More Crap on Adams, Mod Warning in OP.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

What more could they have done only advise her to go to the police, get counselling or to tell her family?
Gerry Adams and the other 4 people whom he said where willing to come forward, all say they told her to do that. But as she said herself in the Spotlight programme..'she didn't recognise the RUC for political reasons'.
Last night an MLA said on the BBC that 'she came to her in 2005 and the advice was still the same, go to the police and seek counselling' not her exact words but that was the gist.

Sexual abuse is beyond the pale in any circumstances and if they even questioned her about it in any shape of form then they are on a looser. It is as simple as that .

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

Sexual abuse is beyond the pale in any circumstances and if they even questioned her about it in any shape of form then they are on a looser. It is as simple as that .

Again, you're ignoring that fact that she refused to deal with the RUC as she saw them as corrupt.
So you are saying she shouldn't have sought justice at all? OK.

oscarBravo

maccored wrote: »

She obviously feels very let down by the republican movement.

This is the republican movement that, we're given to believe, has been nothing but supportive of her, helpful to her, completely behind her every step of the way - why, exactly, would she feel let down by the republican movement?

What has the republican movement done to upset her so badly that you believe she is lying through her teeth in order to damage it?

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, you're ignoring that fact that she refused to deal with the RUC as she saw them as corrupt.
So you are saying she shouldn't have sought justice at all? OK.

I am not saying that at all, at the very minimum as well as recommending that she goes to the RUC they should also have reported it to the relevant authorities .

Don't you get it ? Sexual abuse is above any and all other considerations .

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

What has the republican movement done to upset her so badly that you believe she is lying through her teeth in order to damage it?

Dunno. Maybe she should tell us?
Would honestly be interesting to know why she doesn't care half as much about convicting the man who raped her as running a trial by media campaign against Gerry Adams.

maccored

she feels let down because she was raped, and nothing was done about it. why wouldnt she feel let down?

It'll be interesting to see what the DPP's review comes up with.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the republican movement that, we're given to believe, has been nothing but supportive of her, helpful to her, completely behind her every step of the way - why, exactly, would she feel let down by the republican movement?

What has the republican movement done to upset her so badly that you believe she is lying through her teeth in order to damage it?

maccored

plus, i have to say .. really? Do you believe a movement as large as the republican movement in the north all follow the same direction and never have differing views? Like some form of utopia? that doesnt make sense.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the republican movement that, we're given to believe, has been nothing but supportive of her, helpful to her, completely behind her every step of the way - why, exactly, would she feel let down by the republican movement?

What has the republican movement done to upset her so badly that you believe she is lying through her teeth in order to damage it?

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

Don't you get it ? Sexual abuse is above any and all other considerations .

Gibberish, much like the hilariously wild "blame the victim" roars earlier.
Above what other considerations? You haven't even attempted to say what it's more important than that we can form an opinion on. Vacuous soundbiteology.

Sierra Oscar

Esel wrote: »

We are not talking about the alleged rapist, rather someone who was going to give evidence on his behalf.

You can watch the relevant extract from the Spotlight program here. A former bodyguard and close associate of Gerry Adams no less.

Godge

Tosca1 wrote: »

Am I missing something? Ms Cahill withdrew her complaints and the defendants were acquitted.

Yeah, you are missing a lot, a helluva lot, but I don't think that bothers you.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What more could they have done only advise her to go to the police, get counselling or to tell her family?
Gerry Adams and the other 4 people whom he said where willing to come forward, all say they told her to do that. But as she said herself in the Spotlight programme..'she didn't recognise the RUC for political reasons'.
Last night an MLA said on the BBC that 'she came to her in 2005 and the advice was still the same, go to the police and seek counselling' not her exact words but that was the gist.

She was dragged to a kangaroo court, interrogated by four strangers on several occasions, made confront her abuser, told not to go to the police under any circumstances, yet Gerry would have us believe that these are decent people. Well, his standard of decency is a lot lower than a normal person's.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Dunno. Maybe she should tell us?
Would honestly be interesting to know why she doesn't care half as much about convicting the man who raped her as running a trial by media campaign against Gerry Adams.

She isn't running a trial by media campaign against Gerry Adams. She has been talking about several things:

(1) Highlighting that SF/IRA ran kangaroo courts after the GFA for sexual abuse by members of SF/IRA - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(2) Highlighting that SF/IRA have let sexual abusers loose all over the 26 counties - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(3) Highlighting that the PSNI and the prosecution messed up the criminal case - Check, this is under investigation by the PPS
(4) Highlighting the extent of sexual abuse covered up by SF/IRA - Well on her way to doing that as the second case came out today
(5) Highlighting her disgraceful treatment by Gerry and his SF/IRA cohorts - still being denied by Gerry but accepted by all decent politicians down South.

You see, she had no problem with the first four, it is only Gerry who denies what she says.

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Gibberish, much like the hilariously wild "blame the victim" roars earlier.
Above what other considerations? You haven't even attempted to say what it's more important than that we can form an opinion on. Vacuous soundbiteology.

Above any political or personal or organisational consideration , above any perceived guilt or innocence of the accused.

If you become aware of any case of sexual abuse you must report it. It is the only way.

AngryHippie

marienbad wrote: »

Above any political or personal or organisational consideration , above any perceived guilt or innocence of the accused.

If you become aware of any case of sexual abuse you must report it. It is the only way.

Is it not mandatory for those holding public office?

Godge

marienbad wrote: »

Above any political or personal or organisational consideration , above any perceived guilt or innocence of the accused.

If you become aware of any case of sexual abuse you must report it. It is the only way.

Except if you are Liam Adam's brother, then you don't report him.
Except if you are in SF/IRA Army Council, then you don't report a member.
Except if you are in the Church heirarchy, then you don't report a priest.

Oops, the third one has stopped the others haven't.

maccored

Can someone please show me where ms cahill said gerry adams and the ira interrogated her?

Or are you saying the IRA treated her disgracefully, and then at a meeting, gerry did as well?

As far as I know, the first (gerry adams and the ira interrogated her) doesnt exist, and he denies the second. He claims he met her because of 'personal difficulties', and he didnt learn what those 'personal difficulties' were until later. when he did he told her to go to the ruc.

as for who's version is correct - i dont know ... but its a far cry from this 'adams and ira gang treat woman disgracefully' scenario.

Godge wrote: »

Yeah, you are missing a lot, a helluva lot, but I don't think that bothers you.



She was dragged to a kangaroo court, interrogated by four strangers on several occasions, made confront her abuser, told not to go to the police under any circumstances, yet Gerry would have us believe that these are decent people. Well, his standard of decency is a lot lower than a normal person's.





She isn't running a trial by media campaign against Gerry Adams. She has been talking about several things:

(1) Highlighting that SF/IRA ran kangaroo courts after the GFA for sexual abuse by members of SF/IRA - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(2) Highlighting that SF/IRA have let sexual abusers loose all over the 26 counties - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(3) Highlighting that the PSNI and the prosecution messed up the criminal case - Check, this is under investigation by the PPS
(4) Highlighting the extent of sexual abuse covered up by SF/IRA - Well on her way to doing that as the second case came out today
(5) Highlighting her disgraceful treatment by Gerry and his SF/IRA cohorts - still being denied by Gerry but accepted by all decent politicians down South.

You see, she had no problem with the first four, it is only Gerry who denies what she says.

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

Above any political or personal or organisational consideration , above any perceived guilt or innocence of the accused.

If you become aware of any case of sexual abuse you must report it. It is the only way.

The victim herself didn't want it reported to the RUC herself and you expect the IRA to do it?
Surreal, but anything that gets a whine about SF in I suppose.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

I am not saying that at all, at the very minimum as well as recommending that she goes to the RUC they should also have reported it to the relevant authorities .

Don't you get it ? Sexual abuse is above any and all other considerations .

Off course it is. But you need to read Adams statement on this. Like every other organisation the way of dealing with this changed fundamentally during the 90's and noughties.
There was no mandatory reporting practiced by any organisation (or very few) at that time.
Read his timeline of when all that was introduced into the SF org, if you want to be fair that is.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Dunno. Maybe she should tell us?

She did, and has been called a liar repeatedly and at length ever since.

My question is to those who are assuming that she's lying. The assumption that she's lying seems to be predicated on the belief that she holds a grudge against the republican movement.

Now, she's given a very detailed explanation for why she resents the republican movement, which has been dismissed as all lies, so why don't you tell us what the real reason is?

maccored wrote: »

she feels let down because she was raped, and nothing was done about it.

What she says is that she feels let down because she was raped, and a whole series of terrible things were done about it.

But, again, if you're going to accuse her of lying, the onus is on you to come up with a much more compelling case than the one she has laid out for why she feels so angry towards the republican movement in general, and Gerry Adams in particular.

If you believe Gerry, he has been nothing but helpful and supportive to her. In response, she has baldly contradicted almost all his claims. If everything he's saying is true, why is she so angry at him?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

(1) Highlighting that SF/IRA ran kangaroo courts after the GFA for sexual abuse by members of SF/IRA - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(2) Highlighting that SF/IRA have let sexual abusers loose all over the 26 counties - Check, confirmed in Gerry's statement
(3) Highlighting that the PSNI and the prosecution messed up the criminal case - Check, this is under investigation by the PPS
(4) Highlighting the extent of sexual abuse covered up by SF/IRA - Well on her way to doing that as the second case came out today
(5) Highlighting her disgraceful treatment by Gerry and his SF/IRA cohorts - still being denied by Gerry but accepted by all decent politicians down South.

You see, she had no problem with the first four, it is only Gerry who denies what she says.

So if Adams says something you agree with he is definitely telling the truth. If you don't agree he is definitely lying.
Laughable. That's handy.
"all decent politicians"... LOLOLOL! Does every real Scotsman accept it too?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

She was dragged to a kangaroo court, interrogated by four strangers on several occasions, made confront her abuser, told not to go to the police under any circumstances, yet Gerry would have us believe that these are decent people. Well, his standard of decency is a lot lower than a normal person's.

That simply is a downright lie. Adams said no such thing. Enda turned it scurriously into that in the Dail today.

He has consistently said that if that happened it was wrong.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

Off course it is. But you need to read Adams statement on this. Like every other organisation the way of dealing with this changed fundamentally during the 90's and noughties.
There was no mandatory reporting practiced by any organisation (or very few) at that time.
Read his timeline of when all that was introduced into the SF org, if you want to be fair that is.

No mandatory reporting? Are you taking the piss here. She said she was ordered by the IRA not to tell anyone about the rape - including her own parents.

Happyman42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So if Adams says something you agree with he is definitely telling the truth. If you don't agree he is definitely lying.
Laughable. That's handy.
"all decent politicians"... LOLOLOL! Does every real Scotsman accept it too?

It's downright laughable at this stage. A dog chasing it's tail.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

That simply is a downright lie. Adams said no such thing. Enda turned it scurriously into that in the Dail today.

He has consistently said that if that happened it was wrong.

That is rubbish. Listen to what he said. Adams asked Enda would he meet these decent people who had been accused of interrogating Mairia. He actually included the alleged rapist as one of the decent people in the first statement.

maccored

I stated more than once that when it comes to the question on their meeting where she says they talked about the rape and adams says they talked about her 'personal problems' that I dont know who is telling the truth. Where are you going (once again) with this 'lying' malarky? Is that your only angle for debate - that youthink people are accusing her of flat out lying?

People ARE suspicious of her .. granted .. but thats because this has already been to court, which failed as ms cahill withdrew, its 17 years old and seems to have jumped up out of the blue. that makes me suspicious, but I couldnt say I KNOW she's lying, because I dont. I dont know which of them is.

Though - she says they talked about rape then, he said they got to that at a later meeting - at the end of the day thats not what this is based around. Apparently - and she didnt actually say this at all - but some people would have you believe she claims Adams and some IRA men interrogated her. thats makey uppy land stuff that, if you ask me but since its something she never said, it'd be the people insinuating such rubbish would be liars, and not ms cahill.

oscarBravo wrote: »

She did, and has been called a liar repeatedly and at length ever since.

My question is to those who are assuming that she's lying. The assumption that she's lying seems to be predicated on the belief that she holds a grudge against the republican movement.

Now, she's given a very detailed explanation for why she resents the republican movement, which has been dismissed as all lies, so why don't you tell us what the real reason is?

What she says is that she feels let down because she was raped, and a whole series of terrible things were done about it.

But, again, if you're going to accuse her of lying, the onus is on you to come up with a much more compelling case than the one she has laid out for why she feels so angry towards the republican movement in general, and Gerry Adams in particular.

If you believe Gerry, he has been nothing but helpful and supportive to her. In response, she has baldly contradicted almost all his claims. If everything he's saying is true, why is she so angry at him?

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

No mandatory reporting? Are you taking the piss here. She said she was ordered by the IRA not to tell anyone about the rape - including her own parents.

The way of dealing with this changed for most organisations during the nineties and noughties.

Here is when practices where introduced in SF according to Adams;

Sinn Féin has robust party guidelines and processes on the issues of child protection, allegations of sexual abuse and/or sexual harassment, which were adopted by An Ard Chomhairle in 2006 in line with changes to the law.

Sinn Féin adopted New Child Protection Guidelines in 2010, which were produced in consultation with the HSE and Social Services and the PSNI.

6 years after the alleged incidents.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The victim herself didn't want it reported to the RUC herself and you expect the IRA to do it?
Surreal, but anything that gets a whine about SF in I suppose.

Eh, that is the law of the land. If you become aware of a child sexual abuse incident in the course of your professional duty, you are obliged to report it.

Oh, I forget, SF/IRA vigilantes are not professionals.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

That is rubbish. Listen to what he said. Adams asked Enda would he meet these decent people who had been accused of interrogating Mairia. He actually included the alleged rapist as one of the decent people in the first statement.

He said 'the 4 people', who in the eyes of the law are innocent and who are denying the allegations, which is fully within their rights.
Stop lying Godge.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The way of dealing with this changed for most organisations during the nineties and noughties.

Here is when practices where introduced in SF according to Adams;


6 years after the alleged incidents.

SF didn't give the same latitude to the Church.

Now I think Hello Mary Lou was absolutely right to crucify the Church on this issue, which makes her hypocritical defence of Gerry and the boys even more nauseating.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

He said 'the 4 people', who in the eyes of the law are innocent and who are denying the allegations, which is fully within their rights.
Stop lying Godge.

The people who subjected Mairia Cahill to a kangaroo court are not decent people. If they got off on a technicality rather than a jury decision after full evidence, that does not make them decent people.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

I stated more than once that when it comes to the question on their meeting where she says they talked about the rape and adams says they talked about her 'personal problems' that I dont know who is telling the truth. Where are you going (once again) with this 'lying' malarky? Is that your only angle for debate - that youthink people are accusing her of flat out lying?

People ARE suspicious of her .. granted .. but thats because this has already been to court, which failed as ms cahill withdrew, its 17 years old and seems to have jumped up out of the blue. that makes me suspicious, but I couldnt say I KNOW she's lying, because I dont. I dont know which of them is.

Though - she says they talked about rape then, he said they got to that at a later meeting - at the end of the day thats not what this is based around. Apparently - and she didnt actually say this at all - but some people would have you believe she claims Adams and some IRA men interrogated her. thats makey uppy land stuff that, if you ask me but since its something she never said, it'd be the people insinuating such rubbish would be liars, and not ms cahill.

You obviously know nothing about this case, the court case wasn't 17 years ago, it was much more recent than that. Classic SF/IRA deflection.

marienbad

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The victim herself didn't want it reported to the RUC herself and you expect the IRA to do it?
Surreal, but anything that gets a whine about SF in I suppose.

If you know anything about sexual abuse then you would know reporting it to the relevant authorities is the only way to go .

By not reporting it, it became politicised and how anyone thought in this day and age it would not come out must be living circa 1980.