Robbers hostile towards Sinn Fein

Martin McGuinness with a frank statement that the robbers, whoever they were, were acting against Sinn Fein’s committment to peace. He has also suggested that Ahern’s statement backing the Cheif Constable Hugh Orde, was politically motivated. However he believes those who have bought that line will be severely disappointed.

He added:

“I am angry about the robbery, angry about the fallout from the robbery and angry about the damage that can be done to a peace process that I and Gerry Adams have worked very hard for many years with the Taoiseach and Tony Blair to build.”

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    McGuinness et al were asked to give clear and unambiguous statements by Ahern and Murphy, this seems to meet their requirements.

  • Davros

    How so Pat ? It’s ambiguous. He’s angry about the robbery ? He’s angry that it has put them in a difficult position and damaged Sinn FΓ©in.

    That’s different from what they were asked to say last year.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    He’s basically accusing Ahern of lying on his assessment on the robbery, how clear can you get.

  • Davros

    Pat, you know you weren’t referring to Ahern’s assessment of the robbery with

    “McGuinness et al were asked to give clear and unambiguous statements by Ahern and Murphy”.

  • The Devil

    McGuinness et al were asked to give clear and unambiguous statements by Ahern and Murphy, this seems to meet their requirements.

    Oh then Widgery should have met your requirements

    Jack Hermans statement on collusion should have met your requirements

    RUC statements on plastic bullet victims should have met your requirements

    But they didn’t did they,

    so why should the statement of a man who lies to a mother in order to kill her son be a definitive answer for the rest of us.

    I think some people should go to spec savers because they can’t see the hyprocracy.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    He was asked to be clear on the robbery, he has been. Try and read the article.

  • Davros

    Sadly for you Pat, I did read the article and you are bluffing πŸ™‚

    the giveaway was the classic side-step at a request for clarification:)

    It was put to Mr McGuinness Β– that there was no doubt that the people who carried this out were criminals?

    “You have just heard me saying what I have said. I have made my position absolutely clear,” he said.”

    Clear as mud Martin πŸ˜‰

  • Sluggerite

    This article, published yesterday morning prior to Murphy’s House of Commons speech, is based in large part on an interview with McGuinness on Monday’s talkback. Impossible to have been a response to Murphy’s statements yesterday.

  • peteb

    For those who seem to believe that McGuinness’s statement has any implications regarding who carried out the heist, I would refer you to the statement quoted in this blog – the credibility question – “‘The IRA has denied any involvement and I accept that’.. Crimes like this, he added, ‘can play no part in the republican struggle..'” Gerry Adams, June 1996 after Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was shot dead during a post office van robbery in Adare, County Limerick.

  • Davros

    And don’t think I won’t point out that you meant
    the kerfuffle over ambiguity over criminality during the negotiations last year when you wrote :

    “McGuinness et al were asked to give clear and unambiguous statements by Ahern and Murphy”

    After all, when we read the article we see there is no mention of Murphy!

  • Jimmy Sands

    To be fair, McGuinnes was asked for “clear” and “unambiguous” and he has duly obliged. If they’d wanted “true” as well they should have asked.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    are you trying to tell me you have not heard Ahern and Murphy ask SF to make clear their views on the library. I think like the Orde statement you are only hearing what you want to hear.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Peteb,

    there is a blog on this thread several days old using the same quotation, do try and keep up.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    for thread substitute site

  • Davros

    Sorry pat, been listening to ambiguous statements from politicians all my life πŸ™‚ McGuinness was dodging.
    Otherwise that WOULD have read :

    “It was put to Mr McGuinness Β– that there was no doubt that the people who carried this out were criminals?

    “yes” he said.”

  • Sluggerite

    How can this be a statement in response to Murphy’s request if it was made prior to Murphy’s request?

  • maca

    I have to admit I thought it was clear enough “Anything that undermines the peace process Β– anything that sees innocent people held hostage in their house is a criminal act, absolutely,”

  • The Devil

    Jimmy Sands,

    πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ so funny i laughed twice

  • Davros

    Maca, we saw with Adare that Adams and McGuinness regard criminal acts done by certain people in a different light to how the rest of us view them.

    Most of us would accept that the criminal act of the Adare robbery meant that those who committed the crimes were criminals and should be treated as criminals. SF see it differently. In their eyes those jailed for the Adare robbery weren’t really criminals but volunteers who somehow committed a criminal act and as such cannot be considered as criminals.

    Hence McGuinness side-stepped the question. He won’t accept that those responsible for the Northern Bank are criminals, merely that there was a criminal act involved. It’s the same sort of games that Bill Clinton played.

  • JD

    I have to agree with maca.

    He said that he believes those involved in the robbery committed criminal acts.

    Plain and simple.

    And that is still not good enough for some.

  • The Devil

    JD,

    your the second one for spec-savers they have a place in the town…. that is if the provos haven’t robbed it.

  • JD

    Thanks, Beelzebub. Coming from you, that’s gold, baby!

  • Davros

    JD- then why did he refuse to say they were criminals ?

  • PS

    Davros

  • PS

    Davros

    Perhaps because he had already dealt with issue and refused to be treated as a performing dog by journalists who have probably made their minds up without evidence anyway.

  • The Devil

    no probs JD,

    just trying to keep you healthy until i get hold of you down here

  • Davros

    Perhaps because he had already dealt with issue

    Had he though Paddy ? I see contortions similar to those of Clinton over his sex-life πŸ™‚

    Let me ask you to be blunt:

    Were those who took part in the Adare robbery criminals ?

  • IJP

    It is totally self-evident that those involved in this robbery were criminals! McGuinness has said precisely nothing.

    SF has now had three weeks to get the PR right and is still abjectly failing.

    However, I would say that this indicates to me that the SF leadership genuinely did not know this was about to happen (or they’d have had a slicker response planned). If I’m right, then we may well be into troubling territory, a situation where SF has no real control over the IRA.

    In which case the issue is not excluding SF, but including P O’Neill…

  • JD

    Common sense tells me that criminals do indeed commit criminal acts. No criminal act, no criminal.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Funny how unionists bellyached and wailed over the need for transparency and photographs over proof of decommissioning. Apparently words weren’t good enough.
    But when it comes to the Northern they are prepared to accept the word of Hugh Orde, a person who heads an organisation with a track record for lying.
    No evidence needed here to prove anything, unionist hypocricy never ceases to amaze.

    Any unionist prepared to answer a straight question rather than play dodge ball.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    What evidence did the IRA have that warranted them pointing the finger of blame at three people in the last fortnight for crimes unknown? They also pointed guns, although it’s unlikely the victims will be doing any pointing any time soon, as they are now missing hands.

    No evidence needed here to prove anything, republican hypocricy never ceases to amaze.

    Love, Gonzo
    (Who never asked for a photo)

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Dodge the issue if you like Gonzo it merely illustrates the hypocricy at work over decommissioning and the Northern job and yourself and Alliance are near the top of the queue.

    We were told that there could be no progress in the political field before Xmas because of the need for transparency over decommissioning. Words were not good enough, even from a distinguished former General like De Chastelain. Confidence had to be established and EVIDENCE required.

    Now on words alone, this time of Hugh Orde, we are told there can be no progress in the political field. No need for transparency, no need for evidence, no need to build confidence.

    If you want to dodge out of the hard ones Gonzo, that is fair enough.

    BTW what is the Alliance take on the 3 shootings you are on about.

  • Davros

    Where’s the evidence that Securocrats exist ?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    such has been the flood of unionists onto the site since the Northern job you couldn’t have beaten them off with a stick.

    I raise once simple point and ask for it to be addressed and unionism goes AWOL. It seems unionism prefers to lecture rather than answer a really simple point.

    Wouldn’t be like unionism to go MISSING when a little heat is turned on.

  • Davros

    Ask again and I’ll do my best to answer as long as it isn’t one of your “have you stopped beating your wife ” questions …or should that be “have you stopped robbing banks? ” πŸ˜‰

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Address the issue then and stop chickening out.

  • Davros

    Ask a question and I’ll do my best to answer Pat.

  • davidbrew

    Pat the pompous-

    In a criminal case the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt-99% if you like; in a civil case -even one arising from exactly the same facts such as in aroad traffic accident- the standard on the plaintiff is on the balance of probabilities, or 51% and above.

    Why the different standards? Because of the consequences of a finding against a party. So yes, the standards may be different, but that’s because the consequernces differ- to let terrorist supporters into government must mean they are clean beyond all reasonable doubt; to indicate the involvement of an organisation in a crime may well have no consequences for any individual.

    When the provos murdered before (probably Eamon Collins but I could be wrong-there were so many) SF were out of talks for about a whole fortnight, and still bluffed to the door of a court before folding their ridiculous discrimination claim. Likewise the shrill cries of seriuos consequences for the process now- all bluff

    And of course the track record of the alleged perpetrator does become relevant when seeking credibility. If it was alleged that the Archbishop of Armagh had picked up someone at a gay club and cut them up in a drug induced frenzy I’d be rather less disposed to believe it than if the perpetrator was Dennis Neilson.

    We know the Provos have lied before-over Adare, Jean McConville etc and we know they have stolen before. We don’t need anything more to form an opinion because that’s all we’re doing- observing and judging from the sidelines. Going into government is aproactive step and needs a whole lot more than a statement.

    And you know Unionists would have a little more respect for republicans if they looked at themselves objectively. How dare any republican demand evidence of guilt when the IRA still conceal the bodies of people taken out and shot like dogs without even the luxury of a kangaroo court- and not a word of criticism from other republicans( in case they’d join the disappeared perhaps?)? If SF/IRA are out in the cold again, it’s because they closed the door behind them and hopefully even Bertie has the wit to take his time before answering the knocks next time.

    When even FF say republicans are lying it’s time to come down off the high horse

  • IJP

    Funny how unionists bellyached and wailed over the need for transparency and photographs over proof of decommissioning.

    Not an unfair point. It should be noted that Alliance asked for no such photos, because decommissioning was never the issue. The IRA ceasing violent/criminal activity was the issue. This robbery could’ve been carried out regardless of that.

    To answer your other question, as far as I’m aware, Alliance would rather SF and the IRA stopped lying and inventing stories. Instead, SF should ditch the IRA, join the policing board, and play its role in the formation of a fully accountable and fair police service operating across our region.

    Any idea why it won’t?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    David the dick,

    Unionist have been well and truly hoist by their own lying petard.

    It was they who said there could be no progress unless there was transparency, evidence and proof. It was they who disregarded the WORDS of a Canadian General who has not a blemish against his record and was acknowledged by all as an honest broker.

    Once again it is unionists who warped by hypocricy have accepted WORDS alone. This time the WORDS of a man who leads an organisation, that has murdered, lied and tortured throughout its’ entire history. The head of an organisation held up to ridicule in the past 12 months because of the dishonsety of the force involved in a number of court cases.
    Unionists in this case don’t need transparency, evidence or proof just the WORDS of a discredited police force.
    You can squirm David but then again you are used to that. Unionists, hypocrites all.

    Davros, you can come out now.

  • IJP

    DB

    A good response.

    But, of course, FF is a ‘Republican Party’.

    I’d really rather we stopped calling SF and the IRA ‘Republicans’. They do an appalling disservice to the true Irish Republicanism of the United Irishmen and their predecessor/successors, which was about uniting the people democratically, not dividing them by justification of thuggery on behalf of certain groups and general MOPEry.

    In short, this year is FF’s 100th anniversary, not SF’s.

  • Davros

    What are you on about Pat ? I asked you on the other thread to put your question – so far you have declined the invitation!

  • IJP

    Pat

    David the dick,

    Unionist have been well and truly hoist by their own lying petard.

    You’ll find on this forum that, on the contrary, he who labels (and abuses) first is clearly the loser of the argument.

    I rarely agree with David 100% beyond matters Arsenal, but the fact you have chosen abuse rather than rational argument speaks 100% in his favour and 100% against you.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    IJP,

    Alliance weren’t party to the negotiations, so are therefore irrelevant. You are wrong it was the transparency over decommissioning that was the deal breaker. At least try and get the facts right.

    BTW is there any Alliance line on whether the police should stop lying and inventing stories?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    IJP,

    so you agree David lost by labelling me first , thankyou.

  • davidbrew

    “Once again it is unionists who warped by hypocricy have accepted WORDS alone. This time the WORDS of a man who leads an organisation, that has murdered, lied and tortured throughout its’ entire history.” says Mr McLarnon, (letting his mask slip)

    But we DON’T accept the WORDS of Gerry Adams -that’s the point

  • IJP

    Pat

    Alliance weren’t party to the negotiations… At least try and get the facts right.

    Yes it was – so right back at you!

    BTW is there any Alliance line on whether the police should stop lying and inventing stories?

    You give the examples, I’ll try to tell you, although I cannot speak for the party leadership in any way.

    Alliance’s policy is that we do not have an efficient and accountable police service, but that now there are two main blocks to achieving this, one of which is that SF’s elected representatives refuse to facilitate it (as they have law-making powers but reject effective law enforcement, an obvious non sequitor).

    On this occasion, Mr Orde has not acted outside the law. The Alliance leadership is concerned about past examples of this having happened, of course, and seeks the truth concerning things such as alleged collusion. But on this thread we are dealing specifically with the Northern Bank robbery and what it means for the process and SF’s role within it. Political progress towards stability in our region will not come about simply by deflecting everything along ‘but themmuns…’ lines.

    Alliance does not seek SF’s exclusion from the process (having been the first non-Nationalist party to meet SF). As far as I’m aware, the party would rather SF stopped justifying acts that necessitate its own exclusion.

    so you agree David lost by labelling me first

    When was this?

    Lies and abuse are signs of someone who cannot put together a rational and coherent argument. You are clearly guilty of both. That’s not acceptable on Slugger.

    I further note your hypocrisy in demanding answers to questions you refuse even to pose, while not answering ones posed directly to you (e.g. 3.23PM).

  • davidbrew

    IJP
    To be fair, I did call him pompous- but then I cast around for an adjective that can do justice to someone who has no compunction about demanding evidence of a robbery yoet seems unable to make the same demand of the people who dragged a woman from her hosue and shot her for the crime of tending to a wounded soldier, then lied to her family for thirty years. I’m not known for my tolerance, but really in this case it surprises me that I wasn’t more irate. Pat’s response shows who’s really squirming.

    And I did not lie. I quite openly said there are different standards in different situations, and if the Shinners are left with the dirty end of the stick this time, it’s not before time. Perhaps if they hadn’t lied about Adare and countless other crimes they would deserve a hearing. Pat’s closer to the truth when he quotes Shaekspeare-only this time the petard contained semtex

  • maca

    “When was this?
    Lies and abuse are signs of someone who cannot put together a rational and coherent argument”

    At least be fair Ian, Pat was insulted first.

  • JD

    Pat was called a name first.

    I wonder when Davidantsinpants will be back with his rapier-like use of “Prat.”

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    IJP,

    the main pre Xmas negotiations revolved around SF and the DUP, the other parties were effectively sidlined.
    I think both yourself and David are being a little disingenuous around the honesty and integrity of the RUC/PSNI.
    Seeing David has introduced a historical case re Jean Mc Conville I will mention the case of Nora Mc Cabe.

    Nora McCabe was shot-dead by the RUC on the 8th July 1981 at 7.45am as she left her home in Linden Street off the Falls Road for the corner shop to buy cigarettes. It was also the morning that Joe McDonnell died on hunger strike.

    The RUC denied any involvement in the shooting of Nora and also denied being in the vicinity of Linden Street that morning. An RUC investigation into her killing found that Nora died as a result of a blow/strike to the head by an instrument as yet unknown carried out by a person/s unknown. This finding was arrived at despite a number of eyewitness accounts stating that the RUC shot her with a plastic bullet at point blank range from one of two passing RUC armoured personnel carriers patrolling the area.

    As a result of this ‘investigation’ and no cause of death firmly established or culprit/s apprehended, Jim received a date for an inquest into Nora’s death scheduled for November 19th 1982. Pat Finucane was the legal representative for the McCabe family and shortly after the killing of Nora he was approached by a Canadian TV documentary/film crew who had been making a programme at the time of Nora’s death. They handed Pat a video, which they said related to the shooting. Ironically this encounter took place during an international tribunal into the use of plastic bullets and their affects. This had been sponsored by local human rights activists (now with RFJ) and chaired by Kadar Asmal.

    The inquest into Nora’s killing opened on November 19th 1982. It heard evidence from several anonymous RUC members identified only by letters with the exception of James Crutchley. He was the most senior RUC member in West Belfast at the time and was on patrol with the two vehicles alleged to have fired the fatal shot. All RUC witnesses, including Crutchley, told the court that they were never near Linden Street and that they had only fired two plastic bullets while on patrol that morning. These they said were to disperse a crowd of rioters who had set up barricades in an attempt to obstruct their patrol and that they fired only when petrol bombs had been thrown. There were also numerous references to hijacked and burning vehicles, the road being strewn with beer barrels and debris. This contradicted civilian testimony.

    After hearing evidence Pat Finucane introduced the film footage as new evidence. The court was immediately adjourned without viewing the evidence and on instruction from the DPP a senior member of the RUC, Insp Entwistle, was dispatched to Canada to interview the filmmakers.

    Exactly one year later the inquest was re-convened. Inspector Entwistle told the court that the authenticity of the tape was genuine. The footage in turn was played to the court. It showed a picture somewhat different to that described by the RUC witnesses. There were no sign of rioters, barricades or hijacked vehicles. The road was clear. Most significantly the last couple of minutes, shown from a fixed position, focused in on two RUC armoured vehicles travelling countrywards along the main Falls Road. As they approached the junction of Linden Street and the Falls Road both vehicles slowed up. The lead vehicle surged to the right and across to the opposite side of the road towards Linden Street then abruptly stopped. A loud bang was heard. A puff of smoke was clearly visible from the right porthole of the RUC vehicle. It sped off followed by the second vehicle. Nora McCabe, mother of three children the youngest just 3 months, lay on the pavement. Local people gathered and some attempted to administer first aid. The footage remained until an ambulance arrived which took Nora to the nearby RVH. Nora died later the next day.

    The jury found that Nora McCabe was completely innocent and that there was no legitimate reason for firing a plastic bullet. At the inquest Jim McCabe also waited for the DPP to announce that proceedings against the RUC both for killing Nora and committing perjury would commence.

    A spokesperson for the DPP told the court that a decision had been taken not to prosecute. An outrage followed and Yorkshire TV showed the footage in a First Tuesday documentary in 1984 entitled ‘Who Killed Nora McCabe’. Following this over 70 British MP’s signing an early day motion calling on the then British Home Secretary Douglas Hurd to hold a public inquiry. He refused and in response to a question from Labour MP Joan Maynard 3 weeks later about the RUC members involved said; ‘The 11 police officers in the patrol are still serving in the RUC. Three have been since been promoted: one to Assistant Chief Constable, one to Chief Inspector and one to Sergeant.’ The Assistant Chief Constable was James Crutchley. The British Queen also subsequently decorated him.

    Pat Finucane was to say that if justice were not delivered in this case, given the compelling evidence, then it would not be delivered in any other case.

    Approximately 31,000 plastic bullets were fired during May, June and July of 1981 claiming 7 lives including Nora’s. 3 of those killed were school children Carol-Ann Kelly 12, Julie Livingstone 14 and Paul Whitters 15. In total 17 people, 8 of them school children, have been killed by rubber and plastic bullets. Inquest juries have found that all have been killed in non-riot situations.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    IJP,

    I could of course mention many other deaths, I could mention The Bennett Report etc, but I think it would be to no avail. David rightly makes the point that when weighing up our opinions the track record of the perpetrator (alleged) is significant. Does it not also apply to the accuser?

    I have no problem with unionists (and others) doubting the veracity of republican statements. The fact of the matter does remain however that the DUP demanded transparency, evidence and proof over decommissioning, it was that demand that broke the deal before Xmas.
    Now we have been told by that same DUP progress is now impossible over the Northern raid and that republicans must be punished. They are doing so without transparency, evidence or proof. To that end they are not being consistent and are applying warped rules in order to justify their own position.

    Before Xmas I argued on this site that decommissioning should indeed be transparent and if unionists (and others) wanted photos to give it to them. If they needed confidence give it to them. I now realise, given their hypocritical stance on the Northern that the DUP and others lied and introduced the transparency aspect of decommissioning as a deal breaker.

    It has not been satisfactorily explained why they do not believe the words of an internationally respected soldier such as De Chastelain.

    Your 3.53pm post is factually incorrect as even David has had to point out to you. Perhaps there was a bit of myopia in your reading of Davids’ orignal post. However, having been abused more than most on this site I’ll give you a by ball.
    After all I expect unionists to stick together.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Must say I thought the reference to the first Mc Cabe murder would silence a lot of people.

    Given that the unionist case on the Northern is predicated on the truthfulness of the police, the reminder that officers of the law gave scant regard to a legal hearing must be a bit of a shock.

  • Davros

    Given that the unionist case on the Northern is predicated on the truthfulness of the police

    That’s spoiled a reasonable argument Pat- Unionists and unionists and many nationalists were blaming the IRA LONG before Orde’s comments.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    The case stands on its’ merits, uncomfortably so for those hanging on the word of Orde.
    The police have been proven to tell lies, in the Mc Cabe case under shocking circumstances. Those running with the lynch mob conveniently forget the very real history of the police in lying if and when it suits them.

    It would be interesting to know how many of those involved in the murder and subsequent perjury are still serving in the PSNI today and if any of them have connections to the Northern case.

  • Bean Nighe

    Regardless of the source, blame does not equal proof, even a convicted criminal is entitled to due process for a new alledged crime. Throwing stones back and forth is a pointless exercise, for we are all sinners. Anyone who is prepared to accept uncivilised standards of justice cannot regard themselves as being members of a civilised society, the standards of justice have been besmirched and sullied by politicians, the ice they walk upon is growing exceedingly thin.

  • Davros

    The police have been proven to tell lies

    When has Mr Orde been shown to Tell Lies ?
    The case you are quoting goes back 20 years for heaven’s sake pat. Whereas we are talking about IRA denials from the same organisation and SF denials from the same people. Gerry Adams denial of IRA involvement in Adare and Gerry Adams denial that a SF man was their cuban rep.

  • mickhall

    Common sense tells me that criminals do indeed commit criminal acts. No criminal act, no criminal.
    Posted by: JD

    JD
    Not all people who commit criminal acts are in my mind criminals, nor should they be treated as such. Leave aside the emotional issue of Republicans and lets look at a less emotive example as far as this thread is concerned.

    When suicide was illegal in England, did that make everyone who committed suicide a criminal? Never.

    Or how about a loving husband who has nursed his terminally ill wife, who is in sound mind when she asks him to help her end her painful life by assisting her to take an overdose of morphine. If he does as she asks, is he a criminal? To my mind he is a courageous loving husband.

    Do you understand the point im making here? You see laws are made by man and thus obeying them can sometimes be the worst option, either on a person level, or for society as a whole. For example those who hid jews in Nazi controlled Europe broke the law on pain of death. But were they not magnificent human beings for doing so.
    So perhaps we need to be a bit more selective before we tar all law breakers as wicked criminals.

  • davidbrew

    “David rightly makes the point that when weighing up our opinions the track record of the perpetrator (alleged) is significant. Does it not also apply to the accuser?”

    oh indeed it does- and I liked Noel Thompson’s question last night (unanswered as usual)if Martin McGuinness believed the provos might have lied to him this time like they did when he was assured they had nothing to do with the Garda McCabe killing- which you might concede isn’t alleged anymore.

    of course the fact that the 2 governments and most NI hacks seem to have used their contacts and intelligence networks to reach the same conclusion could all be a cunning conspiracy, in the way those evil Brits nobbled the courts in Florida, Columbia, and …er Dublin(?) in recent months. Not to mention courts in Germany and the Netherlands which have amazingly thrown their rather high standards of jurisprudence out the window when ever some poor Shinner comes before them.

    I could well have doubts about Hugh Orde too, for different reasons, but his track record is considerably better than Gerry and Martin’s on the personal integrity front-perhaps we’ll revise that if in 20 years time he too says “I was never in the PSNI- Sam Kincaid was brownie”.

    The question provo apologists have to answer is-given the main aim of Orde is to get the Shinners onto the Police Authority, and having actually got Adams to meet him, why under heaven would he
    bin all that , and the “peace process” (sic)?
    Even Martin’s best shot (oops) was to suggest orde being duped by the mysterious Joe Pilling in his desperation to stop SF becoming the largest party in NI-a remark which, if he said it, confirms that the NIO are blind to the existence of the considerably and permanently larger Unionist vote.

    So what about it Pat- should we believe proven liars in the IRA who have a motive for deception? Or a possible liar in the Chief Constable , who has just mucked up the work of his first 2 years cajoling the Shinners into accepting the PSNI.

    Do the math

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros and David,

    Unless Orde wears superman underpants under his uniform I take it that he is not collecting all his ‘evidence’ and ‘intelligence’ on his own. He is relying on detectives many of whom came through the ranks of the discredited RUC, an organisation that I have proved to your undoubted embarrassment was an organisation that murdered and lied when it suited them.

    Davros I bring up the original Mc Cabe murder simply because people like yourself and David have mentioned Adare and Mc Conville etc, historical cases are they not? Or is this a case where I am simply to be lectured by you lot.
    On a more contemporary note I have mentioned courts cases where the PSNI quite obviously lied and the assessments given by ORDE sometimes at the scene of alleged crimes have been found to be false.
    David goes off on one of his fantastical asides about hacks and intelligence etc etc. Suffice to say a lot of the times truth and jounalism are strange bedfellows and unionists have a history of denegrating journalists when it suits them.
    The road to Damascus conversion of those now praising Feeney illustrates again the contradictions at work within unionism.

    David the maths is very simple, from a unionist perspective republicans tell lies. I have proven, without rebuttal so do the police. Something that you fail to acknowledge.

    BTW I would be interested to know what you think of the police behaviour during and after the murder of Nora Mc Cabe, or is it all just a Provo plot.

  • davidbrew

    Suffice to say a lot of the times truth and jounalism are strange bedfellows

    – what-all of them?

  • davidbrew

    and its not just from a Unionist perspective that the Provos lie. You blithely skip over the lie that was told about Garda McCabe’s killers- or don’t you count that one? “Themmuns are as bad as us” doesn’t get you off the hook, even if true.

    Classic provo tactics again-deflect away from your guilt when caught bang to rights. You’ll be telling us next that you believe SF misplaced their Cuban representative and that there’s nothing in the slightest dodgy about using a false passport to go birdwatching. Well you can’t wriggle out of it that easily chum. Yeah , we’re lecturing you because you have the nerve to deny the objective deplorable record of SF dishonesty. Acknowledge their culpability and you have earned the right to challenge others about their shortcomings, but not until. SF don’t set the bar for morality yet

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    David,

    your failure to defend the police over the case I have mentioned is testament to your embarrassment on the subject.
    But then proof of police lying undermines your case completely. Best just to pretend it never happened eh.

  • unionist_observer

    “After all I expect unionists to stick together”

    thats a particularly dim comment given the last five years in unionism where we have split again and again. This has also been shown on slugger again and again. Nationalists on this tread are much more likely to stick together than unionists.

    Engage your brain before your typing Pat!

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Observer,

    The Alliance Party are a party in favour of the union. In fact did they not admit as much in the Assembly.
    The overall unionist response to the police is consistent. ‘They are our little force who don’t tell lies or do bad things.’

  • davidbrew

    “Best just to pretend it never happened eh.”

    Ah, the Provo response when they can’t justify their crimes.

    Why not answer the question? Slugger isn’t Castlereagh Holding Centre- the only people you have to fear from admitting the provos lie are any of them who you might happen to know. And they’re hardly ashamed of it, given the campaign to free these men.

    Let’s recap. The Provos first said they didn’t do Adare, then that it wasn’t authorised and NOW- as in currently, the present, today, not 1981, 1916 or 1690- say the 4 are entitled to the benefits of the GFA i.e.members “on duty” . Clear and blatant shifting of position because firstly some of them got caught (otherwise they’d still be denying it); followed by disowning( because it might have jeopardised other releases); followed by brazen admission of the truth when caught in a corner like you.

    I no more need to base my assessment of Hugh Orde’s credibility on that of John Hermon than I do David Trimble’s on Basil Brooke’s-or Adolf Hitler’s on Sean Russell’s.

    FACT-The same people who told the lies over Adare are now assuring us that they didn’t do the Bank. They have form-Hugh Orde doesn’t.

    But keep on whining about double standards, because it only turns off opinion in London Dublin and Washington when Shinners play the victim card these days- and don’t think it’ll win you more power through the ballot box either. Unionists won elections from 1985-1998 to get rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and were ignored . You guys are out of the game for at least a year-possibly longer if Bertie thinks strategically- and the only 2 ways to get back centre stage are either to do another Canary Wharf return to type, or to do what you should have done in 1998, and bin the Provos. My monies on you doing neither.

  • John S

    The very fact that Hugh Orde has always been seen by most Unionists as bending over backwards to make the peace process work and to accomodate Nationalists (particularly Sinn Fein) suggests that it must have almost killed him to imply any sort of IRA involvement in the robbery, and most would agree that he wouldn’t have made the statement had he not have been acting on reliable evidence.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    David,

    You can run but you can’t hide over the lying murdering legacy over the organisation you support.
    As stated and ignored by you is the fact that Orde is not a one man organisation, he works with people who murdered and lied over the murder of Nora Mc Cabe.
    The ‘evidence’ and ‘intelligence’ he acts on is compiled by the murderers and perjurers of Nora Mc Cabe. The fact that you place your trust in such people is evidence of your own character, or should that be lack of same.

  • Davros

    This from Pat who’s making excuses for the people who killed Bernard Taggert and Jean McConville ?
    Aye, right.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    i’ve never made excuses for these crimes so i’m afraid i’m going to have to label you a liar.

  • IJP

    The Alliance Party are a party in favour of the union. In fact did they not admit as much in the Assembly.

    It really would be a lot easier to engage in constructive debate if you got your facts right!

    Alliance designated ‘Centre’. When it re-designated, its members split, some ‘Unionist’ some ‘Nationalist’.

    So by your own nonsensical logic, Alliance is also a ‘Nationalist’ party – after all, did it not say as much in the Assembly?

    Alliance has consistently challenged the police and continues to be active in demanding further changes to the service to make it more genuinely accountable (as will happen again in a meeting with the NIO on Monday). All this while your dear party merely moans on the sidelines while doing precisely nothing.

    If you want a genuinely accountable police service, based on facts rather than falsities, you should vote Alliance! But perhaps you don’t…?

  • Davros

    i’ve never made excuses for these crimes

    That’s NOT what you were accused of Pat…

    so i’m afraid i’m going to have to label you a liar.

    LOL … you sound like Martin and Gerry, full of fake outrage ! “Who ? Me ??????”

  • davidbrew

    Pat McLarnon

    You prove the old legal axiom:
    case weak -shout loud
    case weaker-shout louder

    Everyone has noted how you won’t admit the Provos have a track record of lying and go off on another rant of MOPEry to avoid the truth- a classic McGuinness interrogation avoidance technique. It may not be explicit in making excuses for the perpetrators but we all get the point- there cannot be many reading this thread who don’t see you as a provo apologist- so Davros is right.

    If you really feel the need to comment on character, might I suggest that an objective analysis of your posts on this topic by a friend prepared to speak his mind might help you a lot more than your own warped standard