McDowell names Adams and McGuinness as members of IRA Army Council.

Villain

Sinn Feins threat of violence, Sleepy???

Care to back that accusation up?

Johnny_the_fox

irish1 wrote:

Sinn Feins threat of violence, Sleepy???

Care to back that accusation up?

what about what happen in Rathenraw, Co Antrim. ?

taken from the irish news 19 August 2004
Meanwhile, veteran republican John Kelly, who recently left the party amid claims it was a “control dictatorship”, has added his support to the community association.

“I find it disturbing that a group of people who choose to differ from Sinn Fein and resigned from Sinn Fein should be harassed and intimidated in this way,” he said.

“If we are looking at parity of esteem and if you’re looking for the rights of the individual to express their concerns you are facing a stark contradiction.”

is that not a treat of violence?

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

when has sinn fein threatened to use violence during the peace process

It's a pretty obvious implied threat when punishment beatings rise and fall depending on how the talks are going for Sinn Fein. Johnny the Fox pointed out some instances in particular.

I just googled UDF and apparently sleepy wants to attack a political party in bulgaria

You've never heard of the Ulster Defence Force?
http://www.palmecenter.se/article_uk.asp?Article_Id=830

monument: let me clarify: I think this Island would be better off were every member of a paramilitary association killed. Since they all consider it glorious to die "for the cause", I can't see why they'd have such a big problem with it. The paramilitaries no longer have a role on this Island. Whilst I can identify with the defenderist roots of the Provos, they have turned into little more than a mafia with a few vague political aims.

Sure, I'm a hard-liner when it comes to law and order. I believe in the death penalty. I thought it was a good thing when the General was killed. If someone wants to act outside the law, I don't believe they deserve it's protection.

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

You've never heard of the Ulster Defence Force?
http://www.palmecenter.se/article_uk.asp?Article_Id=830

.

No i have never heard of them tell us more about this desperate band of terrorists who have managed to stay out of the limelight

i have heard of the UFF UVF UDA UDR RHC LVF PAF RHD OV so what have this UDF done that they deserve to be executed without trial and how will anybody find perhaps if they contacted the palmecenter they could help to locate them

i could only find two english language reference to them on a google search
andy tyries idea in 1969 to establish an elite group within the UDA never took off

second one is a post on a thread on dannymorrison.com says they were a group set up by british military of UDA men

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, I'm a hard-liner when it comes to law and order. I believe in the death penalty. I thought it was a good thing when the General was killed. If someone wants to act outside the law, I don't believe they deserve it's protection.

surely to send in an armed force to kill people would be acting outside the law
so the people who sent them and indeed the people who carried out these killings would deserve no protection from the law and in fact it would be ok to kill them based on your hard line logic

what about the people who killed the general do they deserve to be killed and if yes what about the people who kill them seems like an awful lot more murder and death in this society you would like to build



also if some one is murdered and you later find out you killed the wrong person how do you rectify this mistake

Sleepy

Strange that, Google returns a hell of a lot more than that for me...

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

also if some one is murdered and you later find out you killed the wrong person how do you rectify this mistake

Bury the body and deny everything until tidal waters uncover it over thirty years later?

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Bury the body and deny everything until tidal waters uncover it over thirty years later?

I think that has been tried before I would not like to live in a state where that would be the official policy

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Strange that, Google returns a hell of a lot more than that for me...

it comes back with a lot more but since we are talking about Ireland i ignored the UDF in south africa bulgaria france and of course the universal disk format


perhaps you could liink to the major events that the UDF have been involved in

Chalk

no interest in thread

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22ulster+defence+force%22&btnG=Search&meta=

just helping cdebru out

oscarBravo

SpabSFW wrote:

There's an idea; knock out the part of the republican movement that has any interest whatsoever in the peace process. It's a good thing Ahern is less short-sighted than many of you.

Call me an old cynic, but this is more of the same tired old good-cop, bad-cop routine that Sinn Féin seem to fall back on when the going gets tough. The message seems to be: you'll have to put up with whatever crap we feel like dishing out, because as bad as it is, the alternative is worse. Case in point:

SpabSFW wrote:

He pointed out that 15 years ago we were talking about murder and mayhem. Now we are talking about a bank robbery, however spectacular. He said that the point of the peace process was to end murder and violence and, after that, the ancillary criminality. People aren't being killed any more - at least not on the scale of 15 years ago - and that is a huge gain.

We're not just talking about a bank robbery though, are we? We're also talking about a group of people who feel they can kill their own supporters with impunity, because they have their local community scared to talk to the police. Is this what you mean by Catholic civil rights?

SpabSFW wrote:

Now I could understand those of you in the south who are completely apathetic to the situation in the north (and even that is kind of sickening... predictable, but sickening), but it's considerably harder for me to understand catholics in the south who seem to have some strange hatred towards catholics in the north and regularly call for their civil rights to be violated, if not for a genocide of republicans. What's wrong with you people?

Call for their civil rights to be violated? Call for a genocide of republicans? I'm sorry, but what are you smoking?

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to think that a political party that aspires to respectability ought - at the very least - to respect the fundamental basics of civilisation, like law and order. Civil rights? If the Robert McCartney situation is the republican vision of civil rights, excuse me for not supporting you in your pursuit thereof.

Stabshauptmann

Earthman wrote:

I mentioned before that Paisley said that it was in the Sunday Times prior to he saying it in westminister-they printed the allegation a full three days before paisley went on about it in westminister-so it wasnt first mentioned under privilege.
How does that affect your theory?

link in post wrote:

Earthman wrote:

I dont think you are strictly correct there Necromancer...
The allegations were originally printed in the Sunday Times and mentioned in westminister by Paisley a few days later...


But theres another paper that could have been sued.

*edit* Link

Right, sorry I dont read the Times and the Indo was the first place *I* saw it, i stand corrected.
Do you happen to have a link to the times article in full so I can read it.
Im also sorry I missed that link when you first posted it, I was devoting my energies in that thread entirely into tackling irish1's inconsistancy; thanks for drawing my attention to it because it is very relevant to this thread.

Ive done a google search for Slabs case and got this Indo article:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=613415&issue_id=6146

Privilage wasnt an issue at all, the defence of Justification was used so the Times had to prove its allegations to be true on the balance of probabilities.

The article, on June 30, 1985, described Mr Murphy as the IRA's ``Officer Commanding for the whole of Northern Ireland''.

The jury of eight women and three men found the article meant that Mr Murphy was a prominent member of the IRA, that he planned murder and the bombing of property and that those words were true ``in substance or in fact''.

Thats a 1985 article that has nothing to do with Adams, I googled for the 2001 article but cant find it reproduced anywhere, nor can I find anything about a more recent libel action taken by Mr Murphy, please speed up my reply by helping me find links.

cdebru

Chalk wrote:

no interest in thread

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22ulster+defence+force%22&btnG=Search&meta=

just helping cdebru out

actually that is of no help at all

what it is is the 2 references i said early and the rest seems to me to be examples of people confusing the UDA UFF and the UVF mixing it together and coming up with the UDF

UDF is either
an organisation that either andy tyrie tought up of in 1969 as an elite unit of the UDA which never happened

or a group set up by FRU in 1986 for the british to collude with

it does not provide any actions that this UDF carried out or why they warrant being wiped out ahead of the more well known UDA UFF UVF LVF


here is a link to status of people killed http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status.html


and organisations responsible
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

it seems the UDF have not killed anyone or lost any of their members

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

It wasn't a quote. Do you understand what a quote is?

Insulting me, Troll point number 1 in this article.

McDowell Makes a comment, because there is nothing new in it from whats been in the public domain for years there is no defamation.
Even if it was a new comment there is no defamation because mcDowell has qualified privilage on all matters relating to his ministerial office. No defamation.

This is not to be confused with absolute privilage which is whats used when actually in parliment

"Michael McDowell says 'Gerry Adams interferes with sheep'" is a quote. "Michael McDowell says 'Gerry Adams interferes with sheep' and I agree with him, he's absolutely right, Gerry Adams does interfere with sheep, and goats beside" is not a quote.

Thinly veiled abuse and degrodation, Troll point number 2

Yes it is: "they lead a terrorist organisation". Are we talking about the same article?

Read the article again the words "choose to believe" are in there quite clearly, it is the same article. Tempted to give another troll point for that.

They said they CHOOSE to BELIEVE McDowell. The rest of the article is based on that premise, it is in the eyes of the law OPINION.

So how come the Daily Ireland newspaper can sue him?

They will probably claim Malace, if the coutrs accept that as being probable McDowell will have to prove his acqusation in which case Id wager Daily Ireland would win, if he says its his opinion and can show reason for basing it (a garda report at least) there is a good chance privilage will protect him,
It depends about how equivical a statement is upon other things.

Now you're just inventing libel law.

Another troll point for you

this crazy idea of yours?

TROLL

Only "accurate and neutral" reporting of privileged utterances is entitled to privilege.

Ive never said otherwise, up till now you've been argueing though that the comments being reported werent privilaged.

I have no legal advice to the contrary of that, in fact I'm absolutely sure that if Adams pursued the case, he would lose and end up paying the costs.

So am I because he has no case that could defeat privilage!

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

I think that has been tried before I would not like to live in a state where that would be the official policy

Surely as a Sinn Fein suporter you believe that the Army Council is the legal government of this country and therefore their official policies of disappearing people are those of the state you believe you live in?

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

Insulting me, Troll point number 1 in this article.

McDowell Makes a comment, because there is nothing new in it from whats been in the public domain for years there is no defamation.
Even if it was a new comment there is no defamation because mcDowell has qualified privilage on all matters relating to his ministerial office. No defamation.

This is not to be confused with absolute privilage which is whats used when actually in parliment

Thinly veiled abuse and degrodation, Troll point number 2

Read the article again the words "choose to believe" are in there quite clearly, it is the same article. Tempted to give another troll point for that.

They said they CHOOSE to BELIEVE McDowell. The rest of the article is based on that premise, it is in the eyes of the law OPINION.

They will probably claim Malace, if the coutrs accept that as being probable McDowell will have to prove his acqusation in which case Id wager Daily Ireland would win, if he says its his opinion and can show reason for basing it (a garda report at least) there is a good chance privilage will protect him,
It depends about how equivical a statement is upon other things.


Another troll point for you


TROLL


Ive never said otherwise, up till now you've been argueing though that the comments being reported werent privilaged.

So am I because he has no case that could defeat privilage!

Hint: disagreeing with you doesn't make me a troll. If you feel that I have broken the forum rules in any way, feel free to bring the matter to the attention of a moderator. Until then, please address my arguments (provide supporting evidence rather than just throwing out unsupported assertions if you expect to be taken seriously). Shouting "TROLL!" whenever someone dares to contradict you isn't doing yourself any favours.

Stabshauptmann

Lots of ppl disagree with me, all the time, its the way you disagree that screems troll.
Ive both highlighted things which i think are trolls AND given reasonable and supportive arguements

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

Lots of ppl disagree with me, all the time, its the way you disagree that screems troll.

So if you think I'm a troll, report me to a moderator. Either way, please take out of this thread. Read the rules:

Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderating" above.

Ive both highlighted things which i think are trolls AND given reasonable and supportive arguements

I don't see any support for any of your assertions, including your assertion that qualified privilege transfers to all repetitions of a privileged statement, not just accurate and neutral repetitions. A link to a judgement or statute would do just fine (like I linked to Reynolds v. Times Newspapers to back up my point about qualified privilege). Again, read the rules:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Stabshauptmann

sliabh wrote:

I heard Gerry talking about this one on the TV. His soliciters told him he can't sue. For it to be libel your reputation must have suffered amongst your peers. But to Gerry's peers in the "Republican" movement being declared a leader of the IRA is actually a compliment. So there is no libel.

The laws exact words are "to lower the plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally"
Berry v. The Irish Times (1973) sets out that to allege membership of the IRA is defamation no matter who the defendant's peers are

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

So if you think I'm a troll, report me to a moderator. Either way, please take out of this thread. Read the rules:I don't see any support for any of your assertions, including your assertion that qualified privilege transfers to all repetitions of a privileged statement, not just accurate and neutral repetitions. A link to a judgement or statute would do just fine (like I linked to Reynolds v. Times Newspapers to back up my point about qualified privilege). Again, read the rules:

Im talking about very fundamental things, I cant link to my text book (Essentials of Irish Business Law, Áine Keenan : it deals in depth with torts) so insdead i quoted the book in vertabrum.

If you want a case to demonstrate an example of where an untrue statement was held not to be defamation but where the defence of qualified privilage worked read:
Watt v. Lonsdon (1930)

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

So if you think I'm a troll, report me to a moderator. Either way, please take out of this thread. Read the rules:I don't see any support for any of your assertions, including your assertion that qualified privilege transfers to all repetitions of a privileged statement, not just accurate and neutral repetitions. A link to a judgement or statute would do just fine (like I linked to Reynolds v. Times Newspapers to back up my point about qualified privilege). Again, read the rules:

BTW I never said anywhere that if the repitition is inaccurate or biased that its still protected, where has anyone made such a repitition?
McDowell has not twisted any previous comments, nor has any newspaper.

Stabshauptmann

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers has NO relevance, the words CHOOSE to BELIEVE kinda make it obvious to any and everyone that this is not a piece of fact but opinion

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

If you want a case to demonstrate an example of where an untrue statement was held not to be defamation but where the defence of qualified privilage worked read:
Watt v. Lonsdon (1930)

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02024.pdf
The rule was tested in 1930 in a case (Watt v Longsdon) where one director of a company passed allegations about the sexual misconduct of another director to the Chairman, and also to that person’s wife. The court held on appeal that communication with the chairman was privileged, as both the maker and the receiver had a common interest in the probity of the company, but that no such reciprocity existed with the wife, and hence that that communication was not privileged

I don't see the parallel here, the readers of the Irish Independent are not members of the board of a company along with Gerry Adams. In fact, the vast, vast majority of them have no relationship, whether business, social or personal, with him.

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers has NO relevance, the words CHOOSE to BELIEVE kinda make it obvious to any and everyone that this is not a piece of fact but opinion

The newspaper states, in black and white "they [Adams, McGuinness and Ferris] lead a terrorist organization". This is plainly a statement of fact. (A statement of opinion would be "We believe that they lead a terrorist organization".)

BTW I never said anywhere that if the repitition is inaccurate or biased that its still protected, where has anyone made such a repitition?

The Indo article isn't unbiased, it pretty clearly comes down on McDowell's side.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

I don't see the parallel here, the readers of the Irish Independent are not members of the board of a company along with Gerry Adams. In fact, the vast, vast majority of them have no relationship, whether business, social or personal, with him.The newspaper states, in black and white "they [Adams, McGuinness and Ferris] lead a terrorist organization". This is plainly a statement of fact. (A statement of opinion would be "We believe that they lead a terrorist organization".)The Indo article isn't unbiased, it pretty clearly comes down on McDowell's side.

How am I supposed to take that as anything other than a troll?
The parallel is that the Director had a moral duty to report this even though it turned out to be untrue.
Why did you go off on a tangent about business relations?

You still refuse to accept the phrase "choose to believe" is in the article

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

How am I supposed to take that as anything other than a troll?

For the last time, if you think I'm trolling, report me to a moderator using the in the bottom left of my post, as you are instructed to do by the forum rules. Otherwise give it a rest.

The parallel is that the Director had a moral duty to report this even though it turned out to be untrue.
Why did you go off on a tangent about business relations?

He was privileged when he repeated the allegations to one very specific set of people. He was not privileged when he repeated them to other people who had no direct connection to the subject of the allegations.

You still refuse to accept the phrase "choose to believe" is in the article

I don't refuse to accept that. The article contains both statements of opinion ("choose to believe") and statements of fact ("they lead a terrorist organization").

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

For the last time, if you think I'm trolling, report me to a moderator using the in the bottom left of my post, as you are instructed to do by the forum rules. Otherwise give it a rest.He was privileged when he repeated the allegations to one very specific set of people. He was not privileged when he repeated them to other people who had no direct connection to the subject of the allegations.I don't refuse to accept that. The article contains both statements of opinion ("choose to believe") and statements of fact ("they lead a terrorist organization").

I think you've realised the truth but dont want to be seen to be wrong, if it makes you feel any better I regularly come out of one of these threads with a different stance than when I went in; thats my aim.
You went off on a tangent about business relations even though it was irrelevent. You know it was irrelevant and thats why you didnt answer my question as to why you mentioned it.
It was the setting in that case but not a part of the law in question and you are trying to be over specific.
The director was privilaged when acting in matters relevent to the business but not to the employees personal life ie as I said earlier and here it is as written in Irish law "The defence of qualified privilage is available when a person makes a communication under duty-legal, social, or moral- to a person who has some corresponding interest to recieve it".
McDowell is privilage when dealing with all matters concerning Juctice.


As for the newspaper article, are you familiar with identities?
Without getting into the nitty gritty of the faculty of reasoning; we set down a premiss upon which our logic is built. The statement "we choose to believe" is the foundation of the article.
The journalist said ppl are afraid of McGuinness because he is a leader in the IRA, thats not a fact or a statement of fact, is a logical deduction that ppl would be afraid of a senior IRA member since we assumed earlier that McGuinness is a senior IRA member.
Thats not to say its not a fact, just that it wouldnt be interpreted as a statement of fact by a court.

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

McDowell is privilage when dealing with all matters concerning Juctice.

You're going to have to back this up. Also please explain how Daily Ireland can sue him if this privilege applies. (You said above that they could claim malice, but Gerry could also claim malice. In fact he's accused McDowell of making the accusation maliciously in public statements, so it's hard to understand why he wouldn't be prepared to say the same in court.)

The journalist said ppl are afraid of McGuinness because he is a leader in the IRA, thats not a fact or a statement of fact, is a logical deduction that ppl would be afraid of a senior IRA member since we assumed earlier that McGuinness is a senior IRA member.
Thats not to say its not a fact, just that it wouldnt be interpreted as a statement of fact by a court.

You are stretching semantics well past the breaking point here. "People are afraid of Gerry Adams because he is a leader of the IRA" is a statement of fact (three facts to be exact about it), not a statement of opinion. Also, Gerry Adams' own legal advice appears to disagree with you here -- Gerry didn't mention anything about your "opinions and facts are the same thing, no really" theory when he was explaining why he didn't sue.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

You're going to have to back this up.

You are in a corner, get out of it how ever you wish

Also please explain how Daily Ireland can sue him if this privilege applies.

Already have, read my posts.

You are stretching semantics well past the breaking point here.

Making logical deductions is how ppl think. How ppl think may not have been part of your education but it has in mine and I am sharing that with you. ppl make a premis, a starting point, they assume this to be true. From this they make deductions and form identities, equations which are true by the way in which they are construced.
The premis for the statment that ppl would be afraid of McGuinness is that he is a member of the army council, this was not presented as a fact it was presented as a premis when they said "we choose to believe".

"People are afraid of Gerry Adams because he is a leader of the IRA" is a statement of fact (three facts to be exact about it), not a statement of opinion.

You have failed to understand my explanation of logic.
Logic is like a house, you set a foundation, build walls then add a roof. A simple illustration I admit but it bares the point out well.

If Adams is not the leader of the IRA, which nobody is claiming {If all that is reported is true, Adams is neither chief of staff nor chairman of the army council}, "People are afraid of Gerry Adams because he is a leader of the IRA" is not by any standards a statement of fact.

Also, Gerry Adams' own legal advice appears to disagree with you here

What is his legal advice? All *Ive* heard is him trying to goad Ahern into using justification as a defence.

-- Gerry didn't mention anything about your "opinions and facts are the same thing, no really" theory when he was explaining why he didn't sue.

You are a liar. I am stating here uneqivically that you are deliberatly misrepresenting what I said. I said, and everyone who reads my posts knows what I said,

A)that the article was one of opinion as shown by the phrase "we choose to believe" McDowell, which was the starting point of the journalists logical deductions which brought them to the conclusion People are afraid of McGuinness because he is a leader of the IRA
that McDowells comments dont have to be factually true in order to qualify for privilage as shown by: Watt v. Lonsdon (1930)

Stabshauptmann

I "backed it up" with Watt v. Lonsdon (1930), its a basic part of Irish law there for all to see. How our government works is also a matter of public record.

Stabshauptmann

Like the way you edited your post, thats not the extent to what I said re: daily Ireland and there chances in court, what else did I say cos Im fed up repeating myself to a troll
Ive given you the benifit of doubt by explaining myself and giving you solid counter points but if you keep lying about what I said
ignoring what I say and accusing me of inventing law then I will be able to leave this thread safe in the knowledge that Ive identified another troll to the ppl of this board and that in future perhaps ppl wont waste time on your trolls