Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More Crap on Adams, Mod Warning in OP.

1…2021232526…57

Comments

  • #662
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    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.
    It's not even a subtle point, but yet again utterly beyond your abilities to comprehend.
    She didn't want to go to the RUC herself even after Gerry Adams asked her to.
    And asking the IRA to report crimes to the RUC... sure why don't they just go down to the station and have themselves arrested while they're at it because being in the IRA is against the law? Jeez...


  • #663
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    marienbad wrote: »
    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.
    She didn't want to go to the RUC herself!
    Too complicated for you?


  • #664
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    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.
    Which he didn't say, but again, facts and your rant onslaught aren't really in the same ball park are they.


  • #665
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    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.

    The victim herself said that although she was opposed to the RUC she did eventually decide that she wanted to report the rape to the RUC.

    She said she was told by the IRA that this wasn't an option and that if she did go to the police they would let her alleged rapist (who they had under house arrest at the time) go and that they couldn't guarantee that she wouldn't bump into him 'in a half an hours time or an hours time or whenever you're doing your shopping'. She took that as a threat that they were going to let her rapist loose on her.

    Maria never wanted the IRA involved in this - she didn't expect anything from them.


  • #666
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    There where two men and two women alleged to have interrogated her. have you read their statement this evening?
    They are denying the charge yet again.
    Maria Cahill is going to have to produce proof and allow herself to be cross examined on the subject of these 4 people, as it is alleged she walked rather than face that at the trial.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    She didn't want to go to the RUC herself!
    Too complicated for you?

    There is none so blind as those that cannot see , it makes no difference what she wanted . If you have knowledge of this type of crime it must be reported.

    Don't you see SF, IRA,FF FG etc are all just secondary in these cases , it is actually quite chilling the posters on here can't see this . And if there all known potential child abusers at large on this island because of failure to do so then that is some 'appalling vista'


  • #668
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    Mandatory reporting is still discretionary in the UK and only applies in an educational setting in NI.

    Check your 'laws of the land' before posting.


  • #669
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.
    Well, one of them is lying.

    If you believe Mairia, then Gerry is lying. This explanation is internally consistent. If Gerry is lying about the treatment of Mairia, including lying about his own dealings with her, then it makes sense for her to be angry with him and with the movement as a whole.

    If you believe Gerry, then Mairia is lying. But why? If, as he would have us believe, he and the movement have been completely supportive of her, what does she have to be angry about? What's the missing piece in the puzzle?

    Hence my repeatedly-stated belief that it makes more sense to believe Mairia than Gerry.

    Now, if you believe Gerry, it's because you believe there's something that neither of them is telling us. If you know what that is, please share it. If you don't know what it is, then it's far from clear to me why you believe him.


  • #670
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Mandatory reporting is still discretionary in the UK and only applies in an educational setting in NI.

    Check your 'laws of the land' before posting.

    Forcing somebody not to report is not the same as the absence of mandatory reporting.


  • #671
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Godge wrote: »
    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.

    I'm pretty sure that law didn't apply back then, but tbh, either way, bringing that aspect in is a distraction.

    You're are talking about a dream world where there was no Troubles and the 1969-1994 was a period when unionists voluntarily agreed to power-sharing, stopped gerrymandering and stopped discriminating against nationalists/Catholics in response to peaceful civil rights protests - just out of the Christian charity in their hearts.

    In the real actual world of the Troubles, those from republican areas who reported abuse would have, most likely, been subject to Special Branch or M15 attempts to induce them to become spies (particularly in they were from noted republican families) and would have been ostracised (or worse) in their own communities. Similarly, the idea that a senior IRA commander would have gone into the nearest RUC station and announce, oh, I reckon one of me comrades is a paedo, might want to take a look at him, is just fantasy land dreamworld stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    There where two men and two women alleged to have interrogated her. have you read their statement this evening?
    They are denying the charge yet again.
    Maria Cahill is going to have to produce proof and allow herself to be cross examined on the subject of these 4 people, as it is alleged she walked rather than face that at the trial.

    No this is not the case - as I said to you in my first post- if SF or IRA knew abuse took place and one of their members was involved that is enough.

    After that the damage is done , it is the cover up that always gets you in the end.


  • #673
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,788 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    you are that fixated on when they first mentioned rape - on the first meeting on in a later one? What is the relevance to the IRA, the rape itself and Ms Cahill? You cant say SF were hiding the facts as the case has been investigated already. what exactly is the things that someone is lying about? bar when they first mentioned the word 'rape' (rather than a general personal difficulty). also adams denies insinuating that Ms Cahill enjoyed the experience. strenuously denies that one. I kinda believe him on that, though Ive no way of knowing for certain.

    Oh - as I already said - I have no idea in regards to the meeting and the first mention of rape, who is lying. I said that in the very line you quoted.


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, one of them is lying.

    If you believe Mairia, then Gerry is lying. This explanation is internally consistent. If Gerry is lying about the treatment of Mairia, including lying about his own dealings with her, then it makes sense for her to be angry with him and with the movement as a whole.

    If you believe Gerry, then Mairia is lying. But why? If, as he would have us believe, he and the movement have been completely supportive of her, what does she have to be angry about? What's the missing piece in the puzzle?

    Hence my repeatedly-stated belief that it makes more sense to believe Mairia than Gerry.

    Now, if you believe Gerry, it's because you believe there's something that neither of them is telling us. If you know what that is, please share it. If you don't know what it is, then it's far from clear to me why you believe him.


  • #674
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Forcing somebody not to report is not the same as the absence of mandatory reporting.

    A poster was making the point that Adams and SF should have reported it.


  • #675
    ghostdancer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,539 ✭✭✭ghostdancer


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, one of them is lying.

    If you believe Mairia, then Gerry is lying. This explanation is internally consistent. If Gerry is lying about the treatment of Mairia, including lying about his own dealings with her, then it makes sense for her to be angry with him and with the movement as a whole.

    If you believe Gerry, then Mairia is lying. But why? If, as he would have us believe, he and the movement have been completely supportive of her, what does she have to be angry about? What's the missing piece in the puzzle?

    Hence my repeatedly-stated belief that it makes more sense to believe Mairia than Gerry.

    Now, if you believe Gerry, it's because you believe there's something that neither of them is telling us. If you know what that is, please share it. If you don't know what it is, then it's far from clear to me why you believe him.

    why do you believe Maria?

    a court has not found her accusations to be true.
    she refused to give evidence in court.
    the people that she accused of her supposed questioning were not found guilty.
    Cahill has given interviews to the press in the past and seemingly at no point were these accusations against Adams brought up.


  • #676
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    maccored wrote: »
    you are that fixated on when they first mentioned rape - on the first meeting on in a later one? What is the relevance to the IRA, the rape itself and Ms Cahill? You cant say SF were hiding the facts as the case has been investigated already. what exactly is the things that someone is lying about? bar when they first mentioned the word 'rape' (rather than a general personal difficulty).

    You're seriously trying to frame Mairia's and Gerry's difference in positions as a minor semantic quibble over a single meeting?

    Why do you think Mairia is so angry with Gerry Adams?


  • #677
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    porsche959 wrote: »
    In the real actual world of the Troubles, those from republican areas who reported abuse would have, most likely, been subject to Special Branch or M15 attempts to induce them to become spies (particularly in they were from noted republican families) and would have been ostracised (or worse) in their own communities.

    Ah, why didn't you say that there might have been negative consequences for alleged child rapists.
    That makes a big difference.


  • #678
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ghostdancer wrote: »
    why do you believe Maria?

    As I've explained, her position is internally consistent.

    Why do you believe Gerry?

    Why do you think Mairia is angry at Gerry?


  • #679
    ghostdancer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,539 ✭✭✭ghostdancer


    marienbad wrote: »
    No this is not the case - as I said to you in my first post- if SF or IRA knew abuse took place and one of their members was involved that is enough.

    After that the damage is done , it is the cover up that always gets you in the end.
    a court of law found no evidence to back up Cahill's claims of abuse.

    there was no evidence against the people that Cahill accused of a "cover-up", and Cahill would not give evidence in court to support her claims.


  • #680
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Maria never wanted the IRA involved in this - she didn't expect anything from them.
    Makes you wonder why she wanted Gerry Adams round to her house then. Must be true he never had anything to do with the IRA I guess.


  • #681
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ghostdancer wrote: »
    a court of law found no evidence to back up Cahill's claims of abuse.

    there was no evidence against the people that Cahill accused of a "cover-up", and Cahill would not give evidence in court to support her claims.

    This is all irrelevant to the points I am making.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    A poster was making the point that Adams and SF should have reported it.

    Well that was hardly going to happen when the military side of the organisation were actively trying to prevent it from being reported.


  • #683
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,695 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    maccored wrote: »
    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.

    This is the line that Sinn Féin seem to be spreading covertly. Yes I agree, ordinarily I too would be suspicious if the main witness for the prosecution refused to testify at the last minute. However it is really important to remember that Mairia Cahill has long said that she was not at all happy with the way the investigation and court case was handled. Those concerns have been serious enough to warrant the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to launch a full independent inquiry on the entire matter. The Police Ombudsman is also investigation the handling of all of this.

    So it is not acceptable to try and say that this is just some ordinary case.

    Concerns about politicization of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland have been often aired in the last decade. This is not surprising when you consider that just this year Martin McGuinness made a thinly veiled threat to the peace process following the arrest of Adams. Anyone that has watched the BBC Spotlight program will know that there seemed to be serious deficiencies in the investigation and preparation for the court case. I wouldn't be too confident that proper justice was done. After taking that into account I am not at all that surprised as to why Mairia Cahill decided not to testify. If her aim was to finally make the world aware that senior members of the IRA were involved in sexual abuses, something Adams himself has acknowledged, then she has achieved that.


  • #684
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    maccored wrote: »
    you are that fixated on when they first mentioned rape - on the first meeting on in a later one? What is the relevance to the IRA, the rape itself and Ms Cahill? You cant say SF were hiding the facts as the case has been investigated already. what exactly is the things that someone is lying about? bar when they first mentioned the word 'rape' (rather than a general personal difficulty). also adams denies insinuating that Ms Cahill enjoyed the experience. strenuously denies that one. I kinda believe him on that, though Ive no way of knowing for certain.

    That is what I don't get, the IRA intimidated her,ordered her not to go to the police, SF covered it all up and facilitated his flight. And the freaking rapist and 4 interrogators end up in court??

    Pretty freaking incompetent intimidation and cover-up wasn't it? :D


  • #685
    ghostdancer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,539 ✭✭✭ghostdancer


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I've explained, her position is internally consistent.

    Why do you believe Gerry?

    Why do you think Mairia is angry at Gerry?
    i never said i believe Gerry.

    so you believe Cahill because she has repeated the same accusation over and over?
    even though a court of law has found no merit in her accusations?

    why do you not trust the court's view?


  • #686
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Makes you wonder why she wanted Gerry Adams round to her house then. Must be true he never had anything to do with the IRA I guess.

    I presumed she hoped that the political side of the house might have some influence with the military side - with Adams having a foot in both sides.


  • #687
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ghostdancer wrote: »
    i never said i believe Gerry.

    so you believe Cahill because she has repeated the same accusation over and over?
    even though a court of law has found no merit in her accusations?

    why do you not trust the court's view?

    I don't think anyone doubts she was abused .


  • #688
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    If her aim was to finally make the world aware that senior members of the IRA were involved in sexual abuses, something Adams himself has acknowledged, then she has achieved that.
    Finally? Why would we suspect the IRA of having precisely zero sex abusers in the first place?


  • #689
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,788 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why do you think Mairia is so angry with Gerry Adams?

    You tell me. Why is she so angry with Gerry Adams? ive been trying to figure that out.


  • #690
    ghostdancer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,539 ✭✭✭ghostdancer


    marienbad wrote: »
    This is all irrelevant to the points I am making.
    it is relevant because you assert that abuse took place, as did a cover-up.

    a court of law did not find either to have occurred based on what Maria Cahill alleged.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I presumed she hoped that the political side of the house might have some influence with the military side - with Adams having a foot in both sides.
    Hang on, so Adams was or wasn't in the IRA?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement