Monday, October 22, 2007
First Minister contacts Prime Minister
It’s not yet on-line but online here for today [RealPlayer file. Live report 8mins 20 secs in], in his live report from Stormont on BBC NI’s 6.30pm Newsline programme, Mark Devenport reported that the First Minister, the DUP’s Ian Paisley, has contacted the UK’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown to seek an assurance that there would be full support from No. 10 wherever the investigation into the killing of Paul Quinn led. He also quoted “one source” telling him that the killing was “not sanctioned”.. although he emphasised that the investigation was at an early stage. Adds The BBC now reports that contact, and the First Minister’s comments, echoing mostly the statement Fair Deal pointed to in the comments zone below.
Pete Baker @ 06:06 PM
Ah Pete, but isn’t the fudge already in, as you have suggested in another thread?
corporately involved
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 07:34 PMWhy so quiet? Where are the bloggers and twisters when we reach crisis number 61,000,002?
The Assembly will always sit on a knife edge and sectarian politics will be needed to stir the masses.
Surely we need to start thinking about a non-sectarian alternative. Are people not really fed up with the triteness of sectarian/national identity politics?
Surely to goodness there must be 20% of the electorate who want some sort of non-sectarian alternative, or am I delusional.
It will go on like this until we swap fear/prejudice and myopia for a healthy alternative.
slan, bout ye and other linguistic yahoo
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 07:46 PMPete
FYI DUP officers statement on Quinn murder
http://www.dup.org.uk/Articles.asp?Article_ID=2858Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 07:46 PMPete - I expect you’d like this thread to discuss the ‘principles’ of “no guns in government” and that’s fair enough. To me - it’d be a waste of breath. The line has been drawn - this is about “sanctioned” murder or not “corporate” murder.
Indeed! I suppose this peace process was always going to get us here. Far from SF attempts to whitewash and legitimise the past while pointing the fingure of blame elsewhere - what they can’t quite manage to do is keep their dogs on a leash. Instead - they occasionally have to let them out for a bit of blood letting.
It is these animals that are the so called heros of the Irish freedom struggle. Their actions now are as heroic as they were then. But “then” it was legitimate and now it’s not.
Hmmm
Dealers in this sophistry may get their fingers burned. This emperor seems to be wearing little.
And what of Mr. Murphy’s line that “Republicans weren’t involved” but the public should assist the Gardai and PSNI? What does this mean to witnesses?
Does it mean, “If you saw a republican – you didn’t!”?
Yet, the sad facts remain; a young man who dared to challenge the local Mafioso and who drove a truck for living across border areas that Mafioso control and charge for the privilege has been beaten to death.
Whether “sanctioned” or a “corporate decision” or not it is those that prospered on conducting ‘business’ this way that are in government. Have a go at Paisley et al if you will. God knows their own associations are bad enough to deserve a roasting.
Those who vote SF however might reflect on this genie now out of the bottle. Whatever social agenda SF speaks to that makes them worth voting for – with it comes gangs of henchmen determined to stay in control of “their” patch for money and power. Is there reason to reflect? I suspect for most there isn’t – Paul Quinn, beaten and then left to die in pain is just “exuberance”, not sanctioned, not corporately identifiable and not done by “republicans”.
Perhaps the SF beatification of its “volunteers” can be associated with their actions – now and then. They never were more than this.
Its not the assurances that Paisley may be seeking that cut ice here. It’s clear a corporate decision needs identified to upset the political train he’s joined. While I might find it amusing to see the trust Paisley now gives the “Corporate PIRA” - it remains a side show.
A young man was brutally murdered by associates of SF. The methods are little changed from the past but now we are told they have no political cover?
Time will tell. Is Murphy’s statement one that warns against informing or one that encourages it? Do SF supporters accept this action - or reject it?
Pete - pick on the political protagonists if you want but the rot is in the people that find this type of action acceptable - or fail to have the courage to contradict SF party line.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 07:47 PMwould i be too cynical to think, that the cops on both sides of the border will be under huge pressure not to find any provo involvment.
that this will be a huge let off to Fianna Fail and the DUP. i am sure the DUP could not walk back into power with SF if they waLK on this.
so my prediction is that cops will not find any republican involvment. this will suit all political sides.
and of course the “criminals” will be able to continue silencing anybody who are not doing what the leadership want.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 07:58 PMHarry - “and of course the “criminals” will be able to continue silencing anybody who are not doing what the leadership want.”
I suspect this murder may not be “what the leadership want” - but it is what they get from what they have sewn.
What you won’t get is many informing on “republicans” since SF (without any investigation) can say none were involved. Contradict that and ... get a bullet in the head, be beaten to death or just leave - all depends what mood they’re in.
There’s no need to postulate a multi-state conspiracy to keep a hold on this. SF’s crew are on top of this one - and nobody knows how to keep a croppie down better!
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:08 PMPowerful stuff Rubicon and difficult to disagree with.
If it was as you’ve said:
‘Yet, the sad facts remain; a young man who dared to challenge the local Mafioso and who drove a truck for living across border areas that Mafioso control and charge for the privilege has been beaten to death.’,
then there is a case to answer.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:25 PMHercules - I fear there will be no case. Mr. Murphy has stated no “republicans” were involved. Past experience suggests that the best efforts of the police will not be able to challenge this. Those who think they might give it a go will need to reflect on the long list of people now 6 feet under - and one yet to be buried.
Yet – don’t believe there exists a queue of the intimidated – it hasn’t existed in the past, it doesn’t now and there’s no sign of it happening in the future. Next time out the “tut-tut-ers” shaking their heads and sympathising with the family’s loss – will return to the polls and vote the same way again.
Meanwhile SF issue cover – “no republicans were involved”. Few will fail to get the message.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:37 PMRubicon
These days I’m just content if the conversation stays broadly on topic.
But, in line with your own argument on this, I think, the denials by the most senior SF representatives - of any “republican” involvement whatsoever - need to be noted when someone is briefing about whether or not the killing was sanctioned.
After all, when did “criminals” require sanctioning for such an action?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:47 PMRubicon
“A young man was brutally murdered by associates of SF.”
It’s far too early to make so bald a statement as this.
What, for example, constitutes an “associate” of SF?
It is, for example, widely believed that many of the people in charge of illegal rackets in south Armagh today were active IRA volunteers in the 1980s and early 90s. Many have never resigned (or whatever it is you do) from the IRA, but nor have they taken an active role within the IRA for the better part of a decade and a half. Some have, however, been actively involved in criminality and in acts of violence associated with that criminality - much as you’ll find with organised crime the world over.
Meanwhile another branch of the old provisional republican axis, Sinn Féin, has spent the same period developing its political strategy, culminating in getting their bums into ministerial Skodas.
I suppose the issue going forward now is this: what are we to make of the relationship today between the Slab Murphys and the Martin McGuinnesses? (ie former comrades whose paths have in reality long since diverged, but who have not yet found the coursge to admit it yet.)
How long before SF have their De Valera moment and definitively, ruthlessly turn their backs on these old, timewarped comrades? Not long, I’d say.
Perhaps the DUP should think of letting SF have a crack at a justice ministry after all?
I mean, anyone who knows their Irish history (Broy’s Harriers anyone?) will understand that probably only a SFer can clean up the border areas.
With FF as a wildcard for the future, of course.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:54 PMPete
Eh?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:55 PMPete - “sanctioned” means nothing, the DUP know it and can stay on course through this. However, the fact still remains that SF have prejudiced this investigation by their statements. Who could fail to get the message from a body not yet cold?
Couldn’t SF have kept their trap shut? Sure they could have - but they decided not to. Why?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:59 PMMr Adams once said that..
“You cannot be a criminal and a Republican activist. You cannot be involved in any criminality and involved in republican activism.”
To such a delusionist, the murder of Paul Quinn cannot have been carried out by republicans.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 08:59 PMAm I the only one worried that we could see all the progress we have made go down the drain because of some tenuous links between some criminals and the present day Sinn Fein which is clearly committed to making this process work?
How many times do they need to prove themselves?
We’ve come too far to throw it all away so easily.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:00 PMBilly - I don’t often disagree with you but on this one I think you’ve got it wrong. To me, SF are providing cover by stating no republican was involved. This statement means anyone who might know otherwise will be challenging the “big guns” - when we can already see what happens to those that challenge the local head honchos.
The SF bloggers were out yesterday criticising anyone who made any kind of assumption on this case. Fair enough - leave it to the dogs in the streets to know - but - what they didn’t say was that their own MP, Minister and leading SF figure in S. Armagh was equally as prejudicial – but with that statement comes a history of this kind of treatment for those that disagree.
Murphy has communicated. The message will be understood.
End of.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:11 PMBilly P
Perhaps not the best example to chose..
Or perhaps he is..
Rubicon
I don’t disagree with your argument, I think. The original post is just noting what has happened/what’s been said.
As for why they didn’t keep quiet.. possibly the same reason they re-announced the “threat from dissidents” - combined with Ahern’s vague statement - They think the tactics used in the past, and the complicity of others, will see them through.
They may be right.
And there’s little to no consideration involved of the actual investigation.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:14 PMTAF - don’t you think the progress deserves more from SF? Couldn’t their new found trust in the police persuade them not to prejudice the investigation of a brutal murder? Apparently not.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:16 PM“SF have prejudiced this investigation by their statements”
And if they had said nothing Rubicon. What then?
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:19 PMPete,
I don’t think it was a reannouncement of a previous threat, according to the report the police visited five councillors on Sunday night to advise them of the threats.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:19 PMFrank
The police always refuse to discuss the personal security of any individual.
The re-annoucement refers to the point noted here.
Perhaps it is, again, purely coincidental..
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:24 PMPete - no doubt the “threat from dissidents” has been a well played card. McAlister speaking on behalf of the family surely makes this a tempting play. However, in this context it just makes the involvement of PIRA “freedom fighters” in the brutal murder of a young man more clearly identifiable.
Wasn’t the “dissident card” something to do with “we’re more humane then them-uns?”.
Yeah - right!
SF are definately more effective - I can’t deny that.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:25 PMRubicon.
At this stage I don’t see how they could have done any more than they have. As for their statements prejudicing the investigation, please elaborate.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:27 PMAnother factor that should maybe give people pause for thought is some reports mentioned the Garda have asked the PSNI for details on the lorry transporting illegal diesel that was set on fire outside Lisburn.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:27 PMJoe - I’m not saying that they should have said nothing. What I am criticising is that they denied “republican” involvement in a brutal murder. Why did they do that? How could they know?
At best, you can say they didn’t know and didn’t believe a “republican” of the SF variety could possibly do such a thing. I think few in South Armagh would recognise such an interpretation.
BUT - even if this belief had any credence - why not subject it to evidence put forward to a court of law? Why not allow any witness come forward without being tainted as challenging a SF minister?
SF could have just asked for co-operation with the police. They didn’t.
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:33 PMThe BBBC are reporting that Mr Quinn was the driver of the fuel smuggling lorry, set on fire last week.
They also say he was lured to the remote spot on the promise of a job transporting smuggled fuel.
Certainly seems to have been a fall out among fuel smugglers
Posted by on Oct 22, 2007 @ 09:35 PM
