Sunday, January 07, 2007
Gerry McGeough considers SF challenge
Gerry McGeough, a convicted IRA gun-runner and former Sinn Fein Executive member, has said in an Sunday World interview he is considering running in Fermanagh and South Tyrone as an independent. He says:
Someone has to stand up to Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party.
He argues that the DUP is not fit for government and that the Garda should be used to police nationalist communities.
When Gerry McGeough quit Sinn Fein he accused it of abandoning the goal of a United Ireland and adopting a policy that would lead to the introduction of abortion. His social conservatism and arch-traditional Catholic views has led some to accuse him of facism. He edits the magazine ‘The Hibernian’. He has also authored two books about his time in the PIRA.
Fair Deal @ 01:18 PM
One suspects these types have very little support indeed in the broad community.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 01:51 PMOh dear, oh dear, oh dear, one wonders how the socialists (mmm) in the anti SF alliance will feel about lining up beside Gerry.
Since leaving SF his support for fundamentalists such as Justin Barrett and Youth Defence leaves one in no doubt just exactly where he is now coming from.
At least the anti SF alliance will be guaranteed column inches in Gerry’s Hibernian magazine.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 01:54 PMMcGeough is wrong about ‘standing up’ to Paisley. The Irish Nationalist and Republican community throughout all of Ireland need to ignore Paisley and his ilk and demand a fair Repartition of Northern Ireland by a neutral international organisaton such as the UN or EU .
Roll on Repartition nad be done with the farce of a useless and powerless Assembly.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:09 PMPat,
I listened to an interview by Gerry on RFE. You may be interested also. Very interesting.
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/070106_133001rfeireann.MP3
Whilst I have you attention. You seem to have missed one or two of my posts earlier this week.
Could you give me and the other non partisan Bloggers and update on Sinn Fein s position regarding:
a. MI5 involvement in Republican policing.Is Sinn Fein still committed to no involvement whilst MI5 remain as the primary agency tasked to collect Republican Intelligence?
b. The OTR issue. You suggested this to me last week that the issue was to be dealt with outside the agreed GFA early release scheme for scheduled offenders and would be made public shortly by Sinn Fein.
Is this still true and can you confirm that OTR`s would not be required to serve a small sentence like Ken Barrett did recently and then be released upon a Licence?
In short can you tell me why IRA OTR`s are different to the other criminals released under the scheduled offenders scheme?
Thank You my friend .Please do listen to Gerry on the RFE. Darkie Hughes and John Kelly are also on the show a touch later, that too is interesting.
Mr kelly was extremely well spoken and articulated true Republican beliefs. I dont happen to agree with him but he gets a very clear 10/10 for his clear and principled views.
A formidable 71 years old true Republican.No wonder Sinn Fein do not want him to stand against them or to debate with him. Very wise.
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/070106_133001rfeireann.MP3
Over to you Mr Sinn Fein?
Ding Ding
Martin
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:11 PMIngram
a. MI5 to have no role at all in civic policing. the Annex inserted by the Britsh at St Andrews now removed (I believe). As no detail has emerged I cannot comment further at this time.
b. On the issue of the OTR’s I stated that I believed that the issue would be dealt with. I did not state it would be made public shortly by SF. I believe I have already answered all your points on the OTRs, if you don’t agree that is fine but I do not want to waste time on circular arguments.
As for J Kelly et al, John can stand for election if he so chooses. You are being dishonest in stating SF do not want him to stand. SF will take on all comers, simple as that. BTW your damning of guy with feint praise is a bit too transparent and I am sure most unwelcome.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:30 PMPat.
You have not responded to my questions and you know it.Neither has Chris Donnelly our other resident Shinner. Now is your opportunity to do so in DETAIL.
MI5 have the primary role in collecting all intelligence upon REPUBLICANS or any other bodied considered a threat to British National interest. The police have been tasked to collect Loyalist Intelligence.
Therefore MI5 have a primary role in policing Republicans.
Any arrest of a Republican involved in terrorism or any associated related aspect ie illegal fund raising or the collection of the long term strategy of Sinn Fein will be controlled and directed by MI5?
Yes or No Pat.
With respect Pat you have not explained in detail your point. I ask you once more to explain fully why IRA OTR`s are different?
You have not detailed why and Sinn Fein believe IRA OTR`s are different to the other criminals who have been dealt with under the GFA?
The example I offered previously and you ignored is Ken Barrett,one of those involved in the murder of Pat Finucanne? he did 18 months RECENTLY or so of prison time and then was released under the GFA on licence. In other words a scheduled offender.
Pat Finucanes brother Dermot is currently OTR in the Republic weanted for a number of murders . Why should he be treated differently to Ken Barrett.
Please explain why the IRA OTR`s are different and why you consider this subject to be a deal breaker, all for a handful of criminals?
Why do you want to move away from the existing GFA arrangements ?
Thank You
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:47 PMIngram,
do you know what has been agreed at the recent negotiations re the role of MI5? Quite obviously not. When you become aware of the detail please get back to me.
‘On the issue of the OTR’s I stated that I believed that the issue would be dealt with. I did not state it would be made public shortly by SF. I believe I have already answered all your points on the OTRs, if you don’t agree that is fine but I do not want to waste time on circular arguments.’
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:52 PMPat.
A very shallow response Pat.
So you, along with Chris Gaskin have been assured that MI5 involvement in policing Republicans has been sorted. We shall see.
The issue of IRA OTR`s remains. Why are you reluctant to explain why these individual are different to every other scheduled offender?
What power exactly do these handful of criminals have over a so called political party that they would risk this deal for less than 20 people?
Once more I ask you. Why are they so special that you want the GFA agreement changed? and you would risk this deal?
Thank You.
Martin
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:03 PMIngram,
I take it from you response that you do not know the outcome of athe negotiations. So yet again you are posting about things you know nothing about.
Now on the OTRs I will poast onw last time in an idiot proof manner that even you can understand.
The issue is called the OTR issue ie those that have actuaaly been ‘On The Run’. The proposed British legislation was called the OTR legislation.
Dermot Finucane fell under the category of the OTR debate simply because he was ‘On The Run’. Ken Barrett or any other idiotic comparison does not fit into the debate simply because they were not ‘On The Run’. Now, have you got that?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:16 PMMI5 never had any plans to involve itself in ‘civic policing’, nor was there ever any proposal to that effect. Pat’s line is ridiculous spin straight Connolly House.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:35 PMQuaysider,
They did, an example of this was the secondment of PSNI personnel to MI5.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:37 PMIngram,
I always know when you are floundering when you start introducing untruths onto the thread and then attribute them to me or other posters. You 1.47pm post was a case in point. ‘Please explain why the IRA OTR`s are different and why you consider this subject to be a deal breaker, all for a handful of criminals?’ I have never at any stage described it as a deal breaker.
As posted on other threads there is enough already out there without having to make up quotes etc. Please desist Ingram.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:44 PMJaysus
The idea that any Sinn Fein supporter on here is going to be privy to high level negotiatiosn and the details is madness.
Thats not a criticism of such peopole, its just a fact. These things, by necessity are being kept in a very a tight circle and the average Shinner member will only find out when something is presented at much the same time as the public get wind of it as well.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:08 PM‘ingram’
Thanks for the radio link, its good to hear two Irish republicans use the word socialism and mean it.
http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/070106_133001rfeireann.MP3
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:23 PMPat,
Surely PSF claims to be socialist, so the same thing that you said in comment 2 about the dissidents applies to PSF when he was a senior member, not that long ago. He did after all leave rather than be expelled.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:31 PMGaribaldy,
I was unaware that he held such views while in SF. He certainly never made them public. He left SF because of what he stated was the liberalisnm in the party on social issues.
That is why I stated ‘Since leaving SF his support for fundamentalists such as Justin Barrett and Youth Defence leaves one in no doubt just exactly where he is now coming from.’Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:44 PMAgain wee marty ingram has taken the trousers of the Shinners on this site..... they run from him here as the people who run their party run from the fight with brits on the streets and in the countryside..... gutless gutless gutless
this blogging committee is being paid to bullsit the readers of this site about the magnificant skilled negotiators on the Shinner leadership, when in fact the brits and DUP have also taken the trousers off them at the table
answer the man if you can but i doubt it
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:02 PMThe trolls are out early today.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:18 PMCalling Gery McGough a Catholic fundamentalist is a bit rich. If he was, he would not have engaged in the Provo’s sectarian slaughter campaign but would have spent the best years of his life saying the Rosary.
McGough has some principles. The Provos have none, No moral principles, no political principles. Nothing.
I wonder if Micksey martin will vote for him and if the Provos will rough up his supporters.Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:27 PMPat,
Thanks for the answer. I’d still be surprised though if his senior colleagues didn’t know about them from long ago.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:35 PMme and the other non partisan Bloggers
LOL, when did spooks become non partisan??
this blogging committee is being paid
What blogging committee and paid by whom?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:38 PMPat - Gerry McGeough’s views seem to be pretty close to those of Sean South. Now - who was that attended South’s commemoration last week? Surely Gerry would have known of South’s right wing Catholicism - whatever about McGeough’s.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:39 PM“LOL, when did spooks become non partisan??”
Chris,
Could it have been about the same time as some people thought the police in the north had?.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:45 PMRubicon,
i’m unaware that Sean South may be contesting the forthcoming elections, is that as topical as you can get?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:49 PMMick
I have never thought of the RUC/PSNI as non partisan and I never will!
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:50 PM
