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

No public enquiry in Pat Finucane Murder

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    Did he not defend loyalist paramilitary figures too, or am I misremembering?

    He did. From the BBC
    What led to his murder was the fact he was a well-known defence solicitor who frequently acted for high-profile IRA members. He also represented loyalists

    Bit of a conundrum for some of the lads trying to handwave it away and imply "he deserved it." tbh.


  • Options
    #123
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    McMurphy wrote: »
    He did. From the BBC



    Bit of a conundrum for some of the lads trying to handwave it away and imply "he deserved it." tbh.

    Nobody deserves to be murdered.

    The killing of Finucane was wrong. Any collusion by security forces in his murder was wrong. In the absence of any resolution his murder, there should be a public inquiry. Normal people will accept all of that.

    What does strike a discordant note is the plaintive cries from Sinn Fein on this issue who for decades have protected murderers and other criminals from the full force of justice, most recently when a witness in the Brady case had to seek permission from the party to testify.

    Thankfully, the government down here have led extremely well on the issue with tact and diplomacy, I am sure you will agree.


  • Options
    #124
    The_Fitz
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭The_Fitz


    Hamsterchops wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I think the murderers should be hunted down and imprisoned for life (if they're not already in prison), then the people who orchestrated & planned the murder should also be sought out and brought to justice. If there were 'bent" security personnel then obviously they too should have the same punishment as the toerag who actually pulled the trigger.

    Never understood why her was shot? For what reason was he singled out and killed? Yes I know he defended IRA killers, but then why make things worse by killing him too? Tit for tat? Or just pure hatred & ignorance, I don't know.

    It is believed that the British state selected him simply because he was a good solicitor.

    If you look at it from the British point of view, they are mounting a full scale campaign to eradicate what they see as a terrorist threat to their authority. They arrested people, put them through the judicial system and this solicitor was either getting them off because they were innocent, or getting them off due to a calamity of an investigation etc (i.e. no evidence, bungled etc).


  • Options
    #125
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nobody deserves to be murdered.

    The killing of Finucane was wrong. Any collusion by security forces in his murder was wrong. In the absence of any resolution his murder, there should be a public inquiry. Normal people will accept all of that.

    What does strike a discordant note is the plaintive cries from Sinn Fein on this issue who for decades have protected murderers and other criminals from the full force of justice, most recently when a witness in the Brady case had to seek permission from the party to testify.

    Thankfully, the government down here have led extremely well on the issue with tact and diplomacy, I am sure you will agree.

    There is a dedicated thread to get your "whataboutery Sinn Fein" obsession rocks off, this one is about state collusion and the murder of a civilian lawyer.

    It would be a shame if you were allowed to turn another thread into a Sinn Fein one tbh.


  • Options
    #126
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


    The_Fitz wrote: »
    It is believed that the British state selected him simply because he was a good solicitor.

    If you look at it from the British point of view, they are mounting a full scale campaign to eradicate what they see as a terrorist threat to their authority. They arrested people, put them through the judicial system and this solicitor was either getting them off because they were innocent, or getting them off due to a calamity of an investigation etc (i.e. no evidence, bungled etc).
    This is the crux of it, in my opinion. He wasn't targeted by loyalists; he was selected by the brit establishment. The loyalists just did their dirty work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,083 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Hamsterchops wrote: »
    I don't know, but I do remember hearing that he'd defended some IRA people in court, hence the Loyalist mob then decided to target him? Ironic if he defended their lot too.

    Your language is illuminating.
    “Ira people” & “loyalist mob” & “their lot”


  • Options
    #128
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    McMurphy wrote: »
    There is a dedicated thread to get your "whataboutery Sinn Fein" obsession rocks off, this one is about state collusion and the murder of a civilian lawyer.

    It would be a shame if you were allowed to turn another thread into a Sinn Fein one tbh.

    You didn't answer the question.
    blanch152 wrote: »

    Thankfully, the government down here have led extremely well on the issue with tact and diplomacy, I am sure you will agree.


  • Options
    #129
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,885 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nobody deserves to be murdered.

    The killing of Finucane was wrong. Any collusion by security forces in his murder was wrong. In the absence of any resolution his murder, there should be a public inquiry. Normal people will accept all of that.

    What does strike a discordant note is the plaintive cries from Sinn Fein on this issue who for decades have protected murderers and other criminals from the full force of justice, most recently when a witness in the Brady case had to seek permission from the party to testify.

    Thankfully, the government down here have led extremely well on the issue with tact and diplomacy, I am sure you will agree.

    I will give you my opinion on the government's leadership just as soon as I hear if the Foreign Minister now calls out the British 'for not being interested in reconciliation' as he implied before this announcement was made and outlines what action he is going to take on foot of that.


  • Options
    #130
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I will give you my opinion on the government's leadership just as soon as I hear if the Foreign Minister now calls out the British 'for not being interested in reconciliation' as he implied before this announcement was made and outlines what action he is going to take on foot of that.

    I suppose that nothing short of invasion, which you wanted for 1969, will be sufficient to satisfy you?

    We have bigger fish to fry with the Brexit deal.


  • Options
    #131
    piplip87
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭piplip87


    Its absolutely disgraceful that there is no enquiry into this.

    Time for a truth and reconciliation commission. No other people can be charged, tried or convicted of anything that happened during the troubles.

    Every act carried out by both sides needs examining, any state collusion needs to be found.

    What this is turning into is SF supporters calling every act carried out by the British/Loyalists a murder that should be investigated while calling every IRA victim collateral damage and getting outraged when somebody brings them up. Its absolute hypocrisy and it amounts to nothing more than using victims as political pawns to rely and justify their own murders.

    You don't hear too many SF supporters calling for inquiries for the deaths of lawyer, judges and other legal experts they murdered ?

    The exact same can be said of Unionism too. They turn a blind eye to their own murderers while looking for enquiries into everything the IRA did.

    Same Scum different religion......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Hamsterchops
    Registered Users Posts: 3,133 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    downcow wrote: »
    Your language is illuminating.
    “Ira people” & “loyalist mob” & “their lot”

    My bad, scum should have replaced people.


  • Options
    #133
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


    piplip87 wrote: »
    Its absolutely disgraceful that there is no enquiry into this.

    Time for a truth and reconciliation commission. No other people can be charged, tried or convicted of anything that happened during the troubles.

    Every act carried out by both sides needs examining, any state collusion needs to be found.

    What this is turning into is SF supporters calling every act carried out by the British/Loyalists a murder that should be investigated while calling every IRA victim collateral damage and getting outraged when somebody brings them up. Its absolute hypocrisy and it amounts to nothing more than using victims as political pawns to rely and justify their own murders.

    You don't hear too many SF supporters calling for inquiries for the deaths of lawyer, judges and other legal experts they murdered ?

    The exact same can be said of Unionism too. They turn a blind eye to their own murderers while looking for enquiries into everything the IRA did.

    Same Scum different religion......


    I'm fairly sure that the only party calling for a truth and reconciliation process is SF. I guess they know that others have a lot more to lose. Make of that what you will.


  • Options
    #134
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,885 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I suppose that nothing short of invasion, which you wanted for 1969, will be sufficient to satisfy you?

    We have bigger fish to fry with the Brexit deal.

    Oh dear...why didn't you go for the 'we're in the middle of a pandemic, justice can wait' one. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #135
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭political analyst


    The British government acknowledged there was collusion in Pat Finucane's murder. But why do his wife and children believe the collusion was authorised at Cabinet level? After all, the initiative for the collusion came from some officers in RUC Special Branch, not Downing Street.


  • Options
    #136
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    downcow wrote: »
    ....and what if you found a politician had organised the sectarian murder of civlans in La Mon House, targeted because it was used predominantly by Protestants? Would you still say it would change nothing?


    the targeting of civilians is never justified.
    anyone actually responsible for deliberately targeting civilians must be punished.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #137
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Normal One wrote: »
    This is the crux of it, in my opinion. He wasn't targeted by loyalists; he was selected by the brit establishment. The loyalists just did their dirty work.

    Remember this was the same government that approached paramilitaries to shoot up an entire school. I wouldn't put anything past them.


  • Options
    #138
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭political analyst


    smurgen wrote: »
    Remember this was the same government that approached paramilitaries to shoot up an entire school. I wouldn't put anything past them.

    That is an unsubstantiated allegation made by sectarian murderer John Weir. If it was true then why didn't he say it when he was on trial for murder?


  • Options
    #139
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    political analyst wrote: »
    That is an unsubstantiated allegation made by sectarian murderer John Weir. If it was true then why didn't he say it when he was on trial for murder?


    because it would likely have been deemed irrelevant to the case by the judge.
    anyway, this plan was highly likely true, in fact i am under no doubt that it was.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #140
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,637 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    tdf7187 wrote: »
    I
    Their push-back on setting up on inquiry, by contrast to, say, Bloody Sunday, suggests that the collusion extended to much more senior on the food chain than has been hitherto acknowledged. That's what they don't want coming out and in my view is the logical conclusion. With Bloody Sunday - much as I condemn it - they were able to attempt to pin the blame on a few individual grunts on the ground. Obviously, with the Finucane murder, they must run the risk of opening a huge can of worms if they were to look into it properly.

    Yes. It is likely Gordon had a direct line to senior figures in the British Government. Those who have a high regard for the British Army don't want to admit what the FRU were licensed to do, and who was backing the FRU. This inquiry not going ahead is the same reason Freddie was never going to see the inside of a court.

    The fate of Steaknife is the one thing the IRA and the British establishment can agree on.


  • Options
    #141
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,083 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Normal One wrote: »
    I'm fairly sure that the only party calling for a truth and reconciliation process is SF. I guess they know that others have a lot more to lose. Make of that what you will.

    Sf would not go within 100 miles of real truth. And in fairness neither will any of the actors state or not


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,083 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    end of the road wrote: »
    the targeting of civilians is never justified.
    anyone actually responsible for deliberately targeting civilians must be punished.

    So why no enquiry into the activities of your TD who overseen it. It was on his patch and was in charge (even though he was never in the ira)
    The bomb left catholic west Belfast and had a very risky journey right accross Belfast to be sure it got prods


  • Options
    #143
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,885 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    downcow wrote: »
    So why no enquiry into the activities of your TD who overseen it. It was on his patch and was in charge (even though he was never in the ira)
    The bomb left catholic west Belfast and had a very risky journey right accross Belfast to be sure it got prods

    There have been several.


  • Options
    #144
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,885 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    downcow wrote: »
    Sf would not go within 100 miles of real truth. And in fairness neither will any of the actors state or not

    Well we do have some evidence that your contention is wrong f we look at the only 'truth' recovery process that we have. SF and the IRA have engaged with it. Mechanisms to deal with legacy issues can be constructed, ithe problem is, there are those who don't want to engage with them. So far, that is not SF or the IRA as the poster says.

    Crucial…once the Republican leadership – both Sinn Féin and the IRA – engaged with this issue properly and created their own structures in order to manage it, that’s when the issue begins to be resolved…It doesn’t work until you have that top-down commitment to making it work. So it’s absolutely central.

    http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/knowledge_exchange/briefing_papers/series7/dempster180418.pdf


  • Options
    #145
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


    downcow wrote: »
    Sf would not go within 100 miles of real truth. And in fairness neither will any of the actors state or not

    That's conjecture, nothing more. As we saw yesterday and on numerous other occasions, the brits avoid truth even when it's staring right at them.


  • Options
    #146
    Normal One
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Normal One


    political analyst wrote: »
    The British government acknowledged there was collusion in Pat Finucane's murder. But why do his wife and children believe the collusion was authorised at Cabinet level? After all, the initiative for the collusion came from some officers in RUC Special Branch, not Downing Street.

    Douglas Hogg.


  • Options
    #147
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    Samsonsmasher wrote: »
    It was a dirty war and he was fair game. He knew the risks defending IRA
    People who were informers or suspected informers were got rid of by the IRA. Workmen civilian staff and so on who worked on British bases were targetted.
    Partime UDR and RUC members were attacked off duty and pubs where British soldiers drank were bombed as were commercial properties and businesses vital to the Northern Ireland economy.
    The IRA tried to take out Thatcher and her cabinet in Brighton and mortared Major in No 10. Mountbatten was sympathetic to Irish unity but was killed because he was a Royal.
    A BBC tv presenter who offered an award to anyone who ratted on IRA gunman and bombers on the loose in the UK in the 1970s was shot on his doorstep.
    British soldiers who came home in bodybags and IRA members killed in shoot to kill operations knew the risks.
    The IRA figured out if they bombed the financial heart of London they could make more of an impact than any mortars or bombs or gun attacks in Northern Ireland.
    So Finucane was fair game.

    Yellow card for having an opinion?
    What's de stoory Roory??


  • Options
    #148
    downcow
    Registered Users Posts: 11,083 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    There have been several.


    Just give us evidence of a single public inquiry into the murder of a solicitor in Northern Ireland.. You really talk some nonsense Francie


  • Options
    #149
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,885 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    downcow wrote: »
    Just give us evidence of a single public inquiry into the murder of a solicitor in Northern Ireland.. You really talk some nonsense Francie

    This was your question:
    So why no enquiry into the activities of your TD who overseen it.

    I said there have been 'several' inquiries into his activities.

    There will be no 'public inquiries' into a killing unless there is a suggestion/allegation of STATE involvement in it, or state incompetence. Wish you could take that on board.


  • Options
    #150
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭political analyst


    end of the road wrote: »
    because it would likely have been deemed irrelevant to the case by the judge.
    anyway, this plan was highly likely true, in fact i am under no doubt that it was.

    He could still have told journalists at the time - but he didn't. The allegation is clearly lurid - Loyalists carried out massacres with gun attacks in pubs and car bombs but attacking schools when there were staff and pupils present wasn't their modus operandi and it wasn't British intelligence's modus operandi either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,442 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Normal One wrote: »
    Douglas Hogg.

    Hogg made that statement on the basis of advice he received from senior RUC officers. If the intelligence was false, that's not his fault.


Advertisement