Sunday, March 16, 2008
“So he would be very well known..”
The 51-year-old man left critically ill after being attacked at his home yesterday evening was later named as a former Provisional IRA prisoner who, according to one report [not online], was convicted of a bomb attack on a bar. According to various reports, Frank McGreevey was assaulted at his home in Ross Street shortly after 1830 GMT on Saturday by at least two men. The Chairman of the Falls Road Residents’ Association, Robert McClenaghan, said “He is a former prisoner who served a life sentence. So he would be very well known.” The BBC report also notes Update It’s now a murder inquiry. And One man has been charged.
Police are treating the incident as attempted murder. A 20-year-old man is being questioned by police. Acting Detective Superintendent Jeff Smyth said they were following a definite line of inquiry.
...
“As such last evening in the middle of the night, members of the PSNI, under my direction, searched a number of houses in this community looking for a suspect,” he said. Detectives later said the 20-year-old man had handed himself in at Grosvenor Road police station.
And the RTÉ report has this
Local Sinn Fein Councillor, Tom Hartley, says residents of the area had phoned the police about some of the parties involved in the incident and they were unhappy about the slow response.
Pete Baker @ 10:51 PM
yet another attack on a man who was just sitting in his house-about time the psni took the scum off the streets....i wish him a speedy recovery.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 11:22 PM‘Why?’
Is always a good question to ask, especially in a situation where, as Robert McClenaghan said - “he would be very well known.”
I don’t see an answer to that question in your comment.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:06 AMPete, your hand is showing. The man is a victim of a violent attack and your comments seem to suggest that ‘being very well known’ is some sort of code for there being ‘more than meets the eye’.
Here’s hoping your attempts to excuse violence against individuals associated with republicanism or place question marks over their culpability doesn’t lead to a post as PR man for loyalist terrorists, or dissident republicans.
You would like to come across as detached, but now you’re just a silly sod. I used to think you had moral grounding, now I’m not so sure.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:41 AMFrom what i’m hearing the scumbag involved in this was out on weekend parole and hadn’t bothered going back to jail. Then this excuse for a human being stole a bag of sweets of a child and violently beat a pensioner on the Falls road before attacking Mr McGreevey. Surley the prison service has to take some of the blame for letting people like this out of prison.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:47 AMThe more I read your post, the more incredulous I become.
You seem to suggest that this man had it coming, simply based on the fact that ‘he is very well known.’
This blog has descended into chaos, when a blogger suggests that violence against an individual is somehow diluted and negated by who they are.
We all know where that leads.
What are you suggesting, Pete?
Or do you not have the balls to spell it out, oh moral watchdog?
Go on, let’s hear it.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:48 AMMarty, I heard the same. Seems the situation in that area has gone into meltdown.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:51 AM“Pete, your hand is showing.”
What’s showing is my default response of scepticism.
Which applies, in particular, in a situation where at a very early stage in events we are presented with a simplistic narrative.
“This blog has descended into chaos, when a blogger suggests that violence against an individual is somehow diluted and negated by who they are.”
This blogger has suggested nothing of the sort.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:00 AM“This blogger has suggested nothing of the sort.”
Then grow a pair. What ARE you suggesting? And what are you sceptical about?
Maybe that the man isn’t seriously injured? I think you’ll find the PSNI and the ambulance service disagree with that.
What? Why is this heinous crime somehow suspect to you?
Spell it out if you are as opposed to violence as you proclaim?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:05 AM‘according to one report [not online], was convicted of a bomb attack on a bar.’
‘we are presented with a simplistic narrative.’
Pete, simplistic or not, your bias is evident.
Does there always have to be a grassy knoll?Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:08 AM‘according to one report [not online], was convicted of a bomb attack on a bar.’
So he’s guilty. And deserving of his fate. That’s what it reads like to me.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:14 AMRS
A presentation of fact is now evidence of bias?
Look guys,
Here’s what the RTÉ report noted
Local Sinn Fein Councillor, Tom Hartley, says residents of the area had phoned the police about some of the parties involved in the incident and they were unhappy about the slow response.
Which implies that Tom already knows who was involved. Before any police investigation.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:14 AM“Local Sinn Fein Councillor, Tom Hartley, says residents of the area had phoned the police about some of the parties involved in the incident and they were unhappy about the slow response.”
“Which implies that Tom already knows who was involved. Before any police investigation.”
How on earth does that implication hold? Are you insane? Please, I’m interested to track this - how do go from ‘local residents’ calling the police about ‘parties involved’ and Tom Hartley knowing who was involved?
As if that even matters?
Please don’t tell me you have legal training....
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:21 AM“Are you insane?”
At least we’ve moved on from the claim that
You seem to suggest that this man had it coming, simply based on the fact that ‘he is very well known.’
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:30 AM“So, He would be very well-known’
So goes the blog from [link]Pete Baker, [link] self-appointed moral watchdog and [link]self-styled detached monitor of Irish republican (only Irish republican mind) democratic credentials.
In his [link]latest post there is a [link] curious twist on [link] reports that a local man was violently assaulted and left in a [link] critical condition, based on the [link] the man’s past.
Pete [link] seems to think that this is overly simplisitic and there is more [link] to this than meets the eye. He also [link] goes further and claims the local Sinn Fein councellor knows more [link] about this, but where this leads… who knows?
We would ask why Pete seeks to dilute this heinous crime by claiming a [link] conspiracy but then we’d just be asking [link] stupid questions and Pete can obviously [link] see everything.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 01:49 AMKharma always comes around. This sectarian bomber gets attacked by one of his own feral people. Hey ho.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 02:42 AMi think you guys are missing the real story
pete is implying Sinn Fein is what done it because republicans arent subject to randomn violence they are all attacked by Sinn Fein
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 04:04 AMHow can Pete Baker be allowed to continue to spout and post his ill concieved hatred, bigotry, anti-republicanism…
This man regardless of his alleged history (and only the almighty himself knows what this has to do with this incident),was callously assaulted by thugs.
By the way,that whole area has been left devoid of any proper policing, with teenage thugs being able to run amok....£10 pound touts the local residents call them!
If you need anymore evidence why don`t you visit the area, talk to people who live there or even visit the last assault...on the local chippie, twice in 2 days…
but then you don`t deal in facts…
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 08:58 AMI think the residents are now complaining about we we have all known.
The PSNI by and large aren’t effective on ‘petty crime’ you know small robberies burgularies car theft etc. This is true for all areas not just West Belfast, they are all looking at old cases where they have no hope of finding anyone to prosecute instead of feresh current cases where they can do something.
We need a fresh look at this whole aspect of policing - no more historic enquires or looking at old cases, draw at line at 2000 and let’s move on to real policing.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 10:05 AMA disgusting insinuation from Pete that this fellow must have been somehow deserving of this vicious attack because of his republican past.
What a bloody disgrace and how stupid does Pete look now following his cowardly retraction.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 10:27 AMif some insinuated that the collie people got fried at la mon just because one of them was an ruc reservist then linky would have it deleted
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 11:30 AMYeah, Pete’s a real villain - implying, Republican fantasists claim, that people should be subject to violence. Imagine, the horror, the horror. What’s that you say? Republicans have doled out more actual-factual violence in pursuit of their failed and purile objectives than everyone else put together? And they’re all over this thread whining and smearing as fast as their fat little fingers will let them type? Yup.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 11:41 AMThe reason there is anarchy in Republican parts of Belfast is simply due to the fact that the local people rejected the police over the last 30 years to pursue a futile republican strategy. This has stained deep into youth culture in the areas.
Now the same communities are paying the heavy price for this flawed strategy.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 11:53 AM‘Republicans have doled out more actual-factual violence in pursuit of their failed and purile objectives than everyone else put together?’
really ahem, I think you’ll find there is more blood to be washed out of the union jack, with all the suffering inflicted on the Irish under that butchers apron of a banner. By ‘legitimate’ forces as well as illigitimate ones. And that helps to explain why the ideal of Irish freedom, enjoys vastly more support around the globe than the colonial mindset certain people suffer from in this country. Happy St Patrick’s day !
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:05 PMLook guys,
Here’s what the RTÉ report noted
Local Sinn Fein Councillor, Tom Hartley, says residents of the area had phoned the police about some of the parties involved in the incident and they were unhappy about the slow response.
Which implies that Tom already knows who was involved. Before any police investigation.
Possibly because people in the area knew who was responsible? Have you ever heard of ‘witnesses’?
Hartley’s words would appear to tie in with the PSNI statement:“As such last evening in the middle of the night, members of the PSNI, under my direction, searched a number of houses in this community looking for a suspect”
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:40 PMYou live by the sword, you die by the sword!
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:56 PM
