Today TPQ carries a piece at the request of its author who has asked that we reproduce the same byline, Soapbox, that was used on the blog where it initially featured, Slugger O'Toole on 15 October 2013. In line with its own criteria TPQ is both aware of identity of the author and is satisfied that the author has solid reasons for requesting anonymity.
Gerry Adams is a liar. There. I’ve said it. Cue the wolf circling the sheep and herding them all in. He’s never been in the IRA. (yeah, right)
He was in jail when ‘Always look on the Bright Side Of Life’ was written (not true). He is reported to have told the family of Jean Mc Conville that he was also in jail at that time (he wasn’t).
Lies have a habit of tripping you up. Not so, if you’re Gerry Adams, it appears.
No matter what he says, you could nearly set the clock for the endless line of Sinn Fein workers and supporters who peddle the party line, and hoist Gerry off the hook, time and time again.
Disturbing
Most times, people outside of the party cabal merely roll their eyes, safe in the comfort of the knowledge that they know the truth. While it’s disturbing, it is not necessarily surprising.
What is rightly disturbing, and at times disgusting, is the party faithful’s reaction to the recent furore surrounding Gerry Adams, and his handling of former Sinn Fein representative Liam Adams (also his brother), and the child rape and sexual abuse of his niece, Aine.
At present, Gerry is well and truly on the hook, and rightly so.
The subject of child abuse is a very emotive issue. A prominent politician’s knowledge of a confession to abuse, and the considerable delay in reporting of same is always going to be headline news.
That aside, the twists and turns in this story – mostly exposed through strong journalism, amid contradictions within the President of Sinn Feins own version of events, and the party has a major problem.
So, what does it do?
Its key figures go to ground, stay silent, and put their heads in the sand; while the party faithful take to social media sites to, wait for it, not explore the issue of sex abuse cover up within the republican community, but attack the journalists – the only people to date to have asked the hard questions.
Journalism
It was journalists the victims of sex abuse within the republican community went to when they needed to be heard on the issue and action to be taken because those within their own communities were not getting the message.
It was journalists who listened to the frustrations, waited patiently until tears subsided and stories tumbled out and who did something about it. Journalists gave these victims something which they had not had when meeting Sinn Fein personnel. Journalists gave them a voice.
At present, supporters of Adams, and indeed the man himself, are citing that this is a “private family matter”, and that his family are rightly entitled to privacy.
Certainly the victim in this case is. Scrutiny rightly has not been placed in her direction. She hasn’t done anything wrong. She has already made her feelings regarding her uncle and his brother known in an emotional interview, with journalist Suzanne Breen.
She was scathing of her uncle Gerry’s action towards her: 'Imagine sending the person you believed had been abused by your brother a book thanking that brother.'
Her story brought other victims forward and current legal cases are ongoing. The spotlight in this case is, however, rightly placed on a man, in a prominent and powerful position, who has serious questions to answer.
Politics
It was Gerry Adams who politicised this case, firstly by his actions, or inactions while in an elected position, by his use of the “peace process” as an excuse under cross examination in court, and his lashing out at “political opponents” for raising issues.
In essence, he accepts that he is a public figure, subject to scrutiny, but he clearly doesn’t like it.
Neither do his followers. One tweet from Gerry, and they bleat about “witch hunts”, and “deplorable journalism” and “anti SF bias”, in an attempt to pull the wool over everyone else’s eyes, and the shepherds protective cloak even more tightly around him.
In the Sunday Independent, journalist Eilis O’Hanlon penned a brave piece of journalism, shining a light into the sordid workings of the republican movement when it came to rapists, and sexual abuse.
She researched the issue, and dealt with the facts. She spoke to a victim. She quoted another republican and his experience when it came to republican cover up of abuse. She spoke to the Rape Crisis Centre.
Bizarre
She rightly called Adams out on his bizarre and insensitive tweeting of a Maya Angelou poem – then forensically dissected the disturbing conundrum which faces Sinn Fein at present; the issue of how they can call for arrest and prosecution of other powerful figures in society for covering up for, or not being proactive in child abuse, yet stay absolutely silent when the light is shone in their direction.
It was almost instantaneous, once the article appeared on Twitter. The vitriolic attacks, the snide remarks and the grotty deflection centred not on the issue or the message, but on the journalist. Ms O’Hanlon was abused, directly and indirectly, all over the Twitter and Facebook hemispheres.
She was accused of using sexual abuse to "further (her) own narrow agenda", which presumably was the right not to be a voter of Sinn Fein, of being “bitter”, of “making it up”, she was “vile”, and told to “learn some manners”.
Even her dead sister was brought into the equation as an absurd reason for rightly raising the issue of abuse.
Eilis O’Hanlon is not the enemy. Child abuse and cover up is. She is a journalist who works hard, and is required, to write articles on topical issues for a National newspaper.
What other columnist, in a country where arguably one of the most powerful political movements stands accused of issues in relation to child abuse, would simply do what others have done, and ignore the issue?
Damaging secrets
Sinn Fein of course would like to see this subject buried.
It’s not going to happen. It’s been rearing its head for years now through a trickling of victims, and more are set to come forward. The dike is open, and the waters can’t be dammed. The attacks on Eilis, on other journalists, and on victims are an attempt to deflect responsibility.
It attacks the messenger and ignores the message.
Sinn Fein supporters have got it wrong. They should be asking very hard questions of their movements leadership, and demanding a straight answer. Blind faith in a man who clearly has trouble with some aspects of his memory is not a clever move.
Instead of seeing him as a victim, they should be mindful that there are very real victims, who have directly suffered from rape and abuse, and stop retraumatising them with repeated denials.
They should admit, directly and collectively to their role in the cover up of abuse in many cases, and the abhorrent treatment meted out to victims. Then they should ensure that this never, ever happens again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is sad that the cult of personality that has been the downfall of so many movements in the past has blinded people to the reality of the PRM leadership. That anyone with a conscience can continue to follow someone who did not protect the most vulnerable of all, the children is beyond comprehension. Shame on all those who support/defend the indefensible - there is no end that justifies ignoring the suffering of children and putting other children at risk, none period.
ReplyDeletePlease don't blame the messenger-are Journalists going to beg this next-
ReplyDeleteI hope this case becomes a inquiry
into why the Journalists who have reported on this have helped cover up child abuse for not reporting the names of the RUC members
and those over them who forced Aine
out of the police station when she
went to make a sexual complaint in 1987-were they bought not to report on this because that's what
those newspaper journalists are looking like the longer this goes on-
The brits-loyalists and the rest could never stop Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein when the war was on so what chance have a few scribblers of words now-a-days-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletethe RUC has a lot to answer for. But so too does the President of SF. He shuffled a man he believed to be a child abuser throughout the party and the commnuity and didn't tell anybody. No point in blaming the cops and letting him off; no point in blaming him and letting the cops off. And to let both off would be a squalid quid pro quo.
The brits-loyalists and the rest could never stop Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein when the war was on so what chance have a few scribblers of words now-a-days- MH
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately you miss the point whether deliberately or not I can't say but the point is a simple one - whoever covered up, ignored or actively participated in a child abuser not being removed from being a threat to children whether in Ireland, the US or wherever should be held to account - and that includes everyone from the RUC right through but I am sorry to say my friend that it also includes Gerry Adams and to try and exclude him is simply ridiculous. When it comes to destroying the lives of innocent children there is no room for some people being less guilty than others - once you are aware of a peadophile you owe to all children to ensure they are protected from them.
As i said before there is no end that justifies this - no end for the RUC or for GA/SF etc. etc.
Don't really get what is so hard for you to understand about that or maybe cult worship is your thing, dunno.
I find it absolutely abhorrent that there are people still willing to defend this wicked old man . . . .
ReplyDeleteAn old man who in his silence was complicit to the pain and suffering of an innocent victim (but then he has remained silent about too many victims).
When you look back to the "justice" meted out by those who "policed" us and think that some people's sons and daughter's were injured/killed for actions one could deem less evil than those perpetrated by L.Adams.
It becomes harder as time goes by and more information becomes available to honestly identify with Irish Republicanism.
Aine,
ReplyDeleteit certainly does much to make us disillusioned.
michaelhenry said...
ReplyDelete"The brits-loyalists and the rest could never stop Gerry Adams or Sinn Fein when the war was on..."
During Gerry Adams' cross examination in April he said he was engaged in the peace process in 1987.
When the war was on...michaelhenry
The ceasefires didn't come until 1994...michaelhenry.
Therefore, while he and Marty were telling the IRA that the war wouldn't end until the Brits left he was talking to the Brits about peace...michaelhenry.
He was backstabbing the IRA volunteers on the ground who were risking their lives and freedom...michaelhenry.
Eight IRA volunteers died at Loughgall on 8 May 1987. Then all the IRA Volunteers who died thereafter; all died not knowing that Gerry Adams was talking about peace with the Brits, the Free State Government and John Hume.
Your nonsense knows no limits...the difference between yourself and an actual sheep which eats grass and shites, is that you swallow the leadership's lies and talk shite...michaelhenry.
AM-
ReplyDelete" no point blaming the cops and letting him off "-
No point in blaming Gerry if you are going to forgot about those journalists who forgot about the RUC Abuse or were paid to leave their names out of their tales- and they still want to forget and protect them-
journalists covered up that Abuse of Aine-this must never be forgotten-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletejournalists are to be blamed for a lot more than not covering the cops' role in this case. We have had cases of journalists covering for a multitude of crimes since time bagan. But this is an argument for adding more to the mix not to take some out of it. Aine has not said, to the best of my knowledge, that journalists covered up her abuse. She has said she was let down by her uncle. Given your attitude to clerics who cover up and shuffle abusers around the place, you can only be consistent by demanding that the SF president be treated in the same fashion.
It should be the same for any political leader. I can't think why not. If you have a reason for thinking he should be exempt I am willing to listen to it.
The bottom line is, Gerry Adams kept his Brother "Liam" on the move , kept a serious child abuse complaint secret, allowed His Brother "Liam" to work with other children knowing the complaint by Aine.
ReplyDeleteAs for everyone going to The RUC station to get Aine out, that was to safeguard "Liam", at first the RUC didn't give a toss about Aines Complaint , They just wanted info on who was doing what. Adams has committed a serious crime by with holding information by not informing , Even the Social Services about what he was told by Liam about abusing his own daughter. To me that is sick , and , the lowest of the lowest.
As for the ruc.mi5 would have been on this like a shot in 1987.A perfect opportunity to turn somebody and it wouldnt have been the wee girl.A few twists in this yet to go me thinks.bet dennis was turned on less.
ReplyDeleteHe should be exempt because Sinn Fein recognise how this sorry, sordid saga has the potential to fuck everything up for them if it doesn't soon go away. That's the problem for people like Mickey and nothing else. How anyone can stand and defend that piece of shit is beyond me!
ReplyDeleteWhat Dixie says is true, all the stuff coming out now clearly shows Adams and McGuinness were dealing with British Intelligence all through the '80s - while men like Paddy Kelly and Jim Lynagh were following a military strategy the war was already over truth be told. Ever wonder how come when the army finally stumbled on a true game-changer with the truck-bombs in England why they never put their foot on the gas? Safe to say we now know the reason, Adams, McGuinness and whoever else concerned were probably told through their channels of communication with MI5/6 to cut it out if they wanted to keep their secret process going. Where perceivably the IRA could have blitzed the English in ruthless fashion and gained strategically on the military front instead Northern Command ran the war down until they saw fit to agitate for a ceasefire, having effectively discredited or destroyed the armed struggle in systematic, deliberate fashion. Enniskillen? Coshquin? Probably part of that process in the same way Omagh was manipulated years later. Criminal in my view - regardless of whether they got the army to sign up to their strategy or not. Because clearly they lied to the army all the way through to keep themselves in the leadership seat, if the truth had been know it's not unreasonable to suggest men like Jim Lynagh would have sent them on their way. The republican movement lost so much in the process that culminated in the Mansion House decision of 1986 and we're only starting to fully see the damage now.
Ultimately it seems to me that when 'Belfast' took over after deposing the old guard the Brits were finally in the driving seat. They couldn't lay a hand on them says Mickey? FFS they were finally in a position to effectively run the show through manipulation of a way too powerful, centralised leadership clique and in essence were imposing British needs on the strategic direction of the republican movement - all they had to do was eliminate the hardliners which they did in places like Loughall, Drumnakilly and Clonoe. The rest is history but the problems all stem back to one man and his overarching position within the republican movement, something that should not have been allowed to develop and has had catastrophic consequences.
It's only now we're seeing the real Gerry Adams, a cold-hearted and ruthless piece of shit. I'd say Ruairi O knew full well when he got that tap on the shoulder and a smiling assassin with hand outstretched when he turned round to face him. Can't change history but if only... If only
Dixie-
ReplyDelete" he said he was engaged in the Peace Process in 1987 "
And who is saying different-Gerry
and Sinn Fein released The 'Freedom
Justice Peace ' document in 1987 and Republican areas had posters with those words on them-' Freedom
Justice Peace '-all in 1987-maybe you were fooled Dixie but most of the people were not-the british and
loyalists targeted Sinn Fein in those years like they have never targeted the dissos then or now-a wee bit of common sense would not go Amiss-
itsjustmacker try and explain to the family cat that licking it's balls while you're having your dinner is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteIt'll look at you for a minute and go back to licking it's balls.
There's a parable in there about shinners and logic.
On the subject of cats Dixie you promised us a while back on another thread you'd one-day tell us the story of how the cat fiddled IRA money and was allowed to return!
ReplyDeleteAm I trying to have a debate with a ball-licking cat called michaelhenry here?
ReplyDeleteEverything he posts is so idiotic I swear he's doing it deliberately...
As I pointed out, Gerry Adams said he was engaged in the peace process in 1987.
Aine Adams went to the RUC in 1987...they did nothing.
Eight IRA volunteers died at Loughgall on 8 May 1987.
According to the De Silva report... In May 1987 (the same month as Loughgall) Brian Nelson and FRU (Brits! MHenry)saved Gerry Adams' life.
Below I've put a piece taken from an article on Brian Nelson and collusion...
"There is other evidence suggesting that the FRU was acutely aware of the secret progress being made in the peace process at around this time. Steaknife was not the only IRA figure whose life the unit saved.
Thanks to Brian Nelson, Army intelligence learnt that the UDA planned to kill Mr Adams by placing a limpet mine on the roof of his armoured car as he was being driven in Belfast. FRU arranged for the limpet mine to be discovered in a routine security search and Mr Adams lived to deliver the IRA ceasefires.
Writing about this incident later in his private journal, Brian Nelson said that his handlers had told him that assassinating Mr Adams would have been "totally counterproductive. Adams and his supporters were committed to following the political path."
michaelhenry:
ReplyDelete"Sinn Fein released The 'Freedom
Justice Peace ' document in 1987 and Republican areas had posters with those words on them"
It was well written with the word "FREEDOM" , People well fooled on that one which has never been obtained , and , what Peace and justice is there now, If your not a supporter of the shinners, NONE.
Dixie:
The cat licking its balls is well apt to the shinners, we have a habit of putting our two cats out before our meal, out of sight out of mind.
Hey Diddle diddle Sean Bres. At the Dark's funeral former Blanket men were pointing him out as a man with a 4x4...
ReplyDeleteAnd it wasn't a plank of wood.
Declan Kearney confirms that while the leadership were sending young IRA volunteers like Thomas Begley out to kill and die they were talking to the Brits behind their backs...
ReplyDeleteTalking in Scotland on the Shankill Bombing he said:
"However, at the same time 20 years ago, engagement was taking place behind the scenes between the Sinn Féin leadership and the British Government. [...]
Within ten months of that period in October 1993, the IRA announced its first cessation in August 1994. That helped pave the way for the talks process which culminated in the Good Friday Agreement...."
(Note: During the long-winded speech he didn't refer to Vol. Thomas Begley by name, he said..." one IRA Volunteer"
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/23476
Dixie-
ReplyDelete" Eight IRA Volunteers died at loughgall on 8 may 1987 "
And a few months later Eight brit
army were killed in Tyrone whilst
Ruairi O called the Freedom fighters who fought the war in East
Tyrone Traitors-lets not forget facts-
Dixie is also in the depths of depravity be believing the written words of a known brit agent Brian Nelson and believing the words that
the FRU/MI5/6 masters told him to write-not many Republican can crawl any lower than that-
If this is the type of attitude that you as a representative of Sinn Fein will take to anything to do with due process against child abusers what are we to think, are we to assume that as long as we are in Sinn Fein anything and everything will be covered up, I would to love know what Sinn Fein thinks is the difference between what Sean Brady done and what Gerry Adams did???
ReplyDeleteRuairi O'Bradaigh never said anything of the sort about the East Tyrone Brigade. He never covered up for paedophilia either to his credit
ReplyDeleteSean Bres some idiot shinner must've told michaelhenry that one about Ruairi O'Bradaigh.
ReplyDeleteMichaelhenry do you actually know anything? Are you capable of reading and absorbing anything?
You said, "Dixie is also in the depths of depravity be believing the written words of a known brit agent Brian Nelson and believing the words..."
Where the hell did you see anywhere in the piece I put up that it was written by Brian Nelson?
The piece I put up about Nelson and Adams was written by Ed Moloney on 25 Jun 2002.
In fact Moloney was writing about Nelson and FRU saving Gerry's life 10 years before the recent De Silva Report confirmed that Nelson had indeed saved Gerry.
In fact before the report was published the author (thats the person who wrote it MH)_informed Gerry Adams that it would be included in the Report. This was widely carried in the media.
Gerry didn't say it was balls michaelhenry. In fact he did what he usually does he kept quiet.
Again as I pointed out Gerry claimed he was involved in peace process work in 1987 during Liam's first trial.
And again, Ed Moloney was writing about that fact years before in his book, 'A Secret History of The IRA'...He (Ed) in fact said that from 1986 Adams with Fr Reid in tow was seeking a way out of the war while telling IRA volunteers it wouldn't end until the Brits had left.
Those two points-theres a revised edition-prove that Moloney's book is worth the read.
Heres the link to his 2002 article...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3578340/Panorama-missed-the-real-story-of-collusion-in-Ulster.html
Sean bres-
ReplyDeleteOne Tyrone RSF Cumann had to disband because they called themselves the Jim Lynagh Cumann and there was no was that Ruairi
was going to stand for that one-
Did the bold Ruairi attend any of the Volunteers funerals who were killed after 1986-
Notice this business about Gerry is dying of as I predicted-when the
full truth is not reported like the RUC failures then nobody wants
to bring it to a inquiry-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'Notice this business about Gerry is dying of as I predicted..'
'This business about Gerry..' as you euphemistically refer to the shielding of a 'root' is hardly likely to fade from public consciousness. The obnoxious odour of dishonesty that surrounds him is unlikely to ever go away. The problem with making predictions about a life held together by lies is that things can come apart so easily.
Robert that's a typical Adamsite attitude...
ReplyDeleteNo matter how bad it is we'll wait it out and it'll go away.
It's not going away michaelhenry no matter how much nonsense you talk.
The Dike is leaking all round Adams and by that I mean there are others.
There are only so many hatches you lot can pull down in face of the truth.
Reasonable point Mickey given the issue you've raised, bit of an own-goal on the part of RSF in terms of that incident. I don't think however it was because O'Bradaigh or anyone else considered Jim Lynagh a traitor, it was more to do with not associating the party with anything to do with the Provisional's post-1986, it was a theocratic-type decision rather than a political one. You're a clever man when it comes to running other people down I'll be the first to admit but that beggars the question how the hell a man who's obviously not as stupid as he sometimes makes out can't see the current Provisional leadership for what it is
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeletethat was a disgraceful decision by RSF whoever was responsible. The problem is compounded by not just the theological approach to politics but its theocratic approach.
AM wrote "it was a disgraceful decision".
ReplyDeleteFactually probably correct insofar as it did lead to a loss of respect from some. Though "disgrace" is an entirely subjective evaluation that depends on where the behaviour so labelled is perceived from.
No doubt your behaviours would have been labelled disgraceful dependant on the position of the perceiver, for example how would the members of the SDLP have labelled your armed revolutionary activities? I can easily imagine Seamus Mallon calling them 'disgraceful'.
Your pejorative tones reflect your biased stance and neglect the objective reality that the planned death of revolutionary armed struggled of Irish republicanism was set forth in '86.
To berate those who were conscious and aware of the historical failures of embracing the constitutional path lacks objectivity of analysis. To label those who adhered to the logic of their analysis and could not allow a cumann to be named in honour and memory of those who from their perspective had unwittingly left the revolutionary path as theocratic seems to me somewhat puerile.
History tends to repeat itself until the appropriate lessons are learnt.
Henry Joy,
ReplyDeletepeople are free to agree or disagree with the use of the term. Objectivity of analysis and RSF however don't seem to fit easily in the one sentence.
I think the pejorative in this case was less my tone and more the behaviour of those who could not bring themselves to recognise the sacrifice of people who died for their republican beliefs in an organisation, the leadership of which they no longer agreed with.
That has the same pejorative content as the Provos labelling as irrelevant Ruairi O'Bradaigh.
Ultimately the men who died at Loughall had more of the 'revolutionary path' to their character than many of those who shunned their sacrifice by refusing to name a cumann after them.
Now,I like you Anthony agree that we are free, free to disagree or free to agree on the usage of the term.
ReplyDeleteLikewise I can understand that objectivity of analysis and RSF don't fit easily for you in one sentence. Indeed I can imagine many people having the same reaction.
Because RSF declined to name a cumann in memory of The Loughgall Martyrs, we cannot rightly deduce they(RSF) did not recognise their republican beliefs, never mind shunned their sacrifice. Objectively we can only say (indeed if MichaelHenry's assertion is valid) that they choose another name for the cumann.
As to their motives, in the same way as no Sinn Féin cumann has been to my knowledge ever named after Michael Collins (and I in no way wish to besmirch The Loughgall Martyrs associatively) it would have been ideologically implausible for RSF to follow such a course in naming a cumann after the volunteers who died in Loughgall because of the endorsement of their PRM leadership for participation in what they(RSF) viewed a counter-revolutionary assembly.
To evaluate that as disgraceful and theocratic is your prerogative but from another perspective it could be viewed as rational and principled.
Henry Joy,
ReplyDeleteI think it is a fair deduction to make. If people think there is a better one I am prepared to listen. I know that is how it was read by some family members. Although I accept that family members can be as wrong as the rest of us in interpretation. I find it hard to read it any other way than a snub.
They did not merely choose another name, they did so after rejecting the names of people who died fighting the Brits.
No Sinn Fein cumann has ever been named after Michael Collins although Collins has been rehabilitated somewhat by Sinn Fein. But Collins devised, led and implemented the Treaty and then fired on volunteers opposed to it. Implicit in your comment is that some equivalence can be drawn between Lynagh/McKearney et al and Collins. I don’t think that is a justifiable perspective.
Rational and principled is often what a theological mind claims for its actions – such like snubbing gays and wishing them sent to hell. It might be rational within a particular theological framework but reason fortunately does not belong to this mindset. Theocratic I used in the sense of behaviour (authoritarian and absolutist) rather than belief, which I tend to see as more theological.
Nevertheless, disagree as I might, I did find your take interesting. Thanks for commenting.
Now, now Anthony please don't twist my words!
ReplyDeleteI respectfully request you re-read my previous post. There is no implicit equivalence drawn in my post between Lynagh/McKearney et al and Collins. In fact I have explicitly stated "(and I in no way wish to besmirch The Loughgall Martyrs associatively)". In the interest of truth & justice, not to mention the continuance of kind relations please withdraw you allegation.
On a slightly lighter note; I too had noticed that the Provisional Movement had attempted rehabilitation of the said Commandant Collins, photos in The 'National' Army uniform and so forth. "Ah poor auld Ireland, she's still rarin them" as my Granny might have said.
But back to more serious debate! Indeed the most absurd behaviour and beliefs can be masked by what are presented as 'rational' and 'principled' façades. And so it beholds us to drop our subjective assumptions and develop objective thinking. In that vein I disagree with the opinion expressed that the naming of the cumann was a snub to the families. Sure I can agree that it can and has been perceived that way, indeed regrettably by some of the families too. You say in the opening of your previous post you think it's a fair 'deduction' that it was a snub. In the interest of dialogue rather than a pedantic comment I'd encourage you to reflect on the difference between an assumption and a deduction.
I like you Anthony, and indeed most human beings can often be biased in my thinking, can often be so attached to being right or not being wrong that my objectivity sometimes wanes but in this particular scenario your attempt to overturn objective reasoning with subjective assumptions falls short.
Your argument is further diminished by your introduction of a sine qua non justification. "They did not merely choose........they did so after rejecting". All choosing in general requires 'yes' to one thing and 'no' to an potentially infinite number of possibilities. No rejection, no choosing.
Your linguistic manipulations are not verifiable by deduction and hence to my mind do not stand.
Thanks for your responses.
As someone looking in from the outside who enjoys the discourse at the Pensive Quill (although enjoy may not be the right word as the subject matter is often depressing by its nature), I cannot understand anyone staying with the Adams leadership in the light of the sex abuse cover-up (and there is no other way to look at it).
ReplyDeleteIt is very sad to see how many on the blog have been cast aside or disparaged by the PRM because they refuse to accept a rewriting of history and a rewriting of what is an acceptable political framework to surrender to. To their credit though they have seen through Adams & co long ago - for those others who still worship at the altar of the cult of personality it beggars belief that they would continue to support GA after reading the cross examination and the other evidence.
If the barrister asked Gerry Adams his name he would likely reply "Well, my name, it depends on what you mean by that, and at what period of my life you are talking about and whether it is what I call myself or others do or family members..." and then two hours later we still wouldn't have his name confirmed - tragic.
Henry Joy,
ReplyDeleteI am content with what I said. We can only leave it to the readers after that.
Let's get something straight, Jim Lynagh was solely concerned and focused on beating the British out of Ireland, that was his only aim and let's not lose sight of that. Any questioning of the ideological integrity of the struggle waged by Lynagh, McKearney and the like is sheer and utter nonsense. Men like Jim Lynagh and Mickey McKevitt viewed the Mansion House debate and decision in the context of the war. They accepted, or more accurately tolerated, the Adams notion that the political struggle was only to help encourage support for the armed campaign - no matter if we now know that to be a lie and a manipulation, that the real goal was to subvert the armed struggle and replace it with a purely political, constitutionalist approach to ending partition. When McKevitt realised this he walked, are we saying he doesn't have his principles intact? Jim Lynagh on the other hand never had the opportunity to walk at the time of the Mitchell Principles because he was in an early grave, put there by the same occupying army he was resolutely determined to eject from this country. He died a hero and resides among the pantheon of heroes, among men and women who gave their lives for and in service of the republic. In terms of the decision to forcefully prevent the naming of a Cumann after this most principled of men I believe it was a serious mistake and a missed opportunity, worse again it allows the likes of Mickey McIvor to assert that RSF view the Loughall Martyrs as 'traitors' which couldn't be further from the truth I'd like to believe
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteI doubt if anybody in RSF viewed them as traitors regardless of what Michaelhenry says. But their decison was dreadful. I met with Ruairi on a few occasions while still with the Provisionals and while he thought it was wrong for anyone to be with them he didn't take the view that we were treacherous. I dare say quite a few RSF types were at the funerals and as angry as anybody else.
sean bres
ReplyDeleteI have never met any republican who suggested that The Loughgall Martyrs were traitors. I don't agree with such an interpretation and I like you Sean would feel duty and honour bound to challenge such assertions.
As outlined in my previous posts it would have been ideologically implausible for RSF to name the cumann after The Martyrs. I understand that you view this as a serious mistake and a missed opportunity, though you don't clarify as to what this was an opportunity for?
RSF on the other hand, based on historical analysis of previous deviations from the revolutionary path to the constitutional one, as in Cumann Na Gael, Fianna Fáil, Sean McBride & Co and The Workers Party thought better off it.
That was their choice, same as it was a choice for those that followed the provisional leadership out of the movement.
We have to live with our choices and their consequences.
Henry joy i think your name tells it all.Betrayal.lynagh and his comrades were squealed on same as henry joy.there was as good as men as lynagh from belfast sent to their deaths.and who greenbooked them yes the bould john joe n freddie.and who appointed them.a certain gang were meeting mi6 i doubt rory was among them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'm wrong Henry Joy but I detect from your comment an elitist suggestion that Lynagh and those who continued to wage the armed struggle alongside him after the 1986 split were compromised ideologically. I understand the point you're trying to make but it's something I can't support. To suggest that the likes of Tony Doris McNally and Ryan, Martin McCaughey and Dessie Grew, the Hartes and the Bard Mullin, young Bod O'Donnell and those who fell at his side, indeed the Loughall Martyrs themselves, to suggest they were somehow tainted ideologically because they belonged to the Provisional IRA is absolutely laughable and something we should not hesitate to challenge because it is pure and utter nonsense. Their loyalty was to the Army Council of the Irish Republican Army, the army that was waging the armed resistance to the British presence in Ireland. The East Tyrone Brigade was a lynchpin in this armed resistance no matter if you or others believe it had somehow 'left the movement' - and let's never forget that or say otherwise. I'm willing to address the point of failure and admit that its root is to be found in the Mansion House vote. I actually believe it extends back beyond that moment in time to the point where 'Belfast' finally imposed its will and leadership clique on the republican movement. But let's never attempt to downplay, even in an ideological or theocratic discussion like this, the young lads who went out and laid down their lives. They died for and as part of the republican movement. They died the same as young Patsy Quinn and Dan McAnallen, Heron and Coney, Carty, Crowley and the Crow Loughran and all those other brave Volunteers from this county who died on Active Service prior to 1986. No date in time will distinguish their sacrifice or somehow interfere with their ideological purity as far as I'm concerned
ReplyDeleteRobert-
ReplyDelete" Things can come apart so easily "
To true-
But if the whole story is not being told then the story itself becomes farce in peoples thoughts-
Those newspaper editors and reporters still refuse to name and shame the RUC commander of that police station who Brave Aine went
to for help in a rape case-a rape case-but Brave Aine was turned away-
there was no room in RUC hearts for the victim in all this in 1987-
what bought those editors and reporters that they cant name those RUC members who were at fault-did money buy them or was it just blackmail-
Gerry Adams is sharing a Peace platform this weekend in London alongside Colin Parry who's son tragically lost his life before the Peace Process and Tony Blairs
chief of staff Jonathan Powell-Politics will move forward alongside Peace-
Michael,
ReplyDeleteJust imagine tomorrows headline..'MickyH SF counil whatever<--with respect, protected his peadophile brother.' How long would you keep your seat before you are forced to resign?
From the outside in, Gerry Adams is fast becoming as much as a PR disaster for republicanism as Twadell is for the Orange Order..(JMO)...........
I have been reading and re-reading the comments re The loughall Martyrs.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt they were set up, 25 sas waiting for them.
But as a dedicated unit there was no informer within those who went on that op, It would have to be a very stupid informer, knowing they were going to be raked with high velocity weapons, But I will say, they were set up , and , as a very close knit unit, if anyone had have dropped out of that op, fingers would have been instantly pointed. The backup unit who shot there way out of the ambush would have been well questioned by PIRA security. So, for anyone to suggest that an informer was within that active service unit, should think again, It's an insult to Brave volunteers who gave there lives for there country, albeit being assassinated.
Will the Informer ever be outed?. Who Knows.
michaelhenry:
ReplyDelete"Politics will move forward alongside Peace-".
you forgot to mention "FREEDOM" , a "UNITED IRELAND", do they not come into your vocabulary?.
Or do we wait for Martboy McGuinness's statement , "Follow Us To The Republic". That was the biggest cock up and lies in the history of the movement, He knew their was not going to be a Republic, so did Adams, they lied their way through everything to become British MP's, just like yourself, that's something you can never deny.
m henry.have you no shame.dan mcann gerard steenson jim lynagh martim oprey .............all when gerrys talking peace most of the main operators are killed .and liams out breaking peoples legs for a bit of shopliffting.think theres a few on here worked in sefastapool st centre .changed times innit
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion there was an informer within the unit killed at Loughall is a deliberate plant, misinformation with the sole purpose to deflect attention away from the real source. We all know the tout who's in hiding in England but it's highly doubtful that such a major security operation would be mounted on the back of the word of a low-level informer alone. Also Liam Ryan supposedly done the intel for Loughall and he stated before his death that the entire operation was compartmentalised to prevent breaches in security. He was of the belief that considering the resources directed at Loughall that whatever information the Brits were acting on did not come out of East Tyrone. If we allow for Dixie's angle on things then we can determine the Brits had sensed a weakness in an element of the movement surrounding Adams and McGuinness and therefore would likely move to eliminate their possible future rivalry if a time ever came when the Adamsite section of the movement felt able to make the great leap towards constitutional politics. This is a process I once heard Macker's describe as 'moulding a leadership' - at the time I never fully understood but I sure do now and think it's an accurate assessment. Loughall can be seen in terms of that template. But where did the information come from at Loughall? It's fair to say we need to look higher up the chain of command which leads us to Northern Command who by that stage were vetting every army operation. Was there an agent in Northern Command following a British agenda? Stranger things have happened and we now know the upper echelons of the republican leadership were not immune to being compromised. It's probably fair to say Donaldson and Scap were hardly the only ones, indeed they may have been outed to cover for better places sources
ReplyDeletebilly brooks-
ReplyDeleteIts to your eternal shame that you
named the tout steenson along side The O.C Vol Jim Lynagh- but I guess that's just the dirty IPLO in you that the Provos beat the sh1t out of on that
Halloween night in 92-[ you still get nightmares kid ]-You talk about Gerry whilst your two chicken wings cried Peace to the Provos the day after the night of the long knifes-
itsjustmacker-
You fight no war you support no war-and to make up for your cowardice in the face of the enemy
you oppose Sinn Fein-mighty big of you-
In reply to sean bres.
ReplyDeleteIt is not my intention to downplay the contributions of any Volunteer. If I have done that in my posts, please present in direct quotes.
I respect any man or woman who is prepared to take a stand for their beliefs. I salute all those who risked life and limb in pursuit of freedom. I admire all those who have made sacrifices, suffered abuse and harassment, served time, suffered emotional physical and mental ill-health, and above all those that made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of justice and freedom.
Ì believe we all can stand shoulder to shoulder as equals on that count and if we sometimes disagree on matters of 'ideology' can we refrain from ad hominem inferences, play the ball not the man, address objective substance of the argument whilst desisting from subjective and defensive assumption.
I have no desire, I have no need to make you or anyone else wrong in order to support my stance. I have done my utmost to find my own informed position on most of the things I find important to me. And from that position I don't really need nor seek others approval. I like to consider myself a free man, a free thinker not bound by any orthodoxy. I like a good debate. I find it useful in synthesising my thoughts, often deepening my learning. I enjoy worthy opponents too!
Thankfully Sean there is more that unites us than divides us. Essentially I completely agree with your appraisal that that the root of failure is to be found in the Mansion House vote. I also concur that the seeds of this go further back.
An old comrade who served a stretch in the cages in the Kesh in the seventies and had a little previous journalist experience was sometimes called upon to type up communications for Adams and his emerging Belfast clique. He was so shocked and horrified by the scurrilous attacks made by them on Billy McKee that he completely disassociated himself on release from everything republican.
Michael,
ReplyDelete"Gerry Adams is sharing a Peace platform this weekend in London alongside Colin Parry who's son tragically lost his life before the Peace Process and Tony Blairs
chief of staff Jonathan Powell-Politics will move forward alongside Peace-"
I'm starting to get confused about the official SF line in relation to the beginning of the peace process. As an SF insider, perhaps you can clarify the matter, Michael. When did Adams and co. decide to end the PIRA campaign for a resolution that enshrined the consent principle and British rule in the North? Was it in the early 1990s, as the leadership used to claim or was it in 1986, when the back-channel communications with Dublin and Westminster began?
There is much talk of logic, deduction and objective reality in relation to republican orthodoxy in this discussion. To my mind, the problem with traditional republican ideology is not its logic; it is its basic premises.
ReplyDeleteI mean, who here still believe that any one of the army councils of today's various armed republican groups is the sole legitimate government of a 32-county republic that never existed in the first place?
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletedid you know Gerard Steenson? He was one of the cleverest people I met in jail. He had a political brain that dwarfed most Provos. That he ended up in ridiculous feuds was a complete waste. But he was no tout.
I'm beginning to wonder more often in regards to the ramblings of michaelhenry...
ReplyDeleteDoes he have a child?
Does he know that child is using his computer to post on the Quill?
Alfie Gallagher said...
ReplyDelete"Was it in the early 1990s, as the leadership used to claim or was it in 1986, when the back-channel communications with Dublin and Westminster began?"
In all likelihood it began earlier...
"Mr Atkins in a minute to Mrs Thatcher said there were “some” in the IRA leadership who wished “to consider an end of the current terrorist campaign”.The papers also disclose that the British government held this view for some time.
There is also a memo from the then British cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong to another senior official, the “gist” of which was conveyed to Mrs Thatcher, which also adverts to an IRA desire to end its campaign.
It was written on April 13th 1981 just four days after hunger striker Bobby Sands was elected as MP for Fermanagh-South Tyrone. He died on May 5th.
“There is reason to believe that the PIRA have been thinking seriously about an end to the campaign of violence, but feel they need a success, an avenue to pursue their aims politically, and something more on the prison regime,” Sir Robert wrote.
“The Fermanagh by-election has given them the success, and a political opening, which there is reason to think they hope to follow up in the local government elections,” he added.
While the hunger strikes created the conditions for Sinn Fein to expand politically it wasn’t until 13 years later that the IRA called its first ceasefire in August 1994."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/margaret-thatcher-was-told-some-ira-leaders-wanted-violence-to-stop-in-1981-1.1374569
AM-
ReplyDeleteApologys-
I have a awful habit of just writing things down without checking up-how I mixed Gerard Barkley up with Steenson I will never know-I never met him but I read some of his comms-[Deadly Divisions I think they were in ] which he wrote whilst he was in prison and he did come across as a cleaver person its just when he got out he went in a opposite direction-[ drink and guns don't mix ]
Barkley got a military funeral and shots fired over his coffin despite
the INLA killing him as a informer-
Harry Kirkpatrick was also in Steensons unit-[ touts and guns don't mix either ]-
Alfie-
I think it was in 1982 that I heard
Danny Morrison use that phase-The Peace Process-in a TV interview-
That's fine Michaelhenry
ReplyDeleteMichaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in any of this that exonerates Gerry or dimishes his culpability in withholding information about the paedophilic activity of his brother. He remains severally responsible regardless of how many others are revealed to have been privy to Liam's sexual criminality.
How does his presence at an event in London with Colin Parry change the complexion of his dishonesty in relation to the rape of his niece?
A panel comprised of Gerry, the Roman Catholic Church and the BBC seems to me to be more representative of a collective experience and area of expertise.
Robert-
ReplyDeleteWithholding information is a crime-
why don't you make a citizens arrest of Gerry Adams if you are so sure of yourself-Aine went to the ones who said they were the police in 1987-they are the ones who turned a blind eye-
not one of the big mouth newspapers or their reporters would make the citizens arrest either-they are up to their necks in it covering up the RUC-
Is that the same RUC you's are asking us all to support and indeed to join Mickey!
ReplyDeleteThanks for that link, Dixie.
ReplyDeleteThe more of these archival papers that get released, the earlier it appears that Adams and his acolytes were looking for a way to make the Republican Movement purely political. However, if I recall correctly, wasn't the offical SF line that the peace process began in the early 1990s? Indeed, though I can't be certain, I seem to remember Martin McGuinness and other Sinn Féin leaders publically rejecting Ed Moloney's thesis in A Secret History of the IRA that the peace process began in the mid 1980s.
MH.think you sobered up and read what you posted about gerard steenson.that young lad sparky was no tout either.it shows what you are putting that slur on anybody.next time your at a SF doo have a look round there will be 1 at each table.oh...and 2 or 3 on the stage.
ReplyDeleteMickey,
ReplyDeletepolitics aside for the sake of argument if, let’s say, the exact same circumstances were being played out with a high level Loyalist would your opinion change.
The problem with Adams is he is as guilty as his brother as he knew about the brutal nature of the horrifying destruction of a young girl.
In his position he failed a child and went on to conveniently enable his twisted brothers anti social, anti human predatory behaviour.
If it had have been Joe Blow from Ballygobackwards who was reported to the provos for raping a child then the headline the following day would have read child rapist nutted and few would have any sympathy and the RUC would probably not look to deep into it.
You seem to believe that this will go away and yes in time it will fade but the fact is Adams made the choice and decided to protect his brother which in turn sent a very clear message to the young victim that her life is worthless compared to the reputation of Adams and the PRM.
If Adams had dispensed the same justice meted out against others for lesser crimes he would have been held in a higher respect for protecting a child and destroying his twisted pathetic inhuman brother and I doubt sincerely anyone would shed a tear for the nauseating pathetic excuse for a man.
Adams and his double standard it is okay that others are killed just as long as those family members he favours are out of harm’s way.
Mickey, Adams is just as guilty as that piece of shite brother of his’ I am pretty sure he is already making arrangements to have the scumbag protected in jail.
Shame on Adams and shame on anyone who knew about this brutal crime against a child and protected this vile pathetic excuse for a man, you can defend Adams all you want but in a sense you are defending a sickening crime against a child.
Tain Bo,
ReplyDeletewere it the leader of Fianna Fail in the same position we know exactly what SF would do. The problem for people in SF is that the cult of the personality is so pervasive that they are blind to the squalor that it papers over. The party is also effectively hobbled in respect of any critique it might make of the Catholic Church - how could figures like Pearse or Mary Lou stand up and condemn the Church without having their point immediately deflected by questions about thier own leader?
Sean bres-
ReplyDelete" is that the same RUC yous are asking us all to support "
They had to drop the R when they dropped their oath-we know our business and what has to be done-
billy brooks-
" Sobered up "
AM knows that I am never Sober-yet he lets me type-
" 1 at each table "
Derry Volunteers night was stuffed yesterday-plus their was a event for the 83 escape from the Kesh that was also stuffed with people and those that escaped-I take it you don't see much from your sofa-
Tain Bo-
I trust Adams-I don't trust the reporters who supported the brit army and RUC during the war-and those same reporters are still protecting the RUC that refused to protect Aine-
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in 'internal republican politics' (such as who went to what funeral or who's war record is more rebpublican)..
I'd like to know how long do you think you would remain a SF councillor if tomorrows headlines read 'MickyH protected his paedophile brother..'. Personally I think the leadership would say "Micky, you are guilty by association and you are bad PR, you have to resign"..
And I bet the PSNI wouldn't have to ask the DPP if they can bring charges against you for with holding information. You'd have been in front of a judge yesterday..
Mickey the same scumbag that helped to take the lives of Barry O'Donnell and the lads in Clonoe is still in the RUC or PSNI if you wish - oath or no oath. Indeed you's are working with him through the PCSP structures are you's not?
ReplyDeletemichaelhenry Said.
ReplyDeleteitsjustmacker:
You fight no war you support no war-and to make up for your cowardice in the face of the enemy
you oppose Sinn Fein-mighty big of you-
How can you write such crap towards a person you know nothing about.
You call someone a tout , who never was one. Have you got a wee crystal ball in front of you, I mean, like a buller!. Were have I stated on the TPQ "I fight a war" ,"Support war" , as for your last piece of your comment, "My cowardice in the face of the enemy"?.
Let me give you some facts MH , I have never run away from anything or anyone in my whole life, and , I have not changed to this very day.
I disowned SF in 1986 , to me they were going the "Takeover Mode" , "ARMY COUNCIL" was their aim, and they got it .the writing was on the wall, as far back as 1974. At least you got one thing correct, Yes I have Opposed SF for a very long time, and still do, but just to set you straight on a few points, The Truth is on TPQ on all aspects of SF , and Those Brave Hunger strikers, of whom 6 could have been saved, you know that to be fact.
You have know idea how big I can be MH, or , for that matter , how small I could be. A new war would be a last resort, well planned for the future. My own opinion is, The 1916 Declaration will never be achieved by political means, and , SF are on a one way track to retain British rule in the Wee 6c, They SF have become the enemy.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'Withholding information is a crime-'
Precisely why the original decision not to prosecute Adams is being examined by John Larkin. His 'testimony' has been found to be so profoundly dishonest as to call into question the conduct of the DPP.
A citizen's arrest is a novel idea but I am not trained in the field of sexual deviancy and it's attempted cover up. The PSNI's Child Abuse Unit are the appropriate body I believe.
jgr33n,
ReplyDeleteNotice anything familiar -
http://youtu.be/6CGyASDjE-U
Indeed Robert - although in fairness the one in the video has the excuse of being a puppet....hang on a minute they are both puppets just with a different master pulling the strings.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDelete"They had to drop the R when they dropped their oath-we know our business and what has to be done-"
If an oath was the only thing stopping ye from sitting in a British assembly and serving in a British police force, then it seems that the Tories are willing to facilitate your MPs sitting in a British parliament.
Time to paraphrase Orwell, methinks:
The people outside looked from Stickie to Provo, and from Provo to Stickie, and from Stickie to Provo again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Sean bres-
ReplyDeleteThe RUC who were hiding in there base that night in 92 when the East
Tyrone unit riddled it could indeed now be a member of the PSNI-or they could have taken their pay off-they were easily bought-
Those SAS killings that nigh at Clonoe chapel were the last SAS killings in tyrone-then the big jobs in England took over and the SAS lost its stomach for the fight-
Alfie-
" the Tories are willing to facilitate "-
Equality is written into the GFA- the brits have to get rid of that anti-Catholic oath from everywhere-
What I'm saying is that one of those responsible for orchestrating the killing of the lads is indeed in the PSNI, as your party knows full well given that they have a working relationship with him on a local PCSP. Absolutely disgusted
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the first link I posted didn't work for some reason. I will post it again now. It concerns the offer in 2010 by the former Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson to have the Westminster oath of office altered so that Sinn Féin MPs would not have to swear allegiance to the Queen.
The usual wording of the oath is:
"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Members who object to swearing the oath (atheists, for instance) are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:
"I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law."
As you can see there is nothing anti-Catholic about the Westminster oath at all. In fact, the anti-Catholic parts were removed in 1829 after Daniel O'Connell's campaign for Catholic emancipation. For an Irish republican though, the oath is still anathema, but since you Sinn Féiners now help administer British rule in the North via a British assembly and you support a British police force there, in what meaningful way are you Irish republicans anymore? Why not take the offer from the Tories, change the oath and take the final step on the journey ye began in 1986? Or was it earlier...
Alfie-
ReplyDeleteThe Queenie or King are not allowed by brit law to be married to a Catholic-so if you swear allegiance to that sort you are swearing allegiance to a anti-Catholic family-
Mickey,
ReplyDelete“I trust Adams-I don't trust the reporters who supported the brit army and RUC during the war-and those same reporters are still protecting the RUC that refused to protect Aine-“
That excuse would fly but for the greater part the provos run west Belfast and housekeeping would dictate neither the cops or reporters would get a word until after the fact which was usually a statement of sorts saying why someone got nutted.
It is a pity the young victim couldn’t say the same as I doubt she would view Adams as trustworthy.
Why would she need the RUC or reporters to protect her considering Adams was in the position of protecting her and if he had a done the decent thing by protecting her, the issue would not be on the table now.
At some point Mickey you have to level blame in the right direction and in this case Adams failed a child which is no different than society failing other children.
It appears that Adams saved his brother from the bullet not particularly because he wanted to but did so in order to keep his position as leader.
Certainly he would survive the flak about his brother but Adams being no mug knew if he had have had him stiffed he would have met his proverbial Brutus.
I think his Brit advisors called the shots on this one knowing they had just tightened the noose around his neck better to hang onto a leader they could manipulate rather than face having an uncompromising leader replace him.
His choice feed the young girl to the wolf and speaking of the wolf one wonders why Adams protected him could it be possible that the gobshite moved in high circles within the PRM and probably knew more than he should. Would it be possible that Brit Intel had a more practical use for the child rapist?
Just a theory is it possible his brother held his own wee book of secrets on Adams and the provos? Was that his bargaining chip protect me or the wee book will make its way to the meadia and MI5?
Michael Henry:
ReplyDelete"The Queenie or King are not allowed by brit law to be married to a Catholic-so if you swear allegiance to that sort you are swearing allegiance to a anti-Catholic family"
Have you any idea how many "NON CATHOLICS" were in the original "IRA" ?. Do not think for one minute that everyone who took part in the 1916 Easter rising were all Cathlolic's , also in the Civil War.!
Your party has gone 99.9% to being British and that is a shame, no way back micky boy , now you's have the BRITISH ULTIMATUM , make your own oath or cease getting expenses , I know the expenses will win the Brits case, nothing much left of the Northern Bank Job, eh!
Michael,
ReplyDelete"The Queenie or King are not allowed by brit law to be married to a Catholic-so if you swear allegiance to that sort you are swearing allegiance to a anti-Catholic family-"
To a certain extent, you are right. A British monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, nor can he/she be married to one. However, because the Queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the monarchy in Britain is inextricably linked to Anglican Protestantism. Thus, as long as this link remains in place, the British monarch and his/her offspring must be Protestant in the same way as the Pope must be Catholic.
In any case, it really doesn't matter, for the Tories have given you the option of altering the oath to your satisfaction. The question I'm asking you is that if changing the oath in the North makes it OK for Shinners to sit in the British assembly at Stormont and join the British PSNI, why don't you take up the Tories offer and sit in Westminster?
Tain Bo-
ReplyDeleteHope that all is keeping well with you-
" His brother held his own wee book
of secrets "
Did not do the brother much good if he did when the Provos dragged him out of a house and kneecapped the fcuk years ago-
itsjustmacker-
James Connolly for one-I never said the IRA was sectarian-I said the Royal family was and is-but the oath will be removed-
Mickey,
ReplyDeleteall is indeed well thanks for asking.
I am happy to read your latest though the RA were too far south of the equator in that case a few feet north and this piece a shite would be where he belonged in a sewer.
But again it puts Gerry in the same quandary as to why years later his brother was rubbing elbows with the RA and being kept safe.
Why were the nutting squad shackled when it came to delivering provo justice to the shite.
The same squad sent more than a few to the grave for lesser crimes.
Mickey we will disagree on many issues but I am at a loss as to why the party members and the party faithful are not asking the same question why was this child not protected?
On a lighter note mate when are you going to convince some of your cadre to show up on the quill as you have been holding the fort down alone for years now or, are they of the Doran mindset that we on the quill are vulgar and confrontational?
All the best Mickey to you and yours.
Tain Bo-
ReplyDeleteI would love if hundreds of Sinn Fein members would comment on the Quill-enough of them keep me going-[ joking just ]-a few would give me a few hints or what way to argue a point-but I just tell them to write in themselves-AM does not bite-well-apart from a few sharp words-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleterascal that you are, you are our rascal.
Mickey,
ReplyDeletemore power to your elbow hundreds eh that had me in stitches no need to muster an army just a few more would do the job.
Sharp words are handy enough like a good sickle cuts through all the crap and gets to the point.