Ahern does McCabe Killers U-Turn

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

Firstly it is nice to see you admit that it was a robbery. If the IRA feel that they have a good cause then why don't they hold collections and let people choose whether or not they deserve their money.

As for whether or not the men who did this bank job did it for their own personal gain, it was either for personal gain or else it was an ego trip.

The IRA's own rule book states that under no circumstances are their members to attack members of the Garda Siocana. maybe that had more to do with why their maverick bank job wasn't sanctioned until it became convenient for the IRA.

I'm confused here, if the IRA don't sanction a bank heist then why would they want to claim it as an operation. that is like claiming credit for other people's work isn't it. The fact of the matter is that the IRA didn't claim credit for the robbery in adare until they felt that they had something to gain by it, which they don't. proof in the pudding is that not a single sinn fein person caim to my door canvasing during the last election, why, because it will be a cold day in hell before they get a seat in Limerick east while there is a chance that these murderers will get released.


actually the IRA are an embarrasement to the republican movement. I would love to see a united ireland, but only when the majority of the people in the north would be happy to do so, I cannot see it happening in my lifetime and it will only happen if it is accomplished through diplomacy.



the fact that they cannot stick to their own rules proves that they are dishonorable.

You say I am wandering off topic, the points I made on a variety of topics above eg 1916, 1969 etc were relevant to the discussion myself and gandalf were having and you will see that if you scroll back a few pages.

Of course I will admit that the operation was a robbery, but that is simply "a process of theft using force", the IRA frequently and often committed bank and post office robberies to fund their war effort, the motives behind the Adare incident were no different. In the context of prisoner release under the GFA the fact they either shot a guard or robbed a post office van is entirely irrelevant when you consider the killers of Tom Hand were released as were numerous other IRA POWs convicted of armed robbery. Furthermore the only stipulation the GFA has regarding prisoner release is that the offence had to have taken place before 1998 and that the person considered for release is currently a member of a group on ceasefire. Perhaps you could point out how the Castlereagh 4 don't come under that explicit directive? Also, considering the Dublin government have full signed up to the GFA they cannot hide behind the fact that Adare is a seperate jurisdiction to the 6 Counties.

As I said before, do the Standing Orders outlined within the IRA's Green Book have any bearing on the above prisoner release scheme? No, they do not and as such what IRA rules are on the matter are again irrelevant to the point at hand.

Finally, I can't see how the IRA are an "embarrasment to the Republican Movement" considering they form a part of it.

Metrobest

billy the squid wrote:

whether or not that is the case is not what is being debated here though, some of what the IRA did whether it be offensive to some people is dealt with in the Good Friday Agreement.

The debate here is whether or not the bank robbery in adare should be covered by the good friday agreement.which I personally think it should not be. for the reasons stated above.

My point is that if the killers of RUC officers have been let out - which they have been - then so too should the killers of McCabe. Bottom line is, they come from the same organisation: the IRA; and if we are serious about playing our part in bringing a final settlement to Northern Ireland, then unpalatable pills have to be swallowed.

marco murphy

Ms McCabe is expressing her outrage to that though.

Sand

if we are serious about playing our part in bringing a final settlement to Northern Ireland, then unpalatable pills have to be swallowed.

Let them be swallowed by the IRA for a change then. Up until now the two amazing concessions they have made is that they shouldnt be murdering people, and they ought to respect the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland - which according to the clear views of our Republican contributors isnt based on respect, but rather a poltical calculation. Some bitter pill to swallow.

If they want to go back to war over it theyll be campaigning for the release of far more than the Castle'ra scumbags.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

Regards decommisioning, continued UVF pogroms and attacks should not be dismissed as "Loyalist this and Loyalist that",

The murder in Adare (and murder it was) was not committed by the "Loyalists" so the only decommissioning that concerns me is IRA decommissioning

neither should the continued British Army activity eg helicopters and patrols through peoples' gardens that effects peoples' lives adversely. They may seem a non-issue to you but to many they are of the utmost urgency and the removal of racist death squads and the repatriation of an occupying army are of more importance than IRA decommisioning.

When was the last time you experienced a BA patrol in the Independent Socialist Marxist Peoples Republic of Free West Waterford ?

jbkenn

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

You say I am wandering off topic, the points I made on a variety of topics above eg 1916, 1969 etc were relevant to the discussion myself and gandalf were having and you will see that if you scroll back a few pages.

But this is not a discussion about 1916, it is a discussion on whether or not the Good Friday Agreement should cover these castlerea murderers.

FTA69 wrote:

Of course I will admit that the operation was a robbery, but that is simply "a process of theft using force", the IRA frequently and often committed bank and post office robberies to fund their war effort,

But, and I will say it again.

These men BROKE THE IRA'S RULES BY ATTACKING A GARDA! If IRA rules were broken by IRA members then why do they choose to sanction what they did.

My own opinion is that the IRA are using any excuse to slow down the process to protect their little cash cow that is their campaign of bank jobs and protection rackets.

as for whether this is a "war effort," there are rules of engagement which the IRA have never followed. which are required to describe a war.

FTA69 wrote:

IRA POWs

It is easy to glorify a bunch of criminals when your sitting pretty in waterford when there are people up north being forced to hand over money to stop these "heroes" from burning their house to the ground.

I always was under the impression that the term POW was allocated to individuals who were captured by an opposing force during a war.

1. this is not a war

2 These men are being held by the country the IRA wants to join, that being the republic of ireland, being governed by Dublin. The IRA shouldn't be "at war" with the people of Adare

3 This is not a war as defined by the Geneva Convention.

FTA69 wrote:

Furthermore the only stipulation the GFA has regarding prisoner release is that the offence had to have taken place before 1998 and that the person considered for release is currently a member of a group on ceasefire. Perhaps you could point out how the Castlereagh 4 don't come under that explicit directive?

The IRA only recognised the bank heist in adare as one of their "operations" when it became convenient for them to do so, even though it broke the IRA's own rules.

if this were a real army, any officer who broke the rules would be court martialled and dishonorably discharged.

FTA69 wrote:

Also, considering the Dublin government have full signed up to the GFA they cannot hide behind the fact that Adare is a seperate jurisdiction to the 6 Counties.

the IRISH government is not hiding behind the fact that the north is a different juristiction to the south. the IriSH government is making the point that this operation was not originally sanctioned by the IRA

FTA69 wrote:

Finally, I can't see how the IRA are an "embarrasment to the Republican Movement" considering they form a part of it.

If they were then you would think they would aquiesse to the wishes of the majority of the people in the republic and decommission, quickly.

Metrobest wrote:

My point is that if the killers of RUC officers have been let out - which they have been - then so too should the killers of McCabe. Bottom line is, they come from the same organisation: the IRA; and if we are serious about playing our part in bringing a final settlement to Northern Ireland, then unpalatable pills have to be swallowed.
Yesterday 17:20

Producing photographic evidence of IRA decommissioning for the DUP is a bitter pill to swallow too, if the IRA don't have to swallow that one then why should Anne McCabe.

Mighty_Mouse

Remember how the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe were not to be allowed early release under the GFA or as part of a deal?

I think Sinn Fein has always had a different reading on that. I suppose it depends on what who remembers.


I haven't read the thread but I'm presuming it's re-hash. (or maybe a little more emotive re-hash?)

IMO the government had no right to make any promises to Mrs. McCabe which completly contradicted the GFA.

At the end of the day I have huge sympathies for Mrs McCabe and respect her right to fight against the release of the Castlerea prisoners. I respect her right as much as I respect the right of republicans to feel anger when UVF/UDA men are released, families of RUC men when IRA men are released.....................
BUT at the end of the day these families are only parts of a larger picture. Are we gonna hold up the prospect of peace in the north for an emotive argument?

I believe that we only have another 8-10 years to get this sorted before the next generation of catholics feels the anger of oppression.Are we really gonna start wasting opportunities for the sake of a couple of months early release?

FTA69

jbkenn wrote:

The murder in Adare (and murder it was) was not committed by the "Loyalists" so the only decommissioning that concerns me is IRA decommissioning


When was the last time you experienced a BA patrol in the Independent Socialist Marxist Peoples Republic of Free West Waterford ?

jbkenn

IRA decommisioning is not intrinsically related to the Adare incident, and as I said to billy above, I never pretended 1916, arms beyond use etc were relevant to the topic. They were issues discussed between myself and gandalf in a series of exchanges we had.

Regards the British Army, I was reffering to the hardship that the military occupation causes for the people in South Armagh, East Tyrone, West Belfast and South Derry as well as many other areas in Ireland. I never mentioned Waterford so spare your snyde remarks. Besides, the 6 Counties are as much a part of my country as Kerry or Dublin and as such I don't like to see a foriegn occupational army stationed here.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

My own opinion is that the IRA are using any excuse to slow down the process to protect their little cash cow that is their campaign of bank jobs and protection rackets.

as for whether this is a "war effort," there are rules of engagement which the IRA have never followed. which are required to describe a war.

It is easy to glorify a bunch of criminals when your sitting pretty in waterford when there are people up north being forced to hand over money to stop these "heroes" from burning their house to the ground.

I always was under the impression that the term POW was allocated to individuals who were captured by an opposing force during a war.

1. this is not a war

2 These men are being held by the country the IRA wants to join, that being the republic of ireland, being governed by Dublin. The IRA shouldn't be "at war" with the people of Adare

3 This is not a war as defined by the Geneva Convention.



The IRA only recognised the bank heist in adare as one of their "operations" when it became convenient for them to do so, even though it broke the IRA's own rules.

if this were a real army, any officer who broke the rules would be court martialled and dishonorably discharged.


the IRISH government is not hiding behind the fact that the north is a different juristiction to the south. the IriSH government is making the point that this operation was not originally sanctioned by the IRA

Well done billy, you managed to ignore every point made in my post as well as the crucial question. That being; The only stipulation the Agreement has regarding prisoner release is that the event must have occured before 1998 and the person(s) considered for release must be a member of a group currently on ceaefire.

Do the IRA's internal rules affect the Good Friday Agreement? No they do not.

Does the Agreement refer only to "sanctioned operations"? No it does not.

So again I ask you, how don't the Castlreagh Four come under the Good Friday Agreement? And please, this time actually refer to the institutions of the GFA, which is after all the issue at hand.

Regards IRA fund-raising and POW status, if they were not political prisoners as you alledged how come the government to which you owe your allegiance recognised their right to political status? Why did both they and the British Government recognise said right with every other IRA member? Even those convicted of armed robbery etc?

Your comments about extortion barely warrant a reply since I usually don't address fantastical accusations. However, manybe you could tell me how many IRA members have been convicted of racketeering? And while you are at it you can give me the massive list of those who suffered arson attacks as a result of failure to pay imaginery protection money.

Finally, there is no need to debase yourself by making petty references to my home county. The Republican Movement is alive and well down here and the work we do is substantial, unlike some we don't loiter around all day on internet chatrooms, we actually act on our position. Also, Republicans in Waterford have suffered the beatings from your beloved Guards as well as the imprisonment and harrasment. So keyboard warrior, you tell me who is "sitting pretty".

Rock Climber

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

IMO the government had no right to make any promises to Mrs. McCabe which completly contradicted the GFA.

Well it's an ill informed opinion as you should know, that in the referendum campaign for the GFA in the 26 counties the Government that negotiated that agreement stated to the Irish people several and many times that the McCabe killers were not to be included as part of it's early release terms.
The people voted in that full knowledge and therefore the government were fully entitled to promise the Mcabe family that Garda McCabe's killers will serve their full sentence.

Whats going on here really, is that SF are in tandem with their good bank robbing and Garda killing buddies in the IRA insisting that there will be no deal without this release.
It's quite contemptable really.

FTA69

What right had Bertie Ahern, John O Donoghue or anyone else have to make statements that contradicted an internationally-binding agreement that they signed unreservedly?

Rock Climber

FTA69 wrote:

What right had Bertie Ahern, John O Donoghue or anyone else have to make statements that contradicted an internationally-binding agreement that they signed unreservedly?

As co-signee's and negotiaters, they made it clear to the other negotiaters that the McCabe killers were not to be covered by the GFA.
They made this clear to voters prior to the referendum.

As you may or may not know the GFA and the legislation to impliment it left the early release list to be at the discretion of the minister for justice of the time.
He's been democratically elected and by virtue of that given the right to act on behalf of the Irish people.
If you do a headcount in the Dáil,I'm sure you'll probably find all Fine Gael T.D's,labour T.D's and FF T.D's ie the very vast majority of our democratically elected representatives are all in agreement that the mcCabe killers should serve their sentence in full.
Couple that with the fact as I stated in my last post that it was being made perfectly clear to the 26 county voters at the time of the GFA referendum that the McCabe killers were to be excluded- then it's perfectly clear where Bertie and John got the right to reassure Mrs McCabe.

The only thing that has changed is that SF want to use the McCabe killers release as part of their bargaining chips in the latest negotiations.
They want their Garda killing mates free and it's as simple as that for them.

Now that said, I can understand how they need this carrot to appease the more extreme members of the IRA but I still think its comtemptable.
Thats my view and I'm far from alone in it.

FTA69

So Ahern and co are not obliged to act on their commitments just because they declared their breach ahead of signing? You cannot take an a la carte approach to the GFA in what you feel like implementing and what you don't. As full signatories to said Agreement they are obliged to implement all its aspects, regardless of what falseties they sold either the public or McCabe's widow.

Also, just because it takes McDowell toa ctually sign the papers of release does not equate with the men not coming under the GFA, because as that agreement states, the Ministers for Justice are obliged to sign those papers.

Rock Climber

FTA69 wrote:

So Ahern and co are not obliged to act on their commitments just because they declared their breach ahead of signing? You cannot take an a la carte approach to the GFA in what you feel like implementing and what you don't. As full signatories to said Agreement they are obliged to implement all its aspects, regardless of what falseties they sold either the public or McCabe's widow.

It's interesting that you use the word commitment there.
The voters of the 26 counties werent sold a pup when they voted to endorse the GFA.
They were given a clear commitment that what they were voting for, excluded the release of the McCabe killers.
They were a criminal gang on a criminal job, disowned intially by the IRA untill they realised that, píssed off with them though they may be, they'd better claim them or they'd get prison.
People down here recognised that and still do and democratically voted accordingly
I'm wondering what part of democracy you disagree with, is it all of democracy or just when you dont get your own way?
I'm not surprised with that attitude after all it was the cornerstone of the IRA campaign, ie we'll bomb and shoot all round us, against the wishes of nine out of ten of the Irish people.

Now that said, your mindset and my mind set plus that of the majority of people are never going to agree on the merit of the IRA campaign.
We may agree on a pragmatic settlement though.

Arguing for the release of Criminals on a criminal job in one of the 26 counties, well removed from or connected to a campaign against the Crown forces and who killed a Garda in the process-well to be perfectly frank, that is contemptable and shows bad judgement.

But then, SF have no choice really, they are their mates.
It doesn't add to SF's street cred in the South but maybe some good will come out of that as it further portays them down here as dodgy customers.

FTA69

I don't recall seeing a tag on the ballot paper saying "PS, this agreement excludes those held in Castlereagh", like it or not the people voted for the GFA overwhelmingly, and in its entirity. Neither Bertie Ahern, nor anyone else for that matter had or has the right to make statements contrary to that agreement. "Commitment" was the wrong word to use above, "obligation" is more correct considering the Agreement is ultimately binding.

I notice you refer to the men as "criminals" on a "criminal" job, in all fairness, how could you possibly know the motives of those behind the incident? It was part of a fund raising intiative and as IRA Volunteers the men had the authority to fund-raise. Just because the operation was not sanctioned does not make it less of an IRA operation, and besides whether the operation was sanctioned or not is entirely irrelevant considering the Agreement makes no such reference "sanction".

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

Except when one does it for a political motive, then their right to political status is recognised and they become eligible for release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

BuffyBot

It was part of a fund raising intiative and as IRA Volunteers the men had the authority to fund-raise

You know, the most amusing thing about it is that you make it sound like they were taking part in the parish cake-sale, not an armed robbery

FTA69

I never stated that the men were engaged in anything else other than an armed robbery. I make no attempts to sanitise war, I simply recognise it for what it is and acknowledge its restraints, inevitabilities and necessities.

BCB

W ankers like Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbite seem to be obsessed over this topic..the bottom line is these men SHOULD be released under the terms of the GFA ragardless..

Rock Climber

FTA69 wrote:

I don't recall seeing a tag on the ballot paper saying "PS, this agreement excludes those held in Castlereagh",

In fairness, it was well flagged at the time, one would want to have been in a deep sleep not to have seen the coverage during the referendum campaign regarding the government stating the McCabe killers were not to be released under the agreement.

It was part of a fund raising intiative and as IRA Volunteers the men had the authority to fund-raise.

I'll have to be pedantic with you there and suggest that you could have phrased that to more accurately reflect the situation.
What you should have said was that these men, had the authority of the IRA to act only on their behalf fundraising which may or may not involve armed bank robberies
They certainly had no authority whatsoever in the legal sense to go out doing armed robberies, no one has that authority, its both an illegal act and a socially undesirable act to put it mildly.

Just because the operation was not sanctioned does not make it less of an IRA operation, and besides whether the operation was sanctioned or not is entirely irrelevant considering the Agreement makes no such reference "sanction".

Do armed bank robberies often occur by members without the sanction of the IRA? I didn't think and doubt that they were that poorly disiplined.
If disipline within the ranks of the IRA is so poor, how on earth are they going to police a disbandment and a completion of the process of putting their guns beyond use?
Your comment in answer to my last post seems to suggest such a lack of disipline.I'd be inclined to think the opposite and that disipline in there would be rock solid and that these guys were probably on a maverick operation-who knows what the loot was destined for-we'll never know.

It's all immaterial now though in that its all but certain that they will be released as part of the bigger deal but for what its worth, imho theres enough baggage around what they did to make their release the most questionable and least deserving of any that will have been released.

I have one question though for the IRA supporters here though...
I have heard that it is the intention of the IRA to give its active service members a medal for their duties during the troubles.

Will these guys be getting one aswell for killing a Garda??

originally posted by BCB
W ankers like Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbite seem to be obsessed over this topic..the bottom line is these men SHOULD be released under the terms of the GFA ragardless..

40% of the electorate( a conservative estimate of the FG and LAB support) (and lets see by that logic all the FF supporters as well ) in the South of Ireland are W ankers now are they?
8 out of 10 people in Ireland then must be w ankers....
Here we go again with the contempt for democratic opinion...

billy the squid

FTA69 wrote:

I never stated that the men were engaged in anything else other than an armed robbery. I make no attempts to sanitise war, I simply recognise it for what it is and acknowledge its restraints, inevitabilities and necessities.

isn't pillaging a war-crime under the Geneva Convention?

billy the squid

BCB wrote:

W ankers like Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbite seem to be obsessed over this topic..the bottom line is these men SHOULD be released under the terms of the GFA ragardless..

these W ankers have a bigger mandate than SF/IRA so how do you like them apples.

Alex27

Greetings folks,

Have to agree with Rock Climber, looks like the goverment is considering their release in exchange for the final act of completion. Release if any most likely will be linked to the latest round of negotiations and results that follow, not to the GFA. Talking about GFA Article 29 part 6 of Irish Constitution states - No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.

Here is the quote from the O'Neill & anor -v- Governor of Castlerea Prison & ors

The Oireachtas enacted the 1998 Act in the knowledge that persons convicted of offences arising out of the killing of Detective Garda McCabe would not be considered for release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and that therefore the Minister would not be specifying them as qualified prisoners.

FTA69

Rock Climber wrote:

In fairness, it was well flagged at the time, one would want to have been in a deep sleep not to have seen the coverage during the referendum campaign regarding the government stating the McCabe killers were not to be released under the agreement.

I'll have to be pedantic with you there and suggest that you could have phrased that to more accurately reflect the situation.
What you should have said was that these men, had the authority of the IRA to act only on their behalf fundraising which may or may not involve armed bank robberies
They certainly had no authority whatsoever in the legal sense to go out doing armed robberies, no one has that authority, its both an illegal act and a socially undesirable act to put it mildly.

Do armed bank robberies often occur by members without the sanction of the IRA? I didn't think and doubt that they were that poorly disiplined.
If disipline within the ranks of the IRA is so poor, how on earth are they going to police a disbandment and a completion of the process of putting their guns beyond use?
Your comment in answer to my last post seems to suggest such a lack of disipline.I'd be inclined to think the opposite and that disipline in there would be rock solid and that these guys were probably on a maverick operation-who knows what the loot was destined for-we'll never know.

It's all immaterial now though in that its all but certain that they will be released as part of the bigger deal but for what its worth, imho theres enough baggage around what they did to make their release the most questionable and least deserving of any that will have been released.

I have one question though for the IRA supporters here though...
I have heard that it is the intention of the IRA to give its active service members a medal for their duties during the troubles.

Will these guys be getting one aswell for killing a Garda??

What Ahern etc stated at the time of the negotiations is entirely irrelevant when compared with the fact they signed up to the Agreement in its entirity, the Agreement that outlines prisoner release guidelines for the which the Castlereagh Four are eligible, you might feel that parties to the GFA have the right to ignore the obligations placed upon them by their signature of that Agreement but I do not.

Regards "authority" and sanction, many people on this thread have stated that since the men breached IRA regulations that is a good enough reason for their continued incarceration and I was simply pointing out the hollowness of this claim. You are however right in saying that what IRA rules or regulations are on the matter are entirely irrelevant.

You also question the discipline of the IRA, I put to you a hypothetical situation; if an IRA ASU shot up a passing British Army patrol (as did frequently happen) on the spur of the moment and happened to kill someone would you consider that an IRA operation or not? In a war it is not possible to have every operation "sanctioned", least of all in the case of a guerilla army such as the IRA.

Regards medals etc, it was the media rags who first peddled this notion so I personally wouldn't set much store by it. Then again, who knows? Some sort of celebration/ceremony would be probable.

FTA69

billy the squid wrote:

isn't pillaging a war-crime under the Geneva Convention?

Out of curiosity Billy, do you regard the IRA of the 20s as "terrorists"? Do you seek to deny the War of Independence was a "war"?Remember, the IRA back then were a fan of train robberies.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

What Ahern etc stated at the time of the negotiations is entirely irrelevant when compared with the fact they signed up to the Agreement in its entirity, the Agreement that outlines prisoner release guidelines for the which the Castlereagh Four are eligible, you might feel that parties to the GFA have the right to ignore the obligations placed upon them by their signature of that Agreement but I do not.

I'll answer that if you don't mind.
I voted for the GFA and many like me on the clear understanding that the mcCabe killers were excluded.
Thats democracy for you.
Its what was understood at the time,it was well publicised and debated too and is clear and un ambigous.

Their release now if agreed has nothing whatsoever to do with the GFA, it would be as part of a new deal.
In effect their release would be a condition negotiated by SF on this occasion as was stated earlier as a bargaining chip for that new deal.

You seem to have avoided two points here mentioned above
1. Alex's point regarding the contitution which I'll re-quote for you:

Talking about GFA Article 29 part 6 of Irish Constitution states - No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.

The constitution is final on the matter, and the laws passed to give effect to the early release were democratically put in place.
I'm ill at ease with anyone advocating stuff against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people.

2. Is it appropriate these McCabe killers be getting a medal for killing the Garda?
If they do, thats rightly described above as contemptable.
On a side note, SF t.d Caomhin o Caolain praised the IRA in the Dáil today.
I can understand why he did so, as no doubt he was fully in favour of its 30 year campaign.
But do you think its wise for a senior member of SF to appear on evening news bulletins saying stuff like that when the overwhelming majority of people disagreed with it?
It wouldn't be something that I'd think would be wise anyway as it draws attention to a Grá for the bombing and shooting and thats not a vote winning association.

FTA69

I also voted for the GFA that stated that demilitarisation would take place after a period of a few years but here we are also. You cannot sign up to an agreement in its entirity and then renege on obligations you undertook just because they don't suit you, the people voted for the GFA under whose auspices the Castlereagh Four come under. End of Story.

Regards the Constitution, so you believe that the killers of McQuaid and Hand should never have been released? Or anyone convicted of armed robbery for that matter? Why bother releasing any prisoners?

The GFA should be implemented IN IT'S ENTIRITY regardless of what the constitution of either state says.

jbkenn

FTA69 wrote:

Regards the Constitution, so you believe that the killers of McQuaid and Hand should never have been released? Or anyone convicted of armed robbery for that matter? Why bother releasing any prisoners?

Finally, you are getting the message

p.s in future, please do the courtesy of referring to members of an Garda Siochana by their rank

jbkenn

A Dub in Glasgo

jbkenn wrote:

p.s in future, please do the courtesy of referring to members of an Garda Siochana by their rank

Why is considered discourteous to refer to their surnames?