Gerry Adams 'sanctioned Denis Donaldson killing'

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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?

One person (Mairia Cahill) has threatened a civil case against Adams, which is still in early days. She has been subject to extreme villification on the internet for being a victim of SF/IRA. No wonder this is taking time.

Gerry Adams has promised numerous times - some of them 20 years ago - to sue and has never done so.

The two are not comparable, and you are constructing a strawman whataboutery argument. Everyone knows that Gerry won't sue because he hasn't a leg to stand on.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

One person (Mairia Cahill) has threatened a civil case against Adams, which is still in early days. She has been subject to extreme villification on the internet for being a victim of SF/IRA. No wonder this is taking time.

Gerry Adams has promised numerous times - some of them 20 years ago - to sue and has never done so.

The two are not comparable, and you are constructing a strawman whataboutery argument. Everyone knows that Gerry won't sue because he hasn't a leg to stand on.

There are NO civil cases. NONE. Plenty of 'looking at possibilities' 'threats' of one etc. But in reality, there are none. That is incontrovertible at this stage. If I am wrong, please point to an actual case.

It's just a simple question really:
If the absence of Gerry Adams suing a newspaper is evidence of something, (and I don't believe he 'promised' anything btw.) what is the absence of a criminal or civil case in 40 years 'evidence' of?

Peculiar that there are no 'opinions' on that anomaly.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

So - lack of a charge or trial really proves nothing

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

So - lack of a charge or trial really proves nothing

In that case, yes. What has Jimmy Saville's case or lack of one got to do with Adams? There where people who could have given evidence or taken a case against Saville but for a variety of reasons, they didn't. They were also, not all over the media making allegations against him while he was alive and threatening cases. He was not arrested many times and asked to answer questions about his past (which he has willingly done, despite people constantly saying 'he has questions to answer'. He just hasn't given the 'answer' they want)

There are many allegations against Adams, about many different alleged crimes.
I am asking you specifically, what does the the lack of a criminal case or a civil case tell you about these 'allegations' and those making them?

It's there right in front of your nose if you care to look at it objectively.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

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.

Thats about to change it seems.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-to-take-legal-action-over-bbc-donaldson-claims-1.2810337

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats about to change it seems.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-to-take-legal-action-over-bbc-donaldson-claims-1.2810337

Better late than never.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Better late than never.

I'd be puzzled over why the Spotlight programme got aired in the first place if the Belfast Telegraph piece that essentially rubbished its claims is true.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be puzzled over why the Spotlight programme got aired in the first place if the Belfast Telegraph piece that essentially rubbished its claims is true.

The Adams allegation was only a part of the broader programme, but agreed it wasn't the finest example of journalism from the Spotlight crew. I suppose they can't all be winners.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

it wasn't the finest example of journalism from the Spotlight crew.

The understatement of the year.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The understatement of the year.

...meets the exaggeration of the day.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am asking you specifically, what does the the lack of a criminal case or a civil case tell you about these 'allegations' and those making them?

It's there right in front of your nose if you care to look at it objectively.

You've been given the answer multiple times. There may well be a civil case for Adams waiting until the Ivor Bell case concludes, and the merit of the allegations made against Adams really have little to do with what cases were, or were not brought against him. Adams as a leader of the IRA is responsible for people's murder. Nobody really disputes the reality of that, no more than they believe Slab Murphy is merely guilty of tax evasion. Even a majority of SF voters believe Adams is lieing about his membership of the IRA. We don't need any judge to confirm what we already understand to be self-evident.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

You've been given the answer multiple times. There may well be a civil case for Adams waiting until the Ivor Bell case concludes, and the merit of the allegations made against Adams really have little to do with what cases were, or were not brought against him. Adams as a leader of the IRA is responsible for people's murder. Nobody really disputes the reality of that, no more than they believe Slab Murphy is merely guilty of tax evasion. Even a majority of SF voters believe Adams is lieing about his membership of the IRA. We don't need any judge to confirm what we already understand to be self-evident.

There is and has been NO civil case. That is my point, spin all you want, but the facts are the facts.

If the leaders of the IRA are responsible for 'murder' where are the cases against known leaders?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is and has been NO civil case. That is my point, spin all you want, but the facts are the facts.

If the leaders of the IRA are responsible for 'murder' where are the cases against known leaders?

What spin are you on about? The civil case against Adams that the law firm highlighted cannot progress until the Ivor Bell case ends.

No need for the scare quotes. IRA leaders are clearly responsible for murders, heading up a group culpable for hundreds of murders.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

What spin are you on about? The civil case against Adams that the law firm highlighted cannot progress until the Ivor Bell case ends.

Gosh, how many times does it need to be said? There is NO and has been NO civil cases against Adams.
There HAS been threats of them, and press releases about the possibility of one, but in FACT or reality, there are none. (Capitals for emphasis)

No need for the scare quotes. IRA leaders are clearly responsible for murders, reading up a group culpable for hundreds of murders.

Where are the cases against known leaders. Simple question.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gosh, how many times does it need to be said? There is NO and has been NO civil cases against Adams.
There HAS been threats of them, and press releases about the possibility of one, but in FACT or reality, there are none. (Capitals for emphasis)


Where are the cases against known leaders. Simple question.

Again, simplicity isn't really a compelling frame.

The fact is you don't know the status of the civil case against Adams, since it cannot progress while the Bell case is ongoing. That's the real fact of the matter.

The IRA leaders responsibility for murders isn't in question. The murders took place, and the leadership directed those that murdered. That situation stands regardless of who was or wasn't charged with specific crimes.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Again, simplicity isn't really a compelling frame.

The fact is you don't know the status of the civil case against Adams, since it cannot progress while the Bell case is ongoing. That's the real fact of the matter.

I know that up to 2016 there have been NO civil cases. Which was my point.

The IRA leaders responsibility for murders isn't in question. The murders took place, and the leadership directed those that murdered. That situation stands regardless of who was or wasn't charged with specific crimes.

And the nationalist community would call for the same for those who directed British and Loyalist killings.

So that doesn't get us far. Unless you accept that there was a conflict/war and try to progress the peace in a positive way. But no, retribution for one side must be achieved. And the nonsense is that it centres on one man.
High stakes and a lot of disappointment if one of these allegations doesn't stick before he retires. Maybe that is why Spotlight are getting desperate?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know that up to 2016 there have been NO civil cases. Which was my point.

Perhaps you shouldn't make your point by claiming something else then, eh?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the nationalist community would call for the same for those who directed British and Loyalist killings.

So that doesn't get us far. Unless you accept that there was a conflict/war and try to progress the peace in a positive way. But no, retribution for one side must be achieved. And the nonsense is that it centres on one man.
High stakes and a lot of disappointment if one of these allegations doesn't stick before he retires. Maybe that is why Spotlight are getting desperate?

I don't expect anyone to vote for British military figures, and there's precious little electoral support for loyalist groups, so that really just leaves us with the issue of voting for political figures that are culpable for the murder of hundreds of people. I don't accept the need for those murders at any stage of the conflict, and nor did the electorate - nationalist and unionist right through the conflict. Consequences for choices one makes in life is to be expected. Adams is no different in this regard - no nonsense about that. Quite what you mean by 'high stakes' escapes me. Adams may or may not pay the piper, whether before or after retirement - but it's no more pressing than it ever was. I'm sure it's high stakes for the McConville kids, along with many others, but no more than it ever was.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps you shouldn't make your point by claiming something else then, eh?

Was I the one claiming that a press release about investigating the possibility of a civil case was refutation of my point that no civil case had ever been taken against Adams. No, I wasn't, eh?

I don't expect anyone to vote for British military figures, and there's precious little electoral support for loyalist groups, so that really just leaves us with the issue of voting for political figures that are culpable for the murder of hundreds of people. I don't accept the need for those murders at any stage of the conflict, and nor did the electorate - nationalist and unionist right through the conflict. Consequences for choices one makes in life is to be expected. Adams is no different in this regard - no nonsense about that. Quite what you mean by 'high stakes' escapes me. Adams may or may not pay the piper, whether before or after retirement - but it's no more pressing than it ever was. I'm sure it's high stakes for the McConville kids, along with many others, but no more than it ever was.

My point was the retribution for what happened in a long multi faceted conflict/war was being waged against one man. And that the zeal with which it is being pursued is 'high stakes'. i.e. Something needs to stick soon or there are going to be a lot of disappointed high moral grounders. That maybe why elements in the BBC like elements of the PSNI and the Southern media are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of journalism and policing.

Anyway, another storm in a teacup has died the usual death. We will await the next one.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was I the one claiming that a press release about investigating the possibility of a civil case was refutation of my point that no civil case had ever been taken against Adams. No, I wasn't, eh?

Try again: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101114179&postcount=45
And again - if you have a point to make, try sticking to that point - you were arguing something different at the last call - " There is NO and has been NO civil cases against Adams." As I've repeatedly pointed out - you have no idea the status of the civil case until the Ivor Bell case is over.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point was the retribution for what happened in a long multi faceted conflict/war was being waged against one man. And that the zeal with which it is being pursued is 'high stakes'. i.e. Something needs to stick soon or there are going to be a lot of disappointed high moral grounders. That maybe why elements in the BBC like elements of the PSNI and the Southern media are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of journalism and policing.

Anyway, another storm in a teacup has died the usual death. We will await the next one.

Straw man argument. Adams is only one of a number of people who have yet to face justice for their actions during the troubles, and far from the sole focus of the Spotlight investigations. That doesn't negate observers calling him on the lies he's been shilling, nor his culpability for his actions. Nobody is throwing any bathwater out in correctly holding the man to account for his (poor) choices. Pretending there's some sort of sinister conspiracy at play against poor oul Gerry is just pathetic stuff. If you were honest with yourself you'd admit that as an IRA leader, responsible for the sort of atrocities they were, he's not got any reason to expect to evade entirely justified retribution.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Try again: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101114179&postcount=45
And again - if you have a point to make, try sticking to that point - you were arguing something different at the last call - " There is NO and has been NO civil cases against Adams." As I've repeatedly pointed out - you have no idea the status of the civil case until the Ivor Bell case is over.

Wee test for you again.
Is there a civil case against Adams or has there ever been = NO
Is there a press release from a law firm headed by a publicity loving barrister stating that they are 'investigating the possibility of mounting a civil case' = YES
Has same law firm issued a press release yet stating that it will be possible to mount a civil case = NO.

My point again = There is not and never has been a civil case against Adams.

Straw man argument. Adams is only one of a number of people who have yet to face justice for their actions during the troubles, and far from the sole focus of the Spotlight investigations. That doesn't negate observers calling him on the lies he's been shilling, nor his culpability for his actions. Nobody is throwing any bathwater out in correctly holding the man to account for his (poor) choices. Pretending there's some sort of sinister conspiracy at play against poor oul Gerry is just pathetic stuff. If you were honest with yourself you'd admit that as an IRA leader, responsible for the sort of atrocities they were, he's not got any reason to expect to evade entirely justified retribution.

Correctly holding the man to account for all he has done would lead a reasonable person to say that he took those he represented down the path of peace and negotiated a settlement that allowed them to live in a democratic society that recognised them as equals.

If the pursuit of retribution was even handed in even a basic way I might allow you to stand on the high moral ground. But of course it isn't, the BBC and elements of the Southern media along with their online cheerleaders now becoming parodies of themselves in pursuit of one man.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wee test for you again.
Is there a civil case against Adams or has there ever been = NO
Is there a press release from a law firm headed by a publicity loving barrister stating that they are 'investigating the possibility of mounting a civil case' = YES
Has same law firm issued a press release yet stating that it will be possible to mount a civil case = NO.

My point again = There is not and never has been a civil case against Adams.

Except for the one that may well be currently awaiting the end of the Ivor Bell case. So despite the CAPS, you really don't know.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correctly holding the man to account for all he has done would lead a reasonable person to say that he took those he represented down the path of peace and negotiated a settlement that allowed them to live in a democratic society that recognised them as equals.

If the pursuit of retribution was even handed in even a basic way I might allow you to stand on the high moral ground. But of course it isn't, the BBC and elements of the Southern media along with their online cheerleaders now becoming parodies of themselves in pursuit of one man.

Well, the reward for finally realising the pointlessness of running a campaign of violence in an already democratic society, that had a clear and overwhelming electoral antipathy towards that campaign of murder, isn't an amnesty for every poor choice you've made in life. The only parody evident here is the head in the sand belief that Adams is being picked on for no good reason. He's a demonstrable liar, with far too much dirty linen to ignore.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Except for the one that may well be currently awaiting the end of the Ivor Bell case. So despite the CAPS, you really don't know.

No, that is a p-o-s-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y of a civil case.
'It is possible that I might win the lottery one day, but I h-a-v-e n-o-t as yet, won the lottery'.

Well, the reward for finally realising the pointlessness of running a campaign of violence in an already democratic society, that had a clear and overwhelming electoral antipathy towards that campaign of murder, isn't an amnesty for every poor choice you've made in life. The only parody evident here is the head in the sand belief that Adams is being picked on for no good reason. He's a demonstrable liar, with far too much dirty linen to ignore.

Quite a lot of politicians are demonstrable liars, that's politics. Many many people and politicians are lying about their roles in this conflict/war.
The silly thing is these one sided retribution campaigns will get us nowhere on the road to find out what really happened.
More than most Adams has been willing to talk about the past and he has accepted that all sides did things that should not have been done.
But there are huge gaps in what we know and huge obstacles are in the way of full and transparent disclosure.
Isn't it curious that nobody wants to test or call the IRA's bluff on their willingness to take part in a Truth Commission. Should we be outraged about that? Would that not be more worthwhile outrage?
Maybe if the media spent some time calling out those who are creating those obstacles they would be actually doing a worthwhile job.
Because even you have admitted these spurious and hysterical agenda laden campaigns are pointless.


*p.s.; projecting/inventing a realisation of pointlessness on to historical events because that is your own moral or political stance is very naive.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, that is a p-o-s-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y of a civil case.
'It is possible that I might win the lottery one day, but I h-a-v-e n-o-t as yet, won the lottery'.

Strange analogy. If I inform you I'm probably going to buy a lottery ticket, but just need to check that I've some money in my pocket to do so. And then you don't see me for the weekend, do you think it's likely that the possibility of my having bought that ticket are comparable to the possibility of my winning that lottery? We have a situation where a law firm with a strong record of winning civil cases in NI have been instructed by their client to pursue a civil case against Adams. We won't hear the outcome of that until the current criminal case ends. Not really lottery winnings level of uncertainty about what will come if this, is it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite a lot of politicians are demonstrable liars, that's politics. Many many people and politicians are lying about their roles in this conflict/war.
The silly thing is these one sided retribution campaigns will get us nowhere on the road to find out what really happened.
More than most Adams has been willing to talk about the past and he has accepted that all sides did things that should not have been done.
But there are huge gaps in what we know and huge obstacles are in the way of full and transparent disclosure.
Isn't it curious that nobody wants to test or call the IRA's bluff on their willingness to take part in a Truth Commission. Should we be outraged about that? Would that not be more worthwhile outrage?
Maybe if the media spent some time calling out those who are creating those obstacles they would be actually doing a worthwhile job.
Because even you have admitted these spurious and hysterical agenda laden campaigns are pointless.


*p.s.; projecting/inventing a realisation of pointlessness on to historical events because that is your own moral or political stance is very naive.

Lots of liar politicians. Not so many where women end up murdered and buried on beaches though. And there's no 'one-sided' retribution at play. That would be an attempt at evasion of responsibility.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Strange analogy. If I inform you I'm probably going to buy a lottery ticket, but just need to check that I've some money in my pocket to do so. And then you don't see me for the weekend, do you think it's likely that the possibility of my having bought that ticket are comparable to the possibility of my winning that lottery? We have a situation where a law firm with a strong record of winning civil cases in NI have been instructed by their client to pursue a civil case against Adams. We won't hear the outcome of that until the current criminal case ends. Not really lottery winnings level of uncertainty about what will come if this, is it?

You are refusing to understand even your own link now. They have NOT been instructed to pursue a civil case. They have been instructed to:
'determine the possibility of bringing a civil action against those...'
There then follows some self promotion.
Your own link:
http://www.mccue-law.com/2015/jean-mcconvilles-daughter-instructs-mccue-partners-to-explore-civil-action-options-against-gerry-adams-and-others/

Lots of liar politicians. Not so many where women end up murdered and buried on beaches though. And there's no 'one-sided' retribution at play. That would be an attempt at evasio of responsibility.

Not one sided? When is the last time you saw the Indo do a feature on the progress of a Truth Commission and an examination of who is blocking that?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are refusing to understand even your own link now. They have NOT been instructed to pursue a civil case. They have been instructed to:
'determine the possibility of bringing a civil action against those...'
There then follows some self promotion.
Your own link:
http://www.mccue-law.com/2015/jean-mcconvilles-daughter-instructs-mccue-partners-to-explore-civil-action-options-against-gerry-adams-and-others/

I understand the link perfectly cheers. It's you who seems determined to ignore the reality that you won't hear anything until the Ivor Bell case ends.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not one sided? When is the last time you saw the Indo do a feature on the progress of a Truth Commission and an examination of who is blocking that?

Last week?

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

I understand the link perfectly cheers. It's you who seems determined to ignore the reality that you won't hear anything until the Ivor Bell case ends.

I made the claim that there has never been a civil case taken against the man.
Is that 'reality' or not?
If I am wrong please point to a case that has been 'taken' against him.

Press releases about 'the possibility of taking a case' DO NOT count.
*Caps for emphasis

Last week?

Fair enough, an opinion piece is better than nothing.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Press releases about 'the possibility of taking a case' DO NOT count.
*Caps for emphasis
.

Oh, I agree, I am still waiting for all the cases Gerry announced he was taking.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Oh, I agree, I am still waiting for all the cases Gerry announced he was taking.

I don't think he ever announced that, he certainly said he was looking at the possibility of taking cases.
Not so subtle difference.

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think he ever announced that, he certainly said he was looking at the possibility of taking cases.
Not so subtle difference.

Not so. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-to-take-legal-action-against-independent-newspapers-1.1797207

http://www.herald.ie/news/adams-now-threatens-to-sue-us-over-his-ira-past-27973466.html

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

Not so. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/gerry-adams-to-take-legal-action-against-independent-newspapers-1.1797207

http://www.herald.ie/news/adams-now-threatens-to-sue-us-over-his-ira-past-27973466.html

First one is behind a pay wall.

And the second one clearly says 'threatened'.
Now I know I may sound pedantic but 'threatening' to do something is NOT the same thing as 'announcing you are taking a case'.
People threaten law all the time then have a chat with their legal team and get told that the 'possibility' is slim or to proceed. .

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

First one is behind a pay wall.

For clarity:

Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams is to take legal action against Independent Newspapers in relation to an article about his role in the his brother’s trial.

Mr Adams has instructed solicitor Paul Tweed to issue proceedings against the newspaper group over an article that made certain assertions about his role in the criminal trial of his brother Liam Adams.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

For clarity:

Was that the one where the press Ombudsman found in favour of Adams?

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was that the one where the press Ombudsman found in favour of Adams?

I thought he hadn't announced litigation? The Press Ombudsman has nothing to do with litigation.

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

I thought he hadn't announced litigation? The Press Ombudsman has nothing to do with litigation.

What he actually said was he had told his lawyer to take 'appropriate action. note the quote in the article linked. I presume his lawyer dealt with the complaint to the Ombudsman. Who found in Adams favour btw.

Speaking at the launch of his party's local election manifesto, Mr Adams said he had asked his lawyer to take what he called "appropriate action"

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0515/617502-gerry-adams-legal-action/

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What he actually said was he had told his lawyer to take 'appropriate action. note the quote in the article linked. I presume his lawyer dealt with the complaint to the Ombudsman. Who found in Adams favour btw.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0515/617502-gerry-adams-legal-action/

I think the Irish Times are happy enough to interpret a letter from a law firm, and form their own judgement. The Press Ombudsman made no finding, for Adams, on the complaint other than the letter was not an attempt to suppress the Independent reporting on other matters - it rejected the rest of Adams' complaints. Note that Adams didn't dispute the Irish Times article, or bring any complaint against them for their reporting of the matter.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gerry-adams-letter-independent-1730086-Oct2014/

FrancieBrady

alastair wrote: »

The Press Ombudsman made no finding, for Adams,

THE PRESS OMBUDSMAN has upheld a complaint by Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams that the Irish Independent breached his right to a ‘good name’ by publishing this line, back in May…

alastair

FrancieBrady wrote: »

to quote the actual finding (the only one that was upheld) from the Press Ombudsman:

In these circumstances, the Press Ombudsman decided that the accusation that Mr Adams had issued a legal letter to the newspaper attempting to silence its reporting on another investigation was unfounded and, for this reason, a breach of Principle 4 of the Code of Practice

FrancieBrady

The full statement, which shows that his solicitors took 'appropriate action'.

http://www.presscouncil.ie/mr-gerry-adams-td-and-the-irish-independent-2430