Thats a bit rough

Big picture. It was spotted on McIntyre’s site so blame him.

  • The Raven


  • West Sider

    I don’t get it. Maybe those Google ads are hiding the funny part.

    I never had Mackers down as a comedian, given his fixation on murder, sex abuse and being right about everything.

    But there you go.

  • DisgustedinDERRY

    Could someone give Mark a bigger spoon

  • West Sider

    Could someone give Mark a bigger spoon

    Of all the bloogers on here, he is certainly the funniest.

    But it’s unintentional humour, which is even more hilarious.

  • Mark McGregor

    Thanks. Any value is some. So back to the reason you are annoyed – a cartoon poking SF paedophile protectors……….

  • West Sider

    I still don’t get the joke – can you explain?

    I’m not annoyed at all, entertained more like as per my post.

    And you were a member of SF when all this went down – so by association…

  • West Sider

    Just re-read your post. Are you suggesting that Sinn Fein protect paedophiles? Is that what you’re saying?

    If so, you were a member at one stage, are you guilty too?

  • heamaisbharney

    ‘Donegal the pride of all’?
    Of course, Donegal does not know who is being ‘exported’ to it and for what reason.

    Very funny drawing.

  • Kellygates? So, which Kelly and how many stories are there?

  • Jimmy_Sands

    “Donegal Democrat: 19 January 2010
    Sinn Féin Senator Pearse Doherty has called on the Government to set a date for the Donegal South West by-election in the wake of the announcement of a summer election for a Mayor of Dublin.”

    I have a feeling the provos’ decision to use the county as a kiddyfiddler landfill site is one which is going to come back and bite them.

  • Rory Carr

    Why does not some brave blogger find the courage to breach this culture of secrecy that allowed Ms Cahill’s abuser to act so long with impunity?

    Surely his identity is widely known among the cognoscenti and, by refusing to name him, are they not themselves contributing to this pernicious culture?

    So there might be risk. So what? All meaninful human action involves an element of risk – a man might choke while brushing his teeth – and what is the worst that could happen? That the abuser shoot the messenger? Unlikely. That he might sue for libel? Let him. Indeed pray that he does. Pray that he be as foolish as Oscar Wilde in that regard and remember what subsequently transpired.

  • Ulick

    So back to the reason you are annoyed – a cartoon poking SF paedophile protectors……….

    … he says as he disappears up Mick’s hole.

  • Stewart

    ‘… he says as he disappears up Mick’s hole.’


  • heamaisbharney


    A Sunday tabloid is trailing disclosures tomorrow so you might get the answer then. It does indeed appear that he is widely known.

  • Rory Carr

    Of course the naming of the abuser is only a start. What happens next is what is important. But it would be a start,

  • heamaisbharney

    Yes, the next steps include those that have caused so much fuss to date? Finding out who did what about the abuse? Who was told by the victim and what was their response? What will or can be done about it now? are just a few questions that arise but the one that seems most likely to arise is, judging by this past few weeks, ‘why is that journalist telling that story?’

  • Rory,

    Maybe the name is out on the web but like you, I have not seen it, I am surprised it is not out there, but could it be people are being cautious as they do not wish to give this ‘thing’ any ammunition which would enable them to dodge being brought before the courts.

    “And you were a member of SF when all this went down – so by association…”

    Posted by West Sider


    When you were a member of Belfast SF were the rumour mills turning with talk of sexual abuse of young women and children etc?

    It seems no matter what one’s standing in the ‘Family’, no kids of party members were off limits from these violent sexual predators. If you remember how republicans opened their homes, for all sorts of reasons, to active republicans, they surely deserve an explanation about what was and is going on.

    The individual I have alluded to above, in all probability would have stayed in peoples home in the manner I have given above.

  • Rory Carr

    Naming an individual now or alleging that they have been culpable of some act or other would not at this stage prejudice any future trial, Mick. It is only once an individual is formerly charged that restrictions are placed on what may or what may not be said in order to avoid prejudicing the trial.

    Over here the Old Bill are often quite crafty in the way they use (and indeed, misuse) these rules particularly in a case that has grabbed widespread attention, when they deliberately prolong the period between arrest of a suspect and the formal charging so that they can leak as much damaging evidence as possible to a compliant press (whether true or not seems to matter little) before the shutters come down. They used such a tactic quite successfully of course in the cases of the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 but also of course more recently in the case of Barry George who was convicted and later cleared for Jill Dando’s murder.

    With the Plod I’m afraid it is not so much a case of, “If you’re innocent you have nothing to fear” but rather, once they have got hold of you, “If you are innocent, my dear, be afraid. Be very, very afraid”.