“The case continues.”
Another snippet of information from the IRA extortion case noted yesterday. This time on the “two alleged victims [who] raised £6million using the name of the IRA” – and who cannot be named “for legal reasons”. From the Guardian report
Nick Mullen, 60, previously charged with being the “quartermaster” of an IRA active service unit, and Ronald McCartney, 55, who was convicted of attempting to murder three policeman, [allegedly] tried to extort money from two businessmen who the court heard were Sinn Féin supporters.
Adds From the Irish News [subs req]
The court heard the letters spoke of a “prolonged and intensive investigation” by the IRA which had established they had used the group’s name for “personal gain”. It referred to one of the businessmen having been “placed in a position of trust by the republican movement” and both then abusing it to raise the seven-figure fortune.
More From the courtroom today.
The businessman told the jury he was accused of using the IRA’s name to raise millions of pounds for his own gain.
He insisted there was “absolutely no truth” in the allegation and said he was left “completely devastated, shocked and confused… because for the last so many years of my life I had assisted Sinn Fein and had known many Sinn Fein members very well”.
He said he had become involved with the Wolfe Tone Society in London, described as a “support group for Sinn Fein”, after moving from Belfast to London in his early twenties.
His duties included “organising vehicles and commissioning drivers” for “senior party members and officials,” he said.
I think that’s basically the same snippet as yesterday.
Yeah Mr Baker seems to be warming to his theme through simple repetition. No Marty O’ dig though
Now Pete tell us why this was worth reposting? I don’t see that the story has changed or developed or moved on in the slightest.
Circles and RIRA…..Pete probably reposted as some thicko Republicans need to be reminded that IRA / Sinn Fein are still a terrorist organisation and in Northern Ireland, we unfortunately have five of those IRA terrorists as part of our Government.
And you probably posted William because it still irks you that those uppity croppies actually have the right to vote these days and not only that, that they actually have the gall to vote for republicans.
But as some philosophically put it “tough shit billy!”
Reposting a thread from the day before is the height of laziness – but maybe you’re happy with the same old news everyday Bill – as long as it reminds you of how dangerous those traitorous natives are.
I think that Pete has simply and quite correctly updated his report today on a trial which is ongoing. He has after all only done us the service of linking into updated reports on the courtroom proceedings today while providing that background, drawn from press reports, that informs new readers and which is permissable in law.
It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that while any that might be seen as favourable to the character of any or all of the defendants might not risk crossing the line into contempt of court, any comments which might be seen as prejudicial to the any or all defendants hold the possibility of putting the trial itself in jeopardy with very serious consequences for both the posters and the host.
That which people speculate about quietly among themseves cannot be denied but public comment, whether from those who might care for any or all of the defendants or any who might indeed wish them less than good will would be well advised to hold still while the trial proceeds.
You will no doubt be irritated by my very careful choice of words above but I choose them carefully for good reason and, I earnestly suggest, so should we all.
But, suit yourselves! As no doubt you will anyway.
Second paragraph , first sentence that reads “It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that while any that might be seen…etc.” should read, “It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that while any comments that might be seen…etc”.
And (pre empting Jimmy Sands) yes, I might have been even more careful still with my words. Never mind. Could happen to the Bishop.
Indeed, Rory.
But there are some people who would prefer that such cases were not considered at all.
I’m curious how this story would have turned out had these businessmen been able (e.g. by knowing the right people) to do some due diligence first BEFORE raising the £6 million.
Please disregard the above post: it was based on a total misunderstanding of the allegations.
“…some people who would prefer that such cases were not considered at all.”
Undoubtedly, Pete, but, if by “such cases” you mean those concerning allegations of blackmail, I would not include myself among their number.