The disappeared

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Let me set it out simply for you so you can understand events.

On 3 November 1989 Peter Brooke became the first senior British politician to talk some sense on the issue. We cannot beat the IRA and the government should talk in return for a ceasefire. Of course there was uproar and condemnation rained down on him from practically all sides.

The IRA had by this time acquired Semtex, which it would soon combine with large amounts homemade fertilizer to bomb London with devastating effect e.g.

20/07/90: Stock Exchange (massive damage)

10/04/92: Baltic Exchange (£800 million worth of damage—£200 million more than the total damage costs resulting from all 10,000 previous explosions that had occurred relating to the Troubles)

24/04/93: Bishopsgate (The insurance payments required were so large that Lloyd's almost went bankrupt and there was a crisis in the London insurance market.)

Major signed the Downing Street Declaration on 15 December 1993, affirming both the right of the people of Ireland to self-determination and the principle that the people of the island of Ireland, North and South, had the exclusive right to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent.

Bye bye now

What? No mention of the joint goverment declaration on the status of NI in the Anglo-Irish Agreement in '85. No mention of the first Hume Adams talks back in '88, or the ongoing damage the IRA campaign was undergoing on the back of military backlash and infiltration? No mention of the limitations of the SF electoral strategy with an on-going campaign of violence? Instead it's down to the repair bill for the Baltic exchange? Pray tell then why was The Hume-Adams process continuing when contacts between the IRA and UK government had shut down? It's as if the primary initiators of a negotiated settlement process were not in London, but in NI! But that can't be right - it wouldn't tally with this whole UK gov capitulates in the face of bombs meme. Remind me again what the UK government has actually given up over the course of all this?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

...the ongoing damage the IRA campaign was undergoing on the back of military backlash and infiltration?

...when contacts between the IRA and UK government had shut down?...

Remind me again what the UK government has actually given up over the course of all this?

(1) I love the way you're naive enough to use the words "damage" and "infiltration" in the same sentence about the IRA, after my last post.

(2) Thatcher told Brooke in 1990 to reopen contacts with the Provos.

(3) For a place "as British as Finchley" the UK government has given up practically everything except paying for it!

Now it really is time to say bye bye to you.

Busted Flat.

Some people can't handle the loss, but will keep trying to convince themselves they lost nothing. The war is over, move on and get over it.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

(1) I love the way you're naive enough to use the words "damage" and "infiltration" in the same sentence about the IRA, after my last post.

Bully for you. The point still stands. They were hugely compromised.

HansHolzel wrote: »

(2) Thatcher told Brooke in 1990 to reopen contacts with the Provos.

Prior to the bulk of the London bombing campaign then? Doesn't really support that particular theory.

HansHolzel wrote: »

(3) For a place "as British as Finchley" the UK government has given up practically everything except paying for it!

It's still part of the UK, last I checked.

HansHolzel wrote: »

Now it really is time to say bye bye to you.

See you.

alastair

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Some people can't handle the loss, but will keep trying to convince themselves they lost nothing. The war is over, move on and get over it.

I'm guessing this isn't intended as satire?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

The point still stands. They were hugely compromised.

Prior to the bulk of the London bombing campaign then? Doesn't really support that particular theory.

It's still part of the UK, last I checked.

(1) Yeah, compromised, go tell it to London.

(2) The theory is fine once you understand/admit the contrast between Brooke's instructions from Thatcher (timid back-channel stuff) and Major signing the Downing Street document.

(3) So, what's happening to all your flegs?

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

(1) Yeah, compromised, go tell it to London.

Yep - they were compromised.

HansHolzel wrote: »

(2) The theory is fine once you understand/admit the contrast between Brooke's instructions from Thatcher (timid back-channel stuff) and Major signing the Downing Street document.

The Downing Street declaration was hardly much of a shift from the Anglo-Irish agreement, and was prompted by Hume-Adams outcome, not any bombing.

HansHolzel wrote: »

(3) So, what's happening to all your flegs?

Heh. You do like your blinkers, don't you? Flegs or no flegs (and as was pointed out - Belfast city hall's fleg policy now more accurately reflects typical UK municipal arrangements), it's as much a part of the UK as ever.

Happyman42

Priceless stuff from somebody who cannot separate spin from actual events.

Across 3 threads Alastair your 'facts' have turned out to be just your opinion and interpretation.

Let the thread get back on topic.

HansHolzel

Power-sharing and the fleg issue remind me of what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

But Alastair's new-found worship of the Anglo-Irish Agreement (a few civil servants in Hillsborough) and Hume-Adams evidently knows no bounds.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Priceless stuff from somebody who cannot separate spin from actual events.

Across 3 threads Alastair your 'facts' have turned out to be just your opinion and interpretation.

Let the thread get back on topic.

Care to support that with anything of substance, or just happy to roll out yet another straw man?

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Power-sharing and the fleg issue remind me of what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

But Alastair's new-found worship of the Anglo-Irish Agreement (a few civil servants in Hillsborough) and Hume-Adams evidently knows no bounds.

Well - that didn't last long.

Paisley and Adams both were of the opinion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was rather more than a few civil servants going about their business. You can't argue with that sort of consensus - still, glad that they're continuing to act in union these days.

Busted Flat.

alastair wrote: »

Well - that didn't last long.

Paisley and Adams both were of the opinion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was rather more than a few civil servants going about their business. You can't argue with that sort of consensus - still, glad that they're continuing to act in union these days.

It is impossible to turn the clock back. The future is out there for those that want a life, every young person in the six counties knows that. Except those that were raised on bigotry. The train has not fully left the station, there a few seats, and plenty of standing room left.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Paisley

1974, Sunningdale, who brought THAT down I wonder?

we still have a few slow learners of history

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

The Downing Street declaration was hardly much of a shift from the Anglo-Irish agreement

?

"Out, out, out"

anyone?

hello?

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

?

"Out, out, out"

anyone?

hello?

Remember this?

The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of' the people of' Northern Ireland;

(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of' the people of' Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of' Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

1974, Sunningdale, who brought THAT down I wonder?

we still have a few slow learners of history

Is there a relevant point in there?

Both Paisley and the IRA were opposed to Sunningdale, and determined to bring it down.

Both Paisley and the IRA were opposed to the Anglo Irish Agreement, and determined to bring it down.

Now you have SF and the DUP in cahoots, operating that self-same Sunningdale for slow learners. At least there's been consistency to the bedfellows.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Is there a relevant point in there?

Both Paisley and the IRA were opposed to Sunningdale, and determined to bring it down.

Both Paisley and the IRA were opposed to the Anglo Irish Agreement, and determined to bring it down.

Now you have SF and the DUP in cahoots, operating that self-same Sunningdale for slow learners. At least there's been consistency to the bedfellows.

It is an Orange fascist lie that the IRA brought down Sunningdale.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

It is an Orange fascist lie that the IRA brought down Sunningdale.

Orange fascists? I don't think I've ever heard a loyalist claim the IRA brought down Sunningdale. They're quite proud to proclaim that they did. But I love your new fantasy and name-calling combo. Really compelling stuff.

HansHolzel

The cap fits. Wear it.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

The cap fits. Wear it.

Oh, I'm the supposed 'Orange fascist'!? Even better! You're here all week, I take it?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Orange fascists? I don't think I've ever heard a loyalist claim the IRA brought down Sunningdale.

Plenty have on here.

+ Your quote from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, even without Thatcher's "Out, Out, Out" summary, shows the difference between it and the Downing Street Declaration.

Thanks for your assistance, Ally.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Plenty have on here.

Boards - the hotbed of 'Orange fascists'. Well colour me convinced!

HansHolzel wrote: »

+ Your quote from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, even without Thatcher's "Out, Out, Out" summary, shows the difference between it and the Downing Street Declaration.

Care to highlight the differences that matter?

tayto lover

Listened to the interview with Marian Finuchane today.
Shocking stuff really.
That poor family suffered more than they deserved. God love them all.

HansHolzel

Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985)

Article 1

The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

Article 2 (b)

The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Downing Street Declaration (1993)

4. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships. The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland. They accept that such agreement may, as of right, take the form of agreed structures for the island as a whole, including a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means on the following basis. The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment. They believe that the people of Britain would wish, in friendship to all sides, to enable the people of Ireland to reach agreement on how they may live together in harmony and in partnership, with respect for their diverse traditions, and with full recognition of the special links and the unique relationship which exist between the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985)

Article 1

The two Governments

(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland;

(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

Article 2 (b)

The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Downing Street Declaration (1993)

4. The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement, which will embrace the totality of relationships. The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland. They accept that such agreement may, as of right, take the form of agreed structures for the island as a whole, including a united Ireland achieved by peaceful means on the following basis. The British Government agree that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish. They reaffirm as a binding obligation that they will, for their part, introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to this, or equally to any measure of agreement on future relationships in Ireland which the people living in Ireland may themselves freely so determine without external impediment. They believe that the people of Britain would wish, in friendship to all sides, to enable the people of Ireland to reach agreement on how they may live together in harmony and in partnership, with respect for their diverse traditions, and with full recognition of the special links and the unique relationship which exist between the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

Is there a meaningful difference in there? Emboldening passages doesn't really articulate anything.

In both cases it's made clear that any change of sovereignty is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland - and them alone. That's still the case under the Downing Street declaration, and the subsequent GFA. No difference of any substance.

HansHolzel

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Merry Christmas!

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

...doesn't really articulate anything.

The story of your posts, really.

Busted Flat.

HansHolzel wrote: »

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Merry Christmas!

Good one.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

The story of your posts, really.

So - no difference of any substance to point to? Just petulant sulking?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

So - no difference of any substance to point to? Just petulant sulking?

Facts look petulant when you can't face them.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Facts look petulant when you can't face them.

You've not presented any facts.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

You've not presented any facts.

Should have gone to Specsavers

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Should have gone to Specsavers

There's that sulking again.

So - no difference of any substance to point to?

HansHolzel

You repeat yourself. I repeat facts. That's the substance of the difference.

From the Paras stopping Billy Wright's Nazis at Drumcree to the flag coming down off City Hall ("Surrender" - Billy Hutchinson, having dropped the 'No' ;-), it's more and more like the Christmas song says

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening
The union flag has gone missing
Huns smash up the town as the crown rag comes down
Walking in a Fenian wonderland

Census results now show 48% Protestant and 45% Catholic. Power-sharing and the flag issue hark back to what Parnell thought of the 1881 Land Act. It didn’t abolish landlordism but made landlordism intolerable for the landlords.

As for the Brits still paying for the place, it's just a case of 'You broke it, you own it' ;-)

Nollaig shona do na Hunaigh.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

You repeat yourself. I repeat facts. That's the substance of the difference.

You posted no facts - as I've already pointed out - there's no shift on the substantial issues regarding the sovereignty of NI, who gets to determine changes to it, and on what basis. There's been no shift at all - not even from the Maggie 'Out, Out, Out' statement - the status quo still stands as she stated, back then, today. Check for yourself:

I have made it quite clear ... that a unified Ireland was one solution that is out. A second solution was confederation of two states. That is out. A third solution was joint authority. That is out. That is a derogation from sovereignty. We made that quite clear when the Report was published. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. She is part of the United Kingdom because that is the wish of the majority of her citizens. The majority wish to stay part of the United Kingdom

United Ireland? Not until a majority within NI vote for it (like the old bat said).
Joint Authority? Nope - except within the limited bounds agreed within the Anglo-Irish Agreement (in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland).
Confederation of two states? Not that I've noticed, and not championed by anyone I'm aware of these days.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

You posted no facts - as I've already pointed out - there's no shift on the substantial issues regarding the sovereignty of NI, who gets to determine changes to it, and on what basis. There's been no shift at all - not even from the Maggie 'Out, Out, Out' statement - the status quo still stands as she stated, back then, today. Check for yourself:



United Ireland? Not until a majority within NI vote for it (like the old bat said).
Joint Authority? Nope - except within the limited bounds agreed within the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Confederation of two states? Not that I've noticed, and not championed by anyone I'm aware of these days.

Dripping with anxiety.

HansHolzel

£1 for €1 in the shops?

The consumer is sovereign.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Dripping with anxiety.

I'm still waiting for those facts.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting for those facts.

The special bus left hours ago.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-arrested-in-connection-to-abduction-and-murder-of-jean-mcconville-30103264.html


Hopefully, at long last, there will be some justice for the McConville family.

Happyman42

Probably the ex IRa commander interviewed on the RTE assassination of Gerry 'The Disappeared' a while back.
We'll see if he has anything to back up what he said on that programme. I wouldn't be holding my breath to be honest.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Probably the ex IRa commander interviewed on the RTE assassination of Gerry 'The Disappeared' a while back.
We'll see if he has anything to back up what he said on that programme. I wouldn't be holding my breath to be honest.

Adams never sued, did he, despite all the bluster from him at the time?

Heard Michael McConville on Newstalk this morning. Much more restrained than I would have been at the time.

Here's a thought. IF Adams feels he has been wronged by media organisations on this issue, why doesn't he sue them for libel? If he wins he could show his good faith by donating any damages to funds for the disappeared?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Adams never sued, did he, despite all the bluster from him at the time?

Heard Michael McConville on Newstalk this morning. Much more restrained than I would have been at the time.

Here's a thought. IF Adams feels he has been wronged by media organisations on this issue, why doesn't he sue them for libel? If he wins he could show his good faith by donating any damages to funds for the disappeared?

Have you considered the potential damage Adams could do to support for the peace process within his own ranks (where there are plenty with knives at the ready) by suing, a court case calling on witnesses etc to prove his innocence would rip the SF movement apart.
RTE and the print media know that he is never likely to sue for this reason and consequently get away with printing/saying what they want.
While not being a supporter of SF, I do recognise what Adams has sacrificed on a personal level to ensure the process survives.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you considered the potential damage Adams could do to support for the peace process within his own ranks (where there are plenty with knives at the ready) by suing, a court case calling on witnesses etc to prove his innocence would rip the SF movement apart.
RTE and the print media know that he is never likely to sue for this reason and consequently get away with printing/saying what they want.
While not being a supporter of SF, I do recognise what Adams has sacrificed on a personal level to ensure the process survives.

That does not make any sense.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That does not make any sense.

To somebody who has never displayed any empathy on here for the position of Adams or for what he has done to see the process survive...probably not.

Sand

Odd to use Adams and empathy in the same sentence. My abiding memory of Adams is him being distinctly nonempathic, dismissing without emotion the victims of the most recent atrocity and intoning, practically by rote the same old nonsense about not getting drawn into the politics of condemnation.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

Odd to use Adams and empathy in the same sentence. My abiding memory of Adams is him being distinctly nonempathic, dismissing without emotion the victims of the most recent atrocity and intoning, practically by rote the same old nonsense about not getting drawn into the politics of condemnation.

Funny that, I judge people for what they actually did to bring about a lasting peace, not on how much ultimately useless condemnation they spouted.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-77-charged-in-connection-with-the-murder-of-motheroften-jean-mcconville-30114803.html


Good, let us see what other slimy things lie under this rock.

Shady Tady

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-77-charged-in-connection-with-the-murder-of-motheroften-jean-mcconville-30114803.html


Good, let us see what other slimy things lie under this rock.

+1

meathstevie

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I didn't know this

How in gods name has Adams not been questioned repeatedly over this (or has he?)

I'm no legal expert so could someone tell me if the charge of "directing terrorism" be brought retrospectively for events before the legislation was enacted?

Impossible, in a self respecting EU country one can not be retrospectively prosecuted. That sort of carry-on is strictly the prerogative of dictatorships with zero respect for human rights. If it's not illegal today you can't fall faul of a law enacted tomorrow.

By the way, very few people involved in the conflict in the north have ever been convicted of "terrorism" offences. Quite a few convictions were for "ordinary" offences like unlawful possession of firearms or explosives, murder, assault, robbery etc etc. Convictions for ordinary offences are a lot easier to secure burden of proof wise since the whole political discussion about the motivation for certain acts or conspiracies simply doesn't enter into the equation. Letting of an IED for example, depending on the outcome, would be covered by criminal damage, causing an explosion, murder, attempted murder etc etc....