“or happen to give a damn about the kind of society we live in..”

An 18-year-old woman has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to the murder of Emmett Shiels in Londonderry and the court was also told that “tensions were running high [in the city] and the homes of other people arrested in connection with the murder have been attacked.” Meanwhile, in the Irish Times today, Davy Adams draws a sharp comparison between the reaction to this murder and the reactions to the murders of Robert McCartney and Paul Quinn. From the Irish Times article.

Most of us play along with the fiction that republican support for policing and justice is on the same terms as right-thinking citizens.

After all, their spokespeople tell us so often enough, and taking their words rather than the evidence at face value makes for an easier life all around. Except that is, if you happen to be a victim – or happen to give a damn about the kind of society we live in.

, , , , ,

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    In the name of God. And Davy has told the cops all he knows about who pulled the trigger on all the UFF murders? Or did he get a “close insight” into their thinking just because they liked his “political analysis”?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    “Most of us play along with the fiction that republican support for policing and justice is on the same terms as right-thinking citizens”

    It looks like the boy Davy is not taking account of the fact that there has been a significant period of conflict in Non Iron and that preceding that there has a couple of very serious problems that led to this conflict and one of those a was view, widely held amongst Nationalists, that the state and British law and order in many of its manifestations was not worthy of their support. Rectifying this in one of the main objectives of the GFA/STA and is still work in progress as witnessed by the debate over the transfer of Police and Justice into Irish hands and SF’s role in trying to bring this about.
    Talking of law and order in Non Iron as if it were the ROI or the UK and none of the preceeding stuff was relevant is extermely disingenuous. As Willows/Willowfield(?) like to oft repeat in their postings. Shame on him.

  • Davy Adam’s article is typical of anti SF prejudice that runs through this and other revisionist media outlets. Republicans over the last 80 years have fought a war against British occupation, death squads and civil rights abuse.

    Davy Adam’s and many other cheerleaders of these previous regimes self righteously claim that they are on the side of law and order. Well if this is so why not give the courts a chance to decide who were the participants of the horrific murders of Robert McCartney and Paul Quinn.

  • I think SF’s credibility on the issue of policing is holed below the waterline as long there exists a fear among witnesses to the killings of Paul Quinn and Robert McCartney and others that they will be subject to reprisal if they testify.

    However, David Adams credibility on the issue of policing is open to question given his links to organisations involved in sectarian murder, drug dealing, extortion etc.

  • heck

    Let me edit this a little to make it clearer

    Most of us play along with the fiction that unionist support for the rule of law is on the same terms as right-thinking citizens.

    After all, their spokespeople tell us so often enough, and taking their words rather than the evidence at face value makes for an easier life all around. Except that is, if you happen to be a victim of kangeroo justice-like danny morrison-, or happen to give a damn about the kind of society we live.

  • Pete Baker

    I see that in the comments so far we’ve had examples of playing the man.

    And a little bit of whataboutery.

    It’s implicit by linking, but..

    Go read the whole thing.

    And play the ball!

  • andy

    Play the ball you say?

    Apart from the fact that if, say Martin McGuinness had lectured the unionist community on due process, law and order etc you would have been the first to point out his failings (I trust you wont disagree, you’ve mentioned his brother in law enough times).

    I will try to engage with what Davy is saying:

    Basically that Republicans interfered in the investigations of McCartney and Quinn and so cant be trusted with law and order matters now or in the future.

    There is certainly some legitimate criticisms there, although they have been voiced a number of times before.

    However, I believe his “arguement” falls down on two areas:

    1) It treats the remnants of the IRA and Sinn Fein as one indivisible entity. The crimes of the first are taken over to the second in their entirity.

    2) The difference between the Mccartney and Quinn episodes. SF equivocated with the Mccartney case.
    With the Paul Quinn case Sinn Fein actively encouraged people to come to the police. I think they should have been more supportive of the family but you can’t say they didnt appear to support the police investigation. I remember around the time of the murder on this board asking what else they could do – the answer seemed to be some ill-thought idea on forcing people to testify/ incriminate themselves. That really would mean they should be kept away from the law and Order powers.

    Without meaning to play the man, does the Irish Tiems often print the musings of those as close to republican paramilitaries as Davy was to loyalsit ones?

    I should point out that I actually dont mean to slag off Davy Adams completely, I thought the few times he posted stuff here for example he seemed pretty reasonable.

  • circles

    Ahhhh I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

    Firstly, whilst thanking Mr Adams for pointing out to me that as a republican I am obviously not right thinking nor do I give a damn about the society we live (note to self: I must book that attitude correction class soon), it took a while before i worked out exactly what his gripe is.

    I had at first thought that it was the idea of a political prejudice affecting the work of the police force, and was all set to join him in his condemnation, because I think we all deserve a police that operate free of political influence and bias of any shade. Except that thats actually not David’s problem at all. David had no problem when the police force were handing details of catholics/nationalists over to his colleagues in the UFF for assassination, and the force was over 90% protestant/unionist, with a fair amount of cross over membership, providing immunity for the boys.
    No David has another problem.
    David’s problem seems to be the very thought that republicans might actually be able to have a say in how their communities are policed – especially as he doesn’t even consider republicans to be able to think right. And he’ll clutch at any straw he can to try and justify this. His concern for justice for the murders of Robert McCartney and Paul Quinn has a particularly sickly reek to it.

    “Republican” in David’s re-interpreted world is the same thing as Sinn Fein. And in republican areas what people do is therefore the responsibility of Sinn Fein. So any cooperation or non-cooperation is directly the responsibility of SF. Which is of course complete nonsense, but logic and free will won’t slow David down in his drive to keep policing from being something for the whole community to manage.

    Of course David does think right, always did. Salt o’ the earth, him and the boys in the UDA. And those guns…. ahhh well, now, lads I mean, guns in tha hands of a few right finkin’ inda-vigils nivir did noone no harm.

  • runciter

    I’m not a SF voter, but I’m pretty sure most of them have a better track record on ‘law and order’ than Davy Adams.

    From TFA: “If republicans are indeed embarking on yet another journey, are more deaths, cover-ups and broken families to be the politically expedient price that we must pay before they reach their final destination?”

    The solution of course is to leave policing in the hands of the British government, who have never murdered anyone, covered up any illegal activities or destroyed any families.

  • I’m just stunned that people don’t get the play the ball and not the man. I don’t know about andy and BF, but the rest of you are regulars and have at times contributed sharp observation.

    What I don’t get is what Davy has said above that has you all lamming into the man, and (with the exception of Con) with absolutely no reference about the point he’s making. The point is not about mannerly discourse (though that would be a fine thing), but that venting spleen generally leads to a lot of noise and no actual content.

    Whether you agree with him or not, it’s a very good piece of journalism (IMHO), which demands a better quality of response than is currently being offered.

    In case any of actually think he’s not making a case that demands a coherent, logically thought through response, check this post from earlier in the week: http://url.ie/hjp.

  • ronaldo

    A well made point, Mick.
    I’ve popped into this thread a few times and have been sickened by the vitriol directed at this man, and at the downright lies levelled in his direction.
    So much so I couldn’t be arsed contributing anything to the general topic myself.

    It really is disgraceful.
    The slanderous, bullying comments should be removed, and the offenders banned, or Slugger will eventually end up being able to carry only stuff that these people agree entirely with.

  • circles

    Mick I actually think you are wrong here.
    There is a real and clear difference between journalism and an arrogant editorial that claims that a significant section of the population is not right-thinking (whereas the writer implicitily is), and don’t give a damn about the kind of society we live in (while the writer implicitly does).

    In an opinion piece the character and background of the writer is key to the opinion being expressed. It is a message and messenger. It’s a guy in his green house throwing stones. Or in this case maybe even the pot slegging the kettle. Now if as a reaction to the piece no reference can be made to the person who has the opinion, despite it being both arrogant and hypocritical, or to point out the plank in the authors eye then why bother even posting who wrote it? Just stick up the text. No context, no names, just a blind post and lets discuss that.
    Just because on some level Davy’s “argument” almost coincides with the argument you were making does not make what he has to say more valid. I can follow your arguments Mick to an extent, but those arguments are not the point of Davy’s article. I stand by my post and don’t see anything in it that is out of place in the context of this thread that is based on the personal opinion of a man “close to loyalist paramilitaries” with regard to republican involvement in policing.

    As for Ronaldo – pity you actually couldn’t have bothered your arse, or had the courage of your convictions, as it may have made for an interesting discussion.

  • ronaldo

    “I stand by my post and don’t see anything in it that is out of place in the context of this thread that is based on the personal opinion of a man “close to loyalist paramilitaries” with regard to republican involvement in policing.”

    D Adams, as you well know, was driven from his home years ago by the very people you claim him to be close to. Yet you base everything you say, along with your fellow apologists, on the spurious allegation that he is carrying an agenda for these people. This is an obvious tactic to avoid facing the issue at hand.

    Also you make the spurious claim that he is referring to the entire republican community regarding respect for proper policing, when he makes perfectly clear it is the “republican movement” he is talking about. He accuses the shinners and the IRA of dictating what crimes the people can co-operate on and which they can’t. Investigations into the Quinn and McCartney murders proved beyond a doubt that this is true.

    If you reckon Davy Adams has a “plank in his eye”, then anything the likes of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, the list is endless, have to say on policing and justice should be laughed out of court – for by the same reckoning each of them is walking about with a whole forest in each eye.

  • PDallas

    Oh the irony, the absolute irony, of the minions at provo-central using the exact same “who is he to talk” argument as the dissidents use against McGuinness and company.
    Except the dissidents are on 100 times more solid ground.

  • circles

    Regarding Adams, McGuinness etc. at least one could say that they had a record of not supporting a notoriously corrupt and compromised armed “police” force. That they were involved in actions outside of the law I do not doubt – but then that would apply to most of the politicians here.

    And with regards to making spurious claims, it is one of those dirty unionist/loyalist fantasies that “the shinners and the IRA dictate what crimes the people can co-operate on and which they can’t.” Now to state that it has been “proved beyond a doubt that this is true” is quite ridiculous.

  • ronaldo

    “Regarding Adams, McGuinness etc. at least one could say that they had a record of not supporting a notoriously corrupt and compromised armed “police” force.”

    I won’t lower myself to your level by skimming over the indisputable record of what precisely Adams and McGuinness did support, direct and personally engage in.
    As for the rest of it, in the McCartney case not only were potential witnesses threatened and some had their statements passed through an IRA sieve to ensure no convictions were possible, but even the victims have had to put up with a campaign of character assassination, threats and intimidation.

    I have relatives who live in Cullyhanna, so don’t try and tell me that the provos don’t dictate the extent of cooperation between locals and the police.
    Republicans murdered the two men in question, threatened their relatives, and ensured that no one will ever be convicted.
    Just the sort of people you need directing the police and the courts.

  • PDallas

    We shouldn’t forget that the pub was packed with shinners and IRA people on the night of the McCartney attack, but not one of them gave a helpful statement to the police.

    So much for their support for justice.

  • Mick Fealty

    circles,

    Right thinking is a legal concept: http://url.ie/hyn. Given the context of the article, this would seem the more obvious meaning. And even if you reference Adams work more widely, I still don’t see how it can be interpreted as a calculated group insult.

    Referencing his past membership of an illegal organisation has nothing to do with anything much other than trying to take the man out without having to address what he actually says. It’s particularly meaningless since former members of such an organisation in part run this bit of the country.

  • POL

    The solution of course is to leave policing in the hands of the British government, who have never murdered anyone, covered up any illegal activities or destroyed any families.
    Posted by runciter on Jul 04, 2008 @ 11:25 AM

    lol.

  • Andy

    Mick
    No offence but I’m actually at a bit of a loss with what you say.

    Of my post only one sentence was even vaguely concerned with Davy Adams. The vast majority of the rest of it directly referred to his argument. My first paragraph was amittedly referring to the idea of ball not man but not directly talking about Adams.

    How is this:

    “1) It treats the remnants of the IRA and Sinn Fein as one indivisible entity. The crimes of the first are taken over to the second in their entirity.

    2) The difference between the Mccartney and Quinn episodes. SF equivocated with the Mccartney case.
    With the Paul Quinn case Sinn Fein actively encouraged people to come to the police. I think they should have been more supportive of the family but you can’t say they didnt appear to support the police investigation. I remember around the time of the murder on this board asking what else they could do – the answer seemed to be some ill-thought idea on forcing people to testify/ incriminate themselves. That really would mean they should be kept away from the law and Order powers. ”

    tackling the man when the man in question is not mentioned.

  • Steve

    ronaldo
    I won’t lower myself to your level by skimming over the indisputable record of what precisely Adams and McGuinness did support, direct and personally engage in

    I think you overstep yourself and wish to enter fact as opinion, Adams and McGuiness have done a more than passable job of making almost all facts about themselves disputable. You can clearly state that McGuiness was the leader of the IRA in Derry in the 70’s after that its all very disputable facts

  • Steve

    OOps

    Opinions as facts…. somedays the dyslexia gets to me

  • circles

    Hmmm I remain to be convinced Mick about Davy and his right-thinking.
    The definitions I’ve been able to find for the legal interpretation of right-thinking to me are far from applicable in the context of the north. They depend on the existence of a relatively homogenous Joe Public “with their usual mix of human prejudices, perceptions and conventional standards” with “with opinions and attitudes considered to be sensible and fair”. Show me this mass of right-thinkers in the north, free from the prejudices of their side of the fence and I’ll agree. On the other hand, pointing to what might be right thinking anywhere else and trying to apply that to our situation is a nonsense – after all how many right thinking people in pthe parts of the world would be behind the OO support the marching season?
    My point is that what we have here in this article is someone very clearly from one tradition saying that a party (and thus its voters) from the other are not right thinking – when in fact, using the legal definition there is nobody in the north who is right thinking!

    In the not so recent past right thinking republicans (in the legal sense applying it to the republican public) had no reason to cooperate with a police force they had no confidence in, and who treated them in general as the enemy.
    Right-minded loyalists/unionists did not have this situation – indeed cooperation with the security forces could be seen as even strengthening the union by reinforcing the raison d’être of the security forces, as well as offerring interesting cross-etilisation possibilities for pro-union groups.
    The statistics speak for themselves Mick – the RUC were for all intents and purposes a protestant police force from the unionist community. No wonder that right thinking unionists were all for them. No wonder right thinking republicans weren’t.

    From that pespective i still find it an arrogant argumentation Mick.

    I would agree that this does begin to address one issue of policing, although the point in my opinion is missed by Adams, and that point is how to build a spirit of cooperation in communities where there was always only distrust. Holding SF responsible for this is too facile. Its a more general issue and pointing to the McCartney and Quinn cases quickly glosses over it and makes it easy to write it all of as a provo-conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the communities as willing sheep.