wider elements of slab murphy case

Voipjunkie

Ok I have started this thread because Earthman felt I was trying to deflect the other thread on this subject and because I had a couple of PMs from people who wanted to discuss this further.


Basically my opinion is that people should not be named and speific allegations against them should not be made in the media against people who can not defend themselves against these allegations.
I am not against freedom of speech I believe that the story could be covered by reporting it as " a well known republican" or "an alledged IRA leader" and all the details but not pictures that would invade the privacy or identify the man could be used.
My objection is not based on any political bias it would not matter to me what murphys politics are as I said in the other thread this is following a pattern where people are basically tried in the newspapers.
The most recent cases have no political element ie the separate murder of two women in their own homes where the media have basically decided that they know who did it and they have identified them.

It seems to follow a pattern where the Gardai have a suspect but apparently little or no evidence because they can not bring a case that would stand up in court the suspect is tried in the media.
This type of extra judicial justice is wrong for all the obvious reasons.

My other objection is that this type of behaviour will lead to one or both of these
1 that someone who is innocent will be convicted because of pre trial publicity

2 that someone who is guilty will escape justice because they will not be able to get a fair trial.


I don't see any benefit to society from having media outlets identify suspects and their girlfriends and family when no charges have been laid against anyone.

The Gardai should get on with the job when someone is charged then they can name the person charged with a particular crime

The media can report on the evidence as it is produced in court and IF when there is a conviction they the media can tell us all.

Perhaps people should remember that just because the Gardai have a suspect or accuse someone of something does not mean that the person has done anything. The Gardai get things wrong that is why we have a separate criminal justice system.
The recent inquiries into the Gardai in Donegal should be warning enough

Sand

Basically my opinion is that people should not be named and speific allegations against them should not be made in the media against people who can not defend themselves against these allegations.

Tom Murphy can certainly defend himself against the allegation that sterling and laptops were concealed in a very unorthodox location, assuming he ever chooses to come out of hiding. Hes simply chosen not to. Thats his right. Its my, and others, right to comment on the reported facts of the case. I dont think any paper has come out and said Tom Murphy is guilty of any specific charge. They have reported the raid on his farm, and the evidence the Gardai and PSNI retrieved, as well as reporting on the context of the raid ( the raids in Manchester last year, the ongoing investigations into SFIRA criminality). None of this prejudices his trial, assuming there is any.

As it is, the media are usually very careful not to cross the line into saying people are guilty of crimes - libel laws being what they are. The McCartney family know who murdered their brother, but no paper has reported the names.

I am not against freedom of speech I believe that the story could be covered by reporting it as " a well known republican" or "an alledged IRA leader" and all the details but not pictures that would invade the privacy or identify the man could be used.

No, Ill grant youre only against criticism/embarrassment of SFIRA figures. What youre asking for is censorship. Factual reporting doesnt breach anyones rights, nor does it prejudice peoples trials. Its non-factual reporting that does harm, and I havent seen a single attempt by Tom Murphy or Gerry Adams to contradict the reported facts of the raid. And you simply cannot hide the identity of a man whose farm is raided by the police - the locals usually dont miss a convoy of cop cars.

The only reason I can think of for not naming someone in a media story is for their own protection (i.e. the Paras at Bloody Sunday are not named because SFIRA and its "fellow travellers" would murder them). That or waiting to inform their family first in the case of reporting the death of somebody.

ISAW

Voipjunkie wrote:

Basically my opinion is that people should not be named and speific allegations against them should not be made in the media against people who can not defend themselves against these allegations.

Does this apply to Patrick "Dutchie" Holland. He was only convicted of receiving stolen goods and of possession of explosives (apparently according to Williams I think to deal them with the IRA for guns). He also had a conviction for posession of drugs but not for dealing.

Now SF no doubt believe he is one of the biggest drug ring overlords. So do Sf think he is "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you?

I am not against freedom of speech I believe that the story could be covered by reporting it as " a well known republican" or "an alledged IRA leader" and all the details but not pictures that would invade the privacy or identify the man could be used.

So no pictures of Patrick Holland either?

My objection is not based on any political bias it would not matter to me what murphys politics are as I said in the other thread this is following a pattern where people are basically tried in the newspapers.

and An Publeacht dont run stories about the evils of the drug gangs and how SF are opposed to them?
http://republican-news.org/archive/2001/March22/22guer.html
An Phobleacht Republican News

APRN wrote:

Why was the criminal business of Gilligan, Bowden, Holland, Meehan, Warren, Traynor and Ward not detected before Guerin's death.

Clearly Holland is named here. But he was not convicted of anything to do with killing Veronica Guerin nor with dealing drugs or being in a drugs gang. He was convicted of explosives offences similar to IRA people at the time. The crimes he was convicted of were the same as the crimes some "heros" of SF were convicted of. How can they have it both ways?

The most recent cases have no political element ie the separate murder of two women in their own homes where the media have basically decided that they know who did it and they have identified them.

From the same article

John Gilligan had a criminal record that began in 1967 and involved 16 previous convictions to the ones for which he was incarcerated last week. He built one of the largest stud farms in the state without raising Garda suspicions about how he did it. Surely this would have merited an investigation? For some still unexplained reason it didn't.

How is it when such suspicions about wealth are applied to Slab Murphy and others who are "good republicans" that these people ware "innocent until proven guilty". Clearly SF believe Gilligan is guilty in spite of no physical evidence and they are happy to say so! How can they have it both ways?

It seems to follow a pattern where the Gardai have a suspect but apparently little or no evidence because they can not bring a case that would stand up in court the suspect is tried in the media.
This type of extra judicial justice is wrong for all the obvious reasons.

REally?

Dispatches Cahnnel 4 "Law in the Ghetto" 26 Feb 1992
J Darby Intimidation and Control of Conflilct in Northern Ireland (Dublin, 1986) Gill and Mc Millan pp. 157-162
"The Benefits of a Community Police Force" Republican News 27 Aug 1977
"War News: IRA action against drugs trade" APRN 10 Oct 1991
IRA orders shooting victims to quit country London Independent 7 oct 1991
IRA looks set for victory over terrorist faction The Independent 4 Nov 1992
What the IRA is doing now The Independent 30 Sept 1994
Rough Justice
Drugs war
Forthnight issues 344 and 347 Nov 1995, feb 1996

From The Role of Ideology in terrorists target selection C M Drake Terrorism and Political Violence Vol 10 No 2 Summer 1998

So how can these vigalantes be justified in light of your "extra judicial justice is wrong" comment?

My other objection is that this type of behaviour will lead to one or both of these
1 that someone who is innocent will be convicted because of pre trial publicity

2 that someone who is guilty will escape justice because they will not be able to get a fair trial.

What about the someone who is maimed or killed by kangaroo courts or IRA "activists" acting on their own whims? It took massive public outcry by one of the strongest SF supporting areas in Belfast to get Adams to say anything about the recent Mc Cartney killing in Belfast. Even then he didnt name and shame all the Apparent group of IRA involved who beat Robert McCartney to death. It was not circumstantial. About 70 people saw it and they remained silent.

I don't see any benefit to society from having media outlets identify suspects and their girlfriends and family when no charges have been laid against anyone.

But dont you also condemn IRA vigalantes like the ones above?

The Gardai should get on with the job when someone is charged then they can name the person charged with a particular crime

But I dont see SF or the IRA naming their own law breakers. Do you?

The media can report on the evidence as it is produced in court and IF when there is a conviction they the media can tell us all.

So they should say nothing about the Mc Cartney case?

Perhaps people should remember that just because the Gardai have a suspect or accuse someone of something does not mean that the person has done anything. The Gardai get things wrong that is why we have a separate criminal justice system.
The recent inquiries into the Gardai in Donegal should be warning enough

Parhaps so. But why should Sinn Fein say this when it applies to The Colombia Three Frank Connolly or Slab Murphy and then Maintain a code of silence on Mc Cartney and IRA vigalantes ,while condeming drug lords for which they have offered not evidence?

Voipjunkie

ISAW wrote:

Does this apply to Patrick "Dutchie" Holland. He was only convicted of receiving stolen goods and of possession of explosives (apparently according to Williams I think to deal them with the IRA for guns). He also had a conviction for posession of drugs but not for dealing.

Now SF no doubt believe he is one of the biggest drug ring overlords. So do Sf think he is "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you?

He was convicted of importing drugs into this country so it is fair comment to say that he was a drug dealer.

ISAW wrote:

So no pictures of Patrick Holland either?

He is a convicted drug dealer so anything relating to his conviction is fair comment

ISAW wrote:

and An Publeacht dont run stories about the evils of the drug gangs and how SF are opposed to them?
http://republican-news.org/archive/2001/March22/22guer.html
An Phobleacht Republican News


Clearly Holland is named here. But he was not convicted of anything to do with killing Veronica Guerin nor with dealing drugs or being in a drugs gang. He was convicted of explosives offences similar to IRA people at the time. The crimes he was convicted of were the same as the crimes some "heros" of SF were convicted of. How can they have it both ways?



From the same article


How is it when such suspicions about wealth are applied to Slab Murphy and others who are "good republicans" that these people ware "innocent until proven guilty". Clearly SF believe Gilligan is guilty in spite of no physical evidence and they are happy to say so! How can they have it both ways?

I dont read An Phoblacht but I read the article you linked to and and I dont know where you arrived at the idea that Holland was convicted of explosives offences he was convicted of importing drugs.
Gilligan is also a convicted drugs dealer.

ISAW wrote:

REally?

Dispatches Cahnnel 4 "Law in the Ghetto" 26 Feb 1992
J Darby Intimidation and Control of Conflilct in Northern Ireland (Dublin, 1986) Gill and Mc Millan pp. 157-162
"The Benefits of a Community Police Force" Republican News 27 Aug 1977
"War News: IRA action against drugs trade" APRN 10 Oct 1991
IRA orders shooting victims to quit country London Independent 7 oct 1991
IRA looks set for victory over terrorist faction The Independent 4 Nov 1992
What the IRA is doing now The Independent 30 Sept 1994
Rough Justice
Drugs war
Forthnight issues 344 and 347 Nov 1995, feb 1996

From The Role of Ideology in terrorists target selection C M Drake Terrorism and Political Violence Vol 10 No 2 Summer 1998

So how can these vigalantes be justified in light of your "extra judicial justice is wrong" comment?

They can not be in a democratic society extra judicial justice is wrong

ISAW wrote:

What about the someone who is maimed or killed by kangaroo courts or IRA "activists" acting on their own whims? It took massive public outcry by one of the strongest SF supporting areas in Belfast to get Adams to say anything about the recent Mc Cartney killing in Belfast. Even then he didnt name and shame all the Apparent group of IRA involved who beat Robert McCartney to death. It was not circumstantial. About 70 people saw it and they remained silent.



But dont you also condemn IRA vigalantes like the ones above?

Yes

And it would be wrong for Adams to name and shame anyone that is not his place to name anyone

ISAW wrote:

But I dont see SF or the IRA naming their own law breakers. Do you?

No and nor should they

ISAW wrote:

So they should say nothing about the Mc Cartney case?

They should say whatever they want but in my opinion they should not identify individuals and say they are guilty or they are the chief suspect who have not been charged or convicted of anything.

ISAW wrote:

Parhaps so. But why should Sinn Fein say this when it applies to The Colombia Three Frank Connolly or Slab Murphy and then Maintain a code of silence on Mc Cartney and IRA vigalantes ,while condeming drug lords for which they have offered not evidence?

I dont understand your point it would be hypocritical of SF to name people they believed to be involved in the murder of Robert McCartney when/if they are charged then they should be named
I still dont understand what your point is about drug lords any one named in that article has AFAIK been convicted of Drug Offences so saying they are drug dealers is merely a statement of fact.

However if you are saying that SF are naming people and accusing them of crimes then that would be wrong.

rsynnott

I'm interested; would you be so upset about media speculation if the person involved wasn't tied up with SFIRA?

The OP

I don't get it - so where did the word "slab" come from?

ISAW

Voipjunkie wrote:

He was convicted of importing drugs into this country so it is fair comment to say that he was a drug dealer.

When? When was he convicted of that? Have you nay evidence? If so I will withdraw my remark about no drug dealing convictions.

If he was convicted then please give a date. Then if he was accused by APRN before that date will you accept that they accused them before he was found guilty?

He is a convicted drug dealer so anything relating to his conviction is fair comment

Could you giove a date please and what he was convicted for?

I dont read An Phoblacht but I read the article you linked to and and I dont know where you arrived at the idea that Holland was convicted of explosives offences he was convicted of importing drugs.

The APRN article

When? I listened to someone discussing Hollands possible appearance on the Late Late Show. He stated I thought that Holland had not be convicted of drugs but of explosives which he stated Paul Williams asserted were to deal with the IRA. Now maybe he meant or stated not convicted of killing Veronica Guerin but I think that was the Gilligan case. Anyway if Holland was accused of being a drug dealer before or in the absence of evidence and convictions then SF are operating double standards arent they?

Gilligan is also a convicted drugs dealer.

I am not aware of what crime exactly. what was it and when was the conviction?

The APRN piece is from March 2001. Oddly Gilligan was gaoled that very month for having cannabis. "possession" not "dealing" as far as I know. Mind you it was possession of 20 tons of Cannabis resin! Seems I picked the very month. For Gilligan that is. But I am not sure if Holland was already convicted of drug dealing at that time.

They can not be in a democratic society extra judicial justice is wrong

Okay then. I was only trying to ascertain that you condemn the IRA activities in this just as you would condemn that of others acting outside the law.

And it would be wrong for Adams to name and shame anyone that is not his place to name anyone

So Adams should not name drug dealers or racists? He should not suggest the US authorities are lyibng without proof? He should not decry big business unless he can show where they are ripping people off?

They should say whatever they want but in my opinion they should not identify individuals and say they are guilty or they are the chief suspect who have not been charged or convicted of anything.

I agree with the sentiment but why does it see that SF apply this to the Colombia three, Connolly and Murphy and not when it is British troops who killed people in the north, e.g. Clegg, not when it is right wing dictators, not when it is drug dealers and racists.

I dont understand your point it would be hypocritical of SF to name people they believed to be involved in the murder of Robert McCartney when/if they are charged then they should be named

I understand SF dont like the PSNI but one (or a group) of their own murdered a local man and they don't seem to be outing the people who did it to the extent that they out local drug dealers.

I still dont understand what your point is about drug lords any one named in that article has AFAIK been convicted of Drug Offences so saying they are drug dealers is merely a statement of fact.

Were all of then convicted of drug dealing in 2002?

However if you are saying that SF are naming people and accusing them of crimes then that would be wrong.

What would? Me saying it or SF doing it?
Here is one from 1997 naming a person who was not convicted:
http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/April10/10drug.html
The man had according to APRN attacked their "community anti-drug dealing patrol" member.

I am sure there are more examples. I only picked the earlier one because it was to hand. One does suffice to prove the point. They published the name of someone who was not convicted and they made him look like a drug dealer seeking to combat them. Now they probably might even have been correct in their assumption that he was what they claimed buiit the point is that they publicised him in that light BEFORE he was convicted of anything! So how can they also claim the publicity of the Colombia Three in advance of conviction is wrong?

For the record. I have stated on many occasions that I have yet to see evidence that the Colombia Three were training terrorists. But I am not going to apply different standards to the IRA or ex IRA as I do to probable drug dealers.

Voipjunkie

rsynnott wrote:

I'm interested; would you be so upset about media speculation if the person involved wasn't tied up with SFIRA?

Murphys political persuasion does not come into it for me as I said in this thread and in the other thread.
The other main example of this at the moment is the Rachel O'Reilly murder investigation which certain newspapers have decided to tell us every detail of the lifes of people arrested but who have been as yet charged with nothing.

Yesterdays Evening Herald is a prime example Front page headline was about some house that Mr O'Reilly and his girlfriend visit. What has this to do with anything it is just harrassing and invading the privacy of 2 people who have been charged with nothing.
Last week certain newspapers gave various details of the woman involved like pictures of her parents house details about her family her work etc.

Voipjunkie

ISAW wrote:

When? When was he convicted of that? Have you nay evidence? If so I will withdraw my remark about no drug dealing convictions.

If he was convicted then please give a date. Then if he was accused by APRN before that date will you accept that they accused them before he was found guilty?



Could you giove a date please and what he was convicted for?



The APRN article

When? I listened to someone discussing Hollands possible appearance on the Late Late Show. He stated I thought that Holland had not be convicted of drugs but of explosives which he stated Paul Williams asserted were to deal with the IRA. Now maybe he meant or stated not convicted of killing Veronica Guerin but I think that was the Gilligan case. Anyway if Holland was accused of being a drug dealer before or in the absence of evidence and convictions then SF are operating double standards arent they?



I am not aware of what crime exactly. what was it and when was the conviction?

The APRN piece is from March 2001. Oddly Gilligan was gaoled that very month for having cannabis. "possession" not "dealing" as far as I know. Mind you it was possession of 20 tons of Cannabis resin! Seems I picked the very month. For Gilligan that is. But I am not sure if Holland was already convicted of drug dealing at that time.



Okay then. I was only trying to ascertain that you condemn the IRA activities in this just as you would condemn that of others acting outside the law.



So Adams should not name drug dealers or racists? He should not suggest the US authorities are lyibng without proof? He should not decry big business unless he can show where they are ripping people off?



I agree with the sentiment but why does it see that SF apply this to the Colombia three, Connolly and Murphy and not when it is British troops who killed people in the north, e.g. Clegg, not when it is right wing dictators, not when it is drug dealers and racists.



I understand SF dont like the PSNI but one (or a group) of their own murdered a local man and they don't seem to be outing the people who did it to the extent that they out local drug dealers.



Were all of then convicted of drug dealing in 2002?



What would? Me saying it or SF doing it?
Here is one from 1997 naming a person who was not convicted:
http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/April10/10drug.html
The man had according to APRN attacked their "community anti-drug dealing patrol" member.

I am sure there are more examples. I only picked the earlier one because it was to hand. One does suffice to prove the point. They published the name of someone who was not convicted and they made him look like a drug dealer seeking to combat them. Now they probably might even have been correct in their assumption that he was what they claimed buiit the point is that they publicised him in that light BEFORE he was convicted of anything! So how can they also claim the publicity of the Colombia Three in advance of conviction is wrong?

For the record. I have stated on many occasions that I have yet to see evidence that the Colombia Three were training terrorists. But I am not going to apply different standards to the IRA or ex IRA as I do to probable drug dealers.

Ok I have no idea where you are going with this but this might help Holland was convicted in 1998

I am not a member of Sinn Fein I am not a Supporter of Sinn Fein sometimes I agree with them sometimes i disagree with them as I do with other political parties. My comments on the slab Murphy case has nothing to do with his or my politics.

So if you are trying to establish that Sinn Fein engage in the activity of naming people in the same manner as the media have in the case of slab Murphy then they in my opinion are wrong

And finally there is a big difference between giving an opinion that the US administration lied in the lead up to the Iraq invasion or accusing businesses of ripping people off and publishing details about individuals for example accusations of rip Off Ireland are not accompanied by photographs of some bank executives home and details about his wife children etc etc

ISAW

Voipjunkie wrote:

Ok I have no idea where you are going with this but this might help Holland was convicted in 1998

Of drug offences? I am sure the explosives one ws earlier. So if SF accused him before 1998 then they were doing just what they accuse others of.

I am not a member of Sinn Fein I am not a Supporter of Sinn Fein sometimes I agree with them sometimes i disagree with them as I do with other political parties. My comments on the slab Murphy case has nothing to do with his or my politics.

I had assumed otherwise. I would have similar position (actually I argee with everything stated in the above quote).

So if you are trying to establish that Sinn Fein engage in the activity of naming people in the same manner as the media have in the case of slab Murphy then they in my opinion are wrong

I think I have established that but forgive me if I expected you to try to apologise for them.

And finally there is a big difference between giving an opinion that the US administration lied in the lead up to the Iraq invasion

Not really. One cant state the Colombian governmebt lied if one cant prove it. Nor can I really state Bush lied. I mean that he said WMD existed when he believed they didnt. But I can state that I asked for evidence then I still havent seen any. Nor is there evidence for his claim of AL Khyda being supported by Saddam. Nor did he fulfill his post invasion promise to build up the hospitals and schools. Under Saddam Iraq produced more PhDs than the US! Its health system was the one the whole arab world looked up to! Now it is a mess and the US who grafted away the money have said they will not pay any more. Burt they WILL leave their troops!

Nevertheless adams cant ask for evidence for WMD and also say someone is a drug lord without evidence.

or accusing businesses of ripping people off and publishing details about individuals for example accusations of rip Off Ireland are not accompanied by photographs of some bank executives home and details about his wife children etc etc

I do not know of any accounts of the Children of Frank connolly or the Colombia three or where they live.

Mind you they name another guy here: http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/January16/16scan.html

APRN wrote:

The man, a notorious drug dealer called Griffin, from Coolock, was supposedly being used to lead Gardai to one of the biggest drug importers in Dublin. However, the major drug criminal remains outside the law, and the Garda strategy has clearly totally failed.

Voipjunkie

ISAW wrote:

Of drug offences? I am sure the explosives one ws earlier. So if SF accused him before 1998 then they were doing just what they accuse others of.

Well actually he was convicted in November 1997 of importing cannabis

And if means nothing as the saying goes if your Aunty had balls etc

ISAW wrote:

I had assumed otherwise. I would have similar position (actually I argee with everything stated in the above quote).



I think I have established that but forgive me if I expected you to try to apologise for them.

I dont think you have but even if they have it means nothing as I am not responsible them or any other party

ISAW wrote:

Not really. One cant state the Colombian governmebt lied if one cant prove it. Nor can I really state Bush lied. I mean that he said WMD existed when he believed they didnt. But I can state that I asked for evidence then I still havent seen any. Nor is there evidence for his claim of AL Khyda being supported by Saddam. Nor did he fulfill his post invasion promise to build up the hospitals and schools. Under Saddam Iraq produced more PhDs than the US! Its health system was the one the whole arab world looked up to! Now it is a mess and the US who grafted away the money have said they will not pay any more. Burt they WILL leave their troops!

Nevertheless adams cant ask for evidence for WMD and also say someone is a drug lord without evidence.

Again I have no idea where you are going with this

ISAW wrote:

I do not know of any accounts of the Children of Frank connolly or the Colombia three or where they live.

I was not thinking of the columbia 3 or frank Connolly ( although I do remember a story about one of his daughters) I was more refering to the disgraceful covereage of the arrests in relation to the Rachel O'Reilly murder investigation

ISAW wrote:

Mind you they name another guy here: http://republican-news.org/archive/1997/January16/16scan.html

I think that is tenous there is no picture and it merely names the guy as Griffin from Coolock no first name no address

However as I have already said what SF do is not my responsibility and if they are naming people everyday of the week it does nothing to detract from my arguement that people who have not been as yet charged with a crime should not be publicly identifed and associated with particular crimes if anything it would strenghten my arguement
As I have said it is not just about people associated with the provisional movement that I object to being named and identified

Voipjunkie

Sand wrote:

Tom Murphy can certainly defend himself against the allegation that sterling and laptops were concealed in a very unorthodox location, assuming he ever chooses to come out of hiding. Hes simply chosen not to. Thats his right. Its my, and others, right to comment on the reported facts of the case. I dont think any paper has come out and said Tom Murphy is guilty of any specific charge. They have reported the raid on his farm, and the evidence the Gardai and PSNI retrieved, as well as reporting on the context of the raid ( the raids in Manchester last year, the ongoing investigations into SFIRA criminality). None of this prejudices his trial, assuming there is any.

McDowell should start with Thomas “Slab” Murphy. He represents the purest and most evil form of modern-day republicanism. He is a criminal who has amassed an estimated fortune of more than €50m by smuggling, robbing, extorting and intimidating their community. Slab Murphy has served as chief of staff on the IRA army council, and has therefore been the leader of that “authentic source of political legitimacy” to which Adams and his colleagues so faithfully subscribe.

Slab Murphy has used his republican firepower to terrorise South Armagh and to throw a cloak of political opportunism over their criminality. Eamon Collins, a former IRA member, testified for this newspaper during Slab Murphy’s libel action against it, and identified him as the IRA’s chief of staff. His bravery brought him a horrible death at the hands of republicans and his mutilated body was dumped by the roadside near Newry.

Slab Murphy is the real face of the republican movement. The intimidation of witnesses in the Short Strand, where Robert McCartney was brutally murdered, comes straight from Murphy’s political handbook as, indeed, does the murder itself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1512601,00.html

That looks like a number of specific accusations

Sand wrote:

As it is, the media are usually very careful not to cross the line into saying people are guilty of crimes - libel laws being what they are. The McCartney family know who murdered their brother, but no paper has reported the names.



No, Ill grant youre only against criticism/embarrassment of SFIRA figures. What youre asking for is censorship. Factual reporting doesnt breach anyones rights, nor does it prejudice peoples trials. Its non-factual reporting that does harm, and I havent seen a single attempt by Tom Murphy or Gerry Adams to contradict the reported facts of the raid. And you simply cannot hide the identity of a man whose farm is raided by the police - the locals usually dont miss a convoy of cop cars.

The only reason I can think of for not naming someone in a media story is for their own protection (i.e. the Paras at Bloody Sunday are not named because SFIRA and its "fellow travellers" would murder them). That or waiting to inform their family first in the case of reporting the death of somebody.

I do not care what embarrasses Sinn Fein that is their problem although I see you quite happily label anyone who questions anything that might be bad for the provos as a fellow traveller

And yes the people in the local area will know the identity of the man but that does not mean that his picture and pictures of his farm have to be printed in the media along with allegations of criminal activity when no charges have been brought


And since you bring you the issue of protection what about the issue of Loyalist terrorists and their fellow travellers killing Murphy or a member of his family. Is their safety less important

Sponge Bob

I have no shame so dont even ask