[BBC News] Chuckies take ball; Go home

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

you of course ignored the question which is if the evidence is not ready why make the allegation against the IRA why not wait at least untill you could make arrests or present the evidence on which the allegation is made

how did I ignore any question.
I thought it was perfectly clear what I was saying.
Let me say it again in another way for you.
They are a respected force(the Gardaí).
They are involved in the investigation(The Gardaí)
They believe based on their information that the IRA were involved.

As with any investigation-names will not be named untill a DPP is satisfied with the evidence against any individuals.

Clearly they(The Gardaí) are satisfied as to what organisation are involved

of course you overlook the possibility that thew PSNI have moved the spotlight from themselves also we came very close to a deal a few weeks ago
that would have led to a sinn fein minister for justice or policing perhaps that would be motive enough for senior PSNI officers to blow the peace process out of the water

An SF minister for justice/policing is /was about as likely as the Irish Sea freezing over next week and you and I walking across it.
Plus no matter what ministry is held by SF, the way the NI executive is set up, it can hardly do anything without cross party agreement.
Senior PSNI officers even if it was something that worried them(and no doubt it would) would know that while the DUP were the largest party, SF wouldnt be getting that post.
They certainly wouldnt get it down south either.
So you bringing that up is quite outlandish tbh.

as for the men already released your living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that is even a possibility

Au contraire I think you way underestimate how angry the Irish people south of the border would be or the politicians in Britain.
Perhaps you mean to suggest that they would go into hiding.
Yup they probably would but at that point they would be fugitives and not free men as they are now.
Is it really all worth that?

and finally the IRA are unlikely to return to wholesale war would would put their necks on the line for an organization that was prepared to wind up a couple of weeks ago the governments know that that is why they are being so pushy with republicans

Well you seem to have a lower regard for an end to criminality by the IRA than most...
But then that doesnt surprise me as you have already made your position clear that robbery is acceptable.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

how did I ignore any question.
I thought it was perfectly clear what I was saying.
Let me say it again in another way for you.
They are a respected force(the Gardaí).
They are involved in the investigation(The Gardaí)
They believe based on their information that the IRA were involved.

As with any investigation-names will not be named untill a DPP is satisfied with the evidence against any individuals.

Clearly they(The Gardaí) are satisfied as to what organisation are involved.

the Question is if they can not reveal the evidence why not wait till they can before stating positively that the IRA was involved

Earthman wrote:

An SF minister for justice/policing is /was about as likely as the Irish Sea freezing over next week and you and I walking across it.
Plus no matter what ministry is held by SF, the way the NI executive is set up, it can hardly do anything without cross party agreement.
Senior PSNI officers even if it was something that worried them(and no doubt it would) would know that while the DUP were the largest party, SF wouldnt be getting that post.
They certainly wouldnt get it down south either.
So you bringing that up is quite outlandish tbh..

read the agreement that the governments published it is all in there
it is two separate posts 1 justice 2 policing
so the dup get one
SF as the second largest party get the other if they want it

Earthman wrote:

Au contraire I think you way underestimate how angry the Irish people south of the border would be or the politicians in Britain.
Perhaps you mean to suggest that they would go into hiding.
Yup they probably would but at that point they would be fugitives and not free men as they are now.
Is it really all worth that?.

no i mean they will not go back to prison unless they are involved in the conflict again or are convicted of another offence
thats it end of story

Earthman wrote:

Well you seem to have a lower regard for an end to criminality by the IRA than most...
But then that doesnt surprise me as you have already made your position clear that robbery is acceptable.

no i dont believe the IRA should be involved in crime at all

mike65

Check this out http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/322005-17.wmv (right click saves as..) When downloaded skip foward to 32 mins and listen to a tetchy Gerry Adams.

From 44.40 on is particuarly interesting as we get to the relationship between
SF and IRA. Have a rofl at 51 mins! (Ray Burke and British Intelligence??)

Mike.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

the Question is if they can not reveal the evidence why not wait till they can before stating positively that the IRA was involved

But the point I'm making is that they are positive the IRA were involved.
They are still investigating the robbery.
The two are different things.
they have information as to who was involved , they are gathering the evidence, they would be fools to reveal that information to the general public.
You can be sure though that they did to Ahern and Blair whic clearly maddened them.
Your problem appears to be thats not good enough, but to say that you have to doubt the Gardaís credibility in the matter.
now thats your perogative and you are entitled to your opinion.
But you would have your work cut out for you if you were to go to the ordinary man on the street and try to compare the IRA's credibility with that of the Gardaí.

SF as the second largest party get the other if they want it

Actually I dont recall that, could you point to the exact text where it says that-I'm always open to correction.
I understood that under D'haunt the ministries are divied out after the other in random order ie the DUP pick the first one, SF the second, the UUP the third and so on.

no i dont believe the IRA should be involved in crime at all

Good.
you do have strange views on what constitutes robbery though and what is ok about it, given what you were checked on in the thread I linked to in my last post though.
You've actually stated here on this board that robbing the NIB was ok so ergo if the IRA was responsible ..ergo in your book they didnt do a criminal act.

Even Adams and McGuinness now dont agree with you on that

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

But the point I'm making is that they are positive the IRA were involved.
They are still investigating the robbery.
The two are different things.
they have information as to who was involved , they are gathering the evidence, they would be fools to reveal that information to the general public.
You can be sure though that they did to Ahern and Blair whic clearly maddened them.
Your problem appears to be thats not good enough, but to say that you have to doubt the Gardaís credibility in the matter.
now thats your perogative and you are entitled to your opinion.
But you would have your work cut out for you if you were to go to the ordinary man on the street and try to compare the IRA's credibility with that of the Gardaí.

I dont care how positive they are I want to see some evidence

that is why we have a judicial system because the gardai are not always right
they have gather evidence and prove the case

Earthman wrote:

Actually I dont recall that, could you point to the exact text where it says that-I'm always open to correction.
I understood that under D'haunt the ministries are divied out after the other in random order ie the DUP pick the first one, SF the second, the UUP the third and so on.

no it goes on size of the party
largest picks first
second next

so presuming the DUp and sinn fein would want either of the 2 ministries sinn fein would be gauranteed at least one

Earthman wrote:

Good.
you do have strange views on what constitutes robbery though and what is ok about it, given what you were checked on in the thread I linked to in my last post though.
You've actually stated here on this board that robbing the NIB was ok so ergo if the IRA was responsible ..ergo in your book they didnt do a criminal act.

Even Adams and McGuinness now dont agree with you on that

no I never said it wasn't a criminal act
i was pointing out the contradictions in the treatment of one theft over another I dont want to go back down that road as it is irrelavent to this discussion
but i appreciate your attempt tp bring this thread off topic

true

cdebru wrote:

no i dont believe the IRA should be involved in crime at all

Why dont they disband and give up all their guns and semtex so?

Murder, intimidation, kidnappings, extortion, beatings, smuggling and robbery have all been carried out by the IRA : all are against the law, all are against the common good and if they had a bit of decency they would surrender their illegial arsenal with a note of apology to all their victims.

cdebru

true wrote:

Why dont they disband and give up all their guns and semtex so?

Murder, intimidation, kidnappings, extortion, beatings, smuggling and robbery have all been carried out by the IRA : all are against the law, all are against the common good and if they had a bit of decency they would surrender their illegial arsenal with a note of apology to all their victims.

are you asking me a question or is this an excuse for a rant

I believe the IRA should disband and destroy its weapons

true

cdebru wrote:

are you asking me a question or is this an excuse for a rant

I believe the IRA should disband and destroy its weapons

It was a question and thank you for answering the question clearly.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

I dont care how positive they are I want to see some evidence

Well if you applied that to all crimes while being investigated then, there would be very little justice.
You are not being realistic.you know very well that they cannot provide you with their case book untill they are finished with the investigation.The investigation is ongo-ing.
It's not damaging to the investigation to inform the public what organisation the investigators believe are involved as it is their members that end up on trial not the organisation.

You may indicate here your desire to see their investigation but as with all criminal investigation showing it to the public prior to arrests is not on.
It's clear that Ahern has seen their files though and thats convinced him that the IRA were involved.

no it goes on size of the party
largest picks first
second next

You had it slightly different earlier, in that you said justice and policing could go to the two biggest parties-Those devolved departments dont even exist

so presuming the DUp and sinn fein would want either of the 2 ministries sinn fein would be gauranteed at least one

No ...as they don't exist.

no I never said it wasn't a criminal act
i was pointing out the contradictions in the treatment of one theft over another I dont want to go back down that road as it is irrelavent to this discussion

You are anything but consistant in your posts.
In the thread I quoted, you were saying it was alright to rob that bank- Ergo in your book it couldn't be a crime and now you are saying it is??
You've changed your mind then good.

but i appreciate your attempt tp bring this thread off topic

How is it off topic to question your opinion on the bank raid in this thread discussing the IRA's tantrum because its being blamed for a bank raid?
That thread is riddled with tacit approval by you of the bank raid ergo you either approve of the crime or dont think its a crime at all.
Regardless of which it is-It's hardly surprising for me to remark that your shouts of innocent untill you see the evidence are hollow here.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well if you applied that to all crimes while being investigated then, there would be very little justice.
You are not being realistic.you know very well that they cannot provide you with their case book untill they are finished with the investigation.The investigation is ongo-ing.
It's not damaging to the investigation to inform the public what organisation the investigators believe are involved as it is their members that end up on trial not the organisation.

You may indicate here your desire to see their investigation but as with all criminal investigation showing it to the public prior to arrests is not on.
It's clear that Ahern has seen their files though and thats convinced him that the IRA were involved..

its damaging to the peace process this is not an ordinary investigation there was no need to say it was definitely the IRA untill they could back it up and provide evidence as to why they tought this

Earthman wrote:

You had it slightly different earlier, in that you said justice and policing could go to the two biggest parties-Those devolved departments dont even exist.

no i didn't if the agreement had have been done a few weeks ago it had a provision to devolve policing and justice to the assembly in a short time frame
had it have happened sinn fein would have been gauranteed either the policing or the justice portfolio

Earthman wrote:

No ...as they don't exist..

no of course they dont had the agreement been reached they would have

Earthman wrote:

You are anything but consistant in your posts.
In the thread I quoted, you were saying it was alright to rob that bank- Ergo in your book it couldn't be a crime and now you are saying it is??
You've changed your mind then good.

How is it off topic to question your opinion on the bank raid in this thread discussing the IRA's tantrum because its being blamed for a bank raid?
That thread is riddled with tacit approval by you of the bank raid ergo you either approve of the crime or dont think its a crime at all.
Regardless of which it is-It's hardly surprising for me to remark that your shouts of innocent untill you see the evidence are hollow here.

what i said was i was not too concerned if criminals stole from criminals
ie its a crime
your really trying hard to go off topic
not biting

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

its damaging to the peace process this is not an ordinary investigation there was no need to say it was definitely the IRA untill they could back it up and provide evidence as to why they tought this

Basically you are saying the same thing over and over that it couldnt be the IRA unless you see the proof yet the Taoiseach and the leader of the opposition and their deputies and the Gardaí would disagree with you.
Thats a formidable bank (if you pardon the pun ) of opinion up against you.
You're entitled to think what you think, I'm merely pointing out that Respected authorities think different.
I'm also pointing out to you that Ahern was understandably mad given that he believed that the Republican leadership must have been aware of what was going on yet continued their discussions in bad faith.

If Ahern and most T.D's think that I'm not surprised that Adams and McGuinness are making new ground for themselves away from the IRA.

no i didn't if the agreement had have been done a few weeks ago it had a provision to devolve policing and justice to the assembly in a short time frame

Have you had sight of the new agreement that was being negotiated or was that in the GFA? Where have you had sight of what was being discussed?

what i said was i was not too concerned if criminals stole from criminals
ie its a crime

Oh so it was the first thing I asked then-you have just clarified that you condoned the crime of robbing the bank.
Interesting.
And by the way, that bank and the people working for it now or at the time of the raid arent criminals.

your really trying hard to go off topic
not biting

It's not off topic to question your bona fidés here looking for the book of evidence for the crime when you condone the crime in the first place...
I wasnt therefore asking you to bite into anything off topic, but that said I wouldnt bite into this anyfurther at all if I were you as it isnt very savoury to be condoning crime.

Cork

Sand wrote:

Big deal, SF/IRA have consistently dragged their feet on anything asked of them - decomissioning, declaring the "war" is over, ceasing activity - all this is promised to occur at some later date in the future, when they feel like it and not before. Everyone else has to sign up to immediate deals, like the prisoner releases - which in hindsight should have been linked to major steps forward such as decommissioning, good behaviour on the part of the terrorist groups, etc etc.

I think the fact the both governments were looking for a "no criminality clause" was too much for the IRA which has involved in rgular criminality.

Even aside from the bank robbery - punishment beatings continued.

The IRA is finding it hard to ditch criminality. How dare they threten a return to war.

IRA criminality has to stop - they have to accept this.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Basically you are saying the same thing over and over that it couldnt be the IRA unless you see the proof yet the Taoiseach and the leader of the opposition and their deputies and the Gardaí would disagree with you.
Thats a formidable bank (if you pardon the pun ) of opinion up against you.
You're entitled to think what you think, I'm merely pointing out that Respected authorities think different.
I'm also pointing out to you that Ahern was understandably mad given that he believed that the Republican leadership must have been aware of what was going on yet continued their discussions in bad faith.

If Ahern and most T.D's think that I'm not surprised that Adams and McGuinness are making new ground for themselves away from the IRA..

you obviously only read what suits you
i said it may have been the IRA it may not I dont know and either do you
I would like to see some evidence
when I have seen the evidence or ifsome IRA members are convicted of the crime then I will accept that it was the IRA
when it happened I like most people presumed it must be the IRA
they have denied it presumption is not enough

I have no interest in wether the pope thinks they did it i want to see proof

I agree Ahern must have been mad it is the only explanation

Earthman wrote:

Have you had sight of the new agreement that was being negotiated or was that in the GFA? Where have you had sight of what was being discussed?.

i suggest you buy a newspaper once in a while the governments published what they had agreed
I read it in the irish times

true

I still think you do not understand, do you cdebru ?

The Gardai and PSNI have no obligation to divulge what exactly they know at this stage to the general public, just to satisfy Sinn Fein and their fellow travellers. I trust the security forces of both governments more than I trust the word of P.O'Neill.

Both governments / security forces may know the organisation involved, but they may not necessarily have enough evidence yet to arrest individual. Their intelligence may have come via informers, hi-tech electronic survellance or whatever - to tell cdebru and Sinn Fein / IRA and everyone else may jeopardise these ongoing operations.

cdebru

Cork wrote:

I think the fact the both governments were looking for a "no criminality clause" was too much for the IRA which has involved in rgular criminality.

Even aside from the bank robbery - punishment beatings continued.

The IRA is finding it hard to ditch criminality. How dare they threten a return to war.

IRA criminality has to stop - they have to accept this.

i think that the IRA view a clause that says they wont engage in criminality in the future as a tacit admission that they engaged in criminality in the past.

in the view of the IRA the campaign that they were involved in was not criminal. it is a very sore point for republicans as it was on this very issue that the hungerstrikers died.

Republicans do not want the IRA to turn into a criminal gang as happened to the OIRA
but they can not accept the criminalisation of the armed struggle

cdebru

true wrote:

I still think you do not understand, do you cdebru ?

The Gardai and PSNI have no obligation to divulge what exactly they know at this stage to the general public, just to satisfy Sinn Fein and their fellow travellers. I trust the security forces of both governments more than I trust the word of P.O'Neill.

Both governments / security forces may know the organisation involved, but they may not necessarily have enough evidence yet to arrest individual. Their intelligence may have come via informers, hi-tech electronic survellance or whatever - to tell cdebru and Sinn Fein / IRA and everyone else may jeopardise these ongoing operations.

ok for the slow learners why say anything untill you can offer proof
then there can be no denial
until they were ready to back up the statement that the IRA did it they should have said that they were keeping all avenues open

I think that they have walked themselves into a hole

they were under no oligation to name any organisation I just think if the PSNI found out tomorrow that it was someone else they would have to let them keep the money rather than admit it was not the provos

true

cdebru wrote:

Republicans do not want the IRA to turn into a criminal gang as happened to the OIRA
but they can not accept the criminalisation of the armed struggle

The rest of the world knows that the IRA committed crimes. Everyone except Sinn Fein/ IRA. Oh, but they know best.

If murder, blackmail, bombings, extortion, bank robbery, torture, smuggling, punishment beatings, etc etc are not crimes then what are ? It does not leave much else.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

I agree Ahern must have been mad it is the only explanation

That kinda sums up your argument really.
Ahern is mad QED :rolleyes:

no regard for his opinion or the fact that he has been made aware of what the Gardaí are aware of.

Republicans do not want the IRA to turn into a criminal gang as happened to the OIRA

Oh I understand that-but then you cant be doing an armed struggle on behalf of the people of Ireland when they dont want you to be doing that and they never did, a tiny minority did, but why should a tiny minority be allowed ever to outrule the vast majority especially when it comes to gunning and shooting?

Anyway thats not the point here-the point is that the robbing of the Bank was criminal and it is the considered opinion of Ahern and the Gardaí that the IRA were involved.
You think they are mad... That says a lot really.

but they can not accept the criminalisation of the armed struggle

Thats understandable , they will always get that though, you dont have to probe very deep among its victims to get that.
The majority will never take it as either a justification for what they did or for what they may intend to do if they go back to it.
Its not the issue now-the issue is that the Gardaí and the Taoiseach have what they believe is good reason to say that the IRA are involved in criminality in the here and now which has nothing whatsoever to do with their armed struggle, the memory of hungerstrikers or anything like that.

But then of course they are mad... arent they :rolleyes:
When all other analysis fails-we'll say they are mad...

Cork

cdebru wrote:

i think that the IRA view a clause that says they wont engage in criminality in the future as a tacit admission that they engaged in criminality in the past.

They obviously don't see punishment beatings as a crime.

Many of of these see themselves as above the law.

They need to move on + get away from threatning more violence.

mike65

Interesting read here from The Blanklet.

Mike.

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

The Gardai and PSNI have no obligation to divulge what exactly they know at this stage to the general public, just to satisfy Sinn Fein and their fellow travellers. I trust the security forces of both governments more than I trust the word of P.O'Neill.

How can one trust the gardai with tribunals? and not to mention these

or trust the PSNI ? because of this raid - the down fall of the north assembly.. but no one was charge because nothing was found.

true

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

How can one trust the gardai with tribunals? and not to mention these

or trust the PSNI ? because of this raid - the down fall of the north assembly.. but no one was charge because nothing was found.

I think you made a boo boo there , Johnny the fox. The link you gave to the PSNI is exactly why everyone ( except Sinn Fein/ IRA of course ) trusts the PSNI and not the IRA. The link was to do with the IRA spying at Stormont in Oct 02. This was a major scandal and embarassment to the republicans at the time. Plenty was found. It was hushed up a bit then, as part of the continued appeasment of Sinn Fein / IRA.


Nobody said any police force anywhere in the world was perfect, or did not have the odd bad apple. Same with politicians, hence tribunals etc. However, I think our democratic style of govt and security is a hell of a lot better than the Sinn Fein / IRA alternative. What defence council did Jean McConville have ?

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

I think you made a boo boo there , Johnny the fox. The link you gave to the PSNI is exactly why everyone ( except Sinn Fein/ IRA of course ) trusts the PSNI and not the IRA. The link was to do with the IRA spying at Stormont in Oct 02. This was a major scandal and embarassment to the republicans at the time. Plenty was found. It was hushed up a bit then, as part of the continued appeasment of Sinn Fein / IRA.

but nobody was charged and nothing was found? where is the boo boo?

<edit> a link maybe * </edit>

<edit2> follow up link* </edit2>

Cork

true wrote:

Nobody said any police force anywhere in the world was perfect, or did not have the odd bad apple.

THe PSNI was acceptable to both the catolic church and the sdlp.

I think the psni are far more acceptable than bunchs of thugs carrying out punishment beatings.

true

Cork wrote:

THe PSNI was acceptable to both the catolic church and the sdlp.

I think the psni are far more acceptable than bunchs of thugs carrying out punishment beatings.

I agree entirely. I also think the RUC was a very good organisation, considering the intimidation and terrorist threat they faced. As someone from the 26 counties, with southern reg cars, I made hundreds of trips up North during the "troubles". I always found the RUC perfectly polite, professional, friendly and efficient, as did all of my catholic and protestant friends in the North.

Elmo

I think the psni are far more acceptable than bunchs of thugs carrying out punishment beatings.

Yes they are more acceptable then the UDA and the UVF. (We forget about them sometimes).

I personnel don't know what the PSNI are like and I think it is up to the people of the north to recognise if they are good or if they are bad. After all they live there.

IMO the IRA have effectively given in there Death Cert. It just remains for Sinn Fein to drop all links with the organisation. I think that they are in the process of doing that.

sceptre

Elmo wrote:

then the UDA and the UVF. (We forget about them sometimes).

I rather doubt that we do but I've rarely seen a thread involving anything done by the IRA other than flower-arranging without someone eventually reminding us:)

swiss

I wrote my own article on the robbery. It's probably a little out of date, since it predates P O'Neill's dual statements. However, it pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Why I will never vote for Sinn Féin.

...and why you shouldn't either.

As I write this, political pundits and prime time television hosts are mulling over and dissecting comments made by Mitchell McLaughlin on "Questions and Answers" on RTÉ last Monday (24th January). For the uninitiated, during a debate with the justice minister, Michael McDowell, Mr. McLaughlin was asked whether or not he thought the killing by the IRA of Jean McConville was a crime. Mrs. McConville, a mother of 10, was accused of being a British informer. In reality, she was guilty of nothing more than comforting a dying British soldier. For this “traitorous” act, she was abducted, beaten and killed by the provisional IRA. Responding to the question, Mr. McLaughlin answered that it was not a crime, but did cede that it was 'wrong'.

This sentiment has rightly provoked anger and indignation. To label a gruesome and cowardly murder as anything but a crime beggars belief. However, the assertion that this atrocity was not a crime is entirely consistent with the entire philosophy of Sinn Féin. The central ethos of the provisional movement engenders the dictum that "the Provisional Army Council and its successors were the inheritors of the First and Second Dáil as a Provisional Government". Consider the implications of this carefully. Under this directive, the ruling council of the IRA is the legitimate government of Ireland, and its 'volunteers' are the legitimate armed forces of Ireland.

It is therefore clear that the IRA, and Sinn Féin, as an adjunct of that organisation do not recognise the legitimacy of our democratically elected government. They will participate in governmental matters when it suits them, but have contempt for the democratic institutions that have been installed under the auspices of bunreacht na hÉireann. No wonder then, that Martin McGuinness refuses to accept that any activity carried out by the IRA is, or could be, a crime and Gerry Adams asserts that no member of the IRA could ever be a criminal. After all, every action IRA volunteers take when instructed by their ruling council is, by their definition "lawful", and consequently nothing they do can be condemned. This twisted, intransigent logic buttresses the core philosophy of the Provisionals.

It would appear that the question “when is a crime not a crime?” now has a firm, if erroneous answer. Faced with such double standards, it is only correct that we should lend no credence to IRA denials of the Northern bank robbery. In relation to robberies, Gerry Adams stated the following:

"The IRA has denied any involvement and I accept that"

However he wasn't talking about the Northern bank robbery. This comment was made in June 1996 after a gang of IRA men killed Garda Jerry McCabe while robbing a post office van in Adare, Co. Limerick. He also went on to say "Crimes like this can play no part in the republican struggle and those who are seeking to blame Sinn Fein know this". The blatant hypocrisy of this statement would be risible were not the implications so serious. It is again important to note that obvious SF/IRA falsehoods are nothing new or surprising. It merely reinforces the tenet of Sinn Féin philosophy that Provo members simply cannot commit crimes.

Michael McDowell recently visited WIT to deliver a public lecture. One of the themes of which he spoke was of his Republican ideals and values, and warned against comparing them to the Sinn Féin/IRA “republicanism”. This is mirrored by a statement issued by the Justice minister on the www.justice.ie website. The following quote is taken from this site:

“Those of us who are genuinely Republican - who know the meaning of the term - must stand by the Republic which our grandparents, parents and we have created and serve- not the monster of the Provisionals' ideology.”

I believe it is vitally important that this distinction be made. Let no person say that anyone prepared to speak out against Sinn Féin or the IRA is anti-republican, or a “west Brit”, as is the catch-cry of some initiates of that organisation. Conversely, by hijacking the very spirit of fairness and equality latent in the republican ideology, as well as rejecting the very foundations of this Republic state, SF/IRA have demonstrated themselves to be more genuinely “anti-republican” than any of those to whom they have levelled that accusation.

So why am I telling you all this? For the past several years, I believe there has been a 'softly, softly' approach in relation to political resolve against SF/IRA criminality. I can only imagine that the rationale behind this is that at such a delicate juncture in the Northern Ireland peace process, any action that could impact the possibility for lasting peace could be devastating. This is why the IRA can still act with relative impunity in various smuggling, counterfeiting and extortion rackets, wilfully and brutally dealing with any who have the temerity to disrupt these operations. It now appears that the misguided belief that IRA actions are acceptable so long as they are not engaged in paramilitary operations such as bombing and shooting has seeped into the public consciousness.

I make this speculation on the basis of recent poll data published last Sunday in the "Sunday Independent". According to this poll, 62% of people said that the British and Irish governments should continue to negotiate with Sinn Fein for a deal in the north, with 26% of people holding the view that negotiations should be suspended. 47% of people believe that the IRA was responsible for the Northern Bank Robbery, (in Connacht-Ulster this drops to 36%). Reading into these figures more closely, if 47% of people think the IRA did do the robbery, and 62% think that negotiations should continue, then there must exist a significant minority who think that the IRA did the robbery, but that negotiations should continue anyway.

No wonder support for Sinn Féin remains relatively constant. If people believe - for whatever reason - that the IRA can do whatever they like with no repercussion, then the price they have paid for a relative 'peace' has been great indeed. If this price includes the tacit acceptance of double standards, hypocrisy and criminality, I want no part of it.

A few other things the IRA have categorically denied:
· The 1987 Enniskillen bombing.
· Florida gun running.
· Having representatives in Colombia.
· Bombing Birmingham.
· Targeting Civilians.
· Selling drugs.
· Shooting drug dealers.
· Abducting Bobby Tohill.
· Killing Garda McCabe.

Edited for clarity

gurramok

In short reply to your article Swiss, people who vote for SF down here in the south do not vote for them based on their northern policies nor the perceived or real criminality link.
SF would be kidding themselves if all their votes derived from what happens 100 miles across the border, what happens in another country doesn't bother the voters.
Its all down to local issues where the other parties have failed, its a simple as that. Well its like that in the housing estate in north dublin where i live.
Each person would be as ignorant about the north as any other FF/PD/FG/LAB voter, they don't care.
What happens 100 metres from their house is what matters.

ionapaul

It's easy to understand why SF gets votes in the inner cities, just think of the unemployed Germans who voted for the Nazis when promised a job, self-respect and the hope of a strong, proud nation they could use as a mental crutch...or people who heard George Dubya's 'Vote for me and I'll stop the gays from marrying!', ignored his disastrous economic and foreign policies and voted him in AGAIN.

As long as someone blinds themself to SF's 'unsavoury' nature or policies, voting for them may make sense in their particular situation.