2007 Here We Come
Gerry Adams noted the irony that the first public speech he made since the Ard Comhairle meeting, was to commemorate an attack on the RUC barracks in Brookeborough on January 1st, 1957. The attack was one of the most significant of the 1950′s border campaign ‘Operation Harvest’ and saw Sean South and Feargal O’Hanlon killed in the battle. Today’s freezing weather was eerily reminiscent of that ‘dreary New Year’s Day’, but about 1500 hundred people came out to commemorate and listen to Adams.In his speech, he said that while he acknowledged the irony, he didn’t see a contradiction in honouring the sacrifices made in the raid against the RUC while at the same time recommending acceptance of the PSNI. He said that ‘ignoring policing is simply not an option’ and sees the acceptance of policing as a means of taking control away from London and into Irish hands. Adams argued that Republican ideals are more achievable in the framework of the GFA, and feels that huge political advances have been made. However, he cautioned that Sinn Fein does not have sufficient political strength at present to progress those ideals.
Interestingly, he placed great emphasis on the fact that ‘there are no short cuts and no easy way to independence and a United Ireland.’ He urged the audience to ‘mobilise, organise and strategise’ and ‘secure a peaceful accord with Unionists. A United Ireland cannot be achieved simply on our terms.’
Over the next few weeks, he said that a review of all of the issues will be undertaken, the achievements to date will be set out, what is needed will be identified and he urged that all activists start to engage in the strategic process that is unfolding. At this point in the speech, he emphasised that everyone would have to be included in these talks, including republican veterans, those affected by State violence and collusion, and everyone with a stake in republicanism. Once a decision is made, ‘we need to move into the structures as this is the only way forward.’
New Yorker, you have to remember that the police here in the 6 counties lead the gangs of UVF/UDA killers.
The RUC/B Specials lead the protestant gangs to burn Catholic houses in 1969 and as the force is still 80% unionist it is hard for Nationalists to trust them, it is only now with the 50/50 recruitment that we are seeing a change in its make up. And remember no where else in the world would it be acceptable for one side of a divided community to have so much power and be allowed to exclude people because of their religion.
You should also remember that the DUP were the only party who didn’t want a ceasefire and asked the Unionist terrorists NOT to go ceasefire back in 1994 when the process started – as confirmed by David Ervine of the PUP/UVF. Where else in the world would a party be allowed to call itself Democratic and have no sanctions taken against it for requesting a terrorist organisation to continue with its Murder Campaign?
The creditials of the DUP are far from white and their demands for support for unequivilent support for Law and Order have not always applied to themselves.
Sheila
I’m fine with my understanding of what’s going on here, thanks for the concern though.
“So, you are saying that SF are speculating on holding an Ard Fheis in order to encourage the belief it has happened?”
To clarify. I’m saying Sinn Féin are demanding that others, in particular the DUP, react as if that Ard Fheis has already happened. It hasn’t. And they won’t.
Nationalist
Champion..just Champion.
Sometimes people from outside spot the obvious.
Nationalist – I think those are fair points?
New Yorker’s points were naive in the extreme – what do you think would happen if SF did not call an Ard fheis and just signed up to policing?
A split in the movement anyone?
Distrust of the police didn’t just arise out of nothing.
Having said that I think SF have to recognise the cops now.
‘New Yorker’s points were naive in the extreme – what do you think would happen if SF did not call an Ard fheis and just signed up to policing? ‘
What would happen is exactly what is happening now- Sinn Fein would be accused of being undemocratic!! It is another damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation.
New Yorkers comments were extremely naive for another reason- the NYPD ( despite it abysmal record in dealing with minorites etc.) were and are not a state militia that colluded with Death Squads funded by the State.
Pete,
You are 100% correct. Untill such time has the Ard Fheish as met and commited to a policy then it is all specualtion.
Comment. My own belief is the Ard Fheish will confirm the proposal put forward by Adams, they have a long history of backing the leadership and not dissenting. I understand it is 21 years since they defeated an Adams sponsored(authorised) motion.comment ends
The DUP have and will demand Sinn Fein jump and do the odd back flip Before any PUBLIC consideration to the date of the limitted powers being returned to Stormont .
Miss Fitz( Sheila) appear to have a problem dealing with the reality of the situation on the ground and is content to do A ” Gerry” and suggest the end result will justify the means.
Her conversion to Sinn Fein policies is a remarkably smooth and seamless one. I was dissapointed in her reluctance on another similar thread to accept that Sinn Fein leadership should now demonstrate their willingness and comittment to the British Criminal Justice system.She believes it is just politics.
She seems to think a fudge and a nod and a wink will do for the DUP.In believe that is a simplistic and naive viewpoint.
As a spokesperson for the SDLP said in the IRISH News ( letter copied on my blog) Why did it take them 30 years to become SDLP?
Good question. Maybe Miss Fitz and or Sheila would like to comment upon this SDLP point or maybe they could join together with a common
response.
Well done Pete.
Ding Ding
Martin
miss fitz,
saw the crowd on TV and your estimate was indeed conservative.
Pat……
beat me to it.
Definately a conservative crowd estimate from Miiss Fitz
Can i also add that Miss Fitz’ last two post were the lead on the first proper news of the year on bbc newsline.
Who needs the beeb?
Happy New Year Everyone
Martin
Lets clear up the first point, my name is Sheila and I blog under the name of Miss Fitz. I would have reverted to my real name at this point, but to be honest, it’s become a habit now. Having said that, I am not doing a cloak and dagger job, so I will post comments on my given name and threads under the blog name. Clear as mud, eh?
Now for your next point. On some of the other threads, you have made points and ascribed perspectives to me that are less than accurate.
I have to admit a certain difficulty in trying to find out exactly what question you are asking. If you make your questions clear, then I can answer.
On this occasion, I think you are asking me if I feel SF should support Law and Order in Northern Ireland. Well, Martin, my answer to that is yes and has been yes for a long time.
I honestly dont know what you mean by a fudge, a nod and a wink to the DUP.
I know you brought up the McCartney killingon another thread, and I told you that Adams information is inadmissable as hearsay. You said it was still valuable. In the meantime, I have checked with a legal source and it has been confirmed that information is not evidence and no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.
Martin, I think you are either purposfully misrepresnting me, or you dont get my point of view. I certainly cannot decipher all of your language, but I remain willing to engage.
Yokel and Nationalist,
Thank you for your replies. Sorry to inform you that your situation is not unique. There have other divided societies where the majority held all, or nearly all, power. Some of those situations have been successfully resolved into a fair balance between majority and minority by updating laws, quotas, rigorous monitoring of compliance with the fairness agenda, etc. You have had such measures in place for many years and oversight by non-partisan and non-Irish observers. So, the question remains, why is there a debate on supporting policing and obeying the law within a party that seeks to enter government and make laws?
The disgraceful posting by Miss Fitz under her other name of Sheila really endangers the entire concept of Slugger O’Toole.
There are many points that I take exception to but the most glaring and despicable was the nauseous assertion that evidence from a third party is of no relevant significance to an investigation team enquiring into a murder.
She stated and I quote:
“I have checked with a legal source and it has been confirmed that information is not evidence and no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.â€
This statement is a bare faced lie, anyone with information relating to the McCartney slaughter and knowingly withhold it are guilty of withholding information and are liable to prosecution. Anyone who deliberately hinders any such investigation manually through the use of direct physical force or action, or through the use of propaganda, physiological or financial pressure are guilty of perverting the course of justice and are liable to prosecution.
If Miss Fitz really took legal advice I would like her to name and shame the solicitor responsible for such a statement that “no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.â€
If Adams knows where the killers got cleaned up and new clothing, or where the old clothing was dumped, or the name of the person or persons responsible for the removal of CCTV video tape from the bar, or the name of the person or persons responsible for the organized harassment of witnesses involved, where as your solicitor confidently states that “this is of no use†the rest of society can confidently state that THIS INFORMATION IS VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION TEAM.
The McCartney family demand justice, the nationalist community demand closure, and the unionist community demand law and order, and in order for all three to be satisfied the investigation team require the information that Sheila has told everyone is totally irrelevant and useless to anybody and in effect should be forgotten about.
[Moderator's note: Although some personal references have been clipped or modified in this post, I am reinstating the substance of The Devil's original contribution as it lies comfortably within the rules of civil engagement on Slugger.]
Hi Devil
I closed your post as your comments were flagrantly ad hominem, but I would like to make a few points if you would care to hear them.
One of the problems with following thoughts on threads is that they get muddled. Martin Ingram and I exchanged some ideas on another thread a few days ago. I have been discussing admissable evidence and whether or not a third party could take the stand in a court case. Once again, I have been told that would be hearsay and as such inadmissable as evidence. There is a distinction between information and evidence.
As to my presence at the Sean South commemoration, you are being disingenous by your remarks. I have been collating research on commemorations for some time now, and I have attended dozens of events across a very wide spectrum over the past 2 years. My presence at an Orange march does not make me an Orange supporter, no more than my presence at a republican commemoration makes me a republican.
I think the point of your post was to demonstrate you know who I am, but sure that’s no secret. If you were a genuine person with genuine concerns you would not use this method to attack me in such a disgraceful manner.
Shame on you
no fitz shame on you…….
not only are you wrong but your also a coward, my post was as acurate as any you have ever posted so i’ll continue to post it on every thread until you are sick of looking at it
Devil
There are rules about playing the man on threads. I am fairly confident that I have answered the salient points you raised.
What is surprising here is that if you stop huffing and puffing, you’ll appreciate that I am not disagreeing with you. I have no problem with calling for people to assist the police and provide whatever information pertinent and useful, the kernel of the disagreement between me and Ingram was whether or not that information was admissable in court.
I also think you should consider the irony of you post my personal and private details on sites using your anonymity!
and dont dare say that you and i agree on the matter we dont…. you want it under a carpet i want it out in the open.
and that is my email real address……
Hi Devil
OK, I’ll go through this again. My reason for posting comments under my own personal name is that I was trying to see if I could affect a transition to posting under my real name and leave the pseudonym behind. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I was always a little reluctant to ‘come out’ as I have a family who I have an instinct to protect.
As to ‘under the carpet’….. I am at a loss over that comment. I have never advocated anything less than full and open cooperation with the police. You really meed to be a bit more precise if you want me to provide a coherent answer to you
provide an answer… more precise…
why you censor every damned post because you cant take criticism what chance is there of you answering anything honestly…
ps can you stay up 24/7 cos i can these post will be made
I ‘censored’ two posts initially, one where you gave out my full name, degree classification, and present whereabouts. That wasnt very nice, to be honest, and a breach of my privacy. The other one was closed also for a time while I considered it.
I’ve spoken to Mick, and both posts have been restored. My personal details have now been omitted.
I guess I consider myself honest to a fault and as I have said, I have no problem in engaging in an honest debate played by the rules of the forum
Guys, there is real substance in this argument which I am more than happy to sustain. But I am not happy to let it turn into a personal grudge match. I have reinstated the core of The Devil’s post, minus the personal stuff. I have also clipped a few other posts as well.
If this continues in the same venal grain, I’ll simply lock the thread and go to bed. I would further suggest that others might usefully profit from doing the same.
I think what this discussion proves is something we already know, most people in this country think they are experts on the law……
Miss Fitz and Sheila.
The comfusion is only cemented by you posting under the title Sheila and then two posts further down posting under the title Miss Fitz.
Please keep to one identity.
In relation to Mr Adams. Any person who has information in relation to a murder is a potential witness.
If Mr Adams spoke to the killers in the course of his admitted internal Republican inquiries and they admitted a certain action to him his duty today is to furnish the police with that information.
It is for the police to decide if it is of evidential value NOT Mr Adams or Sinn Fein.
Mr Adams has no defence in law for withholding information.End of.
Now let us move on to Martin McGUINNESS.I outlined the case in point to you and you failed to pick up on the points raised.
Given that he now recognises the British justice system and suggested to those involved in the Story attack that they should accept the Britsh courts dont you think it is time he did so also.
Clearly Sinn Fein have now moved position to a point were they accept the British criminal justice system. Is it not time now for REAL leadership to be shown and place his own faith and liberty in the Diplock system.
Simple yes or no would suffice.
Martin
Martin
I appreciate that my switching identity caused confusion. I can only say it was done with the best motive in mind, I was going to ‘come out’, but it now looks like too much trouble and I shall stick to the pseudonym.
Now to the substance of your post. Obviously, this is a sensitive issue and I am conscious of the limitations of this forum to be understood clearly.
I have no hesitation in agreeing with you that anyone with relevant information pertaining to the McCartney, or indeed any other murder or breach of the law should take that information to the police. That’s how a lawfully organised society works, and it cannot work without the support of the public. We have come far enough in terms of ordinary policing where that should be seen to be an acceptable option.
I remain quite firm on my other point about the value of hearsay versus evidence. You can bring any case to Court, but without evidence you dont get a conviction. Making arrests for the sake of a spectacle is a time wasting exercise.
I’m afraid I dont follow the question you are asking me relating to Martin McGuinness. Are you asking me if he should turn himself in for crimes committed in the past? If that’s your question, then in some ways my above point stands. The rule of law follows a process. Within that process, we have allowed the suspension of some of the normal qualifications for the sake of an accomodation.
Is this what you are asking, Martin? As I’ve said, I have no problem giving answers, as long as the question is put to me in a clear fashion.