2007 Here We Come

Gerry Adams noted the irony that the first public speech he made since the Ard Comhairle meeting, was to commemorate an attack on the RUC barracks in Brookeborough on January 1st, 1957. The attack was one of the most significant of the 1950’s border campaign ‘Operation Harvest’ and saw Sean South and Feargal O’Hanlon killed in the battle. Today’s freezing weather was eerily reminiscent of that ‘dreary New Year’s Day’, but about 1500 hundred people came out to commemorate and listen to Adams.In his speech, he said that while he acknowledged the irony, he didn’t see a contradiction in honouring the sacrifices made in the raid against the RUC while at the same time recommending acceptance of the PSNI. He said that ‘ignoring policing is simply not an option’ and sees the acceptance of policing as a means of taking control away from London and into Irish hands. Adams argued that Republican ideals are more achievable in the framework of the GFA, and feels that huge political advances have been made. However, he cautioned that Sinn Fein does not have sufficient political strength at present to progress those ideals.

Interestingly, he placed great emphasis on the fact that ‘there are no short cuts and no easy way to independence and a United Ireland.’ He urged the audience to ‘mobilise, organise and strategise’ and ‘secure a peaceful accord with Unionists. A United Ireland cannot be achieved simply on our terms.’

Over the next few weeks, he said that a review of all of the issues will be undertaken, the achievements to date will be set out, what is needed will be identified and he urged that all activists start to engage in the strategic process that is unfolding. At this point in the speech, he emphasised that everyone would have to be included in these talks, including republican veterans, those affected by State violence and collusion, and everyone with a stake in republicanism. Once a decision is made, ‘we need to move into the structures as this is the only way forward.’

  • Yokel

    Battle? Tell me if I’m wrong but didn’t they take a hammering?

    A complete f**k up of an attack so well done for commemorating a failure. What a start to a campaign that was.

  • Glen Taisie

    From the Adams speech

    “Sinn Fein has pursued a relentless negotiation strategy since 1999. Significant progress has been made on key policing and justice issues in this period.”

    Anyone able to tell me the “significant progress” which has been made.

    .

  • Yokel

    Glan Taisie

    A lifetimes unsigned immunity from prosecution for him and his mates?

    If I was in their position, thats progress to me though I thought they had it already.

  • jc

    translation: we’ll all have a debate and include as many people as we can and then when that’s over you’ll all do what i have already decided to do – and the stupid sheep say ‘baa!’ and meekly follow

  • gerry

    About 1500 came out to listen to adams?

    How many did they bus in?

  • Intelligence Insider

    Perhaps Adams should have used this opportunity to “come clean” and admit that South and O’Hanlon were both actually murdured by the ira. A report I have seen on the matter was quite clear that knowing that both were quite badly injured after their usual botched up job their “friends” didn’t want to risk them talking so finished them off.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘About 1500 came out to listen to adams?’

    Excellent turnout.

  • gerry

    Is that the total amount of their support in Fermanagh.

  • Irish Republican in America

    Sounds like a good speech about the next step forward, and a good turnout.

    The usual trolls show up to criticize. If there were 100,000 people there someone would say “how many did they bus in”, so whatever.

  • Garibaldy

    I wonder which one in the truck was pretending to be Sean Garland?

  • Garibaldy

    Great photos by the way Miss Fitz.

  • sheila

    Gari
    THey werent assigned identities, but Sean Garland featured in the speech.

    There was one bus, for the record, and it was from Monaghan. I assume it was the O’Hanlon contingent. It was a very local affair, with no press that I could see.

    Given the weather which was appalling, I thought it was a massive turnout. Certainly, you couldnt have fit too many more in the locality

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘Is that the total amount of their support in Fermanagh.’

    The electoral results for the constituency are pretty clear on SF support in the area.

  • gerry

    Pat how come only 1500 votes turned out? If the weather keeps them in today, it may keep them in on March 8th.

  • Garibaldy

    Interested too by the photos of the berets and I think uniforms. I thought green blazers had replaced the militarism.

    I would have thought this was a high turn out on new year’s day in the freezing cold.

  • sheila

    Gari
    Have to say it really was a ‘dreary’ day. The attendees had to walk 2 miles to Moane Cross, and then 2 miles back. They said you warmed up as you walked, but that was a lie.

    In terms of uniform, you tend to see less of the green jackets and more of the black and berets. You should not that there were no sunglasses or balaclavas or boots, so theoretically it could be argued that it was not ‘militaristic’.

  • gerry

    I’m wondering where the estimate came from? That crowd didn’t look like 1500. and no PSNI about when the shinners are flashing fake guns. Thats definitely a sign of changed times.

  • Garibaldy

    Miss F,

    Sounds depressing. Not sure that berets can be interpreted as non-militaristic though. Certainly not a message concomitant with reassuring people that things have genuinely moved on. Given everything else that has been given up, seems a little childish to continue with it.

  • maura

    ‘Not sure that berets can be interpreted as non-militaristic though. ‘

    I must put away that red beret I bought in Next last week in case I get shot:-)

  • Garibaldy

    I always suspected you for a closet supporter of Ulster Restistance Maura.

  • sheila

    Gerry
    Estimate is mine, and I’m not too bad at it. The pictures dont show the huge crowds to the right and left of the event.

    Gari
    I guess the way I saw it, funnily enough was that the colour party was almost as anachronistic as the lorry load of volunteers. Two pieces of the past colliding, if you like!

  • Good to see so much attention been given to SF on this site.The leadership must be doing something right.
    Keep up the good work.

  • sheila

    Ach Pol, where were you for my coverage of the 11th night bonfires, and the 12th of July? Happy to direct you to that coverage if you feel you need to see it.

    Otherwise know of what you speak afore you spake

  • Thank you for your replay sheila.

    Even though i haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
    But it is nice that you care enough to replay.

  • jc

    just where exactly did the figure of 1500 come from? if it was from the shinners then odds are this is a lie; you would need independent verification of this and on the face of it, the claim is just not credible – spin city once again, chuckie lies everywhere

  • ToJC

    If you read the entries, you’ll find Miss Fitz gave her personal estimate from having been there.

    It isn’t very nice to call her all those names.

  • Miss Fitz

    JC
    Once again, the figure of 1500 was a conservative estimate of mine. I;ve been estimating crowds for about 7 years now, and am generally quite excellent at it.

    I’m sorry if this doesnt fit your agenda, but its the best you are going to get.

  • Miss Fitz

    Pol!

    My reply was simply meant to tell you that I have had an interest in commemorations and parades for quite some time now, and can be found at a fairly eclectic range of events.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/missfitz/sets/72057594085142069/

  • Pete Baker

    I added this to another thread, but it seems appropriate to this discussion too

    It’s worth noting the criticism by Peter Robinson of Gerry Adams’ speech

    The DUP deputy leader said, “I do not think unionists will be convinced by Sinn Fein giving support to the PSNI and the British courts in Northern Ireland that it is in real terms a step towards a united Ireland.”

    “Most people will recognise he is attempting to put a gloss on it for republicans.”

    “It would be far better if people were to recognise that in a democratic society you could not have people in government who do not support the police and the courts.”

    “That support is an essential step for anyone who aspires to be in government.”

    And that the debate on the target date relates to conditions Sinn Féin set for themselves.

  • German-American

    I’m a little unclear as to the point and the newsworthiness of Robinson’s remarks. Of course he’s going to cast aspersions on SF’s actions and unfavorably contrast them with the principles of the DUP, that’s just standard operating procedure for any party leader. I guess my question is, if SF endorsing and supporting policing is really in no way “a step towards a united Ireland”, then why does the DUP care about how Adams spins it for republicans? After all, by Robinson’s own admission apparently SF now poses no threat to the union.

    Why doesn’t the DUP just recognize and accept the concession and then move on to get something they supposedly want, namely devolved government? Maybe Mick’s theory is correct?

  • Miss Fitz

    You replied to a exchange between me and sheila. Now i am confused.
    Are you and sheila the same person.

  • Pete Baker

    G-Am

    Perhaps because, as Peter Robinson indicated, Sinn Féin haven’t yet taken the necessary step [ie actually called an Ard Fheis, and given a date for it, and taken a decision].. whatever way you want to interpret that.

    Instead what SF have said is that an Ard Fheis would be called if everyone gave a positive response to the as-yet-unseen motion that might be discussed at the as-yet-uncalled Ard Fheis.

    Ambiguity anyone?

  • sheila

    Pete
    Would that life was so simple.

    In my opinion, both Adams and Robinson are playing different sides of the same coin. Adams needs to sell policing as a legitimate pathway to a United Ireland. If you read my report on the commemoration, you’ll note Adams was clear and unequivocal about this issue.

    There are micro and macro issues here. On the macro front, the intention to proceed with an Ard Fheis has been signalled, and that is of great significance. It shows an acceptance of the rule of law and a willingness for the very firs time ever to bring this to the membership of SF for approval.

    On the other hand, Robinson has to balance his need to sell the SF backing of policing with their reasons, ie a United Ireland. He must assure the DUP heartland that it is nothing more than an acceptance of the rule of law, and nothing to do with a UI.

    I think that such mischief making in the midst of efforts to make progress is regrettable

  • parcifal

    peteb
    the process is simply clattering along; like a tinkers wagon on a bumpy road.
    Nothing new in that; but “all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well”,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Norwich

  • sheila

    Sorry, didnt finish my train of thought above!

    I said there were micro and macro issues. The macro issues are the ‘big picture’ and this is where I see the great significance.

    The micro issues are the nuts and bolts, and yes, I fully agree it could all still go tits up at this stage, but we have passed a rubicon at this stage. In my opinion, the current leadership of SF have deviated from a core principle. Now while I think that was a realistic and pragmatic choice, it is none the less a very significant movement, and one that can not be rolled back.

  • German-American

    “Perhaps because, as Peter Robinson indicated, Sinn Féin haven’t yet taken the necessary step …”

    This is the issue I commented on previously, namely the DUP contention that because of the ambiguity the AC motion isn’t really a concession, just a tease that could be pulled back at will. As I noted, if it really is a tease and nothing more then a lot of republican activists seem to be weeping and wailing about nothing; Gerry Adams might as well have kept his mouth shut and saved himself a lot of trouble.

    My interpretation is rather that the distraught republican activists are not stupid, and that the SF leadership is indeed well down the road of compromising on traditional republican principles. Obviously by making this conditional on a positive DUP response SF is trying to win the “blame game”, but I’m not sure why the DUP would take that bait so energetically. Why not just take the more neutral position that Sammy Wilson apparently took: characterize it as a positive step, and then wait for follow-through?

  • Pete Baker

    Sheila

    “If you read my report on the commemoration, you’ll note Adams was clear and unequivocal about this issue.”

    And if you read the actual detail of the Ard Comhairle meeting, and the subsequent press statements, you’ll note that Adams is, in fact, engaging in a classic example of futuring on that issue

    The rubicon has yet to be crossed. The, much trumpeted, consultation may just be about building pressure on the waverers within the ranks.

    But it is a decision that has yet to be taken.

  • sheila

    Sorry Pete, I disagree with your assessment, and for the reasons I outlined above.

    I am not saying that things will evolve the way you seem to be speculating. Indeed, I would argue that what the SF leadership is doing is the opposite of futuring, They are taking things very slowly and a step at a time.

    I stand very firmly by my judgement that what we are witnessing is indeed by itself a significant and radical indication within republicanism.

    Focusing on the detail may be a fun past time, but it belittles the significance of what we are witnessing.

  • Pete Baker

    *shakes head*

    Sheila

    I’m not futuring. I’m describing events as they stand.

    If you interpret the statements by the various groups differently then you need to state what you think they mean and state why you think they do so.

  • parcifal

    peteb,
    with respect all you do is highlight and play on SF’s difficulties; in every other post, with all the “added emphasis” mullarky.
    Mark McGregor spots it, I do, now sheila, and many more.
    Republicans will not be limited by your limitions.

  • Pete Baker

    “Republicans will not be limited by your limitions.”

    Indeed.

    Just focus on the actualité.

  • Miss Fitz

    Pete
    Please don’t use that condescending ‘shake head’ crap with me. I have a right to hold my opinions, and I have been solidly underpinning all of my arguments on this.

    If Adams was ‘futuring’ as you suggest, it means that he has pre-judged the outcome. Once again, I draw your attention to the speech he made today where he made it clear that the future is anything but certain or assured. As a leader, he has a right to place arguments in front of his party, and I suspect that this is going to be happening with increasing intensity over the next 8-12 weeks.

    I will say it only one more time. The point I am making is that I am separating out the various strands of what is transpiring. I am well aware of the staging requried with the Ard Comhairle, the creation of the motions, calling the Ard Fheis, etc. You would have to be incredibly naieve to believe that this could all be done and dusted in a day.

    This is momentuous in that the leadership of the Republican party have signalled their support for policing in Northern Ireland. And Pete, that is without doubt a rubicon

  • Pete Baker

    Sheila

    I don’t doubt your right right to hold an opinion.

    My *shakes head* was directed at the ignoring of the actual reality.

    Which is the state of play of the calling of the Ard Fheis.. which has not yet happened.

    That’s where Peter Robinson’s comments come into play.

    When SF have held that Ard Fheis, and decided on their policy on policing, then, and only then, will they have been deemed to have moved on that issue.

    Until then.. it’s only futuring.

  • Miss Fitz

    Pete
    It is clear that we are not going to have an agreement on this. However, I am a bit concerned that you are accusing me of ‘ignoring reality.’ Again, my opinion is well grounded and argued. I have identified the intention to alter a fundamental core of republicanism as highly significant and historic.

    You seem not to understand how political moves play out, and I think you need to take that under consideration. Politics is not about taking your deck of cards and spreading them on the table, its about carefully making your moves and choregraphing them.

    Finally, you say that this is futuring. Well, your own contribution to this definition is:

    future (verb). Definition: (in politics) to speculate on what might happen, in order to encourage the belief that it already has.

    So, you are saying that SF are speculating on holding an Ard Fheis in order to encourage the belief it has happened? That is called fantasising

  • gerry

    Miss fitz you said there was no press there, yet I was able to read it on utv text? does your figure of fifteen hundred include the non exsistent press, the shinners, including the actors in the lorry as well as the bus. makes you wonder how many ordinary people were there who were unconnected to the party. i’m sorry it still doesn’t look like fifteen hundred in those pictures. utv didn’t comment on the crowd.

  • New Yorker

    Why does SF need to have an Ard Fheis? Shouldn’t support for policing and the law be a non-debatable part of the platform of any political party seeking entry to government and the making of law? Can anyone name another place on earth where a political party would even have such discussion and debate?

  • Yokel

    New Yorker, no no no. It doesn’t matter about normal democratic principles everywhere else. Ask many people in New York including probably some of your Reps & Senators in that very state.

    It’s special here and different…reallyt it is.

  • Yokel

    Facts were this particular event was a comemoration of a failure. They role played, for that is what it was, a failure.

    Why don’t we celebrate Dunkirk again into the bargain………

  • Ulster boy

    The Brookeborough raid was doomed to failure from the start because intelligence had inside knowledge …..

  • miss fitz

    Gerry
    Gosh, this can get boring. When I said there was no press, I meant that there was an absence of reporters. Often at events like this you have the great and the good present. For instance, at the commemoration in the Markets following the SAA, there was a very large contingent of well known press people.

    On this occasion, there were 2 cameras operated by camera men, which I presume were the Beeb and UTV.

    Frankly, I dont give a damn whether or not you accept the crowd number, and I fail to see why its important.

  • Nationalist

    New Yorker, you have to remember that the police here in the 6 counties lead the gangs of UVF/UDA killers.

    The RUC/B Specials lead the protestant gangs to burn Catholic houses in 1969 and as the force is still 80% unionist it is hard for Nationalists to trust them, it is only now with the 50/50 recruitment that we are seeing a change in its make up. And remember no where else in the world would it be acceptable for one side of a divided community to have so much power and be allowed to exclude people because of their religion.

    You should also remember that the DUP were the only party who didn’t want a ceasefire and asked the Unionist terrorists NOT to go ceasefire back in 1994 when the process started – as confirmed by David Ervine of the PUP/UVF. Where else in the world would a party be allowed to call itself Democratic and have no sanctions taken against it for requesting a terrorist organisation to continue with its Murder Campaign?

    The creditials of the DUP are far from white and their demands for support for unequivilent support for Law and Order have not always applied to themselves.

  • Pete Baker

    Sheila

    I’m fine with my understanding of what’s going on here, thanks for the concern though.

    “So, you are saying that SF are speculating on holding an Ard Fheis in order to encourage the belief it has happened?”

    To clarify. I’m saying Sinn Féin are demanding that others, in particular the DUP, react as if that Ard Fheis has already happened. It hasn’t. And they won’t.

  • Yokel

    Nationalist

    Champion..just Champion.

    Sometimes people from outside spot the obvious.

  • andy

    Nationalist – I think those are fair points?

    New Yorker’s points were naive in the extreme – what do you think would happen if SF did not call an Ard fheis and just signed up to policing?
    A split in the movement anyone?
    Distrust of the police didn’t just arise out of nothing.

    Having said that I think SF have to recognise the cops now.

  • maura

    ‘New Yorker’s points were naive in the extreme – what do you think would happen if SF did not call an Ard fheis and just signed up to policing? ‘

    What would happen is exactly what is happening now- Sinn Fein would be accused of being undemocratic!! It is another damned if they do and damned if they don’t situation.

    New Yorkers comments were extremely naive for another reason- the NYPD ( despite it abysmal record in dealing with minorites etc.) were and are not a state militia that colluded with Death Squads funded by the State.

  • ingram

    Pete,

    You are 100% correct. Untill such time has the Ard Fheish as met and commited to a policy then it is all specualtion.

    Comment. My own belief is the Ard Fheish will confirm the proposal put forward by Adams, they have a long history of backing the leadership and not dissenting. I understand it is 21 years since they defeated an Adams sponsored(authorised) motion.comment ends

    The DUP have and will demand Sinn Fein jump and do the odd back flip Before any PUBLIC consideration to the date of the limitted powers being returned to Stormont .

    Miss Fitz( Sheila) appear to have a problem dealing with the reality of the situation on the ground and is content to do A ” Gerry” and suggest the end result will justify the means.

    Her conversion to Sinn Fein policies is a remarkably smooth and seamless one. I was dissapointed in her reluctance on another similar thread to accept that Sinn Fein leadership should now demonstrate their willingness and comittment to the British Criminal Justice system.She believes it is just politics.

    She seems to think a fudge and a nod and a wink will do for the DUP.In believe that is a simplistic and naive viewpoint.

    As a spokesperson for the SDLP said in the IRISH News ( letter copied on my blog) Why did it take them 30 years to become SDLP?

    Good question. Maybe Miss Fitz and or Sheila would like to comment upon this SDLP point or maybe they could join together with a common
    response.

    Well done Pete.

    Ding Ding

    Martin

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    miss fitz,

    saw the crowd on TV and your estimate was indeed conservative.

  • moochin photoman

    Pat……
    beat me to it.
    Definately a conservative crowd estimate from Miiss Fitz
    Can i also add that Miss Fitz’ last two post were the lead on the first proper news of the year on bbc newsline.
    Who needs the beeb?
    Happy New Year Everyone

  • sheila

    Martin
    Lets clear up the first point, my name is Sheila and I blog under the name of Miss Fitz. I would have reverted to my real name at this point, but to be honest, it’s become a habit now. Having said that, I am not doing a cloak and dagger job, so I will post comments on my given name and threads under the blog name. Clear as mud, eh?

    Now for your next point. On some of the other threads, you have made points and ascribed perspectives to me that are less than accurate.

    I have to admit a certain difficulty in trying to find out exactly what question you are asking. If you make your questions clear, then I can answer.

    On this occasion, I think you are asking me if I feel SF should support Law and Order in Northern Ireland. Well, Martin, my answer to that is yes and has been yes for a long time.

    I honestly dont know what you mean by a fudge, a nod and a wink to the DUP.

    I know you brought up the McCartney killingon another thread, and I told you that Adams information is inadmissable as hearsay. You said it was still valuable. In the meantime, I have checked with a legal source and it has been confirmed that information is not evidence and no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.

    Martin, I think you are either purposfully misrepresnting me, or you dont get my point of view. I certainly cannot decipher all of your language, but I remain willing to engage.

  • New Yorker

    Yokel and Nationalist,

    Thank you for your replies. Sorry to inform you that your situation is not unique. There have other divided societies where the majority held all, or nearly all, power. Some of those situations have been successfully resolved into a fair balance between majority and minority by updating laws, quotas, rigorous monitoring of compliance with the fairness agenda, etc. You have had such measures in place for many years and oversight by non-partisan and non-Irish observers. So, the question remains, why is there a debate on supporting policing and obeying the law within a party that seeks to enter government and make laws?

  • The Devil

    The disgraceful posting by Miss Fitz under her other name of Sheila really endangers the entire concept of Slugger O’Toole.

    There are many points that I take exception to but the most glaring and despicable was the nauseous assertion that evidence from a third party is of no relevant significance to an investigation team enquiring into a murder.

    She stated and I quote:

    “I have checked with a legal source and it has been confirmed that information is not evidence and no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.”

    This statement is a bare faced lie, anyone with information relating to the McCartney slaughter and knowingly withhold it are guilty of withholding information and are liable to prosecution. Anyone who deliberately hinders any such investigation manually through the use of direct physical force or action, or through the use of propaganda, physiological or financial pressure are guilty of perverting the course of justice and are liable to prosecution.

    If Miss Fitz really took legal advice I would like her to name and shame the solicitor responsible for such a statement that “no matter what Adams knows or can tell the police, it is of no use.”

    If Adams knows where the killers got cleaned up and new clothing, or where the old clothing was dumped, or the name of the person or persons responsible for the removal of CCTV video tape from the bar, or the name of the person or persons responsible for the organized harassment of witnesses involved, where as your solicitor confidently states that “this is of no use” the rest of society can confidently state that THIS INFORMATION IS VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION TEAM.

    The McCartney family demand justice, the nationalist community demand closure, and the unionist community demand law and order, and in order for all three to be satisfied the investigation team require the information that Sheila has told everyone is totally irrelevant and useless to anybody and in effect should be forgotten about.

    [Moderator’s note: Although some personal references have been clipped or modified in this post, I am reinstating the substance of The Devil’s original contribution as it lies comfortably within the rules of civil engagement on Slugger.]

  • Miss Fitz

    Hi Devil
    I closed your post as your comments were flagrantly ad hominem, but I would like to make a few points if you would care to hear them.

    One of the problems with following thoughts on threads is that they get muddled. Martin Ingram and I exchanged some ideas on another thread a few days ago. I have been discussing admissable evidence and whether or not a third party could take the stand in a court case. Once again, I have been told that would be hearsay and as such inadmissable as evidence. There is a distinction between information and evidence.

    As to my presence at the Sean South commemoration, you are being disingenous by your remarks. I have been collating research on commemorations for some time now, and I have attended dozens of events across a very wide spectrum over the past 2 years. My presence at an Orange march does not make me an Orange supporter, no more than my presence at a republican commemoration makes me a republican.

    I think the point of your post was to demonstrate you know who I am, but sure that’s no secret. If you were a genuine person with genuine concerns you would not use this method to attack me in such a disgraceful manner.

    Shame on you

  • The Devil

    no fitz shame on you…….
    not only are you wrong but your also a coward, my post was as acurate as any you have ever posted so i’ll continue to post it on every thread until you are sick of looking at it

  • Miss Fitz

    Devil
    There are rules about playing the man on threads. I am fairly confident that I have answered the salient points you raised.

    What is surprising here is that if you stop huffing and puffing, you’ll appreciate that I am not disagreeing with you. I have no problem with calling for people to assist the police and provide whatever information pertinent and useful, the kernel of the disagreement between me and Ingram was whether or not that information was admissable in court.

    I also think you should consider the irony of you post my personal and private details on sites using your anonymity!

  • The Devil

    and dont dare say that you and i agree on the matter we dont…. you want it under a carpet i want it out in the open.

    and that is my email real address……

  • Miss Fitz

    Hi Devil

    OK, I’ll go through this again. My reason for posting comments under my own personal name is that I was trying to see if I could affect a transition to posting under my real name and leave the pseudonym behind. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I was always a little reluctant to ‘come out’ as I have a family who I have an instinct to protect.

    As to ‘under the carpet’….. I am at a loss over that comment. I have never advocated anything less than full and open cooperation with the police. You really meed to be a bit more precise if you want me to provide a coherent answer to you

  • The Devil

    provide an answer… more precise…
    why you censor every damned post because you cant take criticism what chance is there of you answering anything honestly…

    ps can you stay up 24/7 cos i can these post will be made

  • Miss Fitz

    I ‘censored’ two posts initially, one where you gave out my full name, degree classification, and present whereabouts. That wasnt very nice, to be honest, and a breach of my privacy. The other one was closed also for a time while I considered it.

    I’ve spoken to Mick, and both posts have been restored. My personal details have now been omitted.

    I guess I consider myself honest to a fault and as I have said, I have no problem in engaging in an honest debate played by the rules of the forum

  • Mick Fealty

    Guys, there is real substance in this argument which I am more than happy to sustain. But I am not happy to let it turn into a personal grudge match. I have reinstated the core of The Devil’s post, minus the personal stuff. I have also clipped a few other posts as well.

    If this continues in the same venal grain, I’ll simply lock the thread and go to bed. I would further suggest that others might usefully profit from doing the same.

  • Yokel

    I think what this discussion proves is something we already know, most people in this country think they are experts on the law……

  • ingram

    Miss Fitz and Sheila.

    The comfusion is only cemented by you posting under the title Sheila and then two posts further down posting under the title Miss Fitz.

    Please keep to one identity.

    In relation to Mr Adams. Any person who has information in relation to a murder is a potential witness.

    If Mr Adams spoke to the killers in the course of his admitted internal Republican inquiries and they admitted a certain action to him his duty today is to furnish the police with that information.

    It is for the police to decide if it is of evidential value NOT Mr Adams or Sinn Fein.

    Mr Adams has no defence in law for withholding information.End of.

    Now let us move on to Martin McGUINNESS.I outlined the case in point to you and you failed to pick up on the points raised.

    Given that he now recognises the British justice system and suggested to those involved in the Story attack that they should accept the Britsh courts dont you think it is time he did so also.

    Clearly Sinn Fein have now moved position to a point were they accept the British criminal justice system. Is it not time now for REAL leadership to be shown and place his own faith and liberty in the Diplock system.

    Simple yes or no would suffice.

    Martin

  • miss fitz

    Martin
    I appreciate that my switching identity caused confusion. I can only say it was done with the best motive in mind, I was going to ‘come out’, but it now looks like too much trouble and I shall stick to the pseudonym.

    Now to the substance of your post. Obviously, this is a sensitive issue and I am conscious of the limitations of this forum to be understood clearly.

    I have no hesitation in agreeing with you that anyone with relevant information pertaining to the McCartney, or indeed any other murder or breach of the law should take that information to the police. That’s how a lawfully organised society works, and it cannot work without the support of the public. We have come far enough in terms of ordinary policing where that should be seen to be an acceptable option.

    I remain quite firm on my other point about the value of hearsay versus evidence. You can bring any case to Court, but without evidence you dont get a conviction. Making arrests for the sake of a spectacle is a time wasting exercise.

    I’m afraid I dont follow the question you are asking me relating to Martin McGuinness. Are you asking me if he should turn himself in for crimes committed in the past? If that’s your question, then in some ways my above point stands. The rule of law follows a process. Within that process, we have allowed the suspension of some of the normal qualifications for the sake of an accomodation.

    Is this what you are asking, Martin? As I’ve said, I have no problem giving answers, as long as the question is put to me in a clear fashion.