The disappeared

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nuzhound.com%2Farticles%2Fmal3-8.htm&ei=ijF8Up-nHsKS7AbNmYBI&usg=AFQjCNHvEnj-EEaUCN9lUhc1_zUTkUY6Aw

The RUC Special Branch has been accused of having covered up, for at least the last eleven years, evidence showing that members of the North's security forces were part of a Loyalist gang which crossed the Border and killed a Dundalk, Co Louth man, the Sunday Tribune has learned.
Seamus Ludlow, a 47 year old forestry worker, was found shot dead in an isolated laneway two miles north of Dundalk in May, 1976 and his killing became one of the unsolved mysteries of the Troubles.

However the story of how the authorities concealed the politically sensitive circumstances of his death has now come to light thanks to the man who gave RUC Special Branch officers a full account of the killing over a decade ago.

Paul Hosking (41), from Newtownards, Co Down started the day of Seamus Ludlow's death drinking with UDR soldiers who were also members of the Loyalist Red Hand Commandos and ended it witnessing the casual and opportunistic murder of the Dundalk man. He was later threatened with death by the Red Hand Commandos if he spoke to the authorities.

Courageous stuff by the so called law. Do you feel safe walking the roads when these law officers are travelling the same route.

i don't get what the fixation with the disappeared is yet British state collusion in sectarian violence seems to be ignored.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If there is evidence against Adams it should be presented to the police and they should take the lead. Throwing it around, unsubstantiated, on a television programme is nothing more than a smear campaign.
The biggest failure of this programme however is that it was an opportunity to tell the story of those still missing and appeal for information. RTE/BBC forwent this in favour of attempting to rattle their favourite cage.
They should be ashamed of themselves.

There's not enough evidence, and probably never will be, to convict Adams. That's not to say that articulating the weight of evidence against him, in relation to the subject of the disappeared hasn't got merit from a public broadcaster. He's a public figure with a platform, and people should be allowed judge for themselves whether he's truthful in regard to this.

I'm not sure what more the programme could have done to appeal for more information. Anyone with information about the location of bodies, and sympathetic to Adams isn't going to decide to keep schtum because the programme exposed the fragility of Adam's narrative. After all - Adams line is that anyone with information, should provide it to the relatives (even if it's nothing to do with the IRA, like in Crossmaglen).

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So in the absence of any actual evidence you're advocating trial by media? Christ on a bike.

What 'trial' would that be again? There is, and will be no trial. What there is, is an attempt to hold a public representative to account.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

They should have concentrated more on those still missing. Had interviews with the families of those still missing. Showed the area's where it's believed they are, showed pictures of the areas from the time of the disappearances.
Made more of the ICLVR amnesty for information.
Anything to jog memories/allay worries about conviction/appeal to the conscience of anyone with information.
The tone and actual content of the programme would only get the backs up of anyone who has info.

I don't agree. The amnesty for those who provide information was made crystal clear.

grainnewhale wrote: »

While the media are getting excited about trying to drag Gerry down. How come nobody questions, the actions of the british army or government in recruiting a widow of 10 as an informant.

Now that puts a different slant on the scene.

But she's been found.

Ah, you edited your post. When I responded it still said that no one had come forward with information despite people knowing where her body was.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

She should not have been recruited. I certainly wouldn't support the intelligence tactics of the British Army.

That does not mean she should have been murdered and her body dumped somewhere out of reach of her family. Lets not forget that Jean's body was only found by accident. Those that knew information about the whereabouts of her remains stayed silent.

You must look at the broader picture, touts and informers are always dealt very harsh in any country fighting for their freedom, there is a prime example in South Africa, like the necklace. How brutal was that, men and women got the same justice for their betrayal. That is life and wartime, men were shot by their own officers in 1914 for not being able to go over the trenches with the fear that they had. Get a grip war is disgusting and horrible and bring men and women to the extreme's, of civilization.

hmmm wrote: »

I hate the term "the disappeared", it sounds so clean. These are people who were kidnapped, tortured, murdered and their bodies tossed into a hole in some godforsaken bog. Meanwhile their families were never told what had happened by the sociopathic animals who wanted to instill the maximum levels of fear and intimidation. There must be a better description than "disappeared".

God help us when SF get into power. I see so many naive young people supporting them, but the guys who carried out the murders haven't gone away and are lurking in the shadows.

:D:D Do you know the amount of people that have gone that road.

junder wrote: »

That's assuming she was an informer

According to darkie Hughes "who's word is gospel on some other issues around this story" she was an informer,
or do we pick and choose what we want to read and belive,

Busted Flat. wrote: »

You must look at the broader picture, touts and informers are always dealt very harsh in any country fighting for their freedom, there is a prime example in South Africa, like the necklace. How brutal was that, men and women got the same justice for their betrayal. That is life and wartime, men were shot by their own officers in 1914 for not being able to go over the trenches with the fear that they had. Get a grip war is disgusting and horrible and bring men and women to the extreme's, of civilization.

Which country was fighting for it's freedom here? And we've established that Jean McConville was no tout or informer. Just a prod amongst a bunch of sectarian killers - unprepared to admit their wrong, even at the time.

grainnewhale wrote: »

The country fighting for complete freedom was Ireland. Who is this "we" that has established she was no tout.

The IRA are no country, and didn't represent any country. You've clearly missed the point where those 'fighting for complete freedom' finally got the message that they had no mandate, and that their 'war' was a pointless exercise. And the 'we' is everyone who weights Nuala O'Loans investigation with more credibility than continued lies from the iRA.

alastair wrote: »

The IRA are no country, and didn't represent any country. You've clearly missed the point where those 'fighting for complete freedom' finally got the message that they had no mandate, and that their 'war' was a pointless exercise. And the 'we' is everyone who weights Nuala O'Loans investigation with more credibility than continued lies from the iRA.

Do you apply the same logic to the IRA war of 1916, (they didn't represent any country) before the country was split and freedom was achived for the 26 counties. I dont recall anyone other than the IRA fighting for freedom from thr brit empire