Wednesday, November 28, 2007
“I have spoken to the IRA in his area..”
On Newsnight tonight, BBC2 10.30pm, Liz McKean will have a report on political tensions following the killing of Paul Quinn. From the Newsnight blog
Liz MacKean has a report on increasing paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland. The story centres on the murder last month of Paul Quinn in South Armagh. Both his family and the Independent Monitoring Commission point the finger at members of the IRA but politicians on all sides reject the claims. We’ll also be speaking to Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.
They’ve already spoken to the Northern Ireland Executive’s Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, MP, MLA.
Indeed..“I have spoken to the IRA in his area and I am satisfied with the assurances they gave me, very solid assurances, that they weren’t involved in his death,” [Conor Murphy] says.
Adds The BBC reports that more than 200 people attended a public meeting tonight in Cullyhanna.
Update In the Newsnight report, available here [RealPlayer file], according to Conor Murphy, MP, MLA, the Provisional IRA is in the process of “requires a managed transition”.
And From today’s Irish Times [subs req]
Mr Murphy yesterday evening called on Mr McAllister and the Quinn support group to “take decisive action” to end the campaign of “violence and intimidation” against Mr Treanor.
He said people associated with the Quinn group had falsely accused Mr Treanor and his family of involvement in the killing.
Mr Murphy repeated his call for anyone with any information relating to the murder of Paul Quinn to bring that information forward to the Garda and PSNI.
Mr McAllister, however, rejected Mr Murphy’s complaints, saying members of the group were not involved in any intimidation or attacks, and that the group condemned such actions.
He accused Mr Murphy of trying to create a “smokescreen” to distract attention from the IRA’s alleged involvement in Mr Quinn’s murder.
“Conor Murphy is struggling to cope with the fact that the majority of the people of south Armagh believe in their hearts the IRA murdered Paul Quinn, and that sadly their MP is trying to give them cover,” said Mr McAllister.
Pete Baker @ 06:39 PM
I’m somewhat perplexed at your approach to this Rory perhaps you could clear it up?
You presumably would like to see justice for the Quinn family, [as would I], but tell me, how should this justice be attained?.
Shiould people go and give any information to whatever relevant police force they feel is neccesary and if they do does that make them touts?, [of which you have previously professed you’re not].
Now, “as a republican who knows the crack about the complexity of things around the border” can you tell me if your “sources in Mullaghban” give the information that they obviously know to the relevant authorities? and, if they have, does that also make them touts?.
If they haven’t do you think that they should, in the interests of justice for the Quinn family, or, perhaps you advocate some other kind of justice?
On the other hand you could of course be encourageing other people to that which you wouldn’t be prepared to dp yourself, which, if that’s the case, you’d be a bigger hypocrite than those you accuse of the same.
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:28 PMwhat does conor murphy mean a period of managed tranition.
transforming into
1 full time commemoration organisers
2 discipliners of young lads in south armagh.
3 enforcers of gerry’s volksmeinschaft.
4 sntach squads to show dissenting chaps whats what.???????????
Posted by on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:53 PMFrank and Mick,
I looked the law up once I think a couple of years ago and it said any organisation calling itself the IRA. I think it was changed after the incident Frank refers to. I was probably mixed up about the Real IRA thing, though I do think that it was raised in defence of someone charged for that at some point.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:01 AMThe final sentence on the Beeb’s report pretty much says it all. “No-one has been charged in connection with Mr Quinn’s death.”
Forgive my naivite among the hallowed company of this thread, but I do feel we are getting away from the point. Murder was committed; a man died at the hands of (if I read correctly) up to ten men, armed with the most blunt and brutal of weapons.
And no-one has been charged. How far have we come in 12 years? Not very. I don’t live in the South Armagh area, nor am I from there, though I did spend a lot of time in it a few years ago.
My skin crawls at the thought of how this man died...at how the murderers made their plans in such a cold and calculated way...and at how a wall of silence, induced mostly by fear, has thrown itself up around the area.
Let’s not think about how stuff like this goes down with inward investors or tourists visiting the area. But more importantly, let’s not think (cos I ain’t seeing much evidence of it here) about how parents have been robbed of their son in the most brutal way over the head of something (it would appear) as meaningless as a cheap fuel fill for the boys’ latest Land Cruisers.
Only my tuppence worth - frankly I don’t care how Conor had a chinwag with. The whole episode, matched up with the other similar scenarios on both sides of the divide, is sickening.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:29 AMMany Nationalists/Republicans were once prepared to turn a blind eye to Provo activity which added nothing to their stated claim to be trying to unify the country. Whatever about the correctness or other wise of this position surely there must be NO appetite for such activity post SF in government. Conor is as convinving as Widgery and appeared to be trying that old Widgery trick of blackening the name of victims. If slab and co do not remove thmeselves from the scene and pronto surely the SDLP will be the main ones to benefit.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:51 AMFrank
That’s a very interesting argument re. the illegality or lack thereof of membership of PIRA. The Tohill case does seem to suggest that membership is not itself illegal, or at least provides a legal precedent that I’m sure some future defendants will be quick to avail of.
Has the British government quietly legalized the PIRA, and done a REALLY good job at keeping it quiet?
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:58 AMWhy do people refer to the Tohill case when discussing the possible illegality of the PIRA?
Was anybody involved in the case given an amnesty to your knowledge?
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:03 AMRedhaze
Read the links. It appears that the charges against four men of:
a) attempted abduction; and
b) membership of a proscribed organisationwere dropped because:
a) Tohill testified that there was no attempted abduction and the four men were all just old mates that he was horsing around with; and
b) the prosecution’s case was to prove the four men were members of PIRA. However the defence seems to have argued that PIRA is not actually a proscribed organization, as per the relevant legislation. And the judge seems to have agreed with this.
Curious. I didn’t pick up on it at the time, I guess most people didn’t. But it does seem to suggest that PIRA’s legal status is shrouded in shades of grey.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:32 AM“I have spoken to the IRA in his area”
‘just after I finishing shaving’ he should surely have added?Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 09:05 AMAll
The Provisional IRA is definitely a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000, and membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the same Act.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act provides that “an organisation is proscribed if— (a) it is listed in Schedule 2, or (b) it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule”.
The list in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act includes “Irish Republican Army”.
There was a question as to whether the “Real IRA” was proscribed as it wasn’t listed in Schedule 2 when the Crown Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeal and thence to the Court of Appeal (from memory in respect of a case relating to the Omagh bomb), but the Court of Appeal ruled that the “Real IRA” was covered by Schedule 2 since the proscription of the IRA predated its fragmentation, and therefore any group emerging from a split in a proscribed IRA must also be proscribed. Thereby all organisations – Official, Provo, Continuity, Real – descended from the pre-1969 IRA are proscribed. The Court of Appeal decision was appealed by the defendant to the House of Lords, but the Lords dismissed the appeal.
As for the Tohill case, I note that it was not the case that a court ruled that the PIRA was not proscribed: rather, the charges [of membership of a proscribed organisation] were dropped, apparently because the PIRA was not a specified organisation.
This means simply that the PPS chose to drop the charges, i.e. not to pursue them. It does not mean that the PIRA is legal.
Why were the charges dropped? The stated reason was because the PIRA was not specified. What does “specified” mean? Importantly, it does not mean the same as “proscribed”: while all “specified” organisations are proscribed, it is not the case that a non-specified organisation is therefore not proscribed. A specified organisation is a proscribed organisation which the Secretary of State has deemed not to be observing a ceasefire. (The purpose of specification is to identify those prisoners who are eligible for early release.)
I am unaware of any legal reason why charges of membership of a proscribed organisation should be dropped simply because the proscribed organisation is not specified. One can possibly infer from the dropping of the charges that it was not deemed to be “in the public interest” to pursue them?
Conor Murphy therefore has admitted to knowing and speaking to people who, by virtue of their membership of PIRA, are committing a criminal offence. Despite his professed support for the rule of law and the police, he has failed to pass this information on to the police.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:00 AMConor Murphy therefore has admitted to knowing and speaking to people who, by virtue of their membership of PIRA, are committing a criminal offence. Despite his professed support for the rule of law and the police, he has failed to pass this information on to the police.
Posted by willowfield on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:00 AM
...and the DUP are content to continue to sit in Government with him.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:13 AMIt was heartening (’better late than never’I suppose)to hear a member of the Quinn Support Group on BBC news say something like “we’re a bit ashamed around here that we didn’t speak out before about this kind of thing”. I remembered for instance the case in Newry in the 90s when the mothers of two young men threatened with explusion stood up to the IRA.The Newry public were found wanting then. I have always found it ridiculous that republicans talk up the cause for the civil rights campaign, but seem blind about injustices of intimidation (punishment beatings,exiling etc).
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:17 AMConnor Murphy claims he knows for sure it was not the IRA, I presume having a finger on the pulse of the local community, he has a fair idea who it was. Whilst this is not evidence in itself, it may encourage other people to co-operate if he was to say “I have passed on names of the suspects to the PSNI.”
At the end of the day I know its only theoretical discusion, as the PSNI and the “guards” probably know who did it anyway.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:47 AM“guards” ???? why the speech marks???
oh and its gardai.Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:02 PMThere was a lot of silence around the death of Eamon Collins and the barbarity of what hapepned to him.
Perhaps people are reflecting on the silence that they exercised over the years - now that they see how that co-operation of silence is now taken as a given. Its not an easy lesson.
Seems, in the past, it was only outsiders who thought: “that could happen to anybody”.
Now, its not just the outsiders who think that.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 12:07 PMConor Murphy therefore has admitted to knowing and speaking to people who, by virtue of their membership of PIRA, are committing a criminal offence. Despite his professed support for the rule of law and the police, he has failed to pass this information on to the police.
Posted by willowfield on Nov 29, 2007 @ 11:00 AM
Isnt Jackie Macdonald the admitted leader of a proscribed organisation in the papers every second week?
Willow how come you never advocate for his arrest. He freely admits to membership in a proscribed organisation
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:31 PMIt is a lie to suggest that I never “advocate for” Jackie McDonald’s arrest. On the contrary, I routinely “advocate for” a zero tolerance approach to all loyalist terrorists. I am sure others here who have read my contributions to threads about loyalists can verify that.
Retract your accusation, please.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:44 PM6 months ago I took the DUP to task in a pair of op-ed articles for Slugger and drew a lot of flak for my opposition to what everyone else said was wonderful. I said that it would be interesting to see how the DUP would react to IRA criminality, given that the DUP sold their flip-flop on the basis that republicans had now embraced the rule of law. Not surprisingly the DUP has done its best to play down recent events in south Armagh because to do otherwise would be evidence of its own bad judgment.
Here we come to the central contradiction in the power-sharing project. The project is built on “inclusivity”. But it can only survive if its supporters choose not to hold Sinn Fein politically accountable for the lawless actions of the IRA. The DUP is well aware that, for all Sinn Fein’s engagement with policing, the IRA is still criminally active. Everyone else knows that.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 01:52 PMWillowfield,
Thanks for the info on the legality of the IRA, the situation is as I believed. In the Tohill case did the judge dismiss the membership charges or was it the state who decided not to proceed as that stage had not been reached. As you know precedent is important in English law.
Did anyone notice what amounted to an amnesty at the time or are we all as dumb as one and another.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 02:01 PMIn the Newsnight report Mr. Quinn basically says ‘who else could have done it in this area’. Does any reasonable person not think the Provos actually did commit the murder? It seems that unless you believe the “wee people” did it, you believe Mr. Quinn.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 02:09 PMFor those who missed it, an excerpt from Jim Allister’s speech on Monday night:
“Long held principles of the never, never variety have gone for the baubles of high, but shared, office; no terrorists in government was traded for an IOU in vanishing ink, meaninglessly called a “pledge of office”; democratic government was surrendered for the absurdity of mandatory coalition, whereby you can never vote a party out of office, nor have an Opposition; and long-standing, principled rejection of the iniquitous Belfast Agreement was meekly given up for empty cosmetic tinkerings of no substantive value.
“As if all that wasn’t bad enough, the lowest bidder, IRA/Sinn Fein, was rewarded with the unbelievable give-away that they can hold onto the pride of their military structures, the Army Council, meaning that at every Executive meeting Mr P O’Neill is the unseen guest, and as a final sweetener they were given a pack of “get out of jail free” cards to be used when they feel the need to do the odd murder. One was just recently cashed in by the South Armagh brigade when they murdered Paul Quinn. Because of the sordid DUP/Sinn Fein deal and their mutual vested interest, the DUP, mark my words, will do nothing about that brutal killing, other than to twist and turn to pretend it wasn’t what it patently was, the IRA enforcing its writ in its territory. It was murder and it was murder by the IRA and because they’ll get away with it, it won’t be the last IRA murder.”
Too right.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 02:12 PMNew Yorker - who murdered Keith Rogers for example?
Does Jim McAllister support everyone going to the GardaĂ and PSNI? If so why was he anti ceasefire and anti support for PSNI?
Ironic that he is representing the family when he is anti PSNI and SF have repeatedly called for everyone to give all information to PSNI and gardaĂ.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 02:23 PMj
I am prepared to bet the profit on my next run with the tanker that no one will ever be charged with the murder of Keith Rogers, for the very simple reason that the defendant would have a first-class case of self-defence to offer. Rogers was part of an armed group intent on administering a Cullaville ASBO when he discovered that the intended victim was tooled up. Tremendous efforts are being made locally to damage Jim McAllister to that little bang-bang. this is the last line of defence now that the Paul-Quinn-is-a-diesel-king gambit collapsed so ignominously, while the even sillier notion that the Quinns are targeting the family which had an altercation with Paul never even got off the ground. It got killed dead last night when Briege Quinn called again for no retaliation and said that included window-breaking “which hurts us, hurts our campaign and hurts Paul’s memory”. So J, you and Conor are going to have to scratch around for other attack points. Beware the risen people.Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 03:21 PMInteresting to read of hardline, law and order, shoot to kill Unionists becoming oh-so-concerned about the killing of a Fenian by other Fenians.
No whiff of self-interested headline grabbing sordid little politics there, then.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 03:26 PMMICK HALL
In the Tohill case did the judge dismiss the membership charges or was it the state who decided not to proceed as that stage had not been reached.
The charges were dropped, and hence they weren’t put before the judge.
Posted by on Nov 29, 2007 @ 03:40 PM
