The disappeared

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

I merely use her title to indicate why some might have a problem with what she might say 'as her opinion'.

That's pretty much a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem - a logical fallacy.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

One Officer said that to the inquiry. The Senior Officer refused to take part in the inquiry.
Yet the Belfast Telegraph carried a quote from a police officer that they where investigating an 'abuction'
McConvilles son says he twice reported her abduction (on the advice of a local politician) and was told that 'it was being looked into'.

Yet no records at all can be found until 1995, and even then the files where 'limited'.

My point in all this is, would a serious programme about the Disappeared, (one that was genuinely looking at the cases and families) not have questions to ask about all the above and why would it settle for Nuala O'Loan's personal opinion?
Would it also not interview and find out what the current status of the investigations was and interview or quote the senior investigating person at the ICLVR?

By all means interview/interrogate Gerry Adams but not to do the above was deeply deeply suspicious as to the agenda.

No it wasn't. The current status of information on the dissapeared was articulated clearly enough, as was the amnesty for any information provided to the ICLVR. Given the confidentiality of any information given to them, they were not in a position to provide any info on ongoing investigations.

Once again - Nuala O'Loan's input was not a personal view. She presented the findings of the investigations of the Police Ombundsman's office - the impartial body mandated to investigate these kinds of matters. It's the best source of unbiased information available.

As to the refusal of the chief investigating officer of the RUC to engage with the Ombundsman's office? Well, they weren't going to come out of well, were they? It doesn't undermine the finding that the case was treated as a missing persons case, or that a normal police investigation was obviously hampered by the inability to apply normal investigative processes in those circumstances.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

No it wasn't. The current status of information on the dissapeared was articulated clearly enough, as was the amnesty for any information provided to the ICLVR. Given the confidentiality of any information given to them, they were not in a position to provide any info on ongoing investigations.

I just don't understand how you can say that it was appropriate that the people actually looking for the Disappeared would not be interviewed properly. They themselves are disturbed by it.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-who-led-searches-for-bodies-unhappy-with-film-s-treatment-of-special-commission-1.1582409

Once again - Nuala O'Loan's input was not a personal view. She presented the findings of the investigations of the Police Ombundsman's office - the impartial body mandated to investigate these kinds of matters. It's the best source of unbiased information available.

Again I have to ask, if Gerry Adams was questioned/interrogated why wasn't she or the RUC personnel at the time? The police have after all questions to answer here, one of their senior officers and head of the McC case is refusing to take part in a significant inquiry, would that not have been worthy of further questioning of O'Loan....like 'why?'

As to the refusal of the chief investigating officer of the RUC to engage with the Ombundsman's office? Well, they weren't going to come out of well, were they?

And that is it? That's ok?

It doesn't undermine the finding that the case was treated as a missing persons case,

That quite obviously is a matter of opinion.
One officer referred to it as a 'missing persons' case in 1995.
Yet we have evidence that police where treating it as an abduction and her son reported it twice as an abduction in 1973.

Missing person or abduction, I think it is very strange that no record at all exists and that anybody can draw absolute conclusions about MCC, personal or otherwise.

I'm done here, as we have nobody in authority or the media who will pursue the above there is no point us arguing back and forth about it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

I just don't understand how you can say that it was appropriate that the people actually looking for the Disappeared would not be interviewed.

Are you sure that you watched the programme? They were interviewed. Geoff Knupfer himself was.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

And that is it? That's ok?

Yeah - that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

That quite obviously is a matter of opinion.
One officer referred to it as a 'missing persons' case in 1995.

One of the police officers involved in the investigation. Do you doubt his veracity too?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yet we have evidence that police where treating it as an abduction and her son reported it twice as an abduction in 1973.

It may well have been considered an abduction initially, and consequently a missing persons case. Once again - she had already been abducted and returned.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Are you sure that you watched the programme? They were interviewed. Geoff Knupfer himself was.

Apologies, word missing. Fixed now.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:



One of the police officers involved in the investigation. Do you doubt his veracity too?



It may well have been considered an abduction initially, and consequently a missing persons case. Once again - she had already been abducted and returned.

No point continuing this, I am just amazed that those who have plenty of questions for one person have none for any others.

grainnewhale

Happyman42 wrote: »

No point continuing this, I am just amazed that those who have plenty of questions for one person have none for any others.

Its pretty obvious, those with an anti republican agenda, could not care any less about jean mcconville or her family. The truth is she has been far more use to the British dead, than she was as an informer. If the people who love to mention Jean at every turn, really cared about the loss of human life, then they would be equally as keen to mention all the victims of the british security and paramilitaries.
The people involved in this case were, jean mcconville, the british services and IRA
jean mc conville was a poor woman with children to raise (like many others at the time). she needed money and she accepted it from the british army. she knew the implications of what she was doing. she had a CHOICE.
The british saw a poor vunerable woman and realised they could take advantage of her. It was a terrible thing to do but that was their CHOICE
The IRA had an informer living amongst them. They didn't have a CHOICE

junder

grainnewhale wrote: »

Its pretty obvious, those with an anti republican agenda, could not care any less about jean mcconville or her family. The truth is she has been far more use to the British dead, than she was as an informer. If the people who love to mention Jean at every turn, really cared about the loss of human life, then they would be equally as keen to mention all the victims of the british security and paramilitaries.
The people involved in this case were, jean mcconville, the british services and IRA
jean mc conville was a poor woman with children to raise (like many others at the time). she needed money and she accepted it from the british army. she knew the implications of what she was doing. she had a CHOICE.
The british saw a poor vunerable woman and realised they could take advantage of her. It was a terrible thing to do but that was their CHOICE
The IRA had an informer living amongst them. They didn't have a CHOICE

Proof?

alastair

grainnewhale wrote: »

Its pretty obvious, those with an anti republican agenda, could not care any less about jean mcconville or her family. The truth is she has been far more use to the British dead, than she was as an informer. If the people who love to mention Jean at every turn, really cared about the loss of human life, then they would be equally as keen to mention all the victims of the british security and paramilitaries.
The people involved in this case were, jean mcconville, the british services and IRA
jean mc conville was a poor woman with children to raise (like many others at the time). she needed money and she accepted it from the british army. she knew the implications of what she was doing. she had a CHOICE.
The british saw a poor vunerable woman and realised they could take advantage of her. It was a terrible thing to do but that was their CHOICE
The IRA had an informer living amongst them. They didn't have a CHOICE

Hook line and sinker. How long did it take you to move on from the previous narrative from the IRA regarding Jean McConville?

Godge

grainnewhale wrote: »

Its pretty obvious, those with an anti republican agenda, could not care any less about jean mcconville or her family. The truth is she has been far more use to the British dead, than she was as an informer. If the people who love to mention Jean at every turn, really cared about the loss of human life, then they would be equally as keen to mention all the victims of the british security and paramilitaries.
The people involved in this case were, jean mcconville, the british services and IRA
jean mc conville was a poor woman with children to raise (like many others at the time). she needed money and she accepted it from the british army. she knew the implications of what she was doing. she had a CHOICE.
The british saw a poor vunerable woman and realised they could take advantage of her. It was a terrible thing to do but that was their CHOICE
The IRA had an informer living amongst them. They didn't have a CHOICE

The difference between Jean McConville and those civilians killed in say Omagh, Brighton or Canary Wharf is that at least those families knew that their loved ones had been killed by terrorists.

The reason that the name of Jean McConville remains so evocative is because of the CHOICE made by the IRA to deny her murder and to deny her body to her family.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The difference between Jean McConville and those civilians killed in say Omagh, Brighton or Canary Wharf is that at least those families knew that their loved ones had been killed by terrorists.

The reason that the name of Jean McConville remains so evocative is because of the CHOICE made by the IRA to deny her murder and to deny her body to her family.

Which is just one more case that shows the absolute and critical need for some sort of a truth commission. I think it is the only way forward and is the only way that peace and closure can be brought to so many families and loved ones.
At the risk of being accused of whataboutery, the J McConville case is not unique. Although they have bodies, the families of the Bloody Sunday victims, the Dublin/Monaghan bombings and a whole host of other tragedies on both sides are waiting for closure too.
What happened to the disappeared was wrong, and inhumane from the start but time is running out to heal here. Only the acceptance by everyone, that they must tell what they know, is going to advance the peace. It will be a tough process for all sides but it has to be done,

grainnewhale

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is just one more case that shows the absolute and critical need for some sort of a truth commission. I think it is the only way forward and is the only way that peace and closure can be brought to so many families and loved ones.
At the risk of being accused of whataboutery, the J McConville case is not unique. Although they have bodies, the families of the Bloody Sunday victims, the Dublin/Monaghan bombings and a whole host of other tragedies on both sides are waiting for closure too.
What happened to the disappeared was wrong, and inhumane from the start but time is running out to heal here. Only the acceptance by everyone, that they must tell what they know, is going to advance the peace. It will be a tough process for all sides but it has to be done,

This never will or could happen and would only help to polorise people more.

Crooked Jack

grainnewhale wrote: »

This never will or could happen and would only help to polorise people more.

Yeah, much better to stick to the current system where some people get arrested but most people dont and those who do either get off because there's no evidence after 30 years or serve two years at most.
The current "system," if it could be called that, achieves nothing other than bitterness on all sides. A truth and reconciliation commission is not only the best option for dealing with the past, it's the only option.
The sooner the brits and unionists face up to that the sooner we can start to heal Irish society

timthumbni

A "truth" commission is unlikely IMO. There's nothing to suggest that it would heal divisions at all and I can't imagine the Provos suddenly "fessing" up who pulled the triggers in the kingsmills sectarian slaughter for example.

I agree that only serving 2 years for murder is laughable but not as laughable as serving no time. The case in the media regarding a Provo charged with murdering a RUC man at the hospital where he had just saw his new born baby is worth noting. No doubt this fella will walk but at least his name is out there now and he will live the rest of his days in shame and possibly fear.

On the other side we have the recent arrest of someone from the loyalist side for the murder of joe reynolds who was simply heading to his work in East Belfast.

Personally these people would serve full sentences if found guilty but the gfa doesn't allow for that. A slap in the face for a lot of people.

As for the disappeared issue adams is starting to become a liability for the shinners. He will not be brought down by the unionists, nor the media but there is every possibility he will be brought down from his own kind. He has royally pissed off a lot of republicans who are now rightfully questioning what the slaughter was all about.

Who knows what the British have on adams as well... Regarding the hunger strikes and other matters that could be the final nail in the coffin. It seems the British may be happy enough with adams though at present. Interesting to see how it will play out.

Crooked Jack

timthumbni wrote: »

A "truth" commission is unlikely IMO. There's nothing to suggest that it would heal divisions at all

Such commissions have happened all over the world with varying degrees of success. If we learn from the mistakes of other ones we can make the best possible version of one here. One of the main problems people have had with such commissions in other countries is the fact that it lets the perpetrator escape jail but even the chief constable has already pointed out here that the vast majority of unsolved killings are likely to remain that way. Here's the choice people have, hold out for a 1 in million shot at some warped version of "justice" and in all likelihood get nothing, or engage with such a commission and find out what happened their loved one, why and face those who did it. I know which I'd prefer. How many times have we heard victims families say all they want is the truth.
It would be an effective way of putting a full stop under the conflict and allowing wider society to move on.

timthumbni wrote: »

and I can't imagine the Provos suddenly "fessing" up who pulled the triggers in the kingsmills sectarian slaughter for example.

Republicans have been the ones advocating for such a commission. The staunchest opposition has come from unionists and the brits.

timthumbni wrote: »

I agree that only serving 2 years for murder is laughable but not as laughable as serving no time. The case in the media regarding a Provo charged with murdering a RUC man at the hospital where he had just saw his new born baby is worth noting. No doubt this fella will walk but at least his name is out there now and he will live the rest of his days in shame and possibly fear.

Why would he? He was an IRA volunteer who shot a cop. Insofar as a former IRA volunteer goes an RUC thug in the 70s was fair game. Why would he now live out his days in shame, and even more ludicrously, fear. Are people going to come after him now? And as you say, if he is found not guilty, are people going to come after an innocent man?
With a truth commission however he could meet the family, if they wished, explain what happened and why. Maybe they wouldnt want to, maybe they would have something to say to him, who know, but what you can be sure is that theyre not going to get anything from him walking or serving two years, probably less.

timthumbni wrote: »

On the other side we have the recent arrest of someone from the loyalist side for the murder of joe reynolds who was simply heading to his work in East Belfast.

Same thing (my rebuttal, not the act, obviously). The family can either hope this guy gets two years or with such a commission they can meet him and make him explain why Joe Reynolds was such a threat to the union.

timthumbni wrote: »

Personally these people would serve full sentences if found guilty but the gfa doesn't allow for that. A slap in the face for a lot of people.

Continued conflict would have been a lot more than a slap in the face for a lot more people.

timthumbni wrote: »

As for the disappeared issue adams is starting to become a liability for the shinners.

I've noticed over the past few weeks that the only people saying this are political opponents of Sinn Fein. Where are the people within SF saying this?

timthumbni wrote: »

He will not be brought down by the unionists, nor the media but there is every possibility he will be brought down from his own kind.

Seriously, where are they? Adams will go soon enough, but it will be because he's a pensioner.

timthumbni wrote: »

He has royally pissed off a lot of republicans who are now rightfully questioning what the slaughter was all about.

Adams didn't cause the slaughter, you've got to look towards a corrupt stormont regime, an ignorant British Government and a violent and paranoid loyalist community for that. In fact Adams was a key player in getting the IRA step aside.

timthumbni wrote: »

Who knows what the British have on adams as well... Regarding the hunger strikes and other matters that could be the final nail in the coffin. It seems the British may be happy enough with adams though at present. Interesting to see how it will play out.

this bit here is just blind waffle.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've noticed over the past few weeks that the only people saying this are political opponents of Sinn Fein. Where are the people within SF saying this?



Seriously, where are they? Adams will go soon enough, but it will be because he's a pensioner.


.

There were plenty of FF people who used say that about CJH first and latterly Bertie Ahern. In the end their own moved against them.

SoulandForm

timthumbni wrote: »

A "truth" commission is unlikely IMO. There's nothing to suggest that it would heal divisions at all and I can't imagine the Provos suddenly "fessing" up who pulled the triggers in the kingsmills sectarian slaughter for example.

Who knows what the British have on adams as well... Regarding the hunger strikes and other matters that could be the final nail in the coffin. It seems the British may be happy enough with adams though at present. Interesting to see how it will play out.

There will be no truth commission and even if there was it would most likely turn into an utter farce; both the British deep state, the Loyalists and the Provisional movement not to mention large sections of Political Unionism are just untrustworthy- even if they told the truth a lot of people wouldnt believe them.

Say what you want about Gerry Adams whether you like it or not he was the only man capable of bringing about the PIRA's ceasefire and later disbanding with the very least break aways and continued violence possible. Of course he is appreciated for that.

SoulandForm

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, much better to stick to the current system where some people get arrested but most people dont and those who do either get off because there's no evidence after 30 years or serve two years at most.
The current "system," if it could be called that, achieves nothing other than bitterness on all sides. A truth and reconciliation commission is not only the best option for dealing with the past, it's the only option.
The sooner the brits and unionists face up to that the sooner we can start to heal Irish society

The IRSP have been calling for an independent Republican investigation into the allegations that the Provisional "kitchen cabinet" allowed several of the Hunger Strikers to die (including INLA volunteers); silence from Sinn Fein.

Im sorry but that strongly suggests to a lot of us what we have believed all along; Sinn Fein's call for a Truth and Reconciliation commission is just trolling the Brits and the Unionists (who have plenty of their own dirty secrets).

grainnewhale

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, much better to stick to the current system where some people get arrested but most people dont and those who do either get off because there's no evidence after 30 years or serve two years at most.
The current "system," if it could be called that, achieves nothing other than bitterness on all sides. A truth and reconciliation commission is not only the best option for dealing with the past, it's the only option.
The sooner the brits and unionists face up to that the sooner we can start to heal Irish society

This will never happen. Would you realistically expect the british or irish goverments to come clean about their dirty war against republicans. This is a smoke screen, living in the past is the biggest problem in this country. What's needed is to look to the future, a future of a peaceful united 32 county republic.

timthumbni

grainnewhale wrote: »

This will never happen. Would you realistically expect the british or irish goverments to come clean about their dirty war against republicans. This is a smoke screen, living in the past is the biggest problem in this country. What's needed is to look to the future, a future of a peaceful united 32 county republic.

That's a nice wish. You may be just forgetting the important issue that most people living in Northern Ireland don't seem to agree with you and want to remain part of the UK. Back to the old drawing board I suppose.

timthumbni

SoulandForm wrote: »

Say what you want about Gerry Adams whether you like it or not he was the only man capable of bringing about the PIRA's ceasefire and later disbanding with the very least break aways and continued violence possible. Of course he is appreciated for that.

Nope no appreciation from me at all. I don't feel the need to thank someone for suddenly deciding they are not going to murder people anymore. That is normal human decency I think you will find.

I think you will find many people in Northern Ireland anyway have a similar opinion.

Richard

timthumbni wrote: »

Nope no appreciation from me at all. I don't feel the need to thank someone for suddenly deciding they are not going to murder people anymore. That is normal human decency I think you will find.

I think you will find many people in Northern Ireland anyway have a similar opinion.

Gerry, Martin and loyalist leaders have very dirty hands from their past activities. When they saw the light, they could have renounced violence and faded into obscurity (or prison) but their organisations would have been taken over by hard liners. It is better that they stayed and brought people with them.

Although I was all for IRA/UDA decommissioning and it should of course happened long before it did, if Gerry had insisted on it early on, there would either have been a mass exodus to dissidents (much much bigger than what happened) or many those who knew where the arms dumps were wouldn't have given them up and the exercise would have been ineffective.

I think people assume Gerry Adams was all powerful within Republicanism and his word was law, but the number of splits over the years show that wasn't the case.

Now on the subject if the disappeared, there is much more that republicans can do here, but I'm not sure if it's Adams or others who should be giving up their information.

Richard

grainnewhale wrote: »

This will never happen. Would you realistically expect the british or irish goverments to come clean about their dirty war against republicans. This is a smoke screen, living in the past is the biggest problem in this country. What's needed is to look to the future, a future of a peaceful united 32 county republic.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "dirty war". Republicans killed over 2,000 people during the troubles and the forces of law and order in the UK and Ireland were trying to stop them. Of course, various enquiries have shown this wasn't always done in the best way by the governments, but don't try and turn this into something it isn't.

grainnewhale

timthumbni wrote: »

Nope no appreciation from me at all. I don't feel the need to thank someone for suddenly deciding they are not going to murder people anymore. That is normal human decency I think you will find.

I think you will find many people in Northern Ireland anyway have a similar opinion.

Strange then that Gerry had no problem getting elected either side of the border

grainnewhale

timthumbni wrote: »

That's a nice wish. You may be just forgetting the important issue that most people living in Northern Ireland don't seem to agree with you and want to remain part of the UK. Back to the old drawing board I suppose.

This logic is what keeps the dissidents going.

grainnewhale

Richard wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by a "dirty war". Republicans killed over 2,000 people during the troubles and the forces of law and order in the UK and Ireland were trying to stop them. Of course, various enquiries have shown this wasn't always done in the best way by the governments, but don't try and turn this into something it isn't.

In their efforts to stop them they killed innocent men, women and children, which naturally had the opposite effect. If only they had shown the slightest bit of intelligence, lives would have been saved

alastair

grainnewhale wrote: »

Strange then that Gerry had no problem getting elected either side of the border

That's to ignore the 73% of voters in NI, and 81% of voters in the south, that don't support SF.

alastair

grainnewhale wrote: »

In their efforts to stop them they killed innocent men, women and children, which naturally had the opposite effect. If only they had shown the slightest bit of intelligence, lives would have been saved

This is a two-way street. And at least one side had a democratic mandate for their campaign, if not strategy.

timthumbni

grainnewhale wrote: »

This logic is what keeps the dissidents going.

What? That they don't agree with the majoririty opinion in Northern Ireland that we want to remain part of the UK.

Are you suggesting that we all vote for a united Ireland to stop the dissidents killing us? That would be one solution I suppose but not a realistic expectation of the facts.