenged. I'm out.

FrancieBrady

micosoft wrote: »

• Forensic evidence only arises for the person who did the murdering. Nobody is suggesting that he killed him personally or drove the getaway car. Unless he decided to record himself giving the instruction or signed a document. You are demanding levels of evidence you know to be impossible.
  
• Compelling testimony? Entirely subjective. You choose to believe who is compelling or not.

TBH Your answer is that you won't believe any reasonable evidence that would connect a senior IRA commander to an "operation" and you are being facetious suggesting that a convenient trail of evidence in a professional terrorist organisation would be left behind.


No because it is accepted by the vast majority of people in the North and South that Gerry Adams was in the IRA and held a leadership position. Of course by your standards unless somebody finds his "IRA Membership Card" he stored with his Xtravision card no level of reasonable proof would persuade you.



No it's not. It's because there was a bloody campaign of murder and mayhem led by the IRA and a lot of people were killed. We thought we had an agreement to stop that but the IRA continued killing people to settle scores post GFA. A man was murdered post GFA in a cottage in Donegal. The citizens of the Republic are perfectly entitled to answers particularly if said person who ordered this is sitting in our parliament.

TBH your replies demonstrate that there is no possibility of you recognising the legitimate concerns here. Nothing other than an impossible level of proof will convince you otherwise. And you play the conspiracy card when challenged. I'm out.

What 'legitimate concerns'?
You do realise that the allegation could have been made about a whole raft of people?
What these allegations rely on is your prejudice and bias. That is the reality not a conspiracy theory at all.
As soon as there is an allegation made you have the same coterie of people jumping up and down in outrage and it all dies down and we move on to the next one.. The BBC Spotlight team reached parody levels in the programme.
You are fully entitled to make all the allegations you want but sooner or later you have to provide something of substance in relation to them.
The police never have been able to do that.
Nobody who has made an allegation has ever taken a civil case, despite threats.
No journalist has ever provided anything other than insinuation and hearsay.
No dissident or former members have come out of the organisation with anything more incriminating than hearsay. (Which is immediately untrustworthy)
800 alleged touts never resulted in taking down Adams either.



You throw around the word 'majority' here in total denial of the support SF have.
Their support has grown and is projected to grow further, so demonstrating that his membership or not of the IRA isn't a 'legitimate concern' to a majority of people on the island at all nor are these routine allegations.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

A reasonable person would deduce that moles (or their handlers) weren't ever in the business of providing evidence for trials, or stories for journalists, but rather were used to undermine the IRA's activities. But keep building that straw man.

Again you are totally uninformed, have you ever heard of 'Supergrasses' or as the PSNI like to call them 'Assisting Offenders'? They have gone to trial many times with evidence supplied by informants.
Touts who stand in court and give evidence and information about what they know.
Out of 800 (allegedly) not one had any evidence capable of convicting this man on any of these numerous allegations?

If people not remotely connected to what went on, such as yourself and the others here, believe all these allegations to be true beyond doubt, is that ^ even remotely credible? Not one of the 800 had anything incriminating but now the conflict is over they get a slot on the BBC and it's 'hey, I told you so'.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again you are totally uninformed, have you ever heard of 'Supergrasses' or as the PSNI like to call them 'Assisting Offenders'? They have gone to trial many times with evidence supplied by informants.
Touts who stand in court and give evidence and information about what they know.
Out of 800 (allegedly) not one had any evidence capable of convicting this man on any of these numerous allegations?

If people not remotely connected to what went on, such as yourself and the others here, believe all these allegations to be true beyond doubt, is that ^ even remotely credible? Not one of the 800 had anything incriminating but now the conflict is over they get a slot on the BBC and it's 'hey, I told you so'.

Which supergrass gave evidence against Adams? Who suggests that the 800 moles didn't provide incriminating evidence regarding Adam's role in the IRA? Both strawman arguments. Again - the point of the 800 moles was to undermine the terrorist groups, not bring cases to court. Supergrasses were, in the main, either arrested terrorists, or agents who had been compromised or exposed, and therefore had no more utility as undercover agents.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You throw around the word 'majority' here in total denial of the support SF have.
Their support has grown and is projected to grow further, so demonstrating that his membership or not of the IRA isn't a 'legitimate concern' to a majority of people on the island at all nor are these routine allegations.

Just a reminder that 13/14% isn't anywhere near any sort of majority in anyone's terms. You might ask yourself if the taint of a campaign of murder might, just perhaps, play some role in the 86/87% who can't bring themselves to give the party a vote?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Which supergrass gave evidence against Adams? Who suggests that the 800 moles didn't provide incriminating evidence regarding Adam's role in the IRA? Both strawman arguments. Again - the point of the 800 moles was to undermine the terrorist groups, not bring cases to court. Supergrasses were, in the main, either arrested terrorists, or agents who had been compromised or exposed, and therefore had no more utility as undercover agents.

That is the point; no supergrass stood in a court and gave evidence that Adams was the leader of what was at the time; public enemy No. 1 - the IRA.
Nobody had evidence or compelling testimony, in 40 years, capable of standing the scrutiny of a court. A 'court' and justice system that was willing to pay and induce people to give evidence. And, most critically, a court that was willing to convict solely on testimony.
That says a lot, in fairness.

On the 'point of 800 moles', is your claim now that the RUC or British would not have been looking for ways to take out and imprison the leadership? That they would not have wanted to halt the progress of Sinn Fein by exposing the leader as leader of the the IRA because that flies in the face of what we know the British were trying to do - undermine Sinn Fein.
Are you seriously saying that a government, so desperate to stop the rise of Sinn Fein, that they actually banned them from the airways, would have passed up the opportunity of exposing/trying Adams if they could have?
That is not even in the realm of conspiracy theory that is in the realm of fantasy, if you know anything of the time.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Just a reminder that 13/14% isn't anywhere near any sort of majority in anyone's terms. You might ask yourself if the taint of a campaign of murder might, just perhaps, play some role in the 86/87% who can't bring themselves to give the party a vote?

I didn't use the word 'majority'.
Now can you show us any evidence that the 86% are not voting for SF because 'they can't bring themselves to'?
Or are we in the hysterical, make it up as we go along range again?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't use the word 'majority'.

You didn't? What was your point exactly then? Because you certainly seemed to dispute a majority didn't support SF. "In denial" etc?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the point; no supergrass stood in a court and gave evidence that Adams was the leader of what was at the time; public enemy No. 1 - the IRA.
Nobody had evidence or compelling testimony, in 40 years, capable of standing the scrutiny of a court. A 'court' and justice system that was willing to pay and induce people to give evidence. And, most critically, a court that was willing to convict solely on testimony.
That says a lot, in fairness.

It doesn't, beyond highlighting your inability to understand the nature of how infiltration works. The courts paid nobody for anything. The security services paid informers, but that's nothing to do with the court. Supergrasses gave no evidence about all manner of activity in NI, that doesn't imply that there was no such activity. You keep evading the fact of how moles were used - they were not intended to provide evidence for trials, they were intended to provide information to undermine terrorist activities. Which they clearly did. No supergrass gave evidence in a court regarding Adams, because the moles who provided information on Adams activities were never exposed during the troubles.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

You didn't? What was your point exactly then? Because you certainly seemed to dispute a majority didn't support SF. "In denial" etc?

You made the point that the 86% are not voting for Sinn Fein because 'they cannot bring themselves to', which is fantasy land stuff.
You guys are throwing around words and claims based on nothing but prejudice and bias.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'legitimate concerns'?
You do realise that the allegation could have been made about a whole raft of people?
What these allegations rely on is your prejudice and bias. That is the reality not a conspiracy theory at all.
As soon as there is an allegation made you have the same coterie of people jumping up and down in outrage and it all dies down and we move on to the next one.. The BBC Spotlight team reached parody levels in the programme.
You are fully entitled to make all the allegations you want but sooner or later you have to provide something of substance in relation to them.
The police never have been able to do that.
Nobody who has made an allegation has ever taken a civil case, despite threats.
No journalist has ever provided anything other than insinuation and hearsay.
No dissident or former members have come out of the organisation with anything more incriminating than hearsay. (Which is immediately untrustworthy)
800 alleged touts never resulted in taking down Adams either..

Accusing other posters of prejudice and bias isn't a way to address the substantive concerns and issues that they raise.

The point has been made repeatedly that Gerry Adams has referred allegations against him to his lawyers on numerous occasions but he has never successfully pursued a case in respect of Jean McConville, Aine Adams, covering-up child sexual abuse, membership of the IRA or Mairia Cahill. You don't need to be biased to wonder why Gerry, for all his protestations, hasn't followed through.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You throw around the word 'majority' here in total denial of the support SF have.
Their support has grown and is projected to grow further, so demonstrating that his membership or not of the IRA isn't a 'legitimate concern' to a majority of people on the island at all nor are these routine allegations.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't use the word 'majority'.

I can't reconcile these two posts.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You made the point that the 86% are not voting for Sinn Fein because 'they cannot bring themselves to', which is fantasy land stuff.
You guys are throwing around words and claims based on nothing but prejudice and bias.

If they're not voting SF, then they demonstrably can't bring themselves to do so. It's not a subjective issue. Objectively it's a fact.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't, beyond highlighting your inability to understand the nature of how infiltration works. The courts paid nobody for anything. The security services paid informers, but that's nothing to do with the court. Supergrasses gave no evidence about all manner of activity in NI, that doesn't imply that there was no such activity. You keep evading the fact of how moles were used - they were not intended to provide evidence for trials, they were intended to provide information to undermine terrorist activities. Which they clearly did. No supergrass gave evidence in a court regarding Adams, because the moles who provided information on Adams activities were never exposed during the troubles.

Alastair, I never disputed your claim that touts provided information to undermine. Of course they did that.

But touts were also used to give evidence in courts. You are in denial of that simple fact.
You are also asking us to believe (based on nothing but your opinion) that the British and RUC didn't want Adams in jail and Sinn Fein undermined. What was the best way of doing that? By allowing them to achieve the GFA and power sharing? To have McGuinness and Adams in powerful positions?

The courts were aware that the people giving testimony (Supergrasses) were either paid or given inducements in return for evidence. Read the contemporary accounts.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Accusing other posters of prejudice and bias isn't a way to address the substantive concerns and issues that they raise.

The point has been made repeatedly that Gerry Adams has referred allegations against him to his lawyers on numerous occasions but he has never successfully pursued a case in respect of Jean McConville, Aine Adams, covering-up child sexual abuse, membership of the IRA or Mairia Cahill. You don't need to be biased to wonder why Gerry, for all his protestations, hasn't followed through.

Because sometimes (and those making the allegations are well aware of it) there is no way to counter these allegations.

I can't reconcile these two posts.

I was responding to his use of the word majority.
I made no claims about what a 'majority' believe. Simple enough stuff.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

If they're not voting SF, then they demonstrably can't bring themselves to do so. It's not a subjective issue. Objectively it's a fact.

or they simply don't agree with them politically or on policy. A normal political landscape in other words.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because sometimes (and those making the allegations are well aware of it) there is no way to counter these allegations.

But there is, Gerry could produce loads of witnesses to tell us where he was and what he was doing when the abduction of Jean McConville was ordered and when the actual atrocity occurred.

He could also produce witnesses to say he never met Mairia Cahill about her sexual abuse complaint.

Oh, scratch that, you are right, there is no way to counter these allegations without him implicating himself.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Alastair, I never disputed your claim that touts provided information to undermine. Of course they did that.

But touts were also used to give evidence in courts. You are in denial of that simple fact.
You are also asking us to believe (based on nothing but your opinion) that the British and RUC didn't want Adams in jail and Sinn Fein undermined. What was the best way of doing that? By allowing them to achieve the GFA and power sharing? To have McGuinness and Adams in powerful positions?

The courts were aware that the people giving testimony (Supergrasses) were either paid or given inducements in return for evidence. Read the contemporary accounts.

Of course the courts were aware that supergrasses were either paid, or received new identities for their testimony. That's quite a different thing from claiming the courts paid anybody. Read the testimony yourself. There's ample evidence of judges not buying into the credibility of some supergrass testimony.

The British benefitted far more from a direct line into IRA planning than they would have from jailing a couple of leaders on the back of exposing their agents. No supergrass was an active agent who hadn't been exposed. Not a single one. That should tell you something about the priorities for infiltration.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

or they simply don't agree with them politically or on policy. A normal political landscape in other words.

Except that this isn't a normal party with normal leadership. It's a party with blood on it's hands. You'd have to be pretty blinkered to dispute that this plays no role in their difficulty in growing beyond minority appeal.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was responding to his use of the word majority.
I made no claims about what a 'majority' believe. Simple enough stuff.

A bit too simple for me. You dispute the claim of a majority, but make no claim that it's not a majority?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

But there is, Gerry could produce loads of witnesses to tell us where he was and what he was doing when the abduction of Jean McConville was ordered and when the actual atrocity occurred.

He could also produce witnesses to say he never met Mairia Cahill about her sexual abuse complaint.

Oh, scratch that, you are right, there is no way to counter these allegations without him implicating himself.

Scratch it, because there would be no convincing some people. The chances of anybody, willing to believe the type of person used on Spotlight, would believe any witness presented by Adams would be zero, wouldn't you say?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Scratch it, because there would be no convincing some people. The chances of anybody, willing to believe the type of person used on Spotlight, would believe any witness presented by Adams would be zero, wouldn't you say?

That's some victimhood you're fermenting there.

Adams presumably understands how courts operate, like the rest of us. Yet he never follows through on his threats of litigation.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Scratch it, because there would be no convincing some people. The chances of anybody, willing to believe the type of person used on Spotlight, would believe any witness presented by Adams would be zero, wouldn't you say?

That's a terrible thing to say about civil court judges.

We are not talking about the vast majority of ordinary punters, who have never voted SF and never will, and what they believe, we are talking about those who would sit in judgement if Gerry ever manned up and sued which he keeps threatening to do. Are you suggesting that judges won't believe Gerry?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Of course the courts were aware that supergrasses were either paid, or received new identities for their testimony. That's quite a different thing from claiming the courts paid anybody.

Let's say then, 'the courts, as part of the apparatus of the state, like the police, were 'complicit' in the arrangements.

Read the testimony yourself. There's ample evidence of judges not buying into the credibility of some supergrass testimony.

The British benefitted far more from a direct line into IRA planning than they would have from jailing a couple of leaders on the back of exposing their agents. No supergrass was an active agent who hadn't been exposed. Not a single one. That should tell you something about the priorities for infiltration.

Well then, what we can then say, in fact, is that both supergrasses and undercover agents could not supply evidence to convict Adams.

Supergrasses are just one more group of people to add to the list of those who have been unable to supply proof of even one of the allegations made against Adams.

Credible?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

That's a terrible thing to say about civil court judges.

We are not talking about the vast majority of ordinary punters, who have never voted SF and never will, and what they believe, we are talking about those who would sit in judgement if Gerry ever manned up and sued which he keeps threatening to do. Are you suggesting that judges won't believe Gerry?

Is the lack of a civil case against him in 40 years, proof of anything in your book?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let's say then, 'the courts, as part of the apparatus of the state, like the police, were 'complicit' in the arrangements.

If by that you mean that the courts heard the evidence put before them, then sure, they were 'complicit' in doing their normal work. Again - refer to the court transcripts if you need any help in bursting your implication that supergrass testimony was treated any differently to any other testimony.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, what we can then say, in fact, is that both supergrasses and undercover agents could not supply evidence to convict Adams.

We can't say that. No such case was before the courts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Supergrasses are just one more group of people to add to the list of those who have been unable to supply proof of even one of the allegations made against Adams.

Credible?

Not at all. See above. There's been no court case in which any proof could be presented. Whether moles could provide evidence if such a case were to have gone before the courts is unknown. And the strategy for using moles was to keep their activities hidden.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the lack of a civil case against him in 40 years, proof of anything in your book?

Nope, people are legitimately afraid of graves in bogs, if half the stories about him are true.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the lack of a civil case against him in 40 years, proof of anything in your book?

Is the lack of any charges or court case against the activities of Jimmy Saville proof of anything?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Nope, people are legitimately afraid of graves in bogs, if half the stories about him are true.

So, to take one instance, because you are 'legitimately afraid of a grave in a bog' (a tad hysterical given this has'nt happened in 30 years) you don't pursue a civil case you threatened but you mount a PR led campaign in the national press, meet Taoiseach's on the steps of the Dail and opposition leaders and generally get far more publicity than has ever been gotten for an allegation against Adams.

Meanwhile your alleged abuser still roams the streets and the man who heads the organisation you fear, does likewise?

Credible?
Wouldn't the more credible explanation be that the quality of the evidence you have is not of sufficient quality even for a lower standard of proof (your words) civil case?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Is the lack of any charges or court case against the activities of Jimmy Saville proof of anything?

Police incompetence? They were aware of allegations if I am correct. Not too up on the Saville case tbh.