Gerry Adams Maze Escape convictions quashed - time for quid pro quo?

gormdubhgorm

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52646688

No doubt this will be a tremendous propaganda coup for SF. Justice and so on against the British establishment. But I believe much better use could be made of it.

I cannot help thinking that his may be a chance for Republicanism to make thier own gesture towards restoring justice for the likes of Paul Quinn and Maria Cahill. And many others.

I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.

I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.

In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

What bout Michael Collin's? Heard he was in the Ra as well

gormdubhgorm

Izabella Tasteless Shoehorn wrote: »

What bout Michael Collin's? Heard he was in the Ra as well

Is there a point you are trying to make?
Elaborate.

maccored

boys but ye's love SF alright with all these threads. Time to just own up and admit it. Smart how you disguised 'what kind of bollocks is this that a man would have to fight for 40 years to get unjust convictions quashed' with this thread

Truthvader

"British Justice"

More justice than Gerry ever gave to the thousands killed and maimed or to his own - guilty or not guilty- disposed of by his pal stakeknife

And for what?

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

"British Justice"

More justice than Gerry ever gave to the thousands killed and maimed or to his own - guilty or not guilty- disposed of by his pal stakeknife

And for what?

gerry did all that?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.



I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.



I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.



In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

So to shorten your post: Because the British have been proven to have acted wrongly (after 40 years...again!)you want SF to tell you stuff that chimes with your narrative of events and only your narrative?

gormdubhgorm

maccored wrote: »

boys but ye's love SF alright with all these threads. Time to just own up and admit it. Smart how you disguised 'what kind of bollocks is this that a man would have to fight for 40 years to get unjust convictions quashed' with this thread

Which is wrong to wait 40 years for justice. As is my point on Maria Cahill, Paul Quinn or even Bloody Sunday 1972.
Why in republicanism is justice only sought where it suits thier political ends?

Isn't this a chance to show human decency?
And that justice is not only sought by those who have suffered at the hands of the British, but by those who have suffered at the hands of republicans?
Surely it is easy to start with republicans who were victims of republican injustice?
Or does that just get forgotten about and the same people still get protected?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So to shorten your post: Because the British have been proven to have acted wrongly (after 40 years...again!)you want SF to tell you stuff that chimes with your narrative of events and only your narrative?

If you read the post again Francie I am asking why is there no quid pro quo and a movement away from the self-absolution that Republicanism seems to enage in but only when it suits.
I made it quite clear.

A decent human being would do so in my view and a decent organisation who wants to clean itself. As you put it after a 'war'. You do not see it because you have been indoctrinated with the Republican mantra by virtue of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

gormdubhgorm

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Are you lad who got banned off other threads for called anyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed bigot??

Apparently I am your comrade, which called me on numerous occasions to goad me into it. But it was too subtle for the mod in question.
It was not 'anyone'. It was just you, as you refused to engage in normal debate as you are doing on this thread.

If I upset you there is an ignore function on this site. But I will not apologise for it. Similar to how Gerry Adams will never apologise for the IRA. I will never apologise to you because you are proving my point

Also noticed how quick the usual usernames are attracted to this thread. Interesting in itself. I don't how you find the time. Also how fast you were to this thread speaks volumes.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you read the post again Francie I am asking why is there no quid pro quo and a movement away from the self-absolution that Republicanism seems to enage in but only when it suits.
I made it quite clear.

A decent human being would do so in my view and a decent organisation who wants to clean itself. As you put it after a 'war'. You do not see it because you have been indoctrinated with the Republican mantra by virtue of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

Nonsense. You have decided that there are cases to answer and you want them answered in a certain way.

Republicans of all the sides have served more hours in jail for offences they did and didn't do.

Quid pro quo? You are having a laugh here. How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also noticed how quick the usual usernames are attracted to this thread. Interesting itself

Who were you expecting?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who were you expecting?

I don't know. But the speed was commendable I only had it created. Now only if justice for all was just as expedient - was my first thought.

omega42

Adams was exonerated on very specific charges, 2 counts of attempting to escape the maze. He was exonerated because the court found that his detention in the first place was unlawful.

I agree with OP there should be quid pro quo, any member of a paramilitary group that was interned illegally (under Irish law) and then tried to escape the facility they were been held should have their convictions squashed.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense. You have decided that there are cases to answer and you want them answered in a certain way.

Quid pro quo? You are having a laugh here. How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here?

So you are telling me in your world justice is only one sided, justice is only sought from the British soliders. Yet you are the same person who wants to move on from the conflict? How can there be movement if justice is only one sided?

Anyway I will let you think about your reply.
Make it good one.

I am off to watch netflix (not silence of the lambs)

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't know. But the speed was commendable I only had it created. Now only if justice for all was just as expedient - was my first thought.

Why not now call on the British and Unionists to take part in a Truth recovery process?
The only way this stuff can be dealt with IMO.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So you are telling me in your world justice is only one sided, justice is only sought from the British soliders. Yet you are the same person who wants to move on from the conflict? How can there be movement if justice is only one sided?

Anyway I will let you think about your reply.
Make it good one.

I am off to watch netflix (not silence of the lambs)

See my answer to the previous point.

gormdubhgorm

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Cpuld he potentially be in for alot of money on accounts of unfair imprisionment??...quite ironic really



Though i read there could be upto 200 similar cases,gonna develop into an awlful.clusterfcuk

Yes, he could I suppose.

John Hutton

Good to see the British confirm that Adams (and many others!) was illegally jailed and justified in jailbreaking.

Even better to see the usual suspects have an aneurysm about Adams having a completely clean criminal record. An innocent man.

Hopefully some massive cheques incoming.

Odd to see OP argue that the British state should have the same standards etc. as an illegal "terrorist" organisation and that proper justice should only occur based on the actions of said illegal group.

Illuminating to see OP catagorise the Brits and the IRA together.

Beasty

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Are you lad who got banned off other threads for called anyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed bigot??

Threadbanned

Truthvader

maccored wrote: »

gerry did all that?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous; Gerry wasn't in the IRA. Duh.

"It wasn't me, It was the other kids, the bold kids. I didn't ask anyone to.... I don't condone it but I understand why...Jean McConville??? the name rings a bell - give me a minute …Eh....cant remember now, Oh! and we all suffered and I regret

And on it slithers

A cunning, corrupted Bart Simpson

JohnnyFlash

The people who want a truth and reconciliation commission the least are the ones calling for it the most.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you(..........)of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

Yeah, your bipartisan attitude is something to behold allright. Sticking a video of a nazi regime member in the same post as you treat of gerry adams, for instance.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The people who want a truth and reconciliation commission the least are the ones calling for it the most.

There is only one way to find out.

Bizarre computation to make.

James Brown

But gormdubhgorm, how does Shergar play into all this?

Maybe the BBC will be pushing his cookbook? Recipes for 'a healthy dinner on the run'?

By getting his convictions quashed he's obviously up to his eyes in something :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why not now call on the British and Unionists to take part in a Truth recovery process?
The only way this stuff can be dealt with IMO.

Ok I'd agree with that. But as you said yourself to move on after a war as you put it is a complex process.
What I see is a chance for SF to make a gesture not towards the British at first. But to Republicans who they view as thier own people who became victims of Republican actions. All SF have to do is give the OK and it will start.
Justice can be sought.
Gerry sought justice and received it?
Do Republicans have to behave as badly as the British or worse to not even giving justice for thier own people.
Because a see a lot of hypocrisy in the likes of Maria Cahill/Paul Quinn not receiving justice.
In the Proclamation of Independence read by Pearse it stated

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens,
and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation
and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally"

Are those only words on a page or do they really mean something to Republicans?
At the moment I SF with a middle class woman from Rathgar who has to wrestle with her conscious when asked about such isssues such as Paul Quinn Maria Cahill. I can see from her body language and tone she wants to tell the truth, she wants to be open, she wants to help. But she is under orders from those unseen higher ups in SF to toe the party line.
It is sad to watch.

I feel rather than show Intransigence (an oft word SF use about the British government). Isn't this an opening for SF to make some practical move towards those who have suffered at the hands of Republicanism. Rather than simply use it as a tool to show the inequality of British justice. It is chance for SF to show that they can show respect and give victims and victim families justice.

Otherwise it just becomes a duplicitous game playing games with words and sounding disingenuous as MaryLou does when she tries to brush off the darker side of republicanism. A spectre which happened a lot more recently than 1972.
Then those in the dail and the majority electorate will be shown that SF are a real party. And not like an organised street gang with secret rules.
I mean SF have shown that led Replubicans opress the very people who they purport to want to set 'free'. Like Cahill, Paul Quinn.

Other situations maybe slightly less serious -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/priory-hall-developer-tom-mcfeely-bound-to-keep-peace-1.3064260

Which occurred not in 1972 but in 2017. Involving former IRA prisoner Tom McFeely.

This is a property developer (which are supposed to be an anethema of SF's ethos) who went bankrupt.

And what did he do in 2012 to try and avoid Bankruptcy? He declared he was a British Citizen!

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/im-a-british-citizen-mcfeely-tells-court-28010682.html

Who is oppressing who?

This is the type of hypocrisy SF and republicanism need to move away from.
And with the Adams court result. It should be a start in the quid pro quo. Small steps to becoming a real democratic party in power in the ROI. Which I assume is what you want.

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

Yeah, your bipartisan attitude is something to behold allright. Sticking a video of a nazi regime member in the same post as you treat of gerry adams, for instance.

If you watch the video you will see Speer wrestling with his conscious. Which reminds a lot of what Mary Lou has to at the moment. When asked the hard questions about republicanism.
Deep down she is an honest woman who wants to tell the truth, but she is prevented from doing so. And has to lower herself to republican double speak.
Instead of being honest.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I'd agree with that. But as you said yourself to move on after a war as you put it is a complex process.
What I see is a chance for SF to make a gesture not towards the British at first. But to Republicans who they view as thier own people who became victims of Republican actions. All SF have to do is give the OK and it will start.
Justice can be sought.
Gerry sought justice and recieved it?
Do Republicans have to behave as badly as the British or worse to not even giving justice for thier own people.
Because a see a lot of hyprocisy in the likes of Maria Cahill/Paul Quinn not recieveing justice.
In the Proclamation of Independence read by Pearse it stated

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally"

Are those only words on a page or do they really mean something to Republicans?
At the moment I SF with a middle class woman from Rathgar who has to wrestle with her conscious when asked about such isssues such as Paul Quinn Maria Cahill. I can see from her body language and tone she wants to tell the truth, she wants to be open, she wants to help. But she is under orders from those unseen higher ups in SF to toe the party line.
It is sad to watch.

I feel rather than show Instraigence (an oft word SF use about the British government). Isn't this an opening for SF to make some practical move towards those who have suffered at the hands of Republicanism. Rather than simply use it as a tool to show the inequality of British justice. It is chance for SF to show that they can show respect and give victims and victim families justice.

Otherwise it just becomes a duplicitous game playing games with words and sounding disingenuous as MaryLou does when she tries to brush off the darker side of republicanism. A spectre which happened a lot more recently than 1972.
Then those in the dail and the majority electorate will be shown that SF are a real party. And not like an organised street gang with secret rules.
I mean SF have shown that led Replubicans opress the very people who they purport to want to set 'free'. Like Cahill, Paul Quinn.

Other situations maybe slightly less serious -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/priory-hall-developer-tom-mcfeely-bound-to-keep-peace-1.3064260

Which occurred not in 1972 but in 2017. Involving former IRA prisoner Tom McFeely.

This is a property developer (which are supposed to be an anethema of SF's ethos) who went bankrupt.

And what did he do in 2012 to try and avoid Bankruptcy? He declared he was a British Citizen!

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/im-a-british-citizen-mcfeely-tells-court-28010682.html

Who is oppressing who?

This is the type of hypocrisy SF and republicanism need to move away from.
And with the Adams court result. It should be a start in the quid pro quo. Small steps to becoming a real democratic party in power in the ROI. Which I assume is what you want.

Far as I am concerned SF are a democratic party in the ROI. That is why they got my vote.

I still can't get my head around this 'quid pro quo'.

The British once again get dragged into a court kicking and screaming after 4o years, are found to have acted criminally and just because of that you want SF to change their story on Mairia Cahill and to own up to something the IMC say they were not involved in?

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

Illuminating to see OP catagorise the Brits and the IRA together.

They are/were two groups playing a game with peoples lives when it comes down to it.
I was thinking that it would be chance for SF/IRA/republicanism (whatever you want to call them) to gain the moral moral high ground by letting those in republicanism actually find justice for actions caused by republicanism.
Their own people supposedly from thier own areas. Root out the bad eggs it would make the British look even worse.

Danzy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52646688

No doubt this will be a tremendous propaganda coup for SF. Justice and so on against the British establishment. But I believe much better use could be made of it.

I cannot help thinking that his may be a chance for Republicanism to make thier own gesture towards restoring justice for the likes of Paul Quinn and Maria Cahill. And many others.

I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.

I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.

In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

From what I know of Maria Cahill she will never forgive the Provisionals for the peace process.

Nevermind the other wrongs done to her.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you watch the video you will see Speer wrestling with his conscious. Which reminds a lot of what Mary Lou has to at the moment. When asked the hard questions about republicanism.
Deep down she is an honest woman who wants to tell the truth, but she is prevented from doing so. And has to lower herself to republican double speak.
Instead of being honest.

I'd suggest you're projecting your own subjective views on reality.