Convicted child killer canvassing for sinn fein[Mod warning-First Post]

Nodin · 26-05-2014 10:25PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

? ok , im good , but at this distance , i cant read your mind
care to fill in the blanks ?

You didn't read the article linked above in the journal. Doing so will answer all.

dj jarvis · 26-05-2014 10:27PM

Nodin wrote: »

You didn't read the article linked above in the journal. Doing so will answer all.

it was added after i had posted , if you go back to my post you will see i also edited my post to reflect my mistake

thats why i did not get your nope, you missed my edit.

Nodin · 26-05-2014 10:27PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

What's your take on this Nodin - would you be in favour of GA suing newspapers over serious allegations about him that he declares to be untrue?

Depends. To my mind the whole row over his brother is far more serious than the mcconville affair, so he's right to sue there.

dj jarvis · 26-05-2014 10:30PM

Nodin wrote: »

Depends. To my mind the whole row over his brother is far more serious than the mcconville affair, so he's right to sue there.

but he is suing over the allegation that he was briefed about the trial , or tipped off , but does not answer the most important question in my eye , why did he not report ?

Donkey Oaty · 26-05-2014 10:37PM

Nodin wrote: »

Depends. To my mind the whole row over his brother is far more serious than the mcconville affair, so he's right to sue there.

Interesting perspective - do you think it is shared by the party?

Nodin · 26-05-2014 10:40PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interesting perspective - do you think it is shared by the party?

Hard to know. Personally I would have rather Martin come south and Gerry stay north and then retire.

dj jarvis · 26-05-2014 10:44PM

Nodin wrote: »

Hard to know. Personally I would have rather Martin come south and Gerry stay north and then retire.

could not agree more , out of all of them , he comes across straight enough for me , he fessed up to membership and having weapons - unlike his brother in arms

Happyman42 · 27-05-2014 12:00AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

and as i said , it will stop when they prove it or he sues them , he wont sue for some reason only known to him , i can only think of one reason why

up to him to prove them and me wrong i suppose.

Again you are avoiding the ethical issue.
You can't keep insinuating something as a journalist without providing proof at some stage. I'm talking about real journalism here not redtop hysterical journalism

Forget about Adams for a minute and think about it in journalistic terms. You are endorsing a charter for the press here that is straight out of a dictatorship. Are you saying that any journalist can insinuate something on what is basically a hunch?

dj jarvis · 27-05-2014 03:47PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again you are avoiding the ethical issue.
You can't keep insinuating something as a journalist without providing proof at some stage. I'm talking about real journalism here not redtop hysterical journalism

Forget about Adams for a minute and think about it in journalistic terms. You are endorsing a charter for the press here that is straight out of a dictatorship. Are you saying that any journalist can insinuate something on what is basically a hunch?

ok , but you are ignoring the fact , that if there was NOTHING to investigate , why are so many wanting answers , and its far from just the red tops or the sindo

one media outlet constantly harrying someone - yes that's wrong
but its far from just one , and in fairness , you are insinuating that the Journalists have not done their homework on the story .

if that's the case , then for some reason most papers (all papers , of all political hue ) have decided to get Gerry , is that what you are saying ?

How do you know its just a hunch ? they could know a lot more than you or me , and as i eluded to before , this could be the reason for Gerry not going to court.

all guess work - but i am not the only one drawing the same conclusion, and Gerrys inaction is fueling this.

nothing to hide ? then sue for libel and defamation of character , and his name will be cleared.

FTA69 · 27-05-2014 03:53PM

Nodin wrote: »

Hard to know. Personally I would have rather Martin come south and Gerry stay north and then retire.

McGuinness is awful. I don't like Adams at all and think he's a bad tempered arsehole, an especially bad tempered arsehole when you challenge his position without assuming a deferential persona. However, Adams at the very least has a modicum of left politics about him; maybe an innate working class sense of justice or whatever you'd call it. McGuinness on the other hand hasn't a socialist bone in his body. Some of the sh*te he has gotten up to since he became Deputy First Minister:

1) Had a photo op shaking hands with the Israeli ambassador despite SF being a supporter of the Boycott Israel initiative.
2) Referred to other Republicans as "traitors" despite him spending years as a senior IRA member with no mandate from anyone
3) Had another photo op holding up a can of coke like a grinning child, despite them murdering trade unionists in Colombia. That used to be our biggest campaign in Ógra years back.
4) Fawning over Elizabeth Windsor, possibly the most stomach churning thing I've ever seen out of him.

Dan_Solo · 27-05-2014 03:54PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

ok , but you are ignoring the fact , that if there was NOTHING to investigate , why are so many wanting answers , and its far from just the red tops or the sindo

one media outlet constantly harrying someone - yes that's wrong
but its far from just one , and in fairness , you are insinuating that the Journalists have not done their homework on the story .

if that's the case , then for some reason most papers (all papers , of all political hue ) have decided to get Gerry , is that what you are saying ?

How do you know its just a hunch ? they could know a lot more than you or me , and as i eluded to before , this could be the reason for Gerry not going to court.

all guess work - but i am not the only one drawing the same conclusion, and Gerrys inaction is fueling this.

nothing to hide ? then sue for libel and defamation of character , and his name will be cleared.

This is a fairly long winded way of restating that nobody has any real evidence of Adams' involvement in any murder really isn't it.
insinutation * infinity ≠ evidence

Chips Lovell · 27-05-2014 03:56PM

There'd be a greater resemblance to a dictatorship if journalists weren't able to insinuate Adams was in the IRA.

Dan_Solo · 27-05-2014 03:57PM

FTA69 wrote: »

1) Had a photo op shaking hands with the Israeli ambassador despite SF being a supporter of the Boycott Israel initiative.
4) Fawning over Elizabeth Windsor, possibly the most stomach churning thing I've ever seen out of him.

Ah come on now. You expect him to swing for every head of state he doesn't agree with? Part of being a politician is to meet people and hammer out differences, as you well know after the GFA.

Dan_Solo · 27-05-2014 03:58PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There'd be a greater resemblance to a dictatorship if journalists weren't able to insinuate Adams was in the IRA.

Yeah, TBH I've no problem with that. They can insinuate what they like. That's how they earn their keep.
I don't have to take a blind bit of notice of them though if they've nothing to back it up.

FTA69 · 27-05-2014 04:01PM

No, I expect him to have a modicum of political principle and refuse to sanitise the actions of the Israeli state with this sort of ****:

http://nifriendsofisrael.wordpress.com/

Secondly if you can tell me how fawning around a f*cking palace in a suit advances Republicanism or socialism I'm all ears. That debacle in Westminster was as much about normalising the British occupation of Ireland as it was anything else, only this time you had people who used to challenge that poncing around the place along with everyone else.

Disgraceful stuff.

dj jarvis · 27-05-2014 04:06PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is a fairly long winded way of restating that nobody has any real evidence of Adams' involvement in any murder really isn't it.
insinutation * infinity ≠ evidence

meh , i read it another way , agree to disagree

i find it hard to believe that all these media outlets would be wasting their time with Gerry unless they had something if he called their bluff

at the end of the day it all down to proof , and one of them better have it.

Dan_Solo · 27-05-2014 04:19PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

at the end of the day it all down to proof , and one of them better have it.

Um, no?
Only one side of an allegation of criminality requires proof. Otherwise a case of yeah, whatever.

Happyman42 · 27-05-2014 04:21PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

meh , i read it another way , agree to disagree

i find it hard to believe that all these media outlets would be wasting their time with Gerry unless they had something if he called their bluff

at the end of the day it all down to proof , and one of them better have it.

So you have to sue for your good name? Sorry, that is not the world I want to live in or have anybody else live in.

Many many people have been accused of stuff, the media are constrained by what they can say before a trial and after if the case isn't proven. FOr instance if somebody is found 'not guilty of a crime' would a newspaper be allowed to keep saying or insinuating that they where guilty? How does one get their good name back if media is allowed to indulge in that kind of activity?
Seems, the rules and standard are different when it comes to republicans generally and Gerry Adams in particular.

Donkey Oaty · 27-05-2014 04:26PM

This is how one journo put it (Associated Press, via Al-Jazeera) in an article about the arrest earlier this month:

Adams, 65, has always denied any role in the outlawed IRA, but every credible history of the Sinn Fein-IRA movement has identified him as a senior commander since the early 1970s.

That comment is very much the mainstream view, and it's only nit-pickers that would disagree.

The only conceivable reason GA hasn't sued the publishers of these books are because he/his legal team thinks that:

1) He might not win, or

2) It would be bad PR/distract him from politics, and he is against interfering with a free press (although that doesn't square with the other legal moves he has made re his brother and JB), or

3) If he took the action and won, it could be a Pyrrhic victory because a load of other unsavoury stuff would come out in the trial, including stuff that would actually be libellous if it wasn't said as evidence in a court case, or

4) He might win and still nobody would believe him, even though the allegations would not continue to be made, or

5) Whether true or not, the allegation of IRA membership isn't actually damaging to him - in some constituencies quite the reverse, or

6) Something else, or a combination of the above.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't sue, but I do think he should give an explanation of why he hasn't taken legal action over the IRA claims if they are, as he maintains, false. "We're biding our time" (journo hearsay response, 1996) isn't an answer at this stage.

By the way, here's an opinion piece in the Guardian about the Boston tapes/GA's alleged IRA membership, which calls GA's denial " so absurd, and to many of his former comrades so hurtful, that some were bound to protest". Note that "Comments on this article will remain closed for legal reasons".

TL;DR: this issue isn't going to go away - what should GA do about it?

Chips Lovell · 27-05-2014 04:27PM

I've always been slightly perplexed at the reaction of some Sinn Fein supporters to assertions that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. If Sinn Fein still regards the IRA terrorist campaign as legitimate, why would someone "lose their good name" if they were accused of IRA membership?

Valetta · 27-05-2014 04:35PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I've always been slightly perplexed at the reaction of some Sinn Fein supporters to assertions that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. If Sinn Fein still regards the IRA terrorist campaign as legitimate, why would someone "lose their good name" if they were accused of IRA membership?

He doesn't want to spend two years sewing mail bags.

Donkey Oaty · 27-05-2014 04:38PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I've always been slightly perplexed at the reaction of some Sinn Fein supporters to assertions that Gerry Adams was in the IRA.

Apart from a few people on here, or maybe some newcomers to the party, I doubt very much that they are too fussed about that particular accusation (statistically, most people think he was) and are more concerned that it is a distraction from what they want to focus on - but I'm open to correction on that.

Happyman42 · 27-05-2014 04:53PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I've always been slightly perplexed at the reaction of some Sinn Fein supporters to assertions that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. If Sinn Fein still regards the IRA terrorist campaign as legitimate, why would someone "lose their good name" if they were accused of IRA membership?

The assertion is that he is lying about it and therefore everything else. Redtop logic!

Donkey Oaty · 27-05-2014 05:11PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

The assertion is that he is lying about it and therefore everything else. Redtop logic!

Just as an aside, do you think he is lying about it?

Banjo String · 27-05-2014 06:09PM

Valetta wrote: »

He doesn't want to spend two years sewing mail bags.

I'd hazard a guess that it might be for fear of the whole peace process collapsing around everyone's ears. (assuming he was a member that is)

Back to a bloody conflict, but probably on a whole new level. But hey, at least Gerry Adams would be exposed, that's the main thing for you guys wanting the 'truth' :cool:

In other news, SF's most Successful elections since 1918.

4 x MEP'S who will be Ireland's voice in Europe , (instead of Europe's voice in Ireland)

bumper234 · 27-05-2014 06:21PM

Banjo String wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that it might be for fear of the whole peace process collapsing around everyone's ears. (assuming he was a member that is)

Back to a bloody conflict, but probably on a whole new level. But hey, at least Gerry Adams would be exposed, that's the main thing for you guys wanting the 'truth' :cool:

In other news, SF's most Successful elections since 1918.

4 x MEP'S who will be Ireland's voice in Europe , (instead of Europe's voice in Ireland)

Cool

What are they going to do? What changes can we expect in the next 6-12 months that we can be thankful to the shinners for?

Donkey Oaty · 27-05-2014 06:25PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Cool

What are they going to do? What changes can we expect in the next 6-12 months that we can be thankful to the shinners for?

I've a feeling that "Ireland's voice in Europe" will include many speeches in Irish that neither the European Parliament nor the vast majority of the Irish people will be able to comprehend without the aid of a translator.

bumper234 · 27-05-2014 06:26PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I've a feeling that "Ireland's voice in Europe" will include many speeches in Irish that neither the European Parliament nor the vast majority of the Irish people will be able to comprehend without the aid of a translator.

Cue hundreds of confused looking people all checking under their seats for suspect packages:D

Chips Lovell · 27-05-2014 06:31PM

Didn't see the peace process collapsing when Martin McGuinness owned up to IRA membership.

Nodin · 27-05-2014 06:34PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I've a feeling that "Ireland's voice in Europe" will include many speeches in Irish that neither the European Parliament nor the vast majority of the Irish people will be able to comprehend without the aid of a translator.

They've all got earphones for translation and stuff there. Very modern, so it is.