Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

“requested him to communicate the fact..”

Thu 19 June 2008, 3:32pm

There’s an interesting detail from this report on the Brendan McFarlane trial which failed to make it into subsequent reports

Cross-examined by defence counsel Mr Hugh Hartnett SC, the superintendent said he had no knowledge that Mo Mowlam was due to sign [McFarlane's] final release papers at 3pm that afternoon but he said that McFarlane informed him of this and requested him to communicate the fact that he has been arrested to the Northern Ireland Office, which he did.

Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Delicious Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Digg Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Facebook Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Google+ Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on LinkedIn Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Pinterest Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on reddit Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on StumbleUpon Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Twitter Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Add to Bookmarks Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Email Share '“requested him to communicate the fact..”' on Print Friendly

Comments (5)

  1. I’m puzzled as to why this prosecution of McFarlane is being pursued. Is he still liable post Good Friday agreement? Does he have to be convicted before he can then be “released” under the GFA? If so, is it really worth this expensive charade? Or is there another reason for this prosecution – is McFarlane involved in dissident republicanism and if so then is there a political motivation?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. IRIA says:

    I’m puzzled, as well. If it is just a “charade”, what a waste.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. picador says:

    On a separate note there is a hearing today on the case of Michael McAleavy a Belfast man who has been in prison for TWENTY SIX years. While serving with the Irish army in southern Lebanon in 1982 he shot dead three of his colleagues and has been in prison ever since. He is seeking a relaese date but the state wants him to serve a minimum of 30 years.

    The Irish state clearly gets vindicative where the deaths of its own are involved and this is no doubt part of the reasoning behind the prosecution of Bik McFarlane.

    That is commendable on many levels but FFS after 26 years it is time they released this guy.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. john burns says:

    Picador, there was a TV programme on some time ago on this case and the families of the victims are opposed to the release of Michae McAleavy, who, judging from reports, should never have been sent there in the first place because of his anti-semitic views.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. picador says:

    Keeping the guy in jail for another four years will not resurrect the dead. I’m not sure what any alleged anti-semitism has to do with anything – the man did not kill any Jews as far as I am aware.

    The fact that this crime occurred in south Lebanon, a highly volatile area at the best of times and even more so in 1982, the year of the Israeli invasion, is surely a mitigating factor in this case.

    This man should be released at once.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2012 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
28 queries. 0.482 seconds.