Gerry Adams Maze Escape convictions quashed - time for quid pro quo?

gormdubhgorm

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52646688

No doubt this will be a tremendous propaganda coup for SF. Justice and so on against the British establishment. But I believe much better use could be made of it.

I cannot help thinking that his may be a chance for Republicanism to make thier own gesture towards restoring justice for the likes of Paul Quinn and Maria Cahill. And many others.

I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.

I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.

In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

What bout Michael Collin's? Heard he was in the Ra as well

gormdubhgorm

Izabella Tasteless Shoehorn wrote: »

What bout Michael Collin's? Heard he was in the Ra as well

Is there a point you are trying to make?
Elaborate.

maccored

boys but ye's love SF alright with all these threads. Time to just own up and admit it. Smart how you disguised 'what kind of bollocks is this that a man would have to fight for 40 years to get unjust convictions quashed' with this thread

Truthvader

"British Justice"

More justice than Gerry ever gave to the thousands killed and maimed or to his own - guilty or not guilty- disposed of by his pal stakeknife

And for what?

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

"British Justice"

More justice than Gerry ever gave to the thousands killed and maimed or to his own - guilty or not guilty- disposed of by his pal stakeknife

And for what?

gerry did all that?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.



I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.



I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.



In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

So to shorten your post: Because the British have been proven to have acted wrongly (after 40 years...again!)you want SF to tell you stuff that chimes with your narrative of events and only your narrative?

gormdubhgorm

maccored wrote: »

boys but ye's love SF alright with all these threads. Time to just own up and admit it. Smart how you disguised 'what kind of bollocks is this that a man would have to fight for 40 years to get unjust convictions quashed' with this thread

Which is wrong to wait 40 years for justice. As is my point on Maria Cahill, Paul Quinn or even Bloody Sunday 1972.
Why in republicanism is justice only sought where it suits thier political ends?

Isn't this a chance to show human decency?
And that justice is not only sought by those who have suffered at the hands of the British, but by those who have suffered at the hands of republicans?
Surely it is easy to start with republicans who were victims of republican injustice?
Or does that just get forgotten about and the same people still get protected?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So to shorten your post: Because the British have been proven to have acted wrongly (after 40 years...again!)you want SF to tell you stuff that chimes with your narrative of events and only your narrative?

If you read the post again Francie I am asking why is there no quid pro quo and a movement away from the self-absolution that Republicanism seems to enage in but only when it suits.
I made it quite clear.

A decent human being would do so in my view and a decent organisation who wants to clean itself. As you put it after a 'war'. You do not see it because you have been indoctrinated with the Republican mantra by virtue of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

gormdubhgorm

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Are you lad who got banned off other threads for called anyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed bigot??

Apparently I am your comrade, which called me on numerous occasions to goad me into it. But it was too subtle for the mod in question.
It was not 'anyone'. It was just you, as you refused to engage in normal debate as you are doing on this thread.

If I upset you there is an ignore function on this site. But I will not apologise for it. Similar to how Gerry Adams will never apologise for the IRA. I will never apologise to you because you are proving my point

Also noticed how quick the usual usernames are attracted to this thread. Interesting in itself. I don't how you find the time. Also how fast you were to this thread speaks volumes.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you read the post again Francie I am asking why is there no quid pro quo and a movement away from the self-absolution that Republicanism seems to enage in but only when it suits.
I made it quite clear.

A decent human being would do so in my view and a decent organisation who wants to clean itself. As you put it after a 'war'. You do not see it because you have been indoctrinated with the Republican mantra by virtue of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

Nonsense. You have decided that there are cases to answer and you want them answered in a certain way.

Republicans of all the sides have served more hours in jail for offences they did and didn't do.

Quid pro quo? You are having a laugh here. How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also noticed how quick the usual usernames are attracted to this thread. Interesting itself

Who were you expecting?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who were you expecting?

I don't know. But the speed was commendable I only had it created. Now only if justice for all was just as expedient - was my first thought.

omega42

Adams was exonerated on very specific charges, 2 counts of attempting to escape the maze. He was exonerated because the court found that his detention in the first place was unlawful.

I agree with OP there should be quid pro quo, any member of a paramilitary group that was interned illegally (under Irish law) and then tried to escape the facility they were been held should have their convictions squashed.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense. You have decided that there are cases to answer and you want them answered in a certain way.

Quid pro quo? You are having a laugh here. How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here?

So you are telling me in your world justice is only one sided, justice is only sought from the British soliders. Yet you are the same person who wants to move on from the conflict? How can there be movement if justice is only one sided?

Anyway I will let you think about your reply.
Make it good one.

I am off to watch netflix (not silence of the lambs)

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't know. But the speed was commendable I only had it created. Now only if justice for all was just as expedient - was my first thought.

Why not now call on the British and Unionists to take part in a Truth recovery process?
The only way this stuff can be dealt with IMO.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So you are telling me in your world justice is only one sided, justice is only sought from the British soliders. Yet you are the same person who wants to move on from the conflict? How can there be movement if justice is only one sided?

Anyway I will let you think about your reply.
Make it good one.

I am off to watch netflix (not silence of the lambs)

See my answer to the previous point.

gormdubhgorm

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Cpuld he potentially be in for alot of money on accounts of unfair imprisionment??...quite ironic really



Though i read there could be upto 200 similar cases,gonna develop into an awlful.clusterfcuk

Yes, he could I suppose.

John Hutton

Good to see the British confirm that Adams (and many others!) was illegally jailed and justified in jailbreaking.

Even better to see the usual suspects have an aneurysm about Adams having a completely clean criminal record. An innocent man.

Hopefully some massive cheques incoming.

Odd to see OP argue that the British state should have the same standards etc. as an illegal "terrorist" organisation and that proper justice should only occur based on the actions of said illegal group.

Illuminating to see OP catagorise the Brits and the IRA together.

Beasty

Blaaz_ wrote: »

Are you lad who got banned off other threads for called anyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed bigot??

Threadbanned

Truthvader

maccored wrote: »

gerry did all that?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous; Gerry wasn't in the IRA. Duh.

"It wasn't me, It was the other kids, the bold kids. I didn't ask anyone to.... I don't condone it but I understand why...Jean McConville??? the name rings a bell - give me a minute …Eh....cant remember now, Oh! and we all suffered and I regret

And on it slithers

A cunning, corrupted Bart Simpson

JohnnyFlash

The people who want a truth and reconciliation commission the least are the ones calling for it the most.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you(..........)of your upbringing.
But I don't like any injustice against the rule of law, no matter what colour or creed a person is.

Yeah, your bipartisan attitude is something to behold allright. Sticking a video of a nazi regime member in the same post as you treat of gerry adams, for instance.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The people who want a truth and reconciliation commission the least are the ones calling for it the most.

There is only one way to find out.

Bizarre computation to make.

James Brown

But gormdubhgorm, how does Shergar play into all this?

Maybe the BBC will be pushing his cookbook? Recipes for 'a healthy dinner on the run'?

By getting his convictions quashed he's obviously up to his eyes in something :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why not now call on the British and Unionists to take part in a Truth recovery process?
The only way this stuff can be dealt with IMO.

Ok I'd agree with that. But as you said yourself to move on after a war as you put it is a complex process.
What I see is a chance for SF to make a gesture not towards the British at first. But to Republicans who they view as thier own people who became victims of Republican actions. All SF have to do is give the OK and it will start.
Justice can be sought.
Gerry sought justice and received it?
Do Republicans have to behave as badly as the British or worse to not even giving justice for thier own people.
Because a see a lot of hypocrisy in the likes of Maria Cahill/Paul Quinn not receiving justice.
In the Proclamation of Independence read by Pearse it stated

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens,
and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation
and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally"

Are those only words on a page or do they really mean something to Republicans?
At the moment I SF with a middle class woman from Rathgar who has to wrestle with her conscious when asked about such isssues such as Paul Quinn Maria Cahill. I can see from her body language and tone she wants to tell the truth, she wants to be open, she wants to help. But she is under orders from those unseen higher ups in SF to toe the party line.
It is sad to watch.

I feel rather than show Intransigence (an oft word SF use about the British government). Isn't this an opening for SF to make some practical move towards those who have suffered at the hands of Republicanism. Rather than simply use it as a tool to show the inequality of British justice. It is chance for SF to show that they can show respect and give victims and victim families justice.

Otherwise it just becomes a duplicitous game playing games with words and sounding disingenuous as MaryLou does when she tries to brush off the darker side of republicanism. A spectre which happened a lot more recently than 1972.
Then those in the dail and the majority electorate will be shown that SF are a real party. And not like an organised street gang with secret rules.
I mean SF have shown that led Replubicans opress the very people who they purport to want to set 'free'. Like Cahill, Paul Quinn.

Other situations maybe slightly less serious -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/priory-hall-developer-tom-mcfeely-bound-to-keep-peace-1.3064260

Which occurred not in 1972 but in 2017. Involving former IRA prisoner Tom McFeely.

This is a property developer (which are supposed to be an anethema of SF's ethos) who went bankrupt.

And what did he do in 2012 to try and avoid Bankruptcy? He declared he was a British Citizen!

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/im-a-british-citizen-mcfeely-tells-court-28010682.html

Who is oppressing who?

This is the type of hypocrisy SF and republicanism need to move away from.
And with the Adams court result. It should be a start in the quid pro quo. Small steps to becoming a real democratic party in power in the ROI. Which I assume is what you want.

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

Yeah, your bipartisan attitude is something to behold allright. Sticking a video of a nazi regime member in the same post as you treat of gerry adams, for instance.

If you watch the video you will see Speer wrestling with his conscious. Which reminds a lot of what Mary Lou has to at the moment. When asked the hard questions about republicanism.
Deep down she is an honest woman who wants to tell the truth, but she is prevented from doing so. And has to lower herself to republican double speak.
Instead of being honest.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ok I'd agree with that. But as you said yourself to move on after a war as you put it is a complex process.
What I see is a chance for SF to make a gesture not towards the British at first. But to Republicans who they view as thier own people who became victims of Republican actions. All SF have to do is give the OK and it will start.
Justice can be sought.
Gerry sought justice and recieved it?
Do Republicans have to behave as badly as the British or worse to not even giving justice for thier own people.
Because a see a lot of hyprocisy in the likes of Maria Cahill/Paul Quinn not recieveing justice.
In the Proclamation of Independence read by Pearse it stated

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally"

Are those only words on a page or do they really mean something to Republicans?
At the moment I SF with a middle class woman from Rathgar who has to wrestle with her conscious when asked about such isssues such as Paul Quinn Maria Cahill. I can see from her body language and tone she wants to tell the truth, she wants to be open, she wants to help. But she is under orders from those unseen higher ups in SF to toe the party line.
It is sad to watch.

I feel rather than show Instraigence (an oft word SF use about the British government). Isn't this an opening for SF to make some practical move towards those who have suffered at the hands of Republicanism. Rather than simply use it as a tool to show the inequality of British justice. It is chance for SF to show that they can show respect and give victims and victim families justice.

Otherwise it just becomes a duplicitous game playing games with words and sounding disingenuous as MaryLou does when she tries to brush off the darker side of republicanism. A spectre which happened a lot more recently than 1972.
Then those in the dail and the majority electorate will be shown that SF are a real party. And not like an organised street gang with secret rules.
I mean SF have shown that led Replubicans opress the very people who they purport to want to set 'free'. Like Cahill, Paul Quinn.

Other situations maybe slightly less serious -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/priory-hall-developer-tom-mcfeely-bound-to-keep-peace-1.3064260

Which occurred not in 1972 but in 2017. Involving former IRA prisoner Tom McFeely.

This is a property developer (which are supposed to be an anethema of SF's ethos) who went bankrupt.

And what did he do in 2012 to try and avoid Bankruptcy? He declared he was a British Citizen!

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/im-a-british-citizen-mcfeely-tells-court-28010682.html

Who is oppressing who?

This is the type of hypocrisy SF and republicanism need to move away from.
And with the Adams court result. It should be a start in the quid pro quo. Small steps to becoming a real democratic party in power in the ROI. Which I assume is what you want.

Far as I am concerned SF are a democratic party in the ROI. That is why they got my vote.

I still can't get my head around this 'quid pro quo'.

The British once again get dragged into a court kicking and screaming after 4o years, are found to have acted criminally and just because of that you want SF to change their story on Mairia Cahill and to own up to something the IMC say they were not involved in?

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

Illuminating to see OP catagorise the Brits and the IRA together.

They are/were two groups playing a game with peoples lives when it comes down to it.
I was thinking that it would be chance for SF/IRA/republicanism (whatever you want to call them) to gain the moral moral high ground by letting those in republicanism actually find justice for actions caused by republicanism.
Their own people supposedly from thier own areas. Root out the bad eggs it would make the British look even worse.

Danzy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Gerry Adams Maze convictions quashed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52646688

No doubt this will be a tremendous propaganda coup for SF. Justice and so on against the British establishment. But I believe much better use could be made of it.

I cannot help thinking that his may be a chance for Republicanism to make thier own gesture towards restoring justice for the likes of Paul Quinn and Maria Cahill. And many others.

I believe now is the time for quid pro quo from Republicanism on such issues.

I mean isn't it time republicanism came clean rather than absolving itself and making excuses for horrific actions - where the victims of republicanism have yet to get justice?

I was watching a programme about Albert Speer - of Nazi fame.

I was struck by how a lot of the self-absolution and tricks of the mind to avoid guilt could also be applied to SF. For example Gerry Adams said he was never in the IRA, plays the line that any death is terrible. But at the same time justified death for the republican conflict.

In my view I think this is opportunity for SF to take another step towards growing up and getting its own house in order.
Rather than having poor Mary Lou having to lie and play the party line when it comes to awkward questions on the past. She seems to struggle with it from a conscious point of view. But Gerry Adams has claimed it was not his conscious that such things happened. And it was the British responsibility at the end of the day.

From what I know of Maria Cahill she will never forgive the Provisionals for the peace process.

Nevermind the other wrongs done to her.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If you watch the video you will see Speer wrestling with his conscious. Which reminds a lot of what Mary Lou has to at the moment. When asked the hard questions about republicanism.
Deep down she is an honest woman who wants to tell the truth, but she is prevented from doing so. And has to lower herself to republican double speak.
Instead of being honest.

I'd suggest you're projecting your own subjective views on reality.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Which is wrong to wait 40 years for justice. As is my point on Maria Cahill, Paul Quinn or even Bloody Sunday 1972.
Why in republicanism is justice only sought where it suits thier political ends?

Isn't this a chance to show human decency?
And that justice is not only sought by those who have suffered at the hands of the British, but by those who have suffered at the hands of republicans?
Surely it is easy to start with republicans who were victims of republican injustice?
Or does that just get forgotten about and the same people still get protected?

what has Paul Quinns death got to do with the IRA? Or bloody sunday? Here - I'll get you a box of straws to clutch at

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Far as I am concerned SF are a democratic party in the ROI. That is why they got my vote.

I still can't get my head around this 'quid pro quo'.

The British once again get dragged into a court kicking and screaming after 4o years, are found to have acted criminally and just because of that you want SF to change their story on Mairia Cahill and to own up to something the IMC say they were not involved in?

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

The PSNI/Gardai and The IMC know who did it. I know the rumours and some of Quinn's neighbours.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

Gerry went through the courts and won his case.

The British are doing their bit? Jesus.

How many British soldiers have served a full sentence for crimes committed here? Include all levels of the Army and also those in the british administration.

I bet you 50 quid pro quo's you''ll draw a blank.

Now compare it with 'justice' delivered by the British here over the years.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0502/102820-quinnp/

'Good republicans' know who did it but they are eitther afraid to come forward or are being protected.

SF made sure to keep the pressure on the British to get Gerry's case quashed.
Surely with much more less endeavor SF could put pressure on republicans who harmed thier own?
That would be a start. Honesty human decency.
Or is it better to give half statements and hope it goes away?

As I said SF in my OP surely it is time for quid pro quo and SF clean up Republicanism get the house in order. The British are doing thier bit.
Are SF incapable of doing theirs?

Its already been officially stated the IRA had nothing to do with his death. the actual issue was conor murphy claiming paul quinn had been involved in criminality. get your facts straight

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They are/were two groups playing a game with peoples lives when it comes down to it.
I was thinking that it would be chance for SF/IRA/republicanism (whatever you want to call them) to gain the moral moral high ground by letting those in republicanism actually find justice for actions caused by republicanism.
Their own people supposedly from thier own areas. Root out the bad eggs it would make the British look even worse.

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paul Quinn was dragged kicking and screaming and killed.
................

..which had/has what to do with Gerry Adams?

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

I'd suggest you're projecting your own subjective views on reality.

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

maccored

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

what? Now its MLMDs body language thats at fault?

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about Paul Quinn and even the SCC became very uncomfortable.
You didn't have to be a body language expert to notice the body language and change in pattern of speech. There was also stuttering. She was not composed.
A woman not speaking her mind.

Which is why I think the charade should not go on any further. And SF should do the decent thing and let MaryLou tell the truth.
The Gerry Adams result is the perfect opportuinity make hay while the sun shines.

'SF historic move against rogue republicans and so on.' Even the Indo would struggle to spin it negatively.
That is just my opinion

Because I know if I saw SF becoming more clean, honest and transparent - with thier past. I would be more inclined to vote for them as would many of the electorate.
Which means SF would have more chance of getting in power in DE.

It is why I never understand SF's relevant to out the real bad apples in republicanism and the party?
They might loose hardliners. But logically they would gain votes from some of the middle ground. The ordinary decent people of ROI.

It must warm the hearts of the shinners reading to see such selfless, parental like concern and good wishes for their organisation

FrancieBrady

John Hutton wrote: »

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

Indeed. It did nothing but exacerbate the situation and destroyed many families which fed into the conflict/war.
The lack of care and responsibility displayed over and over by the British here. Shoring up a bigoted and sectarian statelet (they let degenerate into a cesspit) was more important than treating the Irish properly.

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

If you want to go down the road of keeping a ledger, i.e. Brits did this so Republicans should do this etc. you need to be consistent and apply it the other way around too. And if you are honestly interested in truth etc. you cannot start the clock with Adams (you would clearly only be political point scoring if you did).

So, to return to your ledger, the Brits, given their record in Ireland, would have to make amends for many many pages before one could get to a stage where they are "even" and truth can be dished out in a tit for tat manner (which is a terrible idea anyway, justice or truth shouldn't be conditional).

As for moral high ground - Adams has demonstrated he has it here - the British have admitted that he was illegally arrested, jailed (for years) for crimes he did not commit. Furthermore, officials in the British prosecution service warned politicians AT THE TIME, all the way up to the Prime Minister at the time, that the detention was illegal and that prosecutions for trying to escape should not proceed. So the ruling today cannot have been a surprise, they knew it all along but decided to illegally deprive a man of his liberty anyway.

In the face of such blatant disregard for human rights I cannot blame a generation of Irish men and women for concluding that the cap in hand approach was not sufficient and the situation demanded a more firm response.

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What's your point?

John Hutton

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed. It did nothing but exacerbate the situation and destroyed many families which fed into the conflict/war.
The lack of care and responsibility displayed over and over by the British here. Shoring up a bigoted and sectarian statelet (they let degenerate into a cesspit) was more important than treating the Irish properly.

Of course, if one does honestly feel that Adams is a terrible evil monster of a baddy they must ask themselves what role the illegal detention, beatings etc had in his development.

James Brown

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They are/were two groups playing a game with peoples lives when it comes down to it.
I was thinking that it would be chance for SF/IRA/republicanism (whatever you want to call them) to gain the moral moral high ground by letting those in republicanism actually find justice for actions caused by republicanism.
Their own people supposedly from thier own areas. Root out the bad eggs it would make the British look even worse.

I doubt those involved on either side are seeking any absolution from anybody. The only difference is you have one side convicted and charged while the other is deemed legal and democratic. The British don't need any help looking bad.
People found that the IRA were necessary. As times change so to did their roll and the public's apposite for them. They've since stood down and signed up to peace. Trying to hold members of Sinn Fein to account for the actions of another time or expect every SF voter to justify the actions of the IRA is ridiculous.
It took the British 35 years to apologise for Bloody Sunday, I can't see them putting their hand up for the more nefarious behind the scenes atrocities and murders they weren't seen doing. And these are the so called legal and ones with a democratic mandate...
So was Gerry getting his convictions quashed just a spring board for the usual?

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Maybe so but MaryLou's body language when asked questions about (............) people of ROI.

SF view the armed struggle as justified, and thats not going to change. Again, you're projecting your own views on to others.

Jinglejangle69

Great to see justice.

Next id like to see justice for the PIRA victims and the dissappeared.

This is very encouraging news, hopefully every group who committed injustices during the troubles sees justice.

gormdubhgorm

Odhinn wrote: »

SF view the armed struggle as justified, and thats not going to change. Again, you're projecting your own views on to others.

Watch it again I suggest. It played a large part in how I and a large portion of the electorate voted. It was clear that there was a woman tied down by party convention and unable to speak the truth.
Nothing to do with 'armed struggle' but to do with the fact it was all about protecting a core of people within republicanism both by being anti-SCC and unable to do the decent thing in the Paul Quinn case and many others.

If republicanism was willing to root out the bad eggs in republicanism, more people would vote for them in the ROI simple as that. It would look very good in light of the UK's verdict on Adams.

But I get the feeling some in Republicanism admire these bad eggs and live vicariously off them. Giving them a edginess anti-establishment etc. Part of the gang and you shouldn't rat out another gang member for criminality. Some maybe fearful of reporting them and others may protect them.

But I think it is an opportune moment for Republicanism to grow up.
But maybe some don't want to. Justice stops at 'sticking it to the Brits for injustice' etc is fine like the Adams case.

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices, even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works I think.
But obviously you disagree.

John Hutton

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Watch it again I suggest. It played a large part in how I and a large portion of the electorate voted. It was clear that there was a woman tied down by party convention and unable to speak the truth.
Nothing to do with 'armed struggle' but to do with the fact it was all about protecting a core of people within republicanism both by being anti-SCC and unable to do the decent thing in the Paul Quinn case and many others.

If republicanism was willing to root out the bad eggs in republicanism, more people would vote for them in the ROI simple as that. It would look very good in light of the UK's verdict on Adams.

But I get the feeling some in Republicanism admire these bad eggs and live vicariously off them. Giving them a edginess anti-establishment etc. Part of the gang and you shouldn't rat out another gang member for criminality. Some maybe fearful of reporting them and others may protect them.

But I think it is an opportune moment for Republicanism to grow up.
But maybe some don't want to. Justice stops at 'sticking it to the Brits for injustice' etc is fine like the Adams case.

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices, even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works I think.
But obviously you disagree.

What was your point with the video?

gormdubhgorm

John Hutton wrote: »

What was your point with the video?

The Cameron one? That he was willing to recognise injustice and be a decent human being no matter his politics.
That is how I view all politicians. How upfront and honest are they?
Are they genuine people do they speak thier mind?

Odhinn

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Watch it again (.................)

Just keep quiet about the republican injustices even in thier own nationalistic community?
It is not how justice works.

I'd suggest that your notion of "justice" working is a shinner hung out to dry and little else.