If its not true will Gerry Adams sue?

mike65

I'm surprised this matter has'nt been raised...

A book on the IRA has just been published by Ed Moloney one of the longest serving journos in Northern Ireland, expert observers reckon the book if a definitve study on the organisation and the times but Gerry Adams denys claims made that he must have been aware of the abduction and murder of mother of 10 Jean McConville as he was a leading member of the West Belfast Brigade of the Provisonal IRA. Should he sue? Would he dare?

http://www.sundayherald.com/print28089

Mike.

DMC

Well, he's hardly going to admit to it, surely? If he come out with "oh it was a long time ago" line, I'll be surprised!

Nope, its going to look like as if it was printed in the National Enquirer; The stars dismiss what they say, but they never sue.

sceptre

Let's put it this way:

Ignoring Adams for a moment, Martin McGuinness has never admitted the full extent of his infolvement with the IRA. Does anyone here think he wasn't a member (even ignoring the extent of his involvement)?

If Gerry sued, he'd pretty much have to prove that the accusations were false. Essentially to knock the assertations totally, he'd have to prove he was never a member of the IRA. The issue of his being refused access to the 1970 SF Ard Fheis (and what happened in the following days) would be examined by journos in public. Every Catholic person over 50 from Ballymurphy would be pulled on the stand for a start.

Ain't gonna happen. Gerry Adams isn't going to be suing anyone.

DMC

sceptre,

Your post just reminded me of the old kids line.....

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. "

That was written just for Adams!

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
If Gerry sued, he'd pretty much have to prove that the accusations were false. Essentially to knock the assertations totally, he'd have to prove he was never a member of the IRA.

Surely the onus of proof lies on the accuser. Adams claims libel/slander, and if these people cannot supply ample proof of his guilt, he is innocent of the allegations and therefore has been maligned.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Surely the onus of proof lies on the accuser. Adams claims libel/slander, and if these people cannot supply ample proof of his guilt, he is innocent of the allegations and therefore has been maligned.

Apologies, bonkey, you're absolutely right. I'm confusing my UK and US law again (author would be protected due to Adams being a public figure in the US, under NY v Sullivan)

This comment on UK law may be of interest, this one on Irish

Meh

Originally posted by sceptre
http://www.cpj.org/attacks96/sreports/ire.html

Interesting article, thanks for the link. Maybe if we didn't gag our investigative journalists with restrictive libel laws, we wouldn't have to spend €20 million on tribunals...