“Sharon, I wasn’t, and don’t be smart with me.”

At a press conference yesterday on the allegations by Brendan Hughes, UTV Live’s Sharon O’Neill had a “stupid” question for Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams about his toxic denials – “Why don’t you just admit you were in the IRA, Mr Adams?” Indeed. And why would the families of the victims of Bloody Friday find the allegation of Adams’ involvement “offensive”?

Video courtesy of UTV

, , ,

  • John O’Connell

    It is not as vacuous a denial as it might seem. The purpose behind it is to avoid being regarded as a killer and murderer who authorised some terrible things.

    But it is also likely that Gerry has even greater fears than that. His fear that I can pin him down on being the Antichrist when he admits to being one of the leading members of the IRA, with its seven man army council. The beast has seven heads and ten horns (ten hungerstrikers) and as long as Gerry wasn’t in the IRA he needn’t be blamed for being one of those heads, the one that had the “fatal wound” (Rev 13: 3) which healed. Gerry Adams was shot and wounded in 1984.

    Others may discount this but Gerry knows that he’ll either be crowned Christ or Antichrist, and his greatest fear is that the latter will apply.

  • Why doesn’t someone ask him why he never joined up? was he a coward?

  • GFASupporterButRealist

    Well, Gerry and Peter share one central arrogant view. They don’t have to answer “impertinent” questions from pesky journalists. Especially, it seems, female ones like Martina Purdy, who would dare to try and lay a glove on them (Peter) or are being “smart” like Sharon O’Neill (with Gerry). Better to behave like you’re supposed to with the Queen or the Pope i.e. only speak when you’re spoken to. Ah yes, our political “betters” who aren’t to be questioned about sweetheart land deals, messy details about partners’ behaviour or murders, lies etc. Immunity, eh ? Like hell. Bring in on media mavens! Keep asking those “stupid” questions, guys! You’re asking what the ordinary voter asks. The sense of entitlement of Peter and Gerry would make a cat laugh…..

  • iluvni

    Did all the non-IRA men in West Belfast just dress up like Frank Spencer for the laugh of it


  • cynic47

    More power to Sharon! I think I have cracked it! He wasn’t in the IRA as such…..he was ex officio.

  • alan56

    Richard Mccauley must be furious

  • Whenever anyone is asked a simple question which only requires an equally simple yes or no, why would they offer something which doesn’t answer the question … “I reject absolutely that allegation which you have just spoken of”. Not very smart at all.

  • Gerry Adams is rattled, perhaps the non stop drip of revelation and allegation are beginning to take their toll, especially when added to his family problems.

  • Seosamh913


    Wasn’t the gentlemen at the front of the vaudeville dance troupe shown (after all, the photo can’t actually ever have been taken and it would be offensive to suggest that it was 9and stupid to even ask) – who I must stress was at no time ever in any conceivable manner and to no extent whatsoever in any way connected to the republican army at all – in the Allo Allo pilot ?

  • british citizen

    Well done Sharon! Keep those questions coming.

    I’d believe a London cabbie before I’d believe that lying murderer.

    The dogs on the street (even the ones without a licence) know he was in the IRA – denying it is laughable.

  • RobertEmmett

    first E. Mallie most brutal question. and now this upstart O’ Neil.

    at this rate of going we will have a Paxmanesque journalist within a generation

  • Wabbits

    The mask slipped there with Adams. I know, I know he never wore a mask.

    That was the “hard man” threatening the wee girl and telling her to get back into her box.

    Seems that Adams likes threatening women. He certainly has no respect for women so it’s hardly surprising that he was tied up in the Jean McConville murder.

    His attitude stank and anybody who doesn’t recognise that he was trying to intimidate Ms O’Neill is an idiot.

  • Michaelhenry

    when journalists stood in elections recently they were given a bloody nose by the public,gerry adams does not have this problem.

  • RobertEmmett

    unlike Mary Lou..

  • sdelaneys

    I hear Moloney, Brendan O’Brien, Eoin O’Broin and one or two others will be discussing the dear (expensive) leader on Vincent Browne at 11.05 tonight on TV3.Might be interesting.

  • joeCanuck

    I suppose that if you are a borderline case and you get summarily rejected by Maynooth as a possible candidate, it is quite possible that such a shock just might be enough to push you right over the edge into a netherworld where you are constantly consulted on theological matters by bishops and the like. Or would that be an ecumenical matter?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Gerry Adams is rattled, perhaps the non stop drip of revelation and allegation are beginning to take their toll, especially when added to his family problems.

    No, Gerry’s always been prone to these flashes of (somewhat controlled) anger. Anyone remember when he announced to journalists on camera how totally “pissed off” he was after SF were suspended from the GFA following a number of “direct action against drugs” killings ?


    when journalists stood in elections recently they were given a bloody nose by the public,gerry adams does not have this problem.

    Maybe you’re not old enough to remember 1992. Gerry’s not completely invulnerable in the event of a perfect storm.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Gerrys tendency to ‘flashes of somewhat controlled anger’ always tend to occur when he is feeling cornered. I noticed that a long time ago, whenever he was questioned about the IRA, stuff like that.

  • Michaelhenry

    i remember that election well comrade,but the bold joe was a doctor and not a journalist.

  • wee buns

    Why doesn’t someone ask him why he never joined up? was he a coward?
    Posted by snowstorm on Apr 01, 2010 @ 04:01 PM

    Great reverse psychology.

  • GErry Adams always displays this controlled sophisticated anger when he feel cornered, and of course it is never more effective than when it is being directed at a woman.

  • West Sider

    He will never admit it, and it’s sad that he doesn’t.

    Why not just say it and clear the air?

    Do what McGuinness did and couch it in terms that admit to lying in the past for legal reasons and because of the political and security establishment at that time, but now that he’s been instrumental in ushering in a new era, he can now say that.

    I don’t understand why he can’t.

  • Michaelhenry

    mcguinness was under the protection of the bloody sunday inqust,no law can touch him west sider,but if gerry adams was to say he was a member he would be arrested and serve two years,that would be a silly thing to admit would it not.

  • Seosamh913


    It shouldn’t be forgotten that after his ’92 election defeat to Hendron, Adam’s election team accused Hendron of stealing the seat by virtue of UDA votes acquired from the Shankhill. About as gracious as it was non-sectarian I think most fair-minded citizens would agree. Or was it just sour grapes that the stoopers had gotten their mass personation act together even more effectively than the provos for once ?

  • Michaelhenry

    it was just a blip,it never happened again.

  • Jimmy Sands

    “I don’t understand why he can’t.”

    Because then he loses control of the discussion. He gives interviews for his own benefit, to portray himself as statesman and peacemaker rather than a cold blooded psychopath. Once he admits to being a murderer he will be asked about specifics (“Did you tell Jean McConville not to get smart with you Gerry?”) and that doesn’t suit him. He doesn’t lie because he expects to be believed but to close down the discussion and force the reporter onto more congenial territory. Being viewed as a liar has never bothered him, but what clearly does bother him is becoming an object of ridicule. This isn’t going to get any better for him.

  • Jimmy McGurk

    Snowstorm and wee buns,

    I’m pretty sure he has been asked on numerous occasions why he didn’t join the IRA considering the times and the area he grew up in…

    Can’t quite remember where I saw this being asked., Maybe it was on the Late Late?

    His response was something along the lines of recognising even then that it was political, not armed, action that was his calling.

  • joeCanuck

    Do they pay you per post for the privilege of using your made-up name or are you just on a retainer.
    And who actually writes them, Brownie perhaps?

  • Michaelhenry

    whats wrong joecanck if this is your real name,do you not like the truth.

  • Critical Alien

    This just in from Sinn Fein HQ:

    Cairde a chara. Let it first be said, and let me be very very clear about this, I nor anyone I know, are now or ever have been members of Sinn Fein. Let there be no misunderstanding. I am to the republican movement what Delia Smith is to the catering community – nothing. A no-one. I remember some time ago saying to Martin “What’s a Republican?”. Martin likes to read the papers after his tea. By way of an answer I got merely a rustle of the Irish Daily Star between my inquisitive gaze and his. “Have you them dishes done?”, he said, gruffly. I think Martin was unwell at the time and I felt sorry for him. At any rate, this only goes to show that even my closest friends are unclear as to what the Republican movement might be. I’m told it has something to do with some sort of unrest that may or may not have happened on this Northern end of the island of Ireland, but these rumours are as yet unsubstantiated to me. Sordid rumours about my own involvement in any kind of unrest, more to the point, are clearly rumours put in place by British Intelligence. And I should know.
    Anyway, to cut a long story short, votail Sinn Fein agus helicopter.

  • OscarTheGrouch

    Ho de ho! Like it CA!

    Hope they just keep jabbing him with the pointy stick. Wouldn’t you just love to see Gerry do a Prescott!

  • heatherb

    I hear it wasn’t exactly a nimble manoeuvre by our Sharon when she questioned “the Beard”. She asked the same question about provo membership half a dozen times. Of course you have to wonder what answer she expected to get when she asked yer man “why don’t you just admit that you’re a member of an illegal organisation?”

  • BurnTollet

    Isn’t there here which is being overlooked? Someone funded research in which a former IRA member has made allegations about other people. The person making those allegations is dead, The other people are still alive. So my question is – how can any of this be corroborated?

  • heatherb

    “how can any of this be corroborated?”
    Answer – It can’t! But it’s interesting that you mention funding for this research. The money came from the late Tom Tracy. Two of his closest associates were Eamon Hanna (SDLP ex general secretary) and John McConnell (former head of the NIO political directorate). The researcher was Anthony McIntyre (protégé of Paul Bew and hardline critic of Adams). The author of the book Ed Maloney is another anti-Shinner. So like Woodard and Bernstein were told in “Watergate” : – “follow the money!”

  • BurnTollet

    What Heather is describing is reminiscent of certain sections of the British Army information services in the early “70s”. There was substantial investment in “disinformation”. Civil Rights leaders were some of the first people to be targeted in this way. For anyone who is genuine about trying to understand this method of character assassination, look no further that Bloody Sunday and the readiness of the media then to report false allegations as part of the disinformation campaign against those murdered.

  • Alias

    “So my question is – how can any of this be corroborated?” – BurnTollet

    Why would the State want to prosecute one of its touts over a murder that it didn’t even investigate at the time? There were 18 to 20 Shinners involved in Mrs McConville’s abduction, but the State made no arrests whatsoever, regarding such actions as necessary to establish the credibility of its touts and being fully complicit in the actions of its protected species.

    It isn’t the mythical code of omerta that protects these folks, since the State has fully infiltrated them and those abiding by the code are touts with the state having more than enough information to prosecute the non-touts although the campaign – it’s the State that protects them, and the State protects them because they were a state-sponsored murder gang.

  • Seosamh913

    Burn Tollet

    Does the fact that Hughes is dead necessarily invalidate his words ? I believe that this has been a feature of the recent Gerry McGeough trial but I should say that I am not fully au fait with the details of that case. My understanding is that BH’s statements may well constitute hearsay however that doesn’t necessarily render them inadmissible in a UK court or within some states in the US purely as a consequence of him being no longer alive. Outside of formal legal proceedings though, surely it’s a subjective judgment whether Hughes can be considered a credible witness or otherwise ?

  • Alias

    Look at one example of how the State operate: the FRU. When the agent Brian Nelson went to trial for directing multiple murders by the UDA, the judge was told by Gordon Kerr, head of the FRU, that Nelson’s murderous reign as the UDA’s intelligence directer was actually a life-saving mission by the State.

    The judge said this while passing a lenient sentence on Nelson: ““I give, of course, considerable weight to the fact that he passed on what was possibly life-saving information in respect of 217 threatened individuals.”

    While the State was directing the UDA murder gang to murder Catholics, it did not direct it to murder members of its other murder gangs. In fact, of the two lives that were saved by the State – and not the claimed “217 threatened individuals” – one of them was the life of its tout Gerry Adams.

    “I could only find maybe two cases where the information given by Nelson may have been helpful to the Security Forces in preventing attacks.” – Nicholas Benwell of the Stevens Inquiry

    Now why didn’t the State use its other murder gang to murder leading members of PIRA rather than simply use it to randomly murder Catholics?

    It’s pretty obvious why: because it was using its murder gang t create the terror that the Catholics would need to experience if they were ever to be persuaded to renounce their national rights as the price for an end to the murder gang, and because it didn’t want its touts in one murder gang to kill its touts in its other murder gangs.