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

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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?

what has Paul Quinns death got to do with the IRA? Or bloody sunday? Here - I'll get you a box of straws to clutch at

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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?

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

The PSNI/Gardai and The IMC know who did it. I know the rumours and some of Quinn's neighbours.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

Gerry went through the courts and won his case.

The British are doing their bit? Jesus.

How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here? Include all levels of the Army and also those in the british administration.

I bet you 50 quid pro quo's you''ll draw a blank.

Now compare it with 'justice' delivered by the British here over the years.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

Its already been officially stated the IRA had nothing to do with his death. the actual issue was conor murphy claiming paul quinn had been involved in criminality. get your facts straight

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.
................

..which had/has what to do with Gerry Adams?

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

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

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

what? Now its MLMDs body language thats at fault?

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

It must warm the hearts of the shinners reading to see such selfless, parental like concern and good wishes for their organisation

FrancieBrady

John Hutton wrote: »

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

Indeed. It did nothing but exacerbate the situation and destroyed many families which fed into the conflict/war.
The lack of care and responsibility displayed over and over by the British here. Shoring up a bigoted and sectarian statelet (they let degenerate into a cesspit) was more important than treating the Irish properly.

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What's your point?

John Hutton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed. It did nothing but exacerbate the situation and destroyed many families which fed into the conflict/war.
The lack of care and responsibility displayed over and over by the British here. Shoring up a bigoted and sectarian statelet (they let degenerate into a cesspit) was more important than treating the Irish properly.

Of course, if one does honestly feel that Adams is a terrible evil monster of a baddy they must ask themselves what role the illegal detention, beatings etc had in his development.

James Brown

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

I doubt those involved on either side are seeking any absolution from anybody. The only difference is you have one side convicted and charged while the other is deemed legal and democratic. The British don't need any help looking bad.
People found that the IRA were necessary. As times change so to did their roll and the public's apposite for them. They've since stood down and signed up to peace. Trying to hold members of Sinn Fein to account for the actions of another time or expect every SF voter to justify the actions of the IRA is ridiculous.
It took the British 35 years to apologise for Bloody Sunday, I can't see them putting their hand up for the more nefarious behind the scenes atrocities and murders they weren't seen doing. And these are the so called legal and ones with a democratic mandate...
So was Gerry getting his convictions quashed just a spring board for the usual?

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about (............) people of ROI.

SF view the armed struggle as justified, and thats not going to change. Again, you're projecting your own views on to others.

Jinglejangle69

Great to see justice.

Next id like to see justice for the PIRA victims and the dissappeared.

This is very encouraging news, hopefully every group who committed injustices during the troubles sees justice.

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

SF view the armed struggle as justified, and thats not going to change. Again, you're projecting your own views on to others.

Watch it again I suggest. It played a large part in how I and a large portion of the electorate voted. It was clear that there was a woman tied down by party convention and unable to speak the truth.
Nothing to do with 'armed struggle' but to do with the fact it was all about protecting a core of people within republicanism both by being anti-SCC and unable to do the decent thing in the Paul Quinn case and many others.

If republicanism was willing to root out the bad eggs in republicanism, more people would vote for them in the ROI simple as that. It would look very good in light of the UK's verdict on Adams.

But I get the feeling some in Republicanism admire these bad eggs and live vicariously off them. Giving them a edginess anti-establishment etc. Part of the gang and you shouldn't rat out another gang member for criminality. Some maybe fearful of reporting them and others may protect them.

But I think it is an opportune moment for Republicanism to grow up.
But maybe some don't want to. Justice stops at 'sticking it to the Brits for injustice' etc is fine like the Adams case.

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices, even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works I think.
But obviously you disagree.

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Watch it again I suggest. It played a large part in how I and a large portion of the electorate voted. It was clear that there was a woman tied down by party convention and unable to speak the truth.
Nothing to do with 'armed struggle' but to do with the fact it was all about protecting a core of people within republicanism both by being anti-SCC and unable to do the decent thing in the Paul Quinn case and many others.

If republicanism was willing to root out the bad eggs in republicanism, more people would vote for them in the ROI simple as that. It would look very good in light of the UK's verdict on Adams.

But I get the feeling some in Republicanism admire these bad eggs and live vicariously off them. Giving them a edginess anti-establishment etc. Part of the gang and you shouldn't rat out another gang member for criminality. Some maybe fearful of reporting them and others may protect them.

But I think it is an opportune moment for Republicanism to grow up.
But maybe some don't want to. Justice stops at 'sticking it to the Brits for injustice' etc is fine like the Adams case.

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices, even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works I think.
But obviously you disagree.

What was your point with the video?

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

What was your point with the video?

The Cameron one? That he was willing to recognise injustice and be a decent human being no matter his politics.
That is how I view all politicians. How upfront and honest are they?
Are they genuine people do they speak thier mind?

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Watch it again (.................)

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works.

I'd suggest that your notion of "justice" working is a shinner hung out to dry and little else.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The Cameron one that he was willing to recognise injustice and be a decent human being no matter his politics.
That is how I view all politicians. How upfront and honest are they?
Are they genuine people do they speak thier mind?

i get it now. You like people to lie to you. as if cameron gave an actual flying **** about the people when he said that- but its good enough for you -who cares if its insincere.

SF believe the PIRA fought a just war, conflict that was brought to them rather than the other way around. You wont catch them lying about it just to make people who want politicians to lie to them, feel better

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

I'd suggest that your notion of "justice" working is a shinner hung out to dry and little else.

Well Catherine Noone (FG) was in my constituency I did not vote for her for obvious reasons.
I would never have voted for the likes of Ivor Caelley (FF) or John Bailey (FG) as they are not honest people.
I like honest an upfront politicians who are not shady/dodgy/stupid.

In the Presidential election where Martin McGuinness ran I voted for him. (The only time I ever voted SF)
Why?

Because I respected his honesty regarding the IRA and his involvement. He was a man who really tried within the limits his party had constrained on him.
So I had some respect for the fella.

Plus the only time I voted FG (Richard Bruton) was the last election because I felt SF were not ready for government (plus good independents retired limited choice). Too much hiding not enough honesty from SF. Also voted SD/Greens/labour. Hoped for FG/SD/Greens/Labour coalition.

As I said in my OP I feel this is an opportunity for SF to grasp. Open up a bit root out the bad eggs.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Well Catherine Noone (FG) was in my constituency I did not vote for her for obvious reasons.
I would never have voted for the likes of Ivor Caelley (FF) or John Bailey (FG) as they are not honest people.
I like honest an upfront politicians who are not shady/dodgy/stupid.

In the Presidential election where Martin McGuinness ran I voted for him. (The only time I ever voted SF)
Why?

Because I respected his honesty regarding the IRA and his involvement. He was a man who really tried within the limits his party had constrained on him.
So I had some respect for the fella.

Plus the only time I voted FG (Richard Bruton) was the last election because I felt SF were not ready for government (plus good independents retired limited choice). Too much hiding not enough honesty from SF. Also voted SD/Greens/labour. Hoped for FG/SD/Greens/Labour coalition.

As I said in my OP I feel this is an opportunity for SF to grasp. Open up a bit root out the bad eggs.

So Martin McGuinness tells you he was in the IRA and you respect his honesty, Adams tell you something you don't want to hear - that he wasn't in the IRA but even though nobody has ever proved his involvement, he is dishones. Ditto with Mary Lou, because she doesn't say what you want her to say, she is shifty and dishonest?
I think you just want to hear what you believe and make character judgements based on that tbh.

Truthvader

maccored wrote: »

Its already been officially stated the IRA had nothing to do with his death. the actual issue was conor murphy claiming paul quinn had been involved in criminality. get your facts straight

"Officially"? So thats the end of that then.

Officially stated by who? Mr Slab,? some thug giving a press staement in a balaclava? Uncle "never in the IRA" Gerry? His kiddy fiddling brother? The same crew who "officially" denied involvrnt in murdering Gerry McCabe?

FrancieBrady

Truthvader wrote: »

"Officially"? So thats the end of that then.

Officially stated by who? Mr Slab,? some thug giving a press staement in a balaclava? Uncle "never in the IRA" Gerry? His kiddy fiddling brother? The same crew who "officially" denied involvrnt in murdering Gerry McCabe?

The IMC. And never contradicted as far as I know. A poster on another thread claimed it was but I never seen it and as yet the poster has not backed it up.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Martin McGuinness tells you he was in the IRA and you respect his honesty, Adams tell you something you don't want to hear - that he wasn't in the IRA but even though nobody has ever proved his involvement, he is dishones. Ditto with Mary Lou, because she doesn't say what you want her to say, she is shifty and dishonest?
I think you just want to hear what you believe and make character judgements based on that tbh.

It is not a question of what I want to hear, or not want to hear. I would like to hear that Dublin won the Leinster hurling championship.

The question in politics is trust. McGuinness demonstrated an honesty I respected
Gerry Adams does not, did not. As almost everyone knows of him, knows the truth and said differently to you information.

I read this book for instance.

https://www.amazon.com/Southside-Provisional-Freedom-Fighter-Courts/dp/1909895555

Adams did not come across well in it one iota.

What is really disappointing is the Mary Lou a 'non-combatant' is tied down by SF policy of not weeding out undesirables linked to republicanism.
So where is the movement?
The British move re-Adams verdict. SF do not.

You claim it is difficult to resolve conflict after a war.
How is it difficult for Mary Lou/Michelle O'Neill to weed out those dragging Republicanism into the dirt?
They are clearly not being honest at all, and persist in speaking in a 'Republican speak' not any truth regarding such issues.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not a question of what I want to hear, or not want to hear. I would like to hear that Dublin won the Leinster hurling championship.

The question in politics is trust. McGuinness demonstrated an honesty I respected
Gerry Adams does not did not. As almost everyone in connection with him knows the truth and said differently to you information.

I read this book

https://www.amazon.com/Southside-Provisional-Freedom-Fighter-Courts/dp/1909895555

Adams did not come across well in it one iota.

What is really disappointing is the Mary Lou a 'non-combatant' is tied down by SF policy of not weeding out undesirables linked to republicanism.
So where is the movement. You claim it is difficult to resolve conflict after a war. How is it difficult for Mary Lou/Michelle O'Neill to weed out those dragging Republicanism into the dirt?
They are clearly not being honest at all, and persist in speaking in a 'Republican speak.'

'Almost everyone'....really?

Adams doesn't respond the way you want him to, Mary Lou doesn't either and you make judgements based on that.

Far as I can see SF and indeed the IRA have been clear and unequivocal, they will not be handing over combatants or information in a onesided process. They will take part in a full and transparent Truth process if all participants/players are at the table.
The British and Unionists refuse to take part in that. Meanwhile victims from ALL sides await the truth and closure.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Almost everyone'....really?

Adams doesn't respond the way you want him to, Mary Lou doesn't either and you make judgements based on that.

Far as I can see SF and indeed the IRA have been clear and unequivocal, they will not be handing over combatants or information in a onesided process. They will take part in a full and transparent Truth process if all participants/players are at the table.
The British and Unionists refuse to take part in that. Meanwhile victims from ALL sides await the truth and closure.

I am just giving my opinion. You seem to be of the opinion that Republicans should not move on fellow Republicans who have been involved very recently in criminality. The only movement should be from the British or Irish government side.
I don't understand the viewpoint because I view it as an issue of human decency.
However, I do understand that your family background makes it difficult for you to take any other view point, other than the one you share.

But as Colin McCusker says it is partly the fault of the education system, and the environment people live in. They become blinkered to history.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am just giving my opinion. You seem to be of the opinion that Republicans should not move on fellow Republicans who have been involved very recently in criminality. The only movement should be from the British or Irish government side.
I don't understand the viewpoint because I view it as an issue of human deceny.
However, I do understand that your family background makes it difficult for you to take any other view point than the one you share.

But as Colin McCusker says it is partly the fault of the education system, and the environment people live in. They become blinkered to history.

SF are not responsible for republicanism. They are responsible for their party.

They have been honest about what they think should happen and I happen to agree.
Waiting forty years to get one side to admit they did wrong is torturous and counterproductive. The only way is everybody commit to a Truth process.

Nothing else is going to work, that I can see.

Truthvader

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IMC. And never contradicted as far as I know. A poster on another thread claimed it was but I never seen it and as yet the poster has not backed it up.

This IMC??

In November 2007, the Independent Monitoring Commission's John Grieve, stated that "We do believe that those involved ... included people who are members or former members, or have associations with members or former members, of the Provisional IRA."[7]