Marty You were at Queens when P Corrigan Marians solicitor outlined and elaborated on why he would and could not apply the writ. P Drinan asked the question and if I remember right P Cortogan gave a highly intelligent legal answer and also accorded the rest of us the opportunity to question him, no one did? The interview and Peters explanation remains on her website?
Nuala he said that the parole board said it would be unlikely to be successful,which is a bit strange taking advice from people who would not be regarded as being necessarily on Marians side,and given the lack of any apparent movement in this case ,unless of course you know better, it would imo be the way to go if all legal due process was to be exhausted before the case could be taken to the European courts,,
Marty, I dont know better but quite clearly Peter Corrigan does. He gave a very comprehensive explanation and as I and everyone else remembers he invited all of us to question further no one did. I had heard this been said over and over prior to the meeting and yet on the night P Drinian asked a question which was answered and I think everyone assumed the silence to be a clear vindication of P Corrigans legal stance. There was another legal man in the room that night who also backed up P Corrigans view on how the case should be handled. I don't have computer access at present so I can not view the transcript but other people can.
Nuala . Christopher Stanley legal officer Rights watch uk(formerly British Irish rights watch) states in this report"A further legal device would be to apply for a writ of habeas corpus"along with PádragÃn Drinnan who has campaigned on human rights issues for many years. these legal minds think that indeed habeas corpus is the way to go,the only other person that I,m aware of of legal standing at that meeting in Queens that night was prof Phil Scratton and as far I can remember Phil Scratton did not speak, its not a question of vindication its a question of using all legal means to have Marian freed and I,m sure you and everyone else would agree.
"Nuala he said that the parole board said it would be unlikely to be successful"
Even if the parole board granted Marian's release on humanitarian grounds , MI5/Secretary of state would have her re-arrested once she stepped outside, I would say that's the word peter was putting over. If you think about it, would the parole board have said such a thing to any solicitor? , considering they are not impartial , Yet they are portrayed to be. There is only one group who can release Marian, That's , MI5 , who give advice to the British PM and Secretary of state on all security matters. Just remember what the British PM said to Mrs Finucane regarding the full Public Enquiry, that should answer everyones question.
Marty, Why was it not pursued on the night. P Drinian was given an explanation by P Corrigan, quite a comprehensive and viable explanation which related to why the writ being sought at this time might actually disadvantage Marian. Why would anyone think that P Corrigan would not be acting in Marian's best interest? There were quite a few credible and interested parties in the room that night and no one pursued P Corrigan any further even though some would have been well equipped to do so. You are quite right the Professor did not speak but I'm sure if he believed Marian's legal team to be out of step he would have done so. With all respect why did you not put these questions to Marian's solicitor on the night?
Nuala like everyone else in the room that night I believed in letting the messenger deliver the message and letting a particular action or tactic run its course,that meeting was at least 5 months ago and as far as I can observe there has been no movement on Marians case whatsoever,the "quite a few interested parties"that you claim were in the room that night confuses me as I thought the room was almost empty,however I am not posting looking brownie points I,m concerned at the lack of any apparent movement on securing Marians release,two capable human rights lawyers ie.,PádragÃn Drinnan and Christopher Stanley have once again flagged up habeas corpus as a viable device in the attempt to secure Marians release,now rather than stay stuck in the past going nowhere as you seem content to do,what is it in your opinion that the advice of at least two human rights campaigners should be ignored,remember Nuala Christopher Stanley is the legal officer of rights watch which is an independent non -governmental organisation who have received wide recognition as the winner of the parliamentary Assembly of the council of Europes human rights prize in 2009,PádragÃn Drinnan like Rosemary Nelson,Pat Finucane has put her life and livelihood on the line over the past 40years plus in pursuing human rights,and in that period has gained extensive experience in this subject which I,m sure even you must agree on.if such people are advising such a course of action then I think its churlish to ignore their opinions,
Mackers Apologies if I have posted this twice! The phone seems to have a mind of its own. Marty I would assume that everyone that turned up to Queens was an interested party. The fact that the lecture hall was sparsely populated does not deflect from the sincerity of the people who attended. Some of the people in that audience would have been well equipped to spot any failings on Marian's solicitors behalf. One question about how it the case was proceeding was asked and quite thoroughly answered . The silence that followed was a clear indication that people had accepted P Corrigans legal expertise on the matter and were moving on . He actually encouraged people to ask more no one did . For weeks prior to the meeting we heard Peter was going to be taken to task in public, which we all agreed was fair enough provided that the task takers were doing it for the right reasons but it never happened. In fact it happened in the reverse with his legal standing being vindicated. The rest of you who I assume can't move on actually do try our best we have remained there and consistent.
Apologies I did not mean to write the rest of you, actually should have said the rest of us, me whoever? The fact that you now sound almost churlish in relation to us, me or whoever and for whatever reason is puzzling .This type of stuff let's mi5, secret evidence and all the other dirty tricksters off the hook and points the figure very much in the wrong direction and it serves no-one.
I am sure that Marian's solicitors are dining their best to help her in what seems to be a system that has two sets of rules - one for those who support the British and one for the Irish who are simply looking for what belongs to them - freedom. I find it incomprehensible that any person with half a heart could stand by and watch her suffer like this, and just wish there was more that we could do for her, and others like Martin Corey who are being illegally detained.
If everyone stopped mentioning MI5 , it would be then that they would be let of the Hook.
I know there are people who have done outstanding work for the freedom of Marian , and, the rest of Republicans.
You are all doing a fantastic job and it is sincerely appreciated.
As I already mentioned what Mrs Finucane said what The The British PM said to her regards a Public enquiry, If I were to give you the full Public Enquiry , "There are people in these corridors who would not let that happen" , meaning MI5.
That was my main point in getting the full message across. I did not mean any animosity towards anyone, that's if your reference to MI5 was towards me of course. I know your doing fine work , also Marty and others.
I have read the article in Pensive Quill about Marian Price and the report from Rights Watch UK.
I noted their suggestion that a Habeas Corpus application could be taken. I am not surprised. This has been said by many over the past 23 months. I have been asked by concerned people in China and the United States why the application has not been made. I have asked repeatedly and have not been given an answer.
When there was a public meeting at Queen's I again asked the question. I was not given a proper answer. I was told that Marian's representatives had been to the Parole Body and had been advised that such an application may not be successful. It may be that this answer is in two parts - that they had been to the Parole Body and that they had been given advice. As it was expressed it appeared that the advice came from the Parole Body.
Even if the advice came from elsewhere, should an application not be made? Surely if it is made and is unsuccessful that fact can be made public. And it may be successful.
Padraigin Drinan
P Drinan Solicitors Conway Mill Conway Street Belfast BT13 2DE Tel - 02890322071 Fax - 02890240495
Itsjustmacker No I did not mean you! Everyone is frustrated about Marian just as those working tirelessly on behalf of other. Campaigns must feel desperately frustrated. There is a vindictive cruelty running through all of this .I don't believe covering old ground or misdirecting issues serves anyone. I know you are very genuine in all you say as is Lauretta.
Use of Habeas Corpus by Individuals Subject to ‘Preventive’ Anti-Terrorism Laws The United Kingdom (UK) has faced the issue of how to lawfully detain an individual that they suspect is a terrorist but cannot prosecute for varying reasons through a system of “control orders.” These orders, issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005,[7] do not serve to detain individuals per se, but rather impose obligations upon them that are designed to disrupt and prevent terrorist activity. Such obligations include restrictions on association with specified individuals, restrictions on movement."
I am no Solicitor , but on reading the above , to me it states, they can keep you locked up for as long as they want just to keep you away from Anti Treaty supporters.
Would I be correct in stating that?. The above is from , "Habeas Corpus Rights: United Kingdom"
Everyone is frustrated about everything at the moment, Justice has gone to the dogs, Its like a Big Circle, follow it to the end, which ends up to be the beginning. The British have got there own way again, and SF wonders why there are Anti Treaty Republicans. No work for the Youth, they are getting despondent now. Future looks very bleak for everyone whilst SF sits on the hill in style, whilst those who are still interned seem to be forgotten about , but, not from everyone from within SF, help was appreciated when Marian was allowed to see her late sister before burial, of which Marty played a very big part in.
Justmackers.read that script again a cara"control orders",these orders,issued under the prevention of terrorism act 2005(,7) DO NOT SERVE TO TO DETAIN INDIVIDUALS PER SE. There is no mention there a cara about keeping anyone locked up. I,m not a solicitor either but two eminently qualified human rights lawyers seem to think this device of habeas corpus is worth a try.I cant see what the problem is with trying it.
I know , I just Posted another piece on it while you posted yours. And in it I state, Why have These Human Rights Lawyers not applied for it. I took the point of view in that, one part contradicts another part.
I'm not a solicitor either not a clairvoyant but what has occurred here this evening is a clear case of deja vu. Which means, certain people seem to enlist the help of others once the odds stack. Whatever happened to fighting ones own battles or taking an argument through to a logical conclusion.? Presuming there is one. That evening on Queens we all met up and chatted on the way home. I don't remember anyone, anyone expressing any dissatisfaction. We all wanted to hear from the legal representatives on the night and P Corrigan wanted to hear more and to reiterate again nothing came. Marty you were sitting beside me and remained quiet. Again as an unlegal mind but someone who has been about a long time something about this even if well intentioned is quite distasteful .
At this point i'm sorry I sent the report given the the level and tone of the debate. I'm all for debate but I feel this thread to be anything but helpful to Marian's situation.
Marian's situation! Now there's a thought. Never seems to trouble people when all these convoluted games are being played out? Only seems to be regrettable when challenged.
What games? What challenge? As you well know Nuala i have worked tirelessly in highlighting Marian's plight and continue to on an independent level. So again what games? What challenge?
Sorry I'm just getting back to your questions, I was busy yesterday with my hubby's 40th birthday.
By your own admission you hadn't read the 'Rights Watch' report which states a “further legal device would be to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.” When you read the report you will find the issue of habeas corpus is merely one element of the content of the overall document. The report strongly recommends that Marian should be released immediately on compassionate grounds and raises concerns about the parole commissioners and their lack of independence from the state.
This debate started with Marty asking a question about a writ of habeas corpus. I agree this question has been raised before but I suspect the fresh line of questioning may stem from the suggestion outlined in the report cited above which is dated 25/3/13.
You talk about people playing out 'convoluted games' and that I know 'perfectly well what has been played out', using your reasoning, this would make me complicit in these alleged 'convoluted games.'
If you are so sure games are being played then can you please specify who is playing and what is being played out because I can assure you I am neither aware or complicit in any 'convoluted games' nor would I give credence to any such actions.. I'm sure clarity on the issues you raise would be appreciated given you have raised these issues on a public forum.
Nuala ask yourself , what would anyone stand to gain from this alleged Machiavellian behaviour?
I have asked myself that question many, many times but then considering I don't have that type of mindset I am never going to come up with the answer. Only to say I have been around Republicanism the best part of my life and never encountered the likes of it. Of course people can debate the issue! We are not all of the same mind and debate is healthy. However, it becomes distinctly unhealthy when other mechanisms such as personal dislikes and petty disputes and attempts to discredit people's characters are deployed. You are perfectly aware of this as am I. Furthermore I will not be taking a walk down Pretence Avenue with you, pointless!
I will take your latest comment to mean you wont substantiate the claims you have made. This would lead me to the following conclusion, that you really should take a step back and attempt to not only obtain some objectivity, but also a grasp on fact.
The fact is Nuala you entered this debate with no knowledge of what was being discussed as by your own admission you hadn't read the report. I would suggest taking the time to read the document and then try and look at the comments with some new found objectivity, if possible.
As for your comment about not 'taking a walk down Pretence Avenue' with me, well, I suppose my response to that would have to be.... the next time you arrive at Pretence Avenue you might be best to take a right turn at Reality Road. The reality is you cannot make groundless accusations and then refuse to substantiate them. You are the only person here taking down the characters of other people.
Pauline I think the sincere and decent people who read this blog from whatever political perspective have had to digest quite enough of this. At this stage you can convey and project yourself in whatever light or format you chose, but apart from those who mutually indulge with you few are impressed. Personally I feel I have insulted myself enough by having to even engage with you and others in relation to any of this. It was the psudyonms that first brought my attentions to the fact that idiot behaviour being played out else where was now being brought here, initially in subtle manner to colour the judgement of people reading this blog. Hardly a capital offence I know! But mischievous, undermining and very much self serving behaviour is hardly the order of the day especially when people come here to get a flavour of honest opinion right or wrong. I do apologise to the sincere people who have had to have their time and energy deflected by this.
Lastly I think this is very much your bag but it is most certainly not mine. Desist, carry on whatever as for Reality Road that's where you can contact me.
Just to follow on and finalise this! I should have stated, there is nothing wrong with people writing under pseudoynms. People for whatever reason do this and it is perfectly acceptable. Where it becomes devious and quite unacceptable is where and when it is used to undermine one person or a family's standing while enhancing the authors. Silly games I know, petty and unrealistic to the rest of us but it happens, of course those who indulge will deny you would hardly delve into those extremes and then put your hands up. Liken it to back door innuendo or behind hand whispers once challenged it is denied or retracted but it happens and once again we cannot protect or guard ourselves against it. But are we the better person for challenging or ignoring? I honestly don't know?
With all due respect I have never read as much waffle in my life! Clearly constructed to deflect from the fact that you on a public forum have accused contributors to this thread of playing games . One contributor asked a question and the other added clarity to a situation you brought to light on this thread. (Queens)
You raised names on this thread when you had no need to. Again by your own admission you entered this thread without reading the post which means you had no knowledge of what was being discussed. Please note I am not on here to defend anyone I am merely stating the facts as I see them.
Not content with your first bundle of unfounded accusations, that you refuse to substantiate, you then continue to concoct more, again on this public forum.
Nuala if you feel that you have insulted yourself by engaging with me then there is a quick and easy solution, stop. Whether you chose to engage/comment or pontificate is of no relevance to me, nor will your stance in any way stop me from highlighting the injustice being meted out against Marian.
I would question how you can effectively highlight the injustice of detention by secret evidence when you as a campaigner enter a public forum making unsubstantiated accusations against other campaigners.
It would seem your bolt of concern for people reading the blog is an attempt to deflect from your actions. Could it be that “the sincere and decent people who read this blog” may see your concoction of ludicrous accusations and choose to avoid? Could it be that sincere and decent people would empathise with those of us forced to clarify our position and defend ourselves from your nonsensical meaningless rants? Which again you refuse to substantiate
I'll leave this thread offering some advice that I'm sure you will ignore... refrain from making statements containing unsubstantiated accusations, but ultimately, when in a hole stop digging.
For information on the plight of Marian Price please visit www.freemarian.co.nr This website contains video footage, photos and documents from national and international sources relating to the case.
Pauline. One simply thing you seem to have overlooked in your attempt to sugar coat yourself. You have told people that you engage in this behaviour on other forums, so why not here? Something else you overlooked at lot more people than me spotted it, both on and off this blog. Not one thing I have said has been untruthful or even remotely concocted. No one wants to drive you from the campaign. Not so long ago you threatened to leave in a bid to get rid of other people, didn't work though. Queen Bee syndrome I think it's called ?? I have met a lot of great people in this campaign but sadly as in all things there are also the not so great, rough with the smooth! Really won't be wasting anymore time with you on this site but you are still welcome to make contact.
Queen Bee interesting! So would it be OK for me to call you the Mistress of Deflection?
Nuala on top of the claims of convoluted games being played out and mischievous behaviour you have made further claims, substantiate.
In a past post you said “certain people seem to enlist the help of others once the odds stack. Whatever happened to fighting ones own battles or taking an argument through to a logical conclusion?” in your last post you stated “Something else you overlooked a lot more people than me spotted it, both on and off this blog.” Enlisting the help of other people?
You later continue to say “Not one thing I have said has been untruthful or even remotely concocted.” Substantiate.
These accusations are growing by the post and as yet you have not addressed one single issue.
At this point I run the risk of being accused of being the 2nd gun man in the assassination of JFK.
Difficult to know what's going on in this conversation though obviously there's more to it from Nuala's perspective than just what's appeared on this specific thread. What I'm picking up is that, like with so many other things going on inside republicanism, there are negative issues internal to the running of the Marian campaign which the broader public, myself included, aren't aware of. If so that's sad but realistically it's probably inevitable. Probably best not to get involved but I'd hope you's could sort out your differences, if they're only related to this thread then things are hardly that far gone. If there's personal issues well that's a different story. As far as I can tell both of you's are on the same side here. Nuala from all your posts I've come across on the Quill I can tell you're a committed republican with nothing but a concern for what's right; Pauline if you're the same woman I'm thinking of, who spoke in Coalisland last month, then I'd say the same about yourself. Hope you's don't continue this and fall out beyond repair
"At this point i'm sorry I sent the report given the the level and tone of the debate. I'm all for debate but I feel this thread to be anything but helpful to Marian's situation."
Debate is always healthy there was no part of the discussion at the beginning of this thread that I was personally concerned with - and you know who wouldn't have been concerned about the 'tone of the debate' - Marian !! I have known Marian from I was a young child and never once did she ever discourage debate, asking questions and arguing one's position even if differed from her own.
To suggest that debate is not helpful to Marian's 'situation' is just mere fiction - to throw that theme into the discussion is unhelpful and not constructive and served no purpose except to derail the discussion away from the valid question of why "habeas corpus" has not been utilised in this case......
In my opinion that was a very valid and important discussion and point to be raised more important than the personalities/characters who clearly have an uncomfortable dynamic .
Also in my opinion ( which means fuck all) it's not very constructive for those of us who are public faces in campaigns to engage in what could be seen to be pettiness with fellow organisers and activists ..... this causes wider issues and problems.
Its imperative that whoever is next visiting Marian , That she be made aware that she, as the prisoner , "although Interned illegally" , has the right to apply for "Habeas corpus" herself, she must consult her solicitor and inform him that she wants to apply for it.
Who knows what the outcome would be, we can all but hope and pray it would bring her release.
SeanBres, There are no internal disputes amongst those currently running the campaign for Marian. What had unfolded on this thread actually began quite a while ago and on a different thread. I and others picked up on the fact that pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness and these windups were being passed off as legitimate posts. It was nipped but sadly continues to fester but the campaign remains intact.
Sean I couldn't make the event in Coalisland so that wasn't me. I can assure you there will be no fall out. This is merely an exchange of views and a keenness to establish a few facts surrounding some of the comments made. I personally don't believe internal issues should be broadcast on a public forum and i'm not aware of any personal issue as this is certainly not personal on my part.
Aine There was no attempt to derail the thread in anyway. Yes I agree the recommendation of filing for a writ of habeas corpus is valid but on this thread when valid points had been raised it kept going back to the fact that it had been discussed at an earlier stage despite the new recommendation. I maybe didn't make myself clear but my comment wasn't made to derail or stymie debate it was an attempt to put it back on track. I posted the report therefore to purposely derail the thread would make no sense. The comment that followed led me to question the accusations made. As the accusations were made on this forum I felt it best to keep it on the forum as there was no other communication in respect of these comments. You also mention how “it's not very constructive for those of us who are public faces in campaigns to engage in what could be seen to be pettiness” I refer to your comment “Debate is always healthy.” As my knowledge on the subject is limited do you know anything about Habeas Corpus?
Itsjustmackers a cara exactly the recommendation from Christopher Stanley of British Rights Watch,the author of the original post here,who has recommended just that line of action,I merely flagged up this point, it has been tossed around for a while now with people like Padrágin Drinnan and others suggesting that this habeas corpus device was worth a try in the courts,what followed was nothing whatsoever to do with this Br report or my agreement with the suggestion,such distractions may indeed stifle the messenger and even the debate but as you rightly say the message remains and "nothing to be lost,all to be gained"thanks again to Pauline for posting this report unlike others I thought it was relevant to Marian,s situation and worth READING!
if a habeus corpus application were to secure her release there would be every reason to go for it. It was one of the legal devices frequently used against the military junta in Argentina when people were being disappeared.
If on the other hand it makes it more difficult to secure her release than it would be a dubious legal strategy.
What I glean from this discussion is that there seems to be a difference of opinion between lawyers on the usefulness of such an application. But a difference of opinion is healthy and there is no reason for anyone to be bound by a lawyer's view on the matter. It is only legal advice, honestly offered, not a judicial decree. The lawyers themselves will tell you that.
Clearly there is room for a diversity of views on the matter and it is important that the question be raised. I think the Rights Watch report is a positive development and thanks to Pauline for sending us the link.
That seems to me to be the issue here Anthony. If Marian or her team were to apply for a writ of habeas corpus then what becomes the other legal processes being followed should it fail? Would failure of a habeas corpus application result in total failure for the entire legal campaign? Perhaps this is why her solicitors are reluctant to pursue this option other than as a last resort. As itsjustmacker said earlier the likelihood is that MI5 could intervene surreptitiously, as was the case in the proposed Finucane inquiry, and scupper the entire process - especially if they knew this would prove destructive for the case in its totality. So if what Nuala's saying is that this should be very carefully considered as the consequences for failure could make the situation worse then that's a very valid point. Of course no-one on here would overlook that but maybe it is nearing the point were last resorts are required which is why habeas corpus should at least be on the table for discussion.
But it would be terrible to gamble everything and come up just short and to end up with nothing.
The Brits have near-perfected their legal system to deal with eventualities such as the imprisonment of Marian Price. What's certain is that even if some legal loop-hole can be found to secure Marian's release they will change whatever law needs changing to make sure the next unfortunate person to find themselves in this situation cannot avail of the same device. This is how the British have always worked; legalise the illegal. Marian's imprisonment is illegal, by the time it takes to prove it - if it's ever proved - the damage will have been done. God help that poor woman and good luck to all of you who are part of the campaign team
Your latest accusation "pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness" please elaborate because if i'm not mistaken you are suggesting someone in this thread is responsible. Who when and where.
You continue to bring the makeup of the camapign ito question no one else has mentioned it in anyway. Last nigt you metaphorically opened a laundry basket and scattered it all over this forum. I dismissed the comments as again I don't give credibilty or credence to baseles accusations.
Agian are you now suggesting on top of your many accusations that I am embroiled in this further
Marty, 'What followed' 'such distractions' I sincerely hope that is in no way directed at me! If it is then you are making yourself look and sound ridiculous. You know I would never engage in pettiness, especially when I have no time and even less interest in those who were writings under their protective and malicious pseudoynms. If you are saying I did stoop to derailing a thread then that's a sizeable turnaround to what you have written about me on other pages in this blog! So which version do we go with? I have heard this habeas corpus stuff being bandied about for as far back as I can remember. Personally I would not even have ventured to tackle Marian's solicitor than night in Queens I would not have had the faintest notion. As campaigners we went on the night to hear the best way forward and the legal aspect which we heard was so wrong challenged. To reiterate it never happened im my opinion Marian's solicitor put across by far the stronger case. Which is fair dues no big deal. As Mackers said two legal minds having a difference of opinion. Where your post annoyed me and it did, was, you and all the others who talked such a great fight stayed mute. Then, when I pointed that out and the odds start to stack the cavalry are sent for! Thankfully in this case not a load of the usual manufactured back up but back up all the same. Again, you know perfectly well I do not engage myself in silliness so why are you?
all options need to be explored. Marian's solicitor has a view on it which Nuala thinks is the argument that has been most impressive to date. We should only be swayed by the best argument. At the same time that view has been questioned and others, some with a legal background, think a habeus corpus is the way to go. I simply don't know. But as Sean Bres suggests Marian is not out yet and all options to get her out have to be considered. Not every new idea is a good idea but as the maxim goes, do what we have always done and we get what we have always got.
Anthony exactly a cara .we must not lose sight of the fact that Marian remains ,interned ,held by secretive evidence which initself is an insult to the principles of democracy,if only it was a matter of ransom then the dues would have been gathered and paid long ago.we have petitioned,marched,gathered and some have prayed all to no avail, legal minds suggest a course of action others disagree,who is right,who knows a cara,but the difference between a successful person and a failure is not one has better abilities but the courage that one has to bet on ones ideas,to take a calculated risk-and to act...Andre Malaraux
Your latest accusation "pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness" please elaborate because if I’m not mistaken you are suggesting someone on this thread is responsible. Who when and where?
You continue to bring the make-up of the campaign in to question no one else has mentioned it in anyway. Last night you metaphorically opened a laundry basket and scattered it all over this forum. I dismissed the comments as again I don't give credibility or credence to groundless accusations and as I’ve already stated this isn't the forum to spout off about internal campaign issues past or present. What I do expect though is for the accuser to afford me a shred of evidence or to at least explain their reasoning.
I stood in Derry and said it ,at the GPO and said it, in front of a large march in Belfast and said it and I sat in Coalisland last year and said it. The point I’m making is I don't go behind the door to say it and when necessary I put in print and stand over it.
Again are you suggesting that someone on this thread including myself would ask questions under another guise? Nuala you continue cast aspersions over good people and myself, at this point I feel your behaviour to be nothing short of sinister. I am confident that your aim maybe to impress onlookers however I suspect your actions will serves mostly to suppress support for the campaign.
In the majority of your posts you mention “we” I have no problem debating with more than one but could it be that the 'we' are merely the makers of internet hand grenades leaving you to throw them and then sink in the aftermath with no support? If the “we” you mention support these accusations and your airing of laundry then why haven't they publicly stated so?
Once upon a time I was unwittingly in the position you're in now. At the request of others I proceeded to rectify things publicly, things that were considered unhelpful. I not only bore brunt of those beyond correction but I then later discovered that the same people sending me to do this work were in fact people who stood up for no-one and stood over nothing. I'm not suggesting these people were malicious they just failed to remember that support is a two way street.
I mean this in all sincerity, could it be that you are being used?
Nuala in the early 70,s was there a shortage of bin lids round your way and were you used as a substitute it seems to me you may have remained one. your comments re that my post has annoyed you,well you must be easily annoyed,your comment about "me talking a great fight and staying mute" on the night of the queens meeting is a lie,I attended that meeting in no other guise than someone concerned with Marians plight as I,ve already stated the explanation from Peter Corrigan imo was accepted,however with the passage of time Five months and the recent release of this British rights watch report by Christopher Stanley and his recommendation that habeas corpus be tried as a legal device has again thrown that idea up as a possibility, I thought it was worthy of debate, you on the other hand have engaged in nothing angry accusations,which in my case are lies and I repeat lies, I find Marians plight like all the other pows situation far to serious to engage in silliness,I think by all your posts on this thread the readers can make up their own minds who the eejit really is.
I have just discussed the content of this thread with my husband at great length. We are both in agreement that given the serious nature of the accusations made and your reluctance to substantiate that we may need to take you up on your offer to make contact. Would you and if you choose the 'we' be prepared to meet up so that you can substantiate the allegations you continue to make on this public forum? Pauline
Marty, You have changed your tune but then what is it different day different friend? I was annoyed by the fact you could not stand up for yourself in a public debate but then decided to proceed yet again here. I suppose away and wise up would have been a better response. Wonder what they used you for during the war? The difference between me and you and the people you indulge with I don't have to prove myself to anyone.
It is not my intention to police this row. Big boys and big girls rules. But it seems it has become a bad tempered spat at the end of which I am none the wiser. Perhaps if people take a step back and make the approach again it will allow the issue to settle down a bit. Can't say I find a lot wrong with the decision for some of the parties to talk about the matter. It seems to me it can only be for the good.
As a reader of this thread, someone not involved in the campaign beyond supporting it and knowing none of you's personally I wouldn't say anyone has made an eejit of themselves - to be fair to Nuala it seems there's more to the situation than meets the eye in a lot of what's being said and it looks like Marty you've been caught in the cross-fire to an extent. What I would say Nuala is Marty hasn't suggested at all you were engaging in pettiness or trying to undermine or derail the conversation but has simply tried to defend his position that habeas corpus may be an avenue worth at least considering regardless of what the feeling was five months ago given the clear lack of progress in the period since. I hope you's argue like this all the time and as such this spat won't affect you's going forward once you's make amends cause it sounds like you's are good friends and, plainly from the discussions I've been involved in with ye's, very similar politically. It would be a shame for that friendship to suffer from this argument where confusion seems to play as big a part as any actual differences in opinion.
As for whatever's going on between Nuala and Pauline as a neutral observer it seems more likely there are wires crossed somewhere - seemingly in relation to goings on outside of this particular thread whether that be personality clashes or back-stabbing internal to the campaign or whatever and not necessarily involving the contributors on here. Unfortunately it's being played out here to the bitter end for all the world to see when it could easily have been put to the side given the conversation had seemingly moved on this morning back towards the discussion on habeas corpus. That's the only sensible way to resolve this now, put it to the side and sort it out face-to-face next time you's meet where hopefully it can be put behind ye's and forgot about. Sounds to me like everyone has good intentions here but other things have slipped into the conversation which are causing conflict regardless of who's responsible
I dont know what your question is Nuala but if it is to do with your last post regarding that night at queens I,ve already answered that twice but like the orginal post you may not have read them either,as for the war I,ll take a Gerry on that.
Sean Bres. You have done your best to be the voice of reason here and it is very decent of you! When I asked on a post last night was it best to point out the unsavoury or stay quiet I was being genuine? The majority of us who work on the campaign for Marian are tight knit and focused. People who know me know this isn't my thing but sometimes you have to take a step down, but none of this is remotely reflective of Marian's campaign. We have remained consistent so far and will continue to do so. I will only return to this thread to feed back on how things progress or regress. Which ever!
Sean Bres I intended to only return to give you feedback on the proposed accusation meeting for want of a better title. But I feel this thread is going to keep going and going so not to divert from what I said I will feed back on the out come.
Former IRA volunteer and ex-prisoner, spent 18 years in Long Kesh, 4 years on the blanket and no-wash/no work protests which led to the hunger strikes of the 80s. Completed PhD at Queens upon release from prison. Left the Republican Movement at the endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement, and went on to become a journalist. Co-founder of The Blanket, an online magazine that critically analyzed the Irish peace process. Lead researcher for the Belfast Project, an oral history of the Troubles.
 &p[url]=https://www.thepensivequill.com/2013/04/rights-watch-report-on-marian-price.html&p[images][0]=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY652V0G17hssCZ8KqxAJQMMx2ayp-BQPPPKwK0UloY1TyuQMXXuf0rdb61zWRwGT3jycqSbixIrtlfF6iJq5LHeqvvr2f9mJxUt1Ct0lzSOvxElEyFMo99xIySBtLkVs6buFCE84z7EY-/s320/01+Marian.jpeg){kind=link}
As an American, I am not as familiar with UK and European law. Can Marian Price file suit against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights?
ReplyDeleteWhat I cant understand is why Marians legal team has not applied for habeas corpus
ReplyDeleteMarty
ReplyDeleteYou were at Queens when P Corrigan Marians solicitor outlined and elaborated on why he would and could not apply the writ. P Drinan asked the question and if I remember right P Cortogan gave a highly intelligent legal answer and also accorded the rest of us the opportunity to question him, no one did?
The interview and Peters explanation remains on her website?
Nuala he said that the parole board said it would be unlikely to be successful,which is a bit strange taking advice from people who would not be regarded as being necessarily on Marians side,and given the lack of any apparent movement in this case ,unless of course you know better, it would imo be the way to go if all legal due process was to be exhausted before the case could be taken to the European courts,,
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteI dont know better but quite clearly Peter Corrigan does.
He gave a very comprehensive explanation and as I and everyone else remembers he invited all of us to question further no one did.
I had heard this been said over and over prior to the meeting and yet on the night P Drinian asked a question which was answered and I think everyone assumed the silence to be a clear vindication of P Corrigans legal stance.
There was another legal man in the room that night who also backed up P Corrigans view on how the case should be handled. I don't have computer access at present so I can not view the transcript but other people can.
Nuala . Christopher Stanley legal officer Rights watch uk(formerly British Irish rights watch) states in this report"A further legal device would be to apply for a writ of habeas corpus"along with PádragÃn Drinnan who has campaigned on human rights issues for many years. these legal minds think that indeed habeas corpus is the way to go,the only other person that I,m aware of of legal standing at that meeting in Queens that night was prof Phil Scratton and as far I can remember Phil Scratton did not speak, its not a question of vindication its a question of using all legal means to have Marian freed and I,m sure you and everyone else would agree.
ReplyDeleteMarty:
ReplyDelete"Nuala he said that the parole board said it would be unlikely to be successful"
Even if the parole board granted Marian's release on humanitarian grounds , MI5/Secretary of state would have her re-arrested once she stepped outside, I would say that's the word peter was putting over. If you think about it, would the parole board have said such a thing to any solicitor? , considering they are not impartial , Yet they are portrayed to be. There is only one group who can release Marian, That's , MI5 , who give advice to the British PM and Secretary of state on all security matters. Just remember what the British PM said to Mrs Finucane regarding the full Public Enquiry, that should answer everyones question.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteWhy was it not pursued on the night. P Drinian was given an explanation by P Corrigan, quite a comprehensive and viable explanation which related to why the writ being sought at this time might actually disadvantage Marian.
Why would anyone think that P Corrigan would not be acting in Marian's best interest?
There were quite a few credible and interested parties in the room that night and no one pursued P Corrigan any further even though some would have been well equipped to do so. You are quite right the Professor did not speak but I'm sure if he believed Marian's legal team to be out of step he would have done so.
With all respect why did you not put these questions to Marian's solicitor on the night?
Nuala like everyone else in the room that night I believed in letting the messenger deliver the message and letting a particular action or tactic run its course,that meeting was at least 5 months ago and as far as I can observe there has been no movement on Marians case whatsoever,the "quite a few interested parties"that you claim were in the room that night confuses me as I thought the room was almost empty,however I am not posting looking brownie points I,m concerned at the lack of any apparent movement on securing Marians release,two capable human rights lawyers ie.,PádragÃn Drinnan and Christopher Stanley have once again flagged up habeas corpus as a viable device in the attempt to secure Marians release,now rather than stay stuck in the past going nowhere as you seem content to do,what is it in your opinion that the advice of at least two human rights campaigners should be ignored,remember Nuala Christopher Stanley is the legal officer of rights watch which is an independent non -governmental organisation who have received wide recognition as the winner of the parliamentary Assembly of the council of Europes human rights prize in 2009,PádragÃn Drinnan like Rosemary Nelson,Pat Finucane has put her life and livelihood on the line over the past 40years plus in pursuing human rights,and in that period has gained extensive experience in this subject which I,m sure even you must agree on.if such people are advising such a course of action then I think its churlish to ignore their opinions,
ReplyDeleteMackers
ReplyDeleteApologies if I have posted this twice! The phone seems to have a mind of its own.
Marty I would assume that everyone that turned up to Queens was an interested party. The fact that the lecture hall was sparsely populated does not deflect from the sincerity of the people who attended. Some of the people in that audience would have been well equipped to spot any failings on Marian's solicitors behalf.
One question about how it the case was proceeding was asked and quite thoroughly answered . The silence that followed was a clear indication that people had accepted P Corrigans legal expertise on the matter and were moving on . He actually encouraged people to ask more no one did .
For weeks prior to the meeting we heard Peter was going to be taken to task in public, which we all agreed was fair enough provided that the task takers were doing it for the right reasons but it never happened. In fact it happened in the reverse with his legal standing being vindicated. The rest of you who I assume can't move on actually do try our best we have remained there and consistent.
Lauretta,
ReplyDeleteI would say what Marian has endured thus far and continues to endure is well within breach of human rights legislation.
Apologies I did not mean to write the rest of you, actually should have said the rest of us, me whoever? The fact that you now sound almost churlish in relation to us, me or whoever and for whatever reason is puzzling .This type of stuff let's mi5, secret evidence and all the other dirty tricksters off the hook and points the figure very much in the wrong direction and it serves no-one.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Marian's solicitors are dining their best to help her in what seems to be a system that has two sets of rules - one for those who support the British and one for the Irish who are simply looking for what belongs to them - freedom. I find it incomprehensible that any person with half a heart could stand by and watch her suffer like this, and just wish there was more that we could do for her, and others like Martin Corey who are being illegally detained.
ReplyDeleteFionnuala:
ReplyDeleteIf everyone stopped mentioning MI5 , it would be then that they would be let of the Hook.
I know there are people who have done outstanding work for the freedom of Marian , and, the rest of Republicans.
You are all doing a fantastic job and it is sincerely appreciated.
As I already mentioned what Mrs Finucane said what The The British PM said to her regards a Public enquiry, If I were to give you the full Public Enquiry , "There are people in these corridors who would not let that happen" , meaning MI5.
That was my main point in getting the full message across. I did not mean any animosity towards anyone, that's if your reference to MI5 was towards me of course. I know your doing fine work , also Marty and others.
From PádraigÃn Drinan
ReplyDeleteI have read the article in Pensive Quill about Marian Price and the report from Rights Watch UK.
I noted their suggestion that a Habeas Corpus application could be taken. I am not surprised. This has been said by many over the past 23 months. I have been asked by concerned people in China and the United States why the application has not been made. I have asked repeatedly and have not been given an answer.
When there was a public meeting at Queen's I again asked the question. I was not given a proper answer. I was told that Marian's representatives had been to the Parole Body and had been advised that such an application may not be successful. It may be that this answer is in two parts - that they had been to the Parole Body and that they had been given advice. As it was expressed it appeared that the advice came from the Parole Body.
Even if the advice came from elsewhere, should an application not be made? Surely if it is made and is unsuccessful that fact can be made public. And it may be successful.
Padraigin Drinan
P Drinan Solicitors
Conway Mill
Conway Street
Belfast BT13 2DE
Tel - 02890322071
Fax - 02890240495
Itsjustmacker
ReplyDeleteNo I did not mean you! Everyone is frustrated about Marian just as those working tirelessly on behalf of other. Campaigns must feel desperately frustrated.
There is a vindictive cruelty running through all of this .I don't believe covering old ground or misdirecting issues serves anyone. I know you are very genuine in all you say as is Lauretta.
PádraigÃn:
ReplyDeleteUse of Habeas Corpus by Individuals Subject to ‘Preventive’ Anti-Terrorism Laws
The United Kingdom (UK) has faced the issue of how to lawfully detain an individual that they suspect is a terrorist but cannot prosecute for varying reasons through a system of “control orders.” These orders, issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005,[7] do not serve to detain individuals per se, but rather impose obligations upon them that are designed to disrupt and prevent terrorist activity. Such obligations include restrictions on association with specified individuals, restrictions on movement."
I am no Solicitor , but on reading the above , to me it states, they can keep you locked up for as long as they want just to keep you away from Anti Treaty supporters.
Would I be correct in stating that?.
The above is from , "Habeas Corpus Rights: United Kingdom"
Habeas Corpus Rights
Fionnuala:
ReplyDeleteThanks for clearing that up for me.
Everyone is frustrated about everything at the moment, Justice has gone to the dogs, Its like a Big Circle, follow it to the end, which ends up to be the beginning. The British have got there own way again, and SF wonders why there are Anti Treaty Republicans. No work for the Youth, they are getting despondent now. Future looks very bleak for everyone whilst SF sits on the hill in style, whilst those who are still interned seem to be forgotten about , but, not from everyone from within SF, help was appreciated when Marian was allowed to see her late sister before burial, of which Marty played a very big part in.
Justmackers.read that script again a cara"control orders",these orders,issued under the prevention of terrorism act 2005(,7) DO NOT SERVE TO TO DETAIN INDIVIDUALS PER SE. There is no mention there a cara about keeping anyone locked up. I,m not a solicitor either but two eminently qualified human rights lawyers seem to think this device of habeas corpus is worth a try.I cant see what the problem is with trying it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting part, especially were it states ;
ReplyDelete" A petition for issuance of the writ can be filed by the "imprisoned person" or by other individuals acting on his or her behalf."
My question is, why has Marian not been notified of this?, obviously she would need legal assistance to write it.
This is from the same link above.
What has Marian and others got to Lose.
Marty:
ReplyDeleteI know , I just Posted another piece on it while you posted yours.
And in it I state, Why have These Human Rights Lawyers not applied for it. I took the point of view in that, one part contradicts another part.
I'm not a solicitor either not a clairvoyant but what has occurred here this evening is a clear case of deja vu. Which means, certain people seem to enlist the help of others once the odds stack. Whatever happened to fighting ones own battles or taking an argument through to a logical conclusion.? Presuming there is one.
ReplyDeleteThat evening on Queens we all met up and chatted on the way home. I don't remember anyone, anyone expressing any dissatisfaction. We all wanted to hear from the legal representatives on the night and P Corrigan wanted to hear more and to reiterate again nothing came.
Marty you were sitting beside me and remained quiet.
Again as an unlegal mind but someone who has been about a long time something about this even if well intentioned is quite distasteful .
At this point i'm sorry I sent the report given the the level and tone of the debate. I'm all for debate but I feel this thread to be anything but helpful to Marian's situation.
ReplyDeleteMarian's situation! Now there's a thought. Never seems to trouble people when all these convoluted games are being played out? Only seems to be regrettable when challenged.
ReplyDeleteWhat games? What challenge? As you well know Nuala i have worked tirelessly in highlighting Marian's plight and continue to on an independent level. So again what games? What challenge?
ReplyDeleteYou know perfectly well what has been played out ?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't seriously don't ? I am sure you know how I can be contacted.
Nuala
ReplyDeleteSorry I'm just getting back to your questions, I was busy yesterday with my hubby's 40th birthday.
By your own admission you hadn't read the 'Rights Watch' report which states a “further legal device would be to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.” When you read the report you will find the issue of habeas corpus is merely one element of the content of the overall document. The report strongly recommends that Marian should be released immediately on compassionate grounds and raises concerns about the parole commissioners and their lack of independence from the state.
This debate started with Marty asking a question about a writ of habeas corpus. I agree this question has been raised before but I suspect the fresh line of questioning may stem from the suggestion outlined in the report cited above which is dated 25/3/13.
You talk about people playing out 'convoluted games' and that I know 'perfectly well what has been played out', using your reasoning, this would make me complicit in these alleged 'convoluted games.'
If you are so sure games are being played then can you please specify who is playing and what is being played out because I can assure you I am neither aware or complicit in any 'convoluted games' nor would I give credence to any such actions.. I'm sure clarity on the issues you raise would be appreciated given you have raised these issues on a public forum.
Nuala ask yourself , what would anyone stand to gain from this alleged Machiavellian behaviour?
I have asked myself that question many, many times but then considering I don't have that type of mindset I am never going to come up with the answer. Only to say I have been around Republicanism the best part of my life and never encountered the likes of it.
ReplyDeleteOf course people can debate the issue! We are not all of the same mind and debate is healthy.
However, it becomes distinctly unhealthy when other mechanisms such as personal dislikes and petty disputes and attempts to discredit people's characters are deployed. You are perfectly aware of this as am I.
Furthermore I will not be taking a walk down Pretence Avenue with you, pointless!
I will take your latest comment to mean you wont substantiate the claims you have made. This would lead me to the following conclusion, that you really should take a step back and attempt to not only obtain some objectivity, but also a grasp on fact.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is Nuala you entered this debate with no knowledge of what was being discussed as by your own admission you hadn't read the report. I would suggest taking the time to read the document and then try and look at the comments with some new found objectivity, if possible.
As for your comment about not 'taking a walk down Pretence Avenue' with me, well, I suppose my response to that would have to be.... the next time you arrive at Pretence Avenue you might be best to take a right turn at Reality Road. The reality is you cannot make groundless accusations and then refuse to substantiate them. You are the only person here taking down the characters of other people.
Pauline
ReplyDeleteI think the sincere and decent people who read this blog from whatever political perspective have had to digest quite enough of this.
At this stage you can convey and project yourself in whatever light or format you chose, but apart from those who mutually indulge with you few are impressed.
Personally I feel I have insulted myself enough by having to even engage with you and others in relation to any of this.
It was the psudyonms that first brought my attentions to the fact that idiot behaviour being played out else where was now being brought here, initially in subtle manner to colour the judgement of people reading this blog.
Hardly a capital offence I know! But mischievous, undermining and very much self serving behaviour is hardly the order of the day especially when people come here to get a flavour of honest opinion right or wrong.
I do apologise to the sincere people who have had to have their time and energy deflected by this.
Lastly I think this is very much your bag but it is most certainly not mine. Desist, carry on whatever as for Reality Road that's where you can contact me.
Just to follow on and finalise this!
ReplyDeleteI should have stated, there is nothing wrong with people writing under pseudoynms. People for whatever reason do this and it is perfectly acceptable.
Where it becomes devious and quite unacceptable is where and when it is used to undermine one person or a family's standing while enhancing the authors.
Silly games I know, petty and unrealistic to the rest of us but it happens, of course those who indulge will deny you would hardly delve into those extremes and then put your hands up. Liken it to back door innuendo or behind hand whispers once challenged it is denied or retracted but it happens and once again we cannot protect or guard ourselves against it. But are we the better person for challenging or ignoring? I honestly don't know?
Nuala
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect I have never read as much waffle in my life! Clearly constructed to deflect from the fact that you on a public forum have accused contributors to this thread of playing games . One contributor asked a question and the other added clarity to a situation you brought to light on this thread. (Queens)
You raised names on this thread when you had no need to. Again by your own admission you entered this thread without reading the post which means you had no knowledge of what was being discussed. Please note I am not on here to defend anyone I am merely stating the facts as I see them.
Not content with your first bundle of unfounded accusations, that you refuse to substantiate, you then continue to concoct more, again on this public forum.
Nuala if you feel that you have insulted yourself by engaging with me then there is a quick and easy solution, stop. Whether you chose to engage/comment or pontificate is of no relevance to me, nor will your stance in any way stop me from highlighting the injustice being meted out against Marian.
I would question how you can effectively highlight the injustice of detention by secret evidence when you as a campaigner enter a public forum making unsubstantiated accusations against other campaigners.
It would seem your bolt of concern for people reading the blog is an attempt to deflect from your actions. Could it be that “the sincere and decent people who read this blog” may see your concoction of ludicrous accusations and choose to avoid? Could it be that sincere and decent people would empathise with those of us forced to clarify our position and defend ourselves from your nonsensical meaningless rants? Which again you refuse to substantiate
I'll leave this thread offering some advice that I'm sure you will ignore... refrain from making statements containing unsubstantiated accusations, but ultimately, when in a hole stop digging.
For information on the plight of Marian Price please visit www.freemarian.co.nr
This website contains video footage, photos and documents from national and international sources relating to the case.
Pauline.
ReplyDeleteOne simply thing you seem to have overlooked in your attempt to sugar coat yourself. You have told people that you engage in this behaviour on other forums, so why not here?
Something else you overlooked at lot more people than me spotted it, both on and off this blog.
Not one thing I have said has been untruthful or even remotely concocted.
No one wants to drive you from the campaign. Not so long ago you threatened to leave in a bid to get rid of other people, didn't work though. Queen Bee syndrome I think it's called ??
I have met a lot of great people in this campaign but sadly as in all things there are also the not so great, rough with the smooth!
Really won't be wasting anymore time with you on this site but you are still welcome to make contact.
Queen Bee interesting! So would it be OK for me to call you the Mistress of Deflection?
ReplyDeleteNuala on top of the claims of convoluted games being played out and mischievous behaviour you have made further claims, substantiate.
In a past post you said “certain people seem to enlist the help of others once the odds stack. Whatever happened to fighting ones own battles or taking an argument through to a logical conclusion?” in your last post you stated “Something else you overlooked a lot more people than me spotted it, both on and off this blog.” Enlisting the help of other people?
You later continue to say “Not one thing I have said has been untruthful or even remotely concocted.” Substantiate.
These accusations are growing by the post and as yet you have not addressed one single issue.
At this point I run the risk of being accused of being the 2nd gun man in the assassination of JFK.
With the truth there's proof please produce?
PS Take time to read the Rights Watch report.
Difficult to know what's going on in this conversation though obviously there's more to it from Nuala's perspective than just what's appeared on this specific thread. What I'm picking up is that, like with so many other things going on inside republicanism, there are negative issues internal to the running of the Marian campaign which the broader public, myself included, aren't aware of. If so that's sad but realistically it's probably inevitable. Probably best not to get involved but I'd hope you's could sort out your differences, if they're only related to this thread then things are hardly that far gone. If there's personal issues well that's a different story. As far as I can tell both of you's are on the same side here. Nuala from all your posts I've come across on the Quill I can tell you're a committed republican with nothing but a concern for what's right; Pauline if you're the same woman I'm thinking of, who spoke in Coalisland last month, then I'd say the same about yourself. Hope you's don't continue this and fall out beyond repair
ReplyDeleteI am discouraged by the statement
ReplyDelete"At this point i'm sorry I sent the report given the the level and tone of the debate. I'm all for debate but I feel this thread to be anything but helpful to Marian's situation."
Debate is always healthy there was no part of the discussion at the beginning of this thread that I was personally concerned with - and you know who wouldn't have been concerned about the 'tone of the debate' - Marian !!
I have known Marian from I was a young child and never once did she ever discourage debate, asking questions and arguing one's position even if differed from her own.
To suggest that debate is not helpful to Marian's 'situation' is just mere fiction - to throw that theme into the discussion is unhelpful and not constructive and served no purpose except to derail the discussion away from the valid question of why "habeas corpus" has not been utilised in this case......
In my opinion that was a very valid and important discussion and point to be raised more important than the personalities/characters who clearly have an uncomfortable dynamic .
Also in my opinion ( which means fuck all) it's not very constructive for those of us who are public faces in campaigns to engage in what could be seen to be pettiness with fellow organisers and activists ..... this causes wider issues and problems.
Its imperative that whoever is next visiting Marian , That she be made aware that she, as the prisoner , "although Interned illegally" , has the right to apply for "Habeas corpus" herself, she must consult her solicitor and inform him that she wants to apply for it.
ReplyDeleteWho knows what the outcome would be, we can all but hope and pray it would bring her release.
Nothing to be lost, plenty to be gained.
SeanBres,
ReplyDeleteThere are no internal disputes amongst those currently running the campaign for Marian.
What had unfolded on this thread actually began quite a while ago and on a different thread. I and others picked up on the fact that pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness and these windups were being passed off as legitimate posts. It was nipped but sadly continues to fester but the campaign remains intact.
Sean I couldn't make the event in Coalisland so that wasn't me. I can assure you there will be no fall out. This is merely an exchange of views and a keenness to establish a few facts surrounding some of the comments made. I personally don't believe internal issues should be broadcast on a public forum and i'm not aware of any personal issue as this is certainly not personal on my part.
ReplyDeleteAine There was no attempt to derail the thread in anyway. Yes I agree the recommendation of filing for a writ of habeas corpus is valid but on this thread when valid points had been raised it kept going back to the fact that it had been discussed at an earlier stage despite the new recommendation. I maybe didn't make myself clear but my comment wasn't made to derail or stymie debate it was an attempt to put it back on track. I posted the report therefore to purposely derail the thread would make no sense.
The comment that followed led me to question the accusations made. As the accusations were made on this forum I felt it best to keep it on the forum as there was no other communication in respect of these comments.
You also mention how “it's not very constructive for those of us who are public faces in campaigns to engage in what could be seen to be pettiness” I refer to your comment “Debate is always healthy.”
As my knowledge on the subject is limited do you know anything about Habeas Corpus?
Itsjustmackers a cara exactly the recommendation from Christopher Stanley of British Rights Watch,the author of the original post here,who has recommended just that line of action,I merely flagged up this point, it has been tossed around for a while now with people like Padrágin Drinnan and others suggesting that this habeas corpus device was worth a try in the courts,what followed was nothing whatsoever to do with this Br report or my agreement with the suggestion,such distractions may indeed stifle the messenger and even the debate but as you rightly say the message remains and "nothing to be lost,all to be gained"thanks again to Pauline for posting this report unlike others I thought it was relevant to Marian,s situation and worth READING!
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteif a habeus corpus application were to secure her release there would be every reason to go for it. It was one of the legal devices frequently used against the military junta in Argentina when people were being disappeared.
If on the other hand it makes it more difficult to secure her release than it would be a dubious legal strategy.
What I glean from this discussion is that there seems to be a difference of opinion between lawyers on the usefulness of such an application. But a difference of opinion is healthy and there is no reason for anyone to be bound by a lawyer's view on the matter. It is only legal advice, honestly offered, not a judicial decree. The lawyers themselves will tell you that.
Clearly there is room for a diversity of views on the matter and it is important that the question be raised. I think the Rights Watch report is a positive development and thanks to Pauline for sending us the link.
That seems to me to be the issue here Anthony. If Marian or her team were to apply for a writ of habeas corpus then what becomes the other legal processes being followed should it fail? Would failure of a habeas corpus application result in total failure for the entire legal campaign? Perhaps this is why her solicitors are reluctant to pursue this option other than as a last resort. As itsjustmacker said earlier the likelihood is that MI5 could intervene surreptitiously, as was the case in the proposed Finucane inquiry, and scupper the entire process - especially if they knew this would prove destructive for the case in its totality. So if what Nuala's saying is that this should be very carefully considered as the consequences for failure could make the situation worse then that's a very valid point. Of course no-one on here would overlook that but maybe it is nearing the point were last resorts are required which is why habeas corpus should at least be on the table for discussion.
ReplyDeleteBut it would be terrible to gamble everything and come up just short and to end up with nothing.
The Brits have near-perfected their legal system to deal with eventualities such as the imprisonment of Marian Price. What's certain is that even if some legal loop-hole can be found to secure Marian's release they will change whatever law needs changing to make sure the next unfortunate person to find themselves in this situation cannot avail of the same device. This is how the British have always worked; legalise the illegal. Marian's imprisonment is illegal, by the time it takes to prove it - if it's ever proved - the damage will have been done. God help that poor woman and good luck to all of you who are part of the campaign team
Nuala
ReplyDeleteYour latest accusation "pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness" please elaborate because if i'm not mistaken you are suggesting someone in this thread is responsible. Who when and where.
You continue to bring the makeup of the camapign ito question no one else has mentioned it in anyway. Last nigt you metaphorically opened a laundry basket and scattered it all over this forum. I dismissed the comments as again I don't give credibilty or credence to baseles accusations.
Agian are you now suggesting on top of your many accusations that I am embroiled in this further
Marty,
ReplyDelete'What followed' 'such distractions' I sincerely hope that is in no way directed at me! If it is then you are making yourself look and sound ridiculous.
You know I would never engage in pettiness, especially when I have no time and even less interest in those who were writings under their protective and malicious pseudoynms.
If you are saying I did stoop to derailing a thread then that's a sizeable turnaround to what you have written about me on other pages in this blog! So which version do we go with?
I have heard this habeas corpus stuff being bandied about for as far back as I can remember.
Personally I would not even have ventured to tackle Marian's solicitor than night in Queens I would not have had the faintest notion.
As campaigners we went on the night to hear the best way forward and the legal aspect which we heard was so wrong challenged. To reiterate it never happened im my opinion Marian's solicitor put across by far the stronger case. Which is fair dues no big deal. As Mackers said two legal minds having a difference of opinion.
Where your post annoyed me and it did, was, you and all the others who talked such a great fight stayed mute.
Then, when I pointed that out and the odds start to stack the cavalry are sent for! Thankfully in this case not a load of the usual manufactured back up but back up all the same.
Again, you know perfectly well I do not engage myself in silliness so why are you?
Totally agree Anthony if habeas corpus as a legal device was a hindrance rather than a help it should be dumped,but while it remains an option and as I gather it so to speak,Marians case cannot proceed to the European courts until all legal avenues have been explored,including habeas corpus, it seems to me if people like Br watches Christopher Stanley and P Drinnan think its an option then it seems to me only logical to explore such options sin é
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteall options need to be explored. Marian's solicitor has a view on it which Nuala thinks is the argument that has been most impressive to date. We should only be swayed by the best argument. At the same time that view has been questioned and others, some with a legal background, think a habeus corpus is the way to go. I simply don't know. But as Sean Bres suggests Marian is not out yet and all options to get her out have to be considered. Not every new idea is a good idea but as the maxim goes, do what we have always done and we get what we have always got.
Anthony exactly a cara .we must not lose sight of the fact that Marian remains ,interned ,held by secretive evidence which initself is an insult to the principles of democracy,if only it was a matter of ransom then the dues would have been gathered and paid long ago.we have petitioned,marched,gathered and some have prayed all to no avail, legal minds suggest a course of action others disagree,who is right,who knows a cara,but the difference between a successful person and a failure is not one has better abilities but the courage that one has to bet on ones ideas,to take a calculated risk-and to act...Andre Malaraux
ReplyDeleteApologies my last post didn't go up in full.
ReplyDeleteNuala
Your latest accusation "pseudoynms were being used to convey personal spiteful behaviour and deviousness" please elaborate because if I’m not mistaken you are suggesting someone on this thread is responsible. Who when and where?
You continue to bring the make-up of the campaign in to question no one else has mentioned it in anyway. Last night you metaphorically opened a laundry basket and scattered it all over this forum. I dismissed the comments as again I don't give credibility or credence to groundless accusations and as I’ve already stated this isn't the forum to spout off about internal campaign issues past or present. What I do expect though is for the accuser to afford me a shred of evidence or to at least explain their reasoning.
I stood in Derry and said it ,at the GPO and said it, in front of a large march in Belfast and said it and I sat in Coalisland last year and said it. The point I’m making is I don't go behind the door to say it and when necessary I put in print and stand over it.
Again are you suggesting that someone on this thread including myself would ask questions under another guise? Nuala you continue cast aspersions over good people and myself, at this point I feel your behaviour to be nothing short of sinister. I am confident that your aim maybe to impress onlookers however I suspect your actions will serves mostly to suppress support for the campaign.
In the majority of your posts you mention “we” I have no problem debating with more than one but could it be that the 'we' are merely the makers of internet hand grenades leaving you to throw them and then sink in the aftermath with no support? If the “we” you mention support these accusations and your airing of laundry then why haven't they publicly stated so?
Once upon a time I was unwittingly in the position you're in now. At the request of others I proceeded to rectify things publicly, things that were considered unhelpful. I not only bore brunt of those beyond correction but I then later discovered that the same people sending me to do this work were in fact people who stood up for no-one and stood over nothing. I'm not suggesting these people were malicious they just failed to remember that support is a two way street.
I mean this in all sincerity, could it be that you are being used?
Nuala in the early 70,s was there a shortage of bin lids round your way and were you used as a substitute it seems to me you may have remained one. your comments re that my post has annoyed you,well you must be easily annoyed,your comment about "me talking a great fight and staying mute" on the night of the queens meeting is a lie,I attended that meeting in no other guise than someone concerned with Marians plight as I,ve already stated the explanation from Peter Corrigan imo was accepted,however with the passage of time Five months and the recent release of this British rights watch report by Christopher Stanley and his recommendation that habeas corpus be tried as a legal device has again thrown that idea up as a possibility, I thought it was worthy of debate, you on the other hand have engaged in nothing angry accusations,which in my case are lies and I repeat lies, I find Marians plight like all the other pows situation far to serious to engage in silliness,I think by all your posts on this thread the readers can make up their own minds who the eejit really is.
ReplyDeleteNuala
ReplyDeleteI have just discussed the content of this thread with my husband at great length. We are both in agreement that given the serious nature of the accusations made and your reluctance to substantiate that we may need to take you up on your offer to make contact. Would you and if you choose the 'we' be prepared to meet up so that you can substantiate the allegations you continue to make on this public forum? Pauline
Marty,
ReplyDeleteYou have changed your tune but then what is it different day different friend?
I was annoyed by the fact you could not stand up for yourself in a public debate but then decided to proceed yet again here. I suppose away and wise up would have been a better response. Wonder what they used you for during the war?
The difference between me and you and the people you indulge with I don't have to prove myself to anyone.
Pauline ,
ReplyDeleteYou know where you can contact me, my partner and the other people who are aware of this. So yes make the contact.
Nuala
ReplyDeleteThanks
Will make contact early next week to make the necessary arangements.
Pauline
It is not my intention to police this row. Big boys and big girls rules. But it seems it has become a bad tempered spat at the end of which I am none the wiser. Perhaps if people take a step back and make the approach again it will allow the issue to settle down a bit. Can't say I find a lot wrong with the decision for some of the parties to talk about the matter. It seems to me it can only be for the good.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader of this thread, someone not involved in the campaign beyond supporting it and knowing none of you's personally I wouldn't say anyone has made an eejit of themselves - to be fair to Nuala it seems there's more to the situation than meets the eye in a lot of what's being said and it looks like Marty you've been caught in the cross-fire to an extent. What I would say Nuala is Marty hasn't suggested at all you were engaging in pettiness or trying to undermine or derail the conversation but has simply tried to defend his position that habeas corpus may be an avenue worth at least considering regardless of what the feeling was five months ago given the clear lack of progress in the period since. I hope you's argue like this all the time and as such this spat won't affect you's going forward once you's make amends cause it sounds like you's are good friends and, plainly from the discussions I've been involved in with ye's, very similar politically. It would be a shame for that friendship to suffer from this argument where confusion seems to play as big a part as any actual differences in opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs for whatever's going on between Nuala and Pauline as a neutral observer it seems more likely there are wires crossed somewhere - seemingly in relation to goings on outside of this particular thread whether that be personality clashes or back-stabbing internal to the campaign or whatever and not necessarily involving the contributors on here. Unfortunately it's being played out here to the bitter end for all the world to see when it could easily have been put to the side given the conversation had seemingly moved on this morning back towards the discussion on habeas corpus. That's the only sensible way to resolve this now, put it to the side and sort it out face-to-face next time you's meet where hopefully it can be put behind ye's and forgot about. Sounds to me like everyone has good intentions here but other things have slipped into the conversation which are causing conflict regardless of who's responsible
That reminds me of Martybroy Mc Guinness where were during the war rant.!
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteAnswer it then?
I dont know what your question is Nuala but if it is to do with your last post regarding that night at queens I,ve already answered that twice but like the orginal post you may not have read them either,as for the war I,ll take a Gerry on that.
ReplyDeleteSean Bres.
ReplyDeleteYou have done your best to be the voice of reason here and it is very decent of you!
When I asked on a post last night was it best to point out the unsavoury or stay quiet I was being genuine?
The majority of us who work on the campaign for Marian are tight knit and focused. People who know me know this isn't my thing but sometimes you have to take a step down, but none of this is remotely reflective of Marian's campaign.
We have remained consistent so far and will continue to do so.
I will only return to this thread to feed back on how things progress or regress. Which ever!
Marty
ReplyDeleteHow very noble of you! I don't think.
Sean Bres
ReplyDeleteI intended to only return to give you feedback on the proposed accusation meeting for want of a better title.
But I feel this thread is going to keep going and going so not to divert from what I said I will feed back on the out come.