Mairia Cahill vindicated

James Brown

maccored wrote: »

theres a lot more waffle than that in this thread. 'defend-SF-at-all-costs gang' ... get paranoid much?

It's calling out baloney. I barely give SF a nod in elections but twisting the narrative to score points, especially relating to this kind of alleged incident, is low grade.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

Francie is the one who claimed she wrote "to the IRA specifically"

Seeing as how it was another of the defend-SF-at-all-costs gang on here that made the claim - does that suddenly mean it wasn't "waffle" anymore :rolleyes:

Peter Madden, the defence solicitor involved with the collapsed trial has said similar, ie, that Mairia Cahill wrote to the IRA’s army council. He has stated this on RTE Radio’s Morning Ireland programme.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Francie is the one who claimed she wrote "to the IRA specifically"

Seeing as how it was another of the defend-SF-at-all-costs gang on here that made the claim - does that suddenly mean it wasn't "waffle" anymore :rolleyes:

What?

The IRA didn't run a front office with a receptionist.

When I say 'she wrote to the IRA', I am repeating what solicitors and lawyers said.

Pretty pedantic attempt to deflect from the substance of what all that writing means here.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Peter Madden, the defence solicitor involved with the collapsed trial has said similar, ie, that Mairia Cahill wrote to the IRA’s army council. He has stated this on RTE Radio’s Morning Ireland programme.

Probably should tell Maccred then - he's the one claiming it was "waffle".

But of course, that would be "un-comradely behaviour" - so better go and attack someone who isn't a blind SF devotee instead :rolleyes:

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

The IRA didn't run a front office with a receptionist.

When I say 'she wrote to the IRA', I am repeating what solicitors and lawyers said.

Pretty pedantic attempt to deflect from the substance of what all that writing means here.

Maybe you should actually write what you mean then, instead of stating one thing, and then pretending to have meant something else when called out on it.

Anyway - shouldn't you're gripe be with your fellow traveller who initially called your claim "waffle" ?

Or is this just a case of attack based on who the poster is again :rolleyes:

maccored wrote: »

how is she meant to write a letter to the IRA?? - obviously it was going to be sent to an individual member. the IRA HQ address wasnt in the phone book.

The waffle on here is mad

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

Probably should tell Maccred then - he's the one claiming it was "waffle".

But of course, that would be "un-comradely behaviour" - so better go and attack someone who isn't a blind SF devotee instead :rolleyes:

Sorry, its appears to me you’re fixated on the totally unimportant here and are missing the point of what he said.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

Quite the opposite of what you claim

Do you have a link to that?

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Maybe you should actually write what you mean then, instead of stating one thing, and then pretending to have meant something else when called out on it.

Anyway - shouldn't you're gripe be with your fellow traveller who initially called your claim "waffle" ?

Or is this just a case of attack based on who the poster is again :rolleyes:

Why are you always on thread talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion?

I meant; 'she wrote to the IRA', as did anyone else talking about this case. You seem to have a distinction between somebody 'acting as a point of contact for the IRA' and the IRA. Can you tell us what the importance of that distinction is?

If not, can you tell us what the importance of this little pedantic deflection is?

I'm not seeing the importance of it tbh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are now entering the realm of the absurd as sensationalist journalistic hacks and commentators try to keep the focus on their bogeymen/women - SF and republicans. No wonder most other decent journalists are no longer that interested in this story apart from quoting the various players.

.

Do you consider the Irish Times to be full of sensationalist journalistic hacks?

blanch152 wrote: »

I will just leave here a link to what the Irish Times has to say yesterday about the current issue:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-m%C3%A1ir%C3%ADa-cahill-taking-responsibility-1.3630951?mode=amp

"Sinn Féin and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have come badly out of the inquiry into allegations of rape made by Máiría Cahill. The police have at least made a proper apology and three officers have been disciplined for failing to act in the appropriate manner. The same cannot be said of Sinn Féin and its leader Mary Lou McDonald whose latest response to the episode has still failed to address the central points made by Cahill.

While McDonald has issued an unreserved apology for the way the allegations of rape were handled, and praised Cahill’s bravery, she sidestepped taking responsibility for the way the republican movement handled the issue for so long."

"McDonald has been vociferous in her condemnation of the Catholic Church for its failure to deal properly with claims of abuse and its attempts to sweep them under the carpet. Those denunciations look particularly hollow in the light of the Sinn Féin leader’s continued refusal to come up with an adequate apology to Máiría Cahill for all that she has suffered over such a long period."

That is just quoting from the Irish Times, there is no spin, there is no twisting, I am not trying to recast it as something that it isn't.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-m%C3%A1ir%C3%ADa-cahill-taking-responsibility-1.3630951?mode=amp


What they have said is clear and unambiguous:


"McDonald maintained that Sinn Féin now has robust procedures in place for mandatory reporting of abuse and expressed regret that such procedures were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s initial complaint. What she failed to mention was that the republican movement did have a procedure to deal with such disclosures but it was a kangaroo court which operated outside the law."


That is the Irish Times editorial, no bitter hack, no twisted poster, just plain simply analysis and common sense.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you always on thread talking about stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion?

I meant; 'she wrote to the IRA', as did anyone else talking about this case. You seem to have a distinction between somebody 'acting as a point of contact for the IRA' and the IRA. Can you tell us what the importance of that distinction is?

If not, can you tell us what the importance of this little pedantic deflection is?

I'm not seeing the importance of it tbh.

I’m not the one who claimed your original statement was “waffle”

Direct your usual personal insults at the person who called it waffle.

Don’t know why any semblance of honesty was expected tbh :rolleyes:

blanch152

One thing that has been missed in all of this is that it is now generally clear that the IRA didn't disband in the immediate aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

If Mary Lou McDonald is to be believed that Sinn Fein had nothing to do with happened to Mairia Cahill and that it was all the IRA, then the IRA remained active up until the mid-2000s.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you have a link to that?

In the bbc news timeline of events link posted previously.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you consider the Irish Times to be full of sensationalist journalistic hacks?






https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-m%C3%A1ir%C3%ADa-cahill-taking-responsibility-1.3630951?mode=amp


What they have said is clear and unambiguous:


"McDonald maintained that Sinn Féin now has robust procedures in place for mandatory reporting of abuse and expressed regret that such procedures were not in place at the time of Máiría Cahill’s initial complaint. What she failed to mention was that the republican movement did have a procedure to deal with such disclosures but it was a kangaroo court which operated outside the law."


That is the Irish Times editorial, no bitter hack, no twisted poster, just plain simply analysis and common sense.

You and the Irish Times have no responsibility to people who may be charged with an offence or have a civil case taken against them.
So yeh, the Irish Times is sensationalising this by not understanding the positions people are in. Not the first time the southern Irish media have bayed for onesided justice tbh.
I understand some people think that it is only one person's name, justice and liberty that is important here.
But the fact remains, what happened after the alleged abuse are allegations and unproven allegations at that.
How's about the Irish Times asking mairia Cahill to explain why she was thanking members of SF for their help and why is she blaming all and sundry for the IRA getting involved when she requested them to and while she had the same antipathy, if not stronger, as most other nationalists/republicans to dealing with a corrupt and biased RUC.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

I’m not the one who claimed your original statement was “waffle”

Direct your usual personal insults at the person who called it waffle.

Don’t know why any semblance of honesty was expected tbh :rolleyes:

I suppose now you will stick to the assertion that he/she was calling what I said 'waffle' when he/she was clearly quoting and referencing a post by somebody else.
So typical of what you do on these threads. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You and the Irish Times have no responsibility to people who may be charged with an offence or have a civil case taken against them.
So yeh, the Irish Times is sensationalising this by not understanding the positions people are in. Not the first time the southern Irish media have bayed for onesided justice tbh.
I understand some people think that it is only one person's name, justice and liberty that is important here.
But the fact remains, what happened after the alleged abuse are allegations and unproven allegations at that.
How's about the Irish Times asking mairia Cahill to explain why she was thanking members of SF for their help and why is she blaming all and sundry for the IRA getting involved when she requested them to and while she had the same antipathy, if not stronger, as most other nationalists/republicans to dealing with a corrupt and biased RUC.

Mairia Cahill has been saying these things repeatedly since 2014, in numerous TV programmes, radio interviews, newspaper articles and online, yet, strangely, not one of these people you mention has sued those media outlets who have carried her words.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suppose now you will stick to the assertion that he/she was calling what I said 'waffle' when he/she was clearly quoting and referencing a post by somebody else.
So typical of what you do on these threads. :rolleyes:

Twist and lie all you want - the posts are there fall all to see and judge.

But fall back on the personal BS again Francie - really tells us all how strongly you feel your arguments can stand on their own merits

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Mairia Cahill has been saying these things repeatedly since 2014, in numerous TV programmes, radio interviews, newspaper articles and online, yet, strangely, not one of these people you mention has sued those media outlets who have carried her words.

Even the Indo is careful to use the correct terminology in this case:

The INDO wrote:

alleged to have abused Máiría Cahill

Well two can play that game, Mairia has not taken a civil case against the man she alleges abused her nor the people she claims interrogated her either nor against anyone who trolled or criticised her online.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Both SF and the RUC have a lot to answer for with regard to how they treated Cahill.

SF have a history of poor treatment of victims of sexual abuse - and their supporters on here repeatedly defend it, and continually attack anyone who dares to point that out.

Farce alright :rolleyes:

Nonsense.

Nobody is defending what happened to Mairia Cahill. I belive she was abused until I hear compelling evidence to the contrary and I have consistently stated that.

I have also consistently said that it was perversely wrong that the IRA was dealing with abuse cases and allegations like those of Cahill. (she though, seen nothing wrong with it at the time and preferred it to the RUC)
All players including Adams and Mary Lou have said it was wrong if it happened.

5 people remain accused of these crimes and 5 people have had nothing only words presented in evidence against them.
It is evident from the physical evidence presented that what happened to Mairia Cahill after her alleged abuse was that she was helped by SF and by one of those who found themselves in the dock for being her interrogator.

So if you can prove a cover up here I am all ears. Otherwise I am sorry, SF spook, bot or whatever you think I am, I will be challenging the guesswork and suppositions and spurious allegations as I always have, when they are born of a republican bias.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense.

Nobody is defending what happened to Mairia Cahill. I belive she was abused until I hear compelling evidence to the contrary and I have consistently stated that.

I have also consistently said that it was perversely wrong that the IRA was dealing with abuse cases and allegations like those of Cahill. (she though, seen nothing wrong with it at the time and preferred it to the RUC)
All players including Adams and Mary Lou have said it was wrong if it happened.

5 people remain accused of these crimes and 5 people have had nothing only words presented in evidence against them.
It is evident from the physical evidence presented that what happened to Mairia Cahill after her alleged abuse was that she was helped by SF and by one of those who found themselves in the dock for being her interrogator.

So if you can prove a cover up here I am all ears. Otherwise I am sorry, SF spook, bot or whatever you think I am, I will be challenging the guesswork and suppositions and spurious allegations as I always have, when they are born of a republican bias.

Most sensible post in the thread so far, spot on M.B

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Less of the sniping please.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mairia-has-not-received-a-reply-to-mcdonald-email-37344767.html

This story refuses to go away, this is particularly interesting:

"It is understood the politicians plan to meet again this week to discuss what action can be taken."

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mairia-has-not-received-a-reply-to-mcdonald-email-37344767.html

This story refuses to go away, this is particularly interesting:

"It is understood the politicians plan to meet again this week to discuss what action can be taken."

Particularly interesting why

What action do you possibly foresee happening may I ask?

McDonald could have sent Cahill an "eff you" letter had she of wanted, but I don't know what the leadership of FG/FF or labour could do about it?

Poor Mairia looks to be letting herself be used for political point scoring once again.

garhjw

Jaysus you're still at this victim blaming lark.

McMurphy

garhjw wrote: »

Jaysus you're still at this victim blaming lark.

If this is aimed at me, I would like to ask you to point out where I'm "victim blaming" anyone.

Do you even know what the phrase means?

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Particularly interesting why

What action do you possibly foresee happening may I ask?

McDonald could have sent Cahill an "eff you" letter had she of wanted, but I don't know what the leadership of FG/FF or labour could do about it?

Poor Mairia looks to be letting herself be used for political point scoring once again.

I genuinely don't understand why she doesn't use some of the energy she has expended in trying to get Gerry and SF on pursuing the man she alleges raped her.
What is stopping her taking a civil case against him and the other alleged to have interrogated her?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why she doesn't use some of the energy she has expended in trying to get Gerry and SF on pursuing the man she alleges raped her.
What is stopping her taking a civil case against him and the other alleged to have interrogated her?

From her Facebook page:

"I have been contacted this morning with some more very disturbing information about Martin Morris. I think the whole picture in relation to this man needs to be finally dealt with so no one is afraid. If you want to contact me, my public email address is ......... Please note that if you are a victim of this man, I have to pass information to the police, but also know that you will be supported and that counselling from reputable trained agencies is available for you."


She is not just focussing on the way Sinn Fein have treated her.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

From her Facebook page:

"I have been contacted this morning with some more very disturbing information about Martin Morris. I think the whole picture in relation to this man needs to be finally dealt with so no one is afraid. If you want to contact me, my public email address is ......... Please note that if you are a victim of this man, I have to pass information to the police, but also know that you will be supported and that counselling from reputable trained agencies is available for you."


She is not just focussing on the way Sinn Fein have treated her.

Doesn't answer my question though. And her primary target has been Gerry Adams and SF from the start, with the odd mention of the man who allegedly attacked her.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Doesn't answer my question though. And her primary target has been Gerry Adams and SF from the start, with the odd mention of the man who allegedly attacked her.

Didn't answer my question either.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/ruth-dudley-edwards-mairia-cahill-mary-lou-mcdonald-and-michelle-oneill-not-much-sisterhood-37344857.html

I have followed this case from the start but there are some bits in here that I hadn't heard before:

"This is a harking back to a much circulated libel that the under-age Mairia was having an affair with Morris. "

If Jude Collins is referring to this in his column, he could do with some education about statutory rape. No under-age girl is capable of having an affair with an older man - that is the law.

Siobhan O'Hanlon has received some praise in these parts, but I find this stunning:

"Faced in 1998 with a weeping 16-year-old cousin telling her of repeated rapes and various revolting assaults by an uncle in whose house she was staying at his and her aunt's invitation, she said: "Drink a couple of Rumple Minze and go tell him to stop doing it.""

I know some like Collins keep referring thanks penned by Mairia Cahill and options she pursued as a vulnerable teenager, but it beggars belief that they rely on that to defend the rapist and the kangaroo court.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/ruth-dudley-edwards-mairia-cahill-mary-lou-mcdonald-and-michelle-oneill-not-much-sisterhood-37344857.html

I have followed this case from the start but there are some bits in here that I hadn't heard before:

"This is a harking back to a much circulated libel that the under-age Mairia was having an affair with Morris. "

If Jude Collins is referring to this in his column, he could do with some education about statutory rape. No under-age girl is capable of having an affair with an older man - that is the law.

Siobhan O'Hanlon has received some praise in these parts, but I find this stunning:

"Faced in 1998 with a weeping 16-year-old cousin telling her of repeated rapes and various revolting assaults by an uncle in whose house she was staying at his and her aunt's invitation, she said: "Drink a couple of Rumple Minze and go tell him to stop doing it.""

I know some like Collins keep referring thanks penned by Mairia Cahill and options she pursued as a vulnerable teenager, but it beggars belief that they rely on that to defend the rapist and the kangaroo court.

Again with the scurrilous insinuation that there are those 'defending' a rapist.

And again with the head in the sand that there are many versions from a range of people about what happened after the alleged assaults.

And again completely ignore that some of those versions completely contradict what the Indo is so happy to keep printing and never question.
Ruth Dudley Edwards, who has a track record in wanting to attack SF and republicans has unquestioningly taken on board one side of this story as if she was there in the room with the 16 year old. Quelle suprise.