The focus now is on Gerry Adams’s survival
When a journalist in a newspaper labels a leading politician as a liar and produces what ‘s claimed to be a smoking gun so to speak, we know that it’s game on for the highest stakes. Suzanne Breen and the Sunday Tribune are hardly risk averse. They come to the Adams scandal buoyed up with a clear victory over the government over their refusal to disclose the source of the Real IRA claim for the Massareene murders. Recognising the significance of a story which significantly adds to the pressure on Gerry Adams, the BBC cautiously covers the Sunday Tribune’s publication of a photograph of
Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams canvassing with his brother Liam for the party in Dundalk in 1997, at a time when Gerry Adams has said his brother Liam had been expelled from Sinn Fein.
In a comment piece, Northern editor Suzanne Breen claims:
“Today, we expose this as a lie. Far from having Liam “dumped” from the party, Gerry Adams accompanied his suspected paedophile brother on a Sinn Féin canvass through Dundalk town centre just days before the 6 June election. The Sunday Tribune has uncovered photographs and a newspaper report of the event. The brothers are seen laughing on the canvass – more proof that they were not “estranged”.
The BBC report includes a partial rebuttal:
A Sinn Fein spokesman said it saw no conflict with the Sunday Tribune’s claims and Mr Adams’ previous comments on meetings with his brother. “Gerry Adams has made it clear that he did see his brother on occasions in the 1990s and made it clear when he discovered he was a member of the party in the Dundalk area he moved to have him expelled in the late 1990s,” a Sinn Fein spokesman added.
While expulsion in the late 1990s is technically not incompatible with Gerry Adams smilingly canvassing for Liam as late as 1997 according to the Tribune’s evidence, it lacks conviction.
Breen goes on
Gerry Adams’ disturbingly inadequate response to his brother’s suspected abuse makes him politically toxic. He is stripped of all credibility and moral authority. His position as a public figure is untenable. Were he the leader of any other party, he would have resigned by now. Would Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny, Peter Robinson or Mark Durkan survive such damning revelations? Not a chance.
In the Sunday Times, Liam Clarke covers similar territory adding that Adam’s meetings with Aine were –
the same approach of endless but unproductive meetings which republicans often use when people complain against those close to them. The families of many of those killed and secretly buried by the IRA were subjected to the same treatment, as were the family of Robert McCartney, the man stabbed by IRA members in 2005.
Clarke concludes
A politician who has this much explaining to do is a liability to everyone associated with him.
We now wait to see if Gerry Adams produces a new defence or enjoys more lenient treatment from Sinn Fein than former auxiliary bishops in the Dublin archdiocese are at last receiving at the hands of the Irish Church. Is there a Sinn Fein equivalent of Diarmuid Martin? The constrast with the Church’s actions however belated, is now blatant and must be causing mental turmoil for those who are able to reconcile strong support for Sinn Fein with devotion to the Church. This is now a crisis which even this most enclosed of political movements cannot leave to piecemeal statements from a spokesman. Despite the tsuami of schadenfreude rising up from its enemies, Sinn Fein cannot dismiss this as a purely politically motivated attack.
Socaire,
You will fight who? The victims of abuse?
#
For the word , ‘The contempt people are showing’
Please replace the word ‘people’ with;
a} Paul himself.
b] His mummy
c} His daddy.
d} The guys he hangs about with in the bar down the road.
e]Fellow Unionists generally.
Yawn reminds me of the good old days; ‘all right thinking people’, the vast majority in Norn Ireland’ ect,ect, ect.
If its a duck it quacks, what else is new?
Posted by padraig on Dec 28, 2009 @ 04:09
Yet more LMAO Sinners/trolls/spinners clap trap the only yawning is the likes of your boring and pathatic excuss for trying to get Gerry Adams of the hook. who simply dosnt have any moral authority to carry on in his position.FACT his accounts simply didnt and dont add up any other party leader in Ireland both north and south would of resign apart from your mentor Adams who has told blantant untruths its quite laughable seeing some of the sinners/trolls/spinners spinning into overdrive well to coin a phrase this scandal aint going to go away you know. Gerry Adams position is untenable fact if he remains he and sinn fein clearly have brought politics into desrepute.
Blair,
I haven’t seen any evidence that he “covered up” abuse or that he “allowed” the abuser to continue to work…
I am only going by second hand reports, mainly on Slugger, but it appears that he did the opposite of what you claim.
clearly have brought politics into desrepute. (sic).
Paul troll,
Please do tell us what “repute” N.I. politics have had this past 80 or more years, more especially this past 3 years or so.
#
clearly have brought politics into desrepute. (sic).
Paul troll,
Please do tell us what “repute” N.I. politics have had this past 80 or more years, more especially this past 3 years or so.
Posted by joeCanuck on Dec 28, 2009 @ 10:53 PM
who cares what you think you living in canada posting on your PC with the utter nonsense and drivel as usual you have done nothing but defend adams with your appalling spinning/trolling then try to deflect attention.Away from this appalling scandal by attacking others as trolls how pathatic is that.members of the public can see you that is who simply dosnt know what they are talking about.No change there then
#
Damn good point, Joseph!
Posted by socaire on Dec 28, 2009 @ 11:05 PM
LMAO another Sinner/troll/spinner trying to deflect attention away from this appalling scandal by attacking others.You are making yourself look even more foolish everytime you post.GEt real Gerry Adams position is untenable
hehehehehe
Touched a sore point there, did I, troll?
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein
Joe,
Oh did he go public about the abuse? The photographs of him grinning beside the alleged abuser are a bit strange don’t you think? Do you honestly believe that he didn’t know what his brother was doing for a living? How come he made so many complementary comments about him in his book etc?
What evidence do you have to support your claim that he did the opposite to what I claim?
#
Ever try posting in Irish,Paul?
Posted by socaire on Dec 28, 2009 @ 10:33 PM
Ever tried posting something constructive rather than defending somebody like Gerry Adams who has no moral authority left to carry on in his position.You yourself should take a long hard look at what you post quite shameful the way you troll and spin to try to get adams off the hook well i am afraid gerry adams days are clearly numbered.as more on this scandal come out
#
hehehehehe
Touched a sore point there, did I, troll?
Posted by joeCanuck on Dec 28, 2009 @ 11:22 PM
he he he no you just make me laugh everytime you post your drivel Mr Troll from canada i touch a nerve everytime i expose the in excuseable spinning/trolling the likes off you trolls/spinners try to get your Gerry off the hook.LMAO its a laugh a minute.
Well. they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Paul. Thank you.
Now I really must go and look out the window, even though it is dark.
#
Well. they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Paul. Thank you.
Now I really must go and look out the window, even though it is dark.
Posted by joeCanuck on Dec 28, 2009 @ 11:31 PM
lMAO you have being looking in the dark with your postings for weeks no change there then.A candianian Gerry Adams apoligist how very very sad.You simply dont know what you are talking about Mr Troll from canada try reading the sunday tribune article you might learn something.No chance of that though hey TROLL
GA caught telling porkies,why is anyone surprised?Some people wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the arse.The whole machine started on a lie that allowed people to die so that they could do what they said – no return to Stormont- armalite in one hand ,ballot box in the other.
It is easy to tell when GA is lying – his lips move.
The question is ,should he be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice?
posted by Kathleen Collins
Hi georgieleigh,
You are correct, sinn fein does not run in elections where I live…in the US…however sinn fein does run here several times a year for money…so we do have something to say about what they are doing. People who give money to political parties…don’t like negative press or damaged goods…and that is what gerry adams is. Gerry Adams will negatively effect fund raising here in the States, Canada and Australia…and he will hurt sinn fein’s reputation throughout the world.
Joe if you enjoy the dark ,his book will be out soon
“I don’t think you do even if the only journalist to do any investigative legwork is Suzanne Breen. Why do you think that might be?” – Alias
“No, I think it’s because our journalists here are mostly crap.” – Comrade Stalin
Oh, I see. Thank you for that explanation for why a minister of the British state branded Ms Breen a “dissident journalist” and why the police force within that state followed up that state’s attack on journalists within its jurisdiction who refused to proffer state propaganda as a substitute for diligent reporting and holding the state to account with an attempt to prosecute that journalist for refusing to hand offer her investigative notes to the state – an act that wherein the state in its zealous imperative to censor the unwelcome and non-conforming investigative reporting were rebuffed by the courts which upheld the freedom of the press that the state actively tried to undermine.
In your odd little world, the British state did not brand MS Breen as a “dissident journalist” because it wished to control her reporting, bringing her into line with the ‘non-dissenting’ journalists who proffered the state’s agenda but merely attacked the press in that manner because it objected to “crap” reporting.
Suzanne Breen is the honourable exception that proves the rule. She was branded as a “dissident journalist” (dissenting from the peace processing function of NI’s overwhelmingly servile media) for failing to comply with state-sponsored reporting, and subsequently targeted by the British police after being targeted by a British minister within the British state.
You’re a superb ball player, Paul.
Perhaps you might consider becoming a professional soccer player when you leave school.
Since the British minister used “dissident” as an adjective, let’s look at how dictionary.com defines it: “disagreeing or dissenting, as in opinion or attitude: a ban on dissident magazines.” The term “dissident” first came into use as a noun to describe those who challenged the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union.
In this context, a ‘dissident journalist’ is any reporter who does not comply with state-sponsored media management but who actively challenges the doctrines and policies of the state.
The term was used in a context that was purgative, clearly indicating that the state did not approve of media that did not propagate the official line. It was also quantitative, indicating that there were only a small number of such journalists who were not servile to the state. And it was an exhortation to authorities within the state – operationally (or rather nominally) independent of the Executive – to harass this small number of journalists who refused to be state-controlled.
The result of this exhortation was that a non-conforming journalist was exposed to the risk of being murdered by the state’s attempt to force her to hand over her investigative notes about RIRA to the state. It was well-known that any journalist who did this would be accused of collaboration by RIRA and duly shot. This is the trick that the state attempted to use in order to deter other investigative reporters from further enquiry. Clearly, no reporter would dare investigate if that meant that they must share their notes with the state and thereby risk a bullet, and no reporter would dare step out of line elsewhere if they observed a state that was ruthlessly determined to keep them in line.
Since there are – according to the British minister – only a small number of “dissident” journalists, it follows that the majority are non-dissenting. And since the state strongly disapproves of journalists who are not willing to be state-controlled, the rest are obviously willing to be servile to the state.
It is indeed the case that only a small number of NI’s media are not state-controlled, and this has been the case prior to the current process. It is telling that when the British minister made this attack on press freedom, everybody knew who he was talking about.
Gerard Hodgkins is in the Irish News demanding Adams quit the Sands trust.
SF leader not the only one to speak for republican martyrs.
here’s one for the back-biters
The usual suspects misjudge the public mood
http://www.belfastmedia.com/columnists_article.php?ID=902
Anyone seen Adams’ blog today? http://leargas.blogspot.com/2009/12/bliain-ur-faoi-mhaise-daoibhbliain-ur.html
A man embroiled in a paedophilia scandal praises the Christian brothers while petulantly carping about the media for having the gall to do their job and catch him in his lies. It was posted last night and there are still no comments; perhaps it was too much for even the sickest of sycophants. Although some of the spinners on this thread would most likely disagree.
What is it with *cod* philosophers, the media and seagulls?
Gerry Kerouac in Leargas:
Here’s a happy New Year to you.’ He told me.
‘And you too. And the seagulls.’
‘And the media’ he retorted.
Eric Cantona, on the media reaction after having kung fu-ed a Palace fan:
“When the seagulls follow the trawler, it’s because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.
Percy, what did you think of the Squinter piece that you link to? He counters verifiable evidence with rhetoric and absolutely evades the central issue; why did the British not publicly use this against Adams and PSF when they have known about it for 20+ years and to what extent was it used behind the scenes? He appears inherently compromised and it becomes easier to understand how he managed to be surrounded by British agents of his own appointment.
Alias,
Suzanne Breen was the victim of embarassed people within the PSNI. Eventually the “British state”, via the British-operated courts system, exonerated her. Doesn’t that kind of fuck up your whole elaborate conspiracy ? It’s not as if the British have not intervened to swing court proceedings in the past.
And of course I agree that she is a good journalist. One of the few.
She was branded as a “dissident journalist”
While I don’t agree with McGuinness’s attitude expressed in this comment, it is somewhat more straightforward to explain it by way of frustration with journalists glorifying, as he saw it, individuals who are trying to kill him. McGuinness isn’t exactly an individual with a history of tolerating dissent and criticism. So I still don’t see why a British conspiracy is necessary here.
I need to go, my MI6 black helicopter is waiting outside to take me back to GCHQ.
Gerry Kerouac in Leargas:
‘I know that’ he said as we made our way away from the waters edge and up
towards Saint Galls.
Fuck me, but Gearoid’s fluffy man-of-the-world prosaic schtick makes me bring up about twenty buckets of sick every time.
“I need to go, my MI6 black helicopter is waiting outside to take me back to GCHQ.”
I had you down as an eco-friendly moped man.
Comrade Stalin,
The Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) are responsible for collecting secret foreign intelligence, mainly operate outside the United Kingdom and are therefore part of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office brief.
The Security Service (MI5) is responsible for protecting the United Kingdom against threats to national security, mainly operate within the United Kingdom and are therefore part of the Home Office brief.
GCHQ is a separate intelligence agency with two important missions, Signals Intelligence (known as SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA).
None of these agencies operate helicopters, that is a role of the Armed Forces and would actually come under the scope of the Joint Helicopter Command
Gerry Adams has had long standing relationships with Micheal Oatley and Frank Steele of SIS; indeed Oatley is a staunch supporter of Adams. Do you think that they may have mentioned Liam Adams during their discussions over several decades?
http://cryptome.org/uk-intel.doc
I think saying “Oatley is a staunch supporter of Adams” is exaggerating, to say the least.
Although, in the many meetings between Adams, Mcguinness, Oatley and Steele it seems to me that Oatley handled Mcguinness, and Steele handled Adams. Handled, perhaps, being the operative word.
You have failed to address the question in regard to Liam Adams.
MI6 were always a little bit prone to propping up the bad guys.
If you are asking if I think Messrs. Oatley and Steele discussed Liam Adams when talking to Gerry, then the answer is no. I very much doubt that Liam ever figured, or was discussed in any way, in any of their many discussions.
Why would they choose to ignore such a potentially useful source of potential manipulation and leverage?
Mr Crowley,
Because they liked to play the friend.
None of these agencies operate helicopters, that is a role of the Armed Forces and would actually come under the scope of the Joint Helicopter Command
This is a new multi-agency operation dedicated to the preservation of Gerry Adams. It’s so secret that only I, “Alias”, the former editors of “Living Marxism”, and the entire Internet know about it.
“Suzanne Breen was the victim of embarassed people within the PSNI. Eventually the “British state”, via the British-operated courts system, exonerated her. Doesn’t that kind of fuck up your whole elaborate conspiracy ? It’s not as if the British have not intervened to swing court proceedings in the past.” – Comrade Stalin
Not at all, since I remarked upon the judicial independence of the courts in protecting the freedom of the press in post 7 of page 3:
“…the state in its zealous imperative to censor the unwelcome and non-conforming investigative reporting were rebuffed by the courts which upheld the freedom of the press that the state actively tried to undermine.”
The political aspect of the State (government) and the security apparatus of the state are separate from the judiciary so it’s a tad retarded of you to conflate them, claiming that because the judiciary acts honourably and other parts of the state do not then it must follow – according to your curious logic – that all areas of the state are exonerated by the actions of one area.
However, apart from that curious logic, you’d be more convincing it you didn’t engage in conspiracy theories that suggest that the police force conspired against Ms Breen because of a personal grudge and to suggest that the other areas of the state have conspired with the judiciary to pervert the course of justice.
Accusing another poster of engaging in a conspiracy theory (when the proof of state control of the media is provided) in order to over mine the claim that the state does seek to control the media, while simultaneously engaging in two outlandish and wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy theories of your own just makes you look a bit schizophrenic, frankly.
Not at all, since I remarked upon the judicial independence of the courts in protecting the freedom of the press in post 7 of page 3:
That doesn’t change the fact that your argument is inconsistent.
The political aspect of the State (government) and the security apparatus of the state are separate from the judiciary
It’s interesting that you believe this is so, despite the long history suggesting the opposite (eg Widgery). Is it reasonable to assume you think that the single-minded agenda of the British state would see the judiciary as an obstacle ? If so why bring the case against Breen in the first place ?
so it’s a tad retarded of you to conflate them, claiming that because the judiciary acts honourably and other parts of the state do not
No I didn’t. Aren’t you the one arguing that you believe the judiciary came to the rescue of Suzanne Breen against the clutches of the State ? Are you so confused that you think your opinions are actually mine ?
The only comment I made on this subject was :
“It’s not as if the British have not intervened to swing court proceedings in the past.”
You can read it right up there. Post 1, page 4. It should be reasonably obvious that I don’t view the state and the judiciary as being wholly independent.
Just to remind you of what my actual opinions are here. I think that local journalism is generally, with a few notable exceptions, of a poor standard. You do not, you think that all journalists are made equal as they receive the same training (I have to admit, I had to pick myself up off the floor with that relevation). You still haven’t addressed my question about this bizarre perspective, which is probably because it doesn’t suit your worldview that everything that happens in NI politics only takes place because it has been directed by the British state.
then it must follow – according to your curious logic – that all areas of the state are exonerated by the actions of one area.
Are there any other opinions you’d like to fabricate on my behalf ?
“That doesn’t change the fact that your argument is inconsistent.” – Comrade Stalin
It would only be inconsistent if I, like you, made the mistake of conflating all of the different departments of the state. I, however, did not make your schoolboy error in elementary reasoning.
“…the state in its zealous imperative to censor the unwelcome and non-conforming investigative reporting were rebuffed by the courts which upheld the freedom of the press that the state actively tried to undermine.”
Do you still not grasp from that statement (post No 7 of page 3) that the judiciary is seen as acting independently of the government and of the security services?
For there to be any inconsistency, I would have to made the mistake that you made and conflate all areas of the state as being one.
Another flaw that I see – in addition to your two outlandish conspiracy theories – is that you conflated a private individual with a government minister. The erroneous result of your conflation was to imply that the British state did not launch an attack on press freedom by branding anyone who refused to disseminate state-sponsored propaganda as “dissident journalists” because it was actually ‘Marty, ordinary bloke from the Bogside’ giving his opinion on a bar stool to other drunks in private and not a government minister making a statement in his official role as Deputy First Minister flanked by the First Minister, Peter Robinson. Here is where you made that error: “McGuinness isn’t exactly an individual with a history of tolerating dissent and criticism.”
The main flaw with your leprechaun logic is the state could never be held to have acted dishonourably in any matter unless all parts of the state colluded with each other. This means in practice that the FRU could never murder anyone because the courts might not be aware of it and therefore would not be able to collude in the murder. It is not nessessary for the courts to collude with a dishonourable act by the state before the act is deemed dishonourable. Indeed, the independence of the judiciary from political control means that they are often the only part of the British state to retain any honour.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention your 3rd outlandish conspiracy theory: that all judges and officials of the court are corrupt and are controlled by the state.
For the love of g-d, get help for your rampamt paranoia!