Mairia Cahill vindicated

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Irish Times editorial desk have shown no respect to Mairia Cahill?


Strange twist of logic, that.

No, my finger is primarily pointed to you.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mary-lou-mcdonald-says-sf-records-not-available-on-mairia-cahills-alleged-abuser-37329395.html

"Mary Lou McDonald said she does not know if the man accused of sexually abusing Mairia Cahill was a Sinn Fein member as the party’s “record keeping was not as it is now 20 years ago”.

In a bizarre response to RUC intelligence claims that Martin Morris was suspended from Sinn Féin because he was suspected of abusing children, Ms McDonald said she could not discuss the claims because she was not a “spook” or a “spy”."

A familiar story. The Catholic Church destroyed records as well, and could not say what happened about certain allegations that were made, or why priests were moved around.

FrancieBrady

Sinn Fein have said there was no cover up.
The actual evidence we have is that a succession of people who dealt with Cahill did so out of concern and there is written evidence of this. Cahill resisted going to the RUC and asked for the IRA to intervene. Gerry Adams has said that the IRA did police nationalist areas and that they were totally ill equipped and wrong to be dealing with abuse cases.

Other than words, there is no evidence of a cover up.

So were do we go from there?
You cannot expect people to admit to something that didn't happen.

Turnipman

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/mary-lou-mcdonald-says-sf-records-not-available-on-mairia-cahills-alleged-abuser-37329395.html

"Mary Lou McDonald said she does not know if the man accused of sexually abusing Mairia Cahill was a Sinn Fein member as the party’s “record keeping was not as it is now 20 years ago”.

In a bizarre response to RUC intelligence claims that Martin Morris was suspended from Sinn Féin because he was suspected of abusing children, Ms McDonald said she could not discuss the claims because she was not a “spook” or a “spy”."

A familiar story. The Catholic Church destroyed records as well, and could not say what happened about certain allegations that were made, or why priests were moved around.

Not her biggest fan, but fair dues to Mary Lou for personally going through every 20 year old file in Sinn Fein's extensive West Belfast archive.

Alternatively, she's talking through her ample backside.

blanch152

Turnipman wrote: »

Not her biggest fan, but fair dues to Mary Lou for personally going through every 20 year old file in Sinn Fein's extensive West Belfast archive.

Alternatively, she's talking through her ample backside.

What keeps astounding me is the bare-faced cheek of those who on the one hand claim to believe Mairia Cahill and at the exact same time loudly proclaim that there was no cover-up by Sinn Fein.

Those two positions are mutually incompatible, yet there are several posters on here who repeatedly claim they believe both mirroring the public position of Mary Lou and the likes.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What keeps astounding me is the bare-faced cheek of those who on the one hand claim to believe Mairia Cahill and at the exact same time loudly proclaim that there was no cover-up by Sinn Fein.

Those two positions are mutually incompatible, yet there are several posters on here who repeatedly claim they believe both mirroring the public position of Mary Lou and the likes.

Because Mairia Cahill's rape and what allegedly happened many years later are two separate things. Carried out allegedly by different people.

You can always tell those whose agenda is not justice for an alleged rape and a victim but is in fact to try and politically capitalise on the allegations against another political party and the tired campaign - get Gerry. :rolleyes:

They will always cry 'victim blaming' if you question Cahill's allegations about what happened after the alleged rape and try to keep them one and the same thing.
They aren't and no amount of finger pointing will make them so.

Cahill's allegations about a SF cover up have no evidence to back them up and in fact there is written evidence to suggest she is lying about it - in that she herself thanks members of SF for their help.
There is also the not insignificant fact that she requested that the IRA get involved in her case rather than go to the police.
So afraid is the Irish Times and other media of being labelled 'victim blamers' that they will not question her on these facts.
The Sindo continues to give her a platform to make allegations, as per usual.

marieholmfan

Francie - I find it hard to believe that you are not a Sinn Fein supporter.

maccored

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You mean.like SF/IRA due process?

what has SF of 2018 got to do with the IRA of 20 years ago? live in the past much?

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

What keeps astounding me is the bare-faced cheek of those who on the one hand claim to believe Mairia Cahill and at the exact same time loudly proclaim that there was no cover-up by Sinn Fein.

Those two positions are mutually incompatible, yet there are several posters on here who repeatedly claim they believe both mirroring the public position of Mary Lou and the likes.

Im not too sure what youve been reading but even MLMCD says she doesnt doubt Ms Cahills claims. Its the SF coverup that I'd like to understand - what exactly did they cover up?

Timberrrrrrrr

maccored wrote: »

what has SF of 2018 got to do with the IRA of 20 years ago? live in the past much?

Because the IRA army council still run SF, Not that yourself or any of the other SF acolytes would ever agree/admit to.

James Brown

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because the IRA army council still run SF, Not that yourself or any of the other SF acolytes would ever agree/admit to.

I've reservations about SF, like I do most parties, but this is baloney IMO. I'm sure there are many former IRA folk affiliated with/running SF. Having fully backed the GFA, what of it? I'd be more concerned about FG/Lab using Ms. Cahill as political fodder making her a senator despite her being against the GFA. Where are FG/Lab's values in this? Not to mention, everyone forgetting the PSNI/RUC's role, or lack of interest to score points at SF. Talk about morals and ethics.

Turnipman

maccored wrote: »

what has SF of 2018 got to do with the IRA of 20 years ago? live in the past much?

Much the same wolves, only today they're in sheeps' clothing.

maccored

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because the IRA army council still run SF, Not that yourself or any of the other SF acolytes would ever agree/admit to.

and you got this from ...... the indo? the sun? where did you get this gem of a bit of info? whatever happened to having to back up what you say in this Politics forum?

maccored

Turnipman wrote: »

Much the same wolves, only today they're in sheeps' clothing.

sorry - what are you talking about? which version was the wolves and which (then or now) wears sheeps clothing ... like come on .... thats waffle

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

What keeps astounding me is the bare-faced cheek of those who on the one hand claim to believe Mairia Cahill and at the exact same time loudly proclaim that there was no cover-up by Sinn Fein.

Those two positions are mutually incompatible, yet there are several posters on here who repeatedly claim they believe both mirroring the public position of Mary Lou and the likes.

i think youre getting two things mixed up - the claim of rape and the apparent 'cover up'. Can you explain what was being covered up?

James Brown

maccored wrote: »

i think youre getting two things mixed up - the claim of rape and the apparent 'cover up'. Can you explain what was being covered up?

I think Ms. Cahill choosing the IRA over the authorities, is causing (intended?) confusion. The inference being the IRA didn't go to the RUC the minute they were approached by Ms. Cahill?
If 'cover up' is not bringing it to the recognised authorities, any 'cover up' is Ms. Cahill's own doing it would seem.
Not giving the allegations their full due is on the RUC/PSNI.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think Ms. Cahill choosing the IRA over the authorities, is causing (intended?) confusion. The inference being the IRA didn't go to the RUC the minute they were approached by Ms. Cahill?
If 'cover up' is not bringing it to the recognised authorities, any 'cover up' is Ms. Cahill's own doing it would seem.
Not giving the allegations their full due is on the RUC/PSNI.

Adams claimed the kangaroo court never happened. Do you still believe that?

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Adams claimed the kangaroo court never happened. Do you still believe that?

Personally I'd expect there was.
It doesn't matter either way in respect of a cover up. How badly they handled it is a different conversation.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Personally I'd expect there was.
It doesn't matter either way in respect of a cover up. How badly they handled it is a different conversation.

Well it's covering up the extent of their involvement in the situation.

Gerry lied about it because it was bad PR that a rape victim and her alledged abuser were to be placed in a room together and judged based on their respective body language with the possibility of an execution as punishment.

SF then conspired to change the narrative to a simple approach to SF hierachy that led to a recommendation to go to social services or the PNSI.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think Ms. Cahill choosing the IRA over the authorities, is causing (intended?) confusion. The inference being the IRA didn't go to the RUC the minute they were approached by Ms. Cahill?
If 'cover up' is not bringing it to the recognised authorities, any 'cover up' is Ms. Cahill's own doing it would seem.
Not giving the allegations their full due is on the RUC/PSNI.

Yes, blame the young victim, why don't you?

The reality is that there were adults in Sinn Fein dealing with this issue who should have known better. And anyway, Mairia Cahill didn't choose the IRA, she went to Gerry Adams, who turned the issue over to the IRA.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I've reservations about SF, like I do most parties, but this is baloney IMO. I'm sure there are many former IRA folk affiliated with/running SF. Having fully backed the GFA, what of it? I'd be more concerned about FG/Lab using Ms. Cahill as political fodder making her a senator despite her being against the GFA. Where are FG/Lab's values in this? Not to mention, everyone forgetting the PSNI/RUC's role, or lack of interest to score points at SF. Talk about morals and ethics.

maccored wrote: »

and you got this from ...... the indo? the sun? where did you get this gem of a bit of info? whatever happened to having to back up what you say in this Politics forum?

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/george-hamiltons-assessment-of-ira-puts-heat-on-sinn-fein-36966676.html

The Chief Constable of the PSNI says that the IRA Army Council still exists. Do you have a link that proves it doesn't?

blanch152

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKNAaP1HkHA&feature=youtu.be


This is a Spotlight interview with Mairia Cahill, required viewing for anyone with an interest in her case.


This is also an interesting article:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/09/19/do-we-still-have-a-dirty-peace-in-which-investigation-of-child-rape-was-seemingly-deferred-to-the-ira/

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Well it's covering up the extent of their involvement in the situation.

Gerry lied about it because it was bad PR that a rape victim and her alledged abuser were to be placed in a room together and judged based on their respective body language with the possibility of an execution as punishment.

SF then conspired to change the narrative to a simple approach to SF hierachy that led to a recommendation to go to social services or the PNSI.

That's the other conversation I was talking about.
No, it's not the same at all. How they handled it is one thing, a cover up suggests they tried to sweep it under the carpet, when they followed Ms. Cahill's lead on attempting to deal with it themselves.
If you are an organisation deemed illegal and investigating within your organisation at the behest of the alleged victim, not going to the RUC is hardly a cover up scenario.
So there was a narrative? Poor handling and chalk up poor cover up? Folk are tripping over themselves. If only the faux supporters of the morally just held the law of the land in half as much regard and standard as they expect from and hold an illegal organisation and affiliated political party to.
In short PSNI/RUC found wanting, 'what eves', IRA and SF, 'I'm aghast!', it doesn't wash.
The whole narrative here is the joke.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's the other conversation I was talking about.
No, it's not the same at all. How they handled it is one thing, a cover up suggests they tried to sweep it under the carpet, when they followed Ms. Cahill's lead on attempting to deal with it themselves.
If you are an organisation deemed illegal and investigating within your organisation at the behest of the alleged victim, not going to the RUC is hardly a cover up scenario.

They tried to cover up what actually happened. Adams lied about the kangaroo court in 2014.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

They tried to cover up what actually happened. Adams lied about the kangaroo court in 2014.

He may have tried to make the narrative more positive for both himself and his party. That's possibly telling lies. A cover up would be suggesting nothing happened and Ms. Cahill made no allegations. Or are we twisting the term 'cover up' to suit this strawman thread? Maybe a man with two pints told him there wasn't?

Considering the RUC/PSNI are the alleged law and order party in all of this the lack of criticism and attention toward SF smells badly of political point scoring.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He may have tried to make the narrative more positive for both himself and his party. That's possibly telling lies. A cover up would be suggesting nothing happened and Ms. Cahill made no allegations. Or are we twisting the term 'cover up' to suit this strawman thread? Maybe a man with two pints told him there wasn't?

Considering the RUC/PSNI are the alleged law and order party in all of this the lack of criticism and attention toward SF smells badly of political point scoring.

They covered up how they handled the situation , how is that a strawman. She layed out a timeline of events and Adams /SF denied her claims which we now know to be the true account.

jh79

Cover up definition;
1.
an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, blame the young victim, why don't you?

The reality is that there were adults in Sinn Fein dealing with this issue who should have known better. And anyway, Mairia Cahill didn't choose the IRA, she went to Gerry Adams, who turned the issue over to the IRA.

No. Mairia Cahill only met Adams for the first of several meetings in 2000. The IRA's own investigations started the previous year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29786451

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

They covered up how they handled the situation , how is that a strawman. She layed out a timeline of events and Adams /SF denied her claims which we now know to be the true account.

jh79 wrote: »

Cover up definition;
1.
an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.

Adams and likely others may have attempted to try make their involvement seem better than it may have been. Not cover up material IMO. Saying there's no allegations, nothing happened, would be a cover up.

I await the concerned(s) take on the PSNI's involvement......I suppose they've no party standing.
It's like Cameron apologising for Bloody Sunday being a debate about McGuinness :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

They covered up how they handled the situation , how is that a strawman. She layed out a timeline of events and Adams /SF denied her claims which we now know to be the true account.

Letters exist and were due to be shown in evidence in the aborted trial that showed that Mairia Cahill was extremely grateful to members of SF for how they helped her.
She threatened to sue when one of the defendants talked to the media about them.
They back the consistent claim from others in SF that they tried to help her.
Mary Lou, like Gerry Adams before her have said that maybe they didn't do enough and regretted that mandatory reporting was not a feature.
The only one I can see attempting to cover up the details of this case is the person threatening to sue and supress the opportunity for you, me and media from examining ALL the evidence surrounding what SF did and didn't do.

Remember too when considering who was talking out of the side of their mouths with regards to abuse victims that Enda and his government and Michael and his party before him were fighting an abuse victim (Louise O'Keefe) all the way to the highest court in Europe.

Don't believe all you are told or see (concerned TD's in photo ops) with regard to this. There are many agendas.