Gardaí: Provo Army Council oversees PIRA & SF

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Taking seats in parliament does not equate to being in government.

I believe that Sinn Fein should take their seats in whatever parliament that they are elected to, but also that no other party or independent should consider them suitable for government.

Those views are fully compatible.

You didn't similarly whinge about them not getting Stormont back up and running?

Sneered when they did because they compromised?

Pick a coherent line and stick to it please.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

You didn't similarly whinge about them not getting Stormont back up and running?

Sneered when they did because they compromised?

Pick a coherent line and stick to it please.

The thread is obviously moving too fast for you as I have answered this already.

SF in parliament - YES
SF in government in Northern Ireland because of special provisions to protect others from them - YES
SF in power in a local authority where the damage they can do is minimal - YES
SF in government anywhere else in a normal democracy - NO


Nuanced approach demanding different answers to different situations. I admit it is a bit more complicated than "up the 'ra" but there you go.

blanch152 wrote: »

No problem with the logic at all.

In Northern Ireland, the DUP and SF are incapable of governing to the extent that a special arrangement for powersharing had to be set up to guide them in how to govern. Despite all the special arrangements, they still managed between them to refuse to govern for three years.

Neither of the two parties are suitable for government in a normal democracy.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Intelligence is held by services here on a wide and varied amount of organisations.
They are not all neccesarily involved in crime.
That's the job of those services.
Would you think that AGS should not hold intelligence? On anyone? Or any organisation?

So why aren't journalists asking about the Garda Commissioner's view of FG or FF?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why aren't journalists asking about the Garda Commissioner's view of FG or FF?

Because those journalists don't have any concerns about FG or FF being controlled by Army Councils outside the State?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Because those journalists don't have any concerns about FG or FF being controlled by Army Councils outside the State?

Are those journalists incapable of reading independent reports that either 'dont' mention the IRA as a threat at all or say that former members are engaged in exclusively peaceful and democratic politics?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are those journalists incapable of reading independent reports that either 'dont' mention the IRA as a threat at all or say that former members are engaged in exclusively peaceful and democratic politics?

Are those journalists concerned about whether the IRA are a threat or whether they exercise undue control over a political party in the South?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Are those journalists concerned about whether the IRA are a threat or whether they exercise undue control over a political party in the South?

Again:

Are those journalists incapable of reading independent reports that either 'don't' mention the IRA as a threat at all or say that former members are engaged in exclusively peaceful and democratic politics?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again:

Again, are those journalists concerned about former terrorism organisers directing and controlling a political party?

In this day and age, damn right they should be.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, are those journalists concerned about former terrorism organisers directing and controlling a political party?

In this day and age, damn right they should be.

Why would they be 'concerned' if they read the reports issued by those tasked with monitoring these things?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they be 'concerned' if they read the reports issued by those tasked with monitoring these things?

Because the people they are talking about were involved in organising and directing terrorism. Any right-minded person would be concerned about what those people get up to afterwards.

Elmer Blooker

blanch152 wrote: »

Because those journalists don't have any concerns about FG or FF being controlled by Army Councils outside the State?

"The decommissioning of the arms of the IRA is now an accomplished fact," said John de Chastelain, the retired Canadian general who has been responsible for overseeing the decommissioning process since 1997.

"This can be the end of the use of the gun in Irish politics," he added.

He presented a confidential report on his weapons inspections to the British and Irish governments this morning following several months of decommissioning actions in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The British and Irish governments accepted the de Chastelain report.

Why was there no mention of an 'army council' after SF's poor showing in the local elections?
The anti SF propaganda is to be expected from the media but it is concerning to see a GC making political statements.

blanch152

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The British and Irish governments accepted the de Chastelain report.

Why was there no mention of an 'army council' after SF's poor showing in the local elections?
The anti SF propaganda is to be expected from the media but it is concerning to see a GC making political statements.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't just talk about the Army Council control of Sinn Fein at election times and when they are doing well.

KWAG2019

If CAGS believes army council is still operative he can bring those involved before Special Criminal Court and have them jailed on the word of a Chief Super. Why hadn’t this happened?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Because the people they are talking about were involved in organising and directing terrorism. Any right-minded person would be concerned about what those people get up to afterwards.

And the Independent monitors have stated what 'they are getting up to' several times.

FrancieBrady

KWAG2019 wrote: »

If CAGS believes army council is still operative he can bring those involved before Special Criminal Court and have them jailed on the word of a Chief Super. Why hadn’t this happened?

This is were the anti-democrats wish to have it, every which way they can.

blanch152

KWAG2019 wrote: »

If CAGS believes army council is still operative he can bring those involved before Special Criminal Court and have them jailed on the word of a Chief Super. Why hadn’t this happened?

Answered already. And anyway, they are in Belfast, out of this jurisdiction.

blanch152 wrote: »

People shouldn't go down rabbit-holes with this type of nonsensical arguments. We have been here before.

We know that Gerry Adams is a liar. He told one story to Spotlight about his knowledge and cover-up of child sexual abuse by his brother, and another story to a court. Francie asked why wasn't he convicted of perjury. The reason being is that the reasonable defence of lying to the tv programme not the court meant that a conviction would be extremely unlikely especially as Liam Adams wouldn't testify, so no objective evidence exists as to which story was the truth.

This case would be similar. Firstly, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both the existence and membership of the IRA Army Council. Secondly, you would have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Army Council is exercising control and direction over Sinn Fein, such evidence having to consist of hard documentation, recordings of phone conversations, meetings etc. Then finally, you would have to prove that Sinn Fein wouldn't have taken those decisions anyway.

So while the Gardai and the PSNI would probably have some such evidence and almost certainly inside informer information, they would be a long way short of being able to produce such evidence for a criminal court case with the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I believe that they would have enough evidence to stand up in a civil case where the evidence standard is on the balance of probabilities. Why would I say that? Because Mary-Lou and Sinn Fein could easily have sued the PSNI and the Gardai if that wasn't the case. That they haven't tells you all you need to know.

Francie knows all this, but he is trying to drag posters down a rabbit hole into a warren of claim and counter-claim, bluff and buster that ultimately won't change the fact that the evidence demonstrates that on the balance of probability Sinn Fein is controlled by the IRA Army Council.

Of course, a real danger of Sinn Fein being in government for even a short while is that the names of informers within the IRA become known to them and retribution is taken making the job of the PSNI and the Gardai to monitor the activities of the IRA Army Council that more difficult.

KWAG2019

blanch152 wrote: »

Answered already. And anyway, they are in Belfast, out of this jurisdiction.

Harris was RUC.

The word of a Chief Super is sufficient in SCC. Arguments about informer are nonsensical because Harris has announced his “knowledge” in the media.

This is just an attack on democracy by the establishment who identify very closely with unionism.

FrancieBrady

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Harris was RUC.

The word of a Chief Super is sufficient in SCC. Arguments about informer are nonsensical because Harris has announced his “knowledge” in the media.

This is just an attack on democracy by the establishment who identify very closely with unionism.

What blanch is saying is that the state is too lazy to do anything about it.

Fann Linn

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The British and Irish governments accepted the de Chastelain report.

Why was there no mention of an 'army council' after SF's poor showing in the local elections?
The anti SF propaganda is to be expected from the media but it is concerning to see a GC making political statements.

This is the crux of the argument. Nobody, including FF/FG, the Garda Commissioner, the media in general gave a fcuk about SF prior to the election when they were tipping along between 12% and 16% and failing miserably in local and European elections. Indeed, they didn't even warrant an invite to the leaders debate until the very last minute following an increase in support in a few opinion polls.

However, now sitting at 25% and equal to FF in seats won, they now are attracting some attention. Vested interests are now worried and are rolling out all the stops to negate them.
Ouite plain to see the game being currently played.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What blanch is saying is that the state is too lazy to do anything about it.

Rubbish, and you know it.

The State is not in a position to do anything about it, despite what it knows. You know this, everyone knows this, yet you use State inaction to defend the indefensible.

As I said previously, the absence of a successful civil claim from Sinn Fein or Mary-Lou speaks louder than anything else.

McMurphy

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm saying I don't want it.
That's my choice.
Northern Ireland, is a different country. Whatever they had to do there in order for peace, that's grand.

You presumably voted no to the GFA (assuming you're old enough to have had a vote) or if not, are you just cherry picking what parts you agreed to?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Rubbish, and you know it.

The State is not in a position to do anything about it, despite what it knows. You know this, everyone knows this, yet you use State inaction to defend the indefensible.

As I said previously, the absence of a successful civil claim from Sinn Fein or Mary-Lou speaks louder than anything else.

How would they prove a claim?

The government and the GC cannot prove anything, how would SF prove a negative?

*By the way, if the State believes an illegal organisation is operating, mentioning it only when they are getting beaten in an election is not responsible state management. As it also not responsible to their duties as guarantors of an international peace agreement.

Bishop of hope

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Harris was RUC.

The word of a Chief Super is sufficient in SCC. Arguments about informer are nonsensical because Harris has announced his “knowledge” in the media.

This is just an attack on democracy by the establishment who identify very closely with unionism.

It's not, he or anyone else has to show evidence of where he got his opinion and the defendant is entitled to his defence of that.
Proof has to be shown to the court, otherwise everyone before it would just be jailed ffs.
I had this discussion yesterday.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/not-guilty-verdict-in-ira-trial-after-garda%C3%AD-refused-to-release-secret-material-1.4105999

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How would they prove a claim?

The government and the GC cannot prove anything, how would SF prove a negative?

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/defamation-act-2009/

"As previously, defamatory statements (note the very broad definition of same) are automatically deemed to be false."

So the statement by the Garda Commissioner is automatically deemed to be false, and if Sinn Fein or Mary-Lou sue, he has to prove on the basis of probabilities that his statement is true.

blanch152

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Are you actually reading that article?

Evidence of the belief of a Garda chief superintendent that an accused is a member of the IRA is routinely used in membership trials. Privilege can be claimed on the material underlying the belief, usually on the grounds of the protection of life and property, the protection of ongoing and future investigations and the security of the State.

Although judges in past trials ruled that the Special Criminal Court itself should view any underlying files relevant to belief evidence, this is the first case in which the court ruled that such material should be viewed by the prosecution.

Did you read my post?

None of that has any relevance to a civil case taken for defamation by Sinn Fein or Mary-Lou.

In such an instance, the Garda Commissioner has to prove his statement in court. Despite many opportunities, Sinn Fein have never dared to take such a case. Speaks volumes.

JohnnyFlash

A lot of Shinnerbots love the old IRA connection thing, and are pissed off because people are making a big deal about it. They love Dessie Ellis and Gerry Kelly and the lads. Cult hero’s.

The shinnerbots get angry when they realise the vast majority of Free Staters aren’t that keen on the shady lads from West Belfast.

Runaways

You want Sinn Fein to sue the Garda commissioner for saying they’re under the control of the ira army council.


And because they haven’t, you think it means it must be true?

Are you on something?

What would be the point?

KWAG2019

blanch152 wrote: »

Did you read my post?

None of that has any relevance to a civil case taken for defamation by Sinn Fein or Mary-Lou.

In such an instance, the Garda Commissioner has to prove his statement in court. Despite many opportunities, Sinn Fein have never dared to take such a case. Speaks volumes.

Apologies I replied to wrong post. Will repost to correct one and then look at yours.

KWAG2019

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It's not, he or anyone else has to show evidence of where he got his opinion and the defendant is entitled to his defence of that.
Proof has to be shown to the court, otherwise everyone before it would just be jailed ffs.
I had this discussion yesterday.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/not-guilty-verdict-in-ira-trial-after-garda%C3%AD-refused-to-release-secret-material-1.4105999

Please read article very carefully.

Evidence of the belief of a Garda chief superintendent that an accused is a member of the IRA is routinely used in membership trials. Privilege can be claimed on the material underlying the belief, usually on the grounds of the protection of life and property, the protection of ongoing and future investigations and the security of the State.

Although judges in past trials ruled that the Special Criminal Court itself should view any underlying files relevant to belief evidence, this is the first case in which the court ruled that such material should be viewed by the prosecution.

Fann Linn

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

A lot of Shinnerbots love the old IRA connection thing, and are pissed off because people are making a big deal about it. They love Dessie Ellis and Gerry Kelly and the lads. Cult hero’s.

The shinnerbots get angry when they realise the vast majority of Free Staters aren’t that keen on the shady lads from West Belfast.

As my old English class teacher would say, 'Waffle, and adds nothing to the debate'.