Death of Liam Adams

blanch152 · 25-02-2019 08:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have had many disputes about this man on here. A man I have condemned from the start. I condemn him again for what he did.
I have basic humanity for politicians of all creeds and backgrounds caught up in family situations and the problems they can cause and I don't comment on them if I am satisfied that they would not make the same mistakes again.

At one point we were led to be believe by 'upstanding politicians' like Kenny, Martin, Regina Doherty that SF was infested by sex abusers and paedophiles but of course the huge numbers claimed never materialised in reality, but those upstanding politicians knew what they were doing as did certain posters here. The old, throw enough dirt and some of it will stick trick.
I see some of them back to throw some more dirt in a valiant effort to finally get Gerry by dancing on the grave of a man whose victim they never really cared about to begin with. Like The RUC they are more interested in Gerry Adams than anything else. Pathetic.

Ah yes, I won't defend the man, but I will attack anyone who says a bad word about a good republican like Liam and his brother.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2015/09/14/the-liam-adams-trial-why-gerry-adams-did-not-testify-at-second-hearing/

The GFA was 1998, why didn't Gerry go to the police when his brother admitted the abuse to him in 2000?

All of the blather about unacceptable policing holds no water when you look at the facts. There was a ceasefire in 2000, nothing holding Gerry back from reporting it. He could claim that in 1987, the accusation from Aine Adams was uncorroborated, no such luck in 2000.

You have to remember that these events and this knowledge didn't occur during the 1970s when the Troubles were at their height.

Your Face · 25-02-2019 08:13PM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Nobody in the Republican movement is defending the douchebag.

Read the thread you posted on.

Also, calling he a douchebag takes away from what he actually was - a child rapist protected by the republican movement.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 08:14PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, I won't defend the man, but I will attack anyone who says a bad word about a good republican like Liam and his brother.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2015/09/14/the-liam-adams-trial-why-gerry-adams-did-not-testify-at-second-hearing/

The GFA was 1998, why didn't Gerry go to the police when his brother admitted the abuse to him in 2000?

All of the blather about unacceptable policing holds no water when you look at the facts. There was a ceasefire in 2000, nothing holding Gerry back from reporting it. He could claim that in 1987, the accusation from Aine Adams was uncorroborated, no such luck in 2000.

You have to remember that these events and this knowledge didn't occur during the 1970s when the Troubles were at their height.

:rolleyes: Gerry has left the stage blanch. You are not going to get him. He has no case to answer according to police, and has addressed all the above.

It is over now, Liam is dead, allow his victim some peace to deal with it.

irishgrover · 25-02-2019 08:14PM

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Nobody in the Republican movement is defending the douchebag.

are you really that deluded?
They put him in a ****ing youth club after the fact......
It takes a lot of effort to make the catholic church look good when it comes to protecting their own...

25-02-2019 08:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, I won't defend the man, but I will attack anyone who says a bad word about a good republican like Liam and his brother.

https://thebrokenelbow.com/2015/09/14/the-liam-adams-trial-why-gerry-adams-did-not-testify-at-second-hearing/

The GFA was 1998, why didn't Gerry go to the police when his brother admitted the abuse to him in 2000?

All of the blather about unacceptable policing holds no water when you look at the facts. There was a ceasefire in 2000, nothing holding Gerry back from reporting it. He could claim that in 1987, the accusation from Aine Adams was uncorroborated, no such luck in 2000.

You have to remember that these events and this knowledge didn't occur during the 1970s when the Troubles were at their height.

Not to sound like one of those tedious two-handed bystanders (on the one hand...), BUT, ON THE ONE HAND (!)

Adam's behaviour was unacceptable, and most SF people seem totally unwilling to recognise that his inaction was flawed, given the timeline of events that you describe.

On the other hand, there are a minority of people who are only too delighted to use this awful case as a means to attack Sinn Fein. That's a really cynical, and I daresay exploitative line to take.

It is an irritation that people will inevitably play politics with this issue, but whatever their motivations - their bottom line is nevertheless correct. What Gerry Adams did (at least, after the peace process) was just as bad as what senior clerics did in protecting their brothers-in-Christ, paedophile priests.

The extent to which his party faithful will go in his defence is bizarre, it borders on hero-worship.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 08:28PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not to sound like one of those tedious two-handed bystanders (on the one hand...), BUT, ON THE ONE HAND (!)

Adam's behaviour was unacceptable, and most SF people seem totally unwilling to recognise that his inaction was flawed, given the timeline of events that you describe.

On the other hand, there are a minority of people who are only too delighted to use this awful case as a means to attack Sinn Fein. That's a really cynical, and I daresay exploitative line to take.

It is an irritation that people will inevitably play politics with this issue, but whatever their motivations - they're correct. What he did (at least, after the peace process) was just as bad as what senior clerics did in protecting their brothers-inChrist, paedophile priests.

The extent to which his party faithful will go in his defence is bizarre, it borders on hero-worship.

I'm not party faithful or a party member and I have said what Gerry Adams did was wrong, but so did Gerry himself.
He would do certain things differently if he had to deal with it again. That is what I meant by having a humane reaction to somebody caught in a difficult family situation.
You can accept his explanation and apology or not, I suppose.

I don't think it bears any relation to the CC who did it again and again with various priests or to the likes of Kenny who fought Louise O'Keefe's attempts to protect children all the way to the European courts.
Many many organisations have had issues around child protection and taking victims/complainants seriously. Hopefully those days are over.
Must check if the government have introduced the recommendations of the European Court verdict in Louise O'Keefe's case yet.

25-02-2019 08:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not party faithful or a party member and I have said what Gerry Adams did was wrong, but so did Gerry himself.
He would do certain things differently if he had to deal with it again. That is what I meant by having a humane reaction to somebody caught in a difficult family situation.
You can accept his explanation and apology or not, I suppose.

I don't think it bears any relation to the CC who did it again and again with various priests...

That's fair enough, but perhaps what most irks people is the apparent lack of criticism of Adams from the SF party and its grassroots. They are an incredibly cohesive party who tend to defend the party with (no pun intended) military adherence to the official narrative.

Your second point is very well-made, and I agree. Whatever about doing it once for a family member, there's no comparison to doing it systematically, as the Bishops did. Unless Adams had previous knowledge of what Mairia Cahill went through, and I don't know whether to believe the party's explanations there, or Cahill's.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 08:37PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's fair enough, but perhaps what most irks people is the apparent lack of criticism of Adams from the SF party and its grassroots. They are an incredibly cohesive party who tend to defend the party with (no pun intended) military adherence to the official narrative.

Your second point is very well-made, and I agree. Whatever about doing it once for a family member, there's no comparison to doing it systematically, as the Bishops did. Unless Adams had previous knowledge of what Mairia Cahill went through, and I don't know whether to believe the party's explanations there, or Cahill's.

5 people willingly turned up at court with the intention of defending themselves in that case, so I don't know what happened either. We may never know as getting a fair trial would be almost impossible.

klaaaz · 25-02-2019 08:39PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Unless Adams had previous knowledge of what Mairia Cahill went through, and I don't know whether to believe the party's explanations there, or Cahill's.

Mairia Cahill once stood for dissident republicans, the kind that we know have been anti peace process. Yet she was was coveted by the media and political parties in Dublin especially by Labour ending up as a senator in the unelected Seanad.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 08:44PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Mairia Cahill once stood for dissident republicans, the kind that we know have been anti peace process. Yet she was was coveted by the media and political parties in Dublin especially by Labour ending up as a senator in the unelected Seanad.

The cynical political equivalent of what is going on here, using a potential victim and victims as a stick to beat their nemesis - Gerry and SF. Remember Regina Doherty and her 42 pending cases of abuse?

25-02-2019 08:53PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Mairia Cahill once stood for dissident republicans, the kind that we know have been anti peace process. Yet she was was coveted by the media and political parties in Dublin especially by Labour ending up as a senator in the unelected Seanad.

The Seanad is elected, as I'm sure you well know.

Claiming otherwise is a bit like claiming that the US President isn't elected.

But the biggest fallacy in your post is that Cahill's affiliations with extremist groups somehow detract from what (it is admitted by SF) she experienced. There is no way that's a valid argument; I don't care is she burned the tricolour on O'Connell Street, it doesn't take away from the fact that an older man preyed on her.

Defending that, or trying to dismiss it, is exactly why people have concerns about SF's track record regarding abuse.

Wheeliebin30 · 25-02-2019 09:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The cynical political equivalent of what is going on here, using a potential victim and victims as a stick to beat their nemesis - Gerry and SF. Remember Regina Doherty and her 42 pending cases of abuse?

Yeah Sinn Féin never use people or victims to best their nemesis with.

See Margaret Cash, Erica Fleming, victims of cervical check etc etc

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:01PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Seanad is elected, as I'm sure you well know.

Claiming otherwise is a bit like claiming that the US President isn't elected.

But the biggest fallacy in your post is that Cahill's affiliations with extremist groups somehow detract from what (it is admitted by SF) she experienced. There is no way that's a valid argument; I don't care is she burned the tricolour on O'Connell Street, it doesn't take away from the fact that an older man preyed on her.

Defending that, or trying to dismiss it, is exactly why people have concerns about SF's track record regarding abuse.

Nobody is defending that, if that is what happened. I believe Mairia Cahill as far it goes...her version, but as a democrat I have to accept that her accused attended court with every intention of defending himself as did the 5 others involved/named.

Again, a difficult case with no easy resolution. I think the way she was used by southern politicians and media to attack their nemesis was disgusting and demeaning.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:05PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah Sinn Féin never use people or victims to best their nemesis with.

See Margaret Cash, Erica Fleming, victims of cervical check etc etc

I am not aware of the bolded two. Raising issues around cervical check and the failures there would be part and parcel of what I expect politicians to do.
When you start outraging about 42 cases of abuse pending and none of them materialise though or pose on the steps of the Dail with an alleged victim while you are fighting another all the way to the European court, you are being politically opportune, which is wholly different.

JohnnyFlash · 25-02-2019 09:08PM

Francie, yet again you are on here, determined to have the last word so you can xlaimsome sort of victory (one that exists very much in your own head), while attempting to defend the indefensible.

Liam Adams groomed, raped, and threatened his own daughter. That daughter went to her uncle, Gerry Adams, and told him this. Adams took this on board, moved his brother south of the border to work with kids, and then claimed he forgot about this.

And here you are engaging in classic whataboutery - doing that weird moral equivalence stuff you so love. You'll get a few thanks from Davycc and Nodin, and quote everyone to death. Can you possible see how how this might be counterproductive?

25-02-2019 09:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is defending that, if that is what happened. I believe Mairia Cahill as far it goes...her version, but as a democrat I have to accept that her accused attended court with every intention of defending himself as did the 5 others involved/named.

This resulted in a former DPP for England & Wales conducting in an Inquiry in which he said that Mairia Cahill's loss of confidence with the DPP/PPS was justified, and that she was not at all to blame for their failings.

It's actually quite depressing when people attempt to downplay the wrongdoing of former IRA volunteers, their sexual abuse of young people, and their associates within SF who oversaw it. The party leadership has acknowledged the wrongdoing, but a large amount of individuals still attempt to dismiss it in a way that I suggest you are now doing.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:11PM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Francie, yet again you are on here, determined to have the last word so you can xlaimsome sort of victory (one that exists very much in your own head), while attempting to defend the indefensible.

Liam Adams groomed, raped, and threatened his own daughter. That daughter went to her uncle, Gerry Adams, and told him this. Adams took this on board, moved his brother south of the border to work with kids, and then claimed he forgot about this.

And here you are engaging in classic whataboutery - doing that weird moral equivalence stuff you so love. You'll get a few thanks from Davycc and Nodin, and quote everyone to death. Can you possible see how how this might be counterproductive?

You don't like a counter argument. We get it. Have you a point otherwise?

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:20PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This resulted in a former DPP for England & Wales conducting in an Inquiry in which he said that Mairia Cahill's loss of confidence with the DPP/PPS was justified, and that she was not at all to blame for their failings.

It's actually quite depressing when people attempt to downplay the wrongdoing of former IRA volunteers, their sexual abuse of young people, and their associates within SF who oversaw it. The party leadership has acknowledged the wrongdoing, but a large amount of individuals still attempt to dismiss it in a way that I suggest you are now doing.

I have even said here, I accept G. Adams did wrong in his brothers case?

Why have you ignored the fact that 5 people turned up at court to 'defend' themselves. You are either a democrat or you aren't.
I don't know, and I maintain, nobody posting here, knows what exactly happened in that case. We know the police messed it up.

klaaaz · 25-02-2019 09:22PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Seanad is elected, as I'm sure you well know.

Claiming otherwise is a bit like claiming that the US President isn't elected.

But the biggest fallacy in your post is that Cahill's affiliations with extremist groups somehow detract from what (it is admitted by SF) she experienced. There is no way that's a valid argument; I don't care is she burned the tricolour on O'Connell Street, it doesn't take away from the fact that an older man preyed on her.

Defending that, or trying to dismiss it, is exactly why people have concerns about SF's track record regarding abuse.

Eh, the vast majority of the Irish population do not have a vote to the Seanad, hence it's not democratic. Everyone in the US can vote for or against their president.

I think you don't understand, Ms Cahill has been used as a political football down here by politicians who conveniently overlooked her associations with dissident republicans in a way to attack SF. Double standards.

TeaBagMania · 25-02-2019 09:22PM

Gael23 wrote: »

This is not a newsworthy story.

He should be cremated and then off with the rubbish

Should be cremated and then have his ashes flushed down the toilet

Would have rather seen a fellow inmate stomp his head in a long time ago

Hannibal_Smith · 25-02-2019 09:22PM

Just read the article in the guardian

Áine said the politician brushed off her request to keep her father away from children. “Gerry told me that was Liam’s way of trying to make up to the community for what he done to me.”

Its really hard to digest stories of child sex abuse where the victim tells the family and nothing is done. Or even worse where it looks like they're protecting the abuser.

She got him behind bars in the end though...shame he didnt spend more time suffering.

25-02-2019 09:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why have you ignored the fact that 5 people turned up at court to 'defend' themselves. You are either a democrat or you aren't.

Of course I am a democrat, but that means I take on-board the findings of an independent Inquiry which has said that Mairia Cahill was justified in her loss of confidence of the DPP/ PPS.

If someone had accused me of a crime, and I knew they weren't willing to attend as a witness, you're damn right I'd turn up too. Why on earth would anybody squander such a golden opportunity?

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:35PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course I am a democrat, but that means I take on-board the findings of an independent Inquiry which has said that Mairia Cahill was justified in her loss of confidence of the DPP/ PPS.

If someone had accused me of a crime, and I knew they weren't willing to attend as a witness, you're damn right I'd turn up too. Why on earth would anybody squander such a golden opportunity?

What? Are you sure you understand the case? They didn't decide to turn up after Cahill pulled out, they were always turning up to defend themselves.

The crown messed up but that doesn't infer the alleged were guilty nor indeed not guilty. They didn't get the chance to defend themselves. If you believe they have that right then can you truly condemn them without hearing the evidence tested?

25-02-2019 09:41PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What? Are you sure you understand the case? They didn't decide to turn up after Cahill pulled out, they were always turning up to defend themselves.

The crown messed up but that doesn't infer the alleged were guilty nor indeed not guilty. They didn't get the chance to defend themselves. If you believe they have that right then can you truly condemn them without hearing the evidence tested?

Ask the leader of Sinn Fein; she has said that she believes Mairia Cahill's testimony to be true.

The fact that Mairia Cahill's respondents may have been willing to dispute her claims before a court is utterly irrelevant; this happens all the time. She lost faith in the DPP/ PPS, which an Inquiry subsequently found to be justified. The latter is highly unusual.

I know you've been indicating that you're impartial here, but I'm beginning to struggle with that claim.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:47PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ask the leader of Sinn Fein; she has said that she believes Mairia Cahill's testimony to be true.

The fact that Mairia Cahill's respondents may have been willing to dispute her claims before a court is utterly irrelevant; this happens all the time. She lost faith in the DPP/ PPS, which an Inquiry subsequently found to be justified. The latter is highly unusual.

I know you've been indicating that you're impartial here, but I'm beginning to struggle with that claim.

I am asking you. Do you believe that a person has the right to defend themselves?

25-02-2019 09:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am asking you. Do you believe that a person has the right to defend themselves?

Really, now.

Of course I do. But I also think that a complainant has a right to make allegations and have those claims investigated to a reasonable degree of competency - this did not happen. Any Defendant can turn up in court - that proves nothing - especially if they knew the Complainant had not intended to give evidence.

FrancieBrady · 25-02-2019 09:58PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Really, now.

Of course I do. But I also think that a complainant has a right to make allegations and have those claims investigated to a reasonable degree of competency - this did not happen. Any Defendant can turn up in court - that proves nothing - especially if they knew the Complainant had not intended to give evidence.

Unless you are accusing the defendants of collusion with the Crown prosecution I am not sure what the relevance is.

And if you believe a person has a right to defend themselves I am not sure how you can do that when you have already decided they are guilty. But anyway, Cahill is off topic here and I already feel a little dirty feeding those who just want to use death as a stick to beat somebody else. (not referring to you)

I'm out.

tayto lover · 25-02-2019 10:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not party faithful or a party member and I have said what Gerry Adams did was wrong, but so did Gerry himself.
He would do certain things differently if he had to deal with it again. That is what I meant by having a humane reaction to somebody caught in a difficult family situation.
You can accept his explanation and apology or not, I suppose.

I don't think it bears any relation to the CC who did it again and again with various priests or to the likes of Kenny who fought Louise O'Keefe's attempts to protect children all the way to the European courts.
Many many organisations have had issues around child protection and taking victims/complainants seriously. Hopefully those days are over.
Must check if the government have introduced the recommendations of the European Court verdict in Louise O'Keefe's case yet.

Liam Adams worked as a youth worker in Dundalk and canvassed for SF with his brother. Gerry knew he was working with children in Muirhevnamore, a large estate. Gerry knew what he had done to his own daughter long before that yet was content to allow him work in that mainly republican estate and visit him regularly.

How is that any different to the Catholic Church hierarchy moving Fr. Brendan Smyth when he offended in an area?

downcow · 25-02-2019 10:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have even said here, I accept G. Adams did wrong in his brothers case?
.

Just in his brothers case?

Have you any idea how many kids grew up without fathers because of the IRA? Is that not child abuse?
how many kids were murdered or maimed for life just because they went to the wrong church on Sunday?
Is that not child abuse?

I find this attitude a bit difficult that says that those who sexually abused kids are scumbags but those who killed them or their parents are heros.

They are all either scumbags or nice people .. You decide Francie

blanch152 · 26-02-2019 12:55PM

klaaaz wrote: »

Mairia Cahill once stood for dissident republicans, the kind that we know have been anti peace process. Yet she was was coveted by the media and political parties in Dublin especially by Labour ending up as a senator in the unelected Seanad.

Yes, a woman who had been systematically abused by a senior Republican and denied justice when she went to Gerry Adams and other senior Republican figures rejected mainstream republicanism and very briefly (for a matter of weeks) became involved with a fringe republican group. Completely understandable and only adds credence to her story rather than detracting from it.

The fact that certain posters on here fail to see that tells a lot more about them than about Mairia Cahill.

Death of Liam Adams

Comments