Last major inquiry into the Troubles now in prospect

Owen Paterson has quietly made two of the most significant announcements of his term as NI Secretary, however long it lasts. The verdict on holding a Finucane Inquiry will come in the New Year. The fact that the family appear not to have rejected his publicly undisclosed proposals out of hand this time suggests an inquiry is on the way.

This decision is consistent with Westminster’s bi partisan approach on inquiries.  It fulfils a pledge. This was the one inquiry the  government expected to be recommended by Judge Cory rather than the other three which actually went ahead.  The thoroughness of the Saville Inquiry  (although not held under the controversial 2005 Inquiries Act) may have eased the family’s fears of government interference and got them off their hook of intransigence – as it might appear to the British government. The public reception accorded to Saville has changed the climate and  all concerned would be wise to take advantage of it.   

As Finucane was regarded as unfinished business a new inquiry does not breach the government’s aim of no more public inquiries. If it does go ahead, government will doubtless try to represent it as the last major investigation into the Troubles. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

The intention to end 50:50 police recruitment in 2011 also follows Labour policy. Many people will be as surprised as they may be relieved to learn that this remains within the ambit of the British government rather than the Executive.  If he’s wise Paterson will have already taken soundings with the local parties already. The SDLP will point out that at 27% nationalist PSNI membership falls well short of matching the 44% Catholic population. The nationalist parties in practice retain a veto but not without a damaging row with unionism.  Assurances are needed that future recruitment – already facing restrictions due to the spending cuts – will not disfavour nationalists under fair employment procedures. This should be manageable unless the parties are foolish enough to make a fight of it.

, , , , , ,

  • Stephen Ferguson

    Was it not the PIRA who decided solicitors were ‘de facto legitimate targets’ with their murder of people like Edgar Graham?

  • another

    “Such a security conscious and secretive organisation is not going to let any Tom, Dick or Harry sit in on it’s sensitive debates.”

    You’re having a laugh…

  • Reader

    Alias: …a minister of the British government declaring in that state’s parliament that members of the legal profession were de facto legitimate targets.
    Could you and Granni Trixie get together and establish whether Hogg actually named Pat Finucane, or whether Hogg was making a more general point about mafia briefs and it was someone else who singled PF out for murder?

  • Rory Carr

    Will this do, Reader? :

    Stevens Inquiry

    In the report of his inquiry concerning collusion in Northern Ireland between loyalist paramilitaries and the state security forces, under “Other Matters concerning Collusion”, Sir John Stevens noted:

    “2.17 My Enquiry team also investigated an allegation that senior RUC officers briefed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Rt Hon Douglas Hogg QC, MP, that ‘some solicitors were unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA’. Mr Hogg repeated this view during a debate on the Prevention of Terrorism legislation in the House of Commons. Within a few weeks Patrick Finucane was murdered. Mr Hogg’s comments about solicitors’ support for terrorism made on 17 January 1989 aroused controversy. To the extent that they were based on information passed by the RUC, they were not justifiable and the Enquiry concludes that the Minister was compromised.” [3]

  • Ok, I can see you might not want to acknowledge the voices in your head –delusion and denial are siad to be common symptoms –that is where specialist treatment is needed.

    Finucane documented the threats with other lawyers and newspaper published details about the threats years before Stobie broke rank and made the cliams he made.

    I have not said what I think other than there is reasonbable doubt that Mr Finucane was murdered and the state or members of the security forces were involved –to find out is why the inquiry is so crucial –were members of the now PSNI involved in murdering people?

    You know everything for fact because you believe S O’C –wikipedia is your bible and voices in your head tell you things –one thing being that I believed stobie but not S O’C.

    I siad S O’C is an unreliable source not that what he says is absolutely not true. -do you see how you create facts from nothing? At this stage I do not think that you do and I am not just name calling –I do think you have mental issues and inability for reason beyond black and white.

  • Granni Trixie

    Edgar Graham may have been a solicitor but was his job not as a lecturer in QUB until he was elected to Stormont? Was he not murdered as a UU representative?

    Thanks Rory for that – I had forgotten details but I’m sure your evidence will be ignored as it doesn’t suit SF.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    “Ok, I can see you might not want to acknowledge the voices in your head –delusion and denial are siad to be common symptoms –that is where specialist treatment is needed.”

    Christy, any need for the personal insults?

    It makes you look like you’re incapable of a sensible debate.

    “Finucane documented the threats with other lawyers and newspaper published details about the threats years before Stobie broke rank and made the cliams he made.”

    Again, ALL based on the word of someone WHO LIED FOR A LIVING.

    If, as many believe, Finucane was a senior Provo then obviously he’ll do anything to blacken the name of the RUC.

    Any evidence apart from his accusations?

    “I have not said what I think other than there is reasonbable doubt that Mr Finucane was murdered and the state or members of the security forces were involved –to find out is why the inquiry is so crucial –were members of the now PSNI involved in murdering people?”

    I have watched/read a number of interviews from the people who are believed to have killed Pat Finucane. They were all members of the UFF. No British security forces were involved.

    If you’re having to resort to blatant lies to back up your failing argument then perhaps it’s best for you to walk away from this discussion.

    “You know everything for fact because you believe S O’C –wikipedia is your bible and voices in your head tell you things –one thing being that I believed stobie but not S O’C.”

    Again, what’s with the personal insults?

    Answer my points and leave your childish name-calling out of it.

    “I siad S O’C is an unreliable source not that what he says is absolutely not true. -do you see how you create facts from nothing? At this stage I do not think that you do and I am not just name calling –I do think you have mental issues and inability for reason beyond black and white.”

    Sean O’Callaghan has said a number of times he was at an IRA financing meeting in Letterkenny in 1980 alongside Pat Finucane and Gerry Adams.

    Do you believe this?

    if so, surely it confirms Pat Finucane’s position as a senior leader in the Provisional IRA.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    One might say that Pat Finucane was killed solely because of his position a a senior leader in the Provisional IRA.

    Indeed, the very men who killed him gave this reason in their statement claiming responsibility.

  • Reader

    Rory Carr: Will this do, Reader?
    Yes, thanks. I suspected that Granni was misremembering and it seems I was correct.
    The other problem with involving Hogg’s statement in a causal chain leading to PF’s murder is that you don’t need both collusion *and* Hogg to be part of it. Either or neither will do perfectly well.

  • foyle observer

    No, the RUC themselves said he wasn’t in the IRA, so ‘the very men who killed him’ said precisely the opposite.

    Also, you keep mentioning that Pat Finucane was a ‘senior leader’ in the IRA. Care to explain where the hell you’ve got this information from?

    Every tom, dick and harry in Ireland knows EXACTLY who were part of the senior leadership of the RA, Pat Finucane most definitely not being one of them.

    Why don’t you give this up and crawl back under that stone Mr Ferguson.

  • Throughout this thread –with me and other contributors you have been absolute in your position –no doubts what-so-ever that the state or security forces had been involved in Mr Finucane murder.

    Before any informers came about –it was documented during Mr Finucane’s lifetime that members of the security forces had been making threats on his life. He was fingered for death within the House of Commons.

    I have reasoned with you on how can you be absolute with S O’C’s account (which changes nothing in regard to the murder suspicions even if true) but you accept nothing else.

    You have removed doubt, unabashedly so, your sense of ‘Finucane got his just deserts’ so to speak.

    My dislike of you came from my suspicion about you which you have endevoured to increasingly confirm that you do not want any investigation into this man’s murder because you it would not suit your interests.

    My insults to you have come from a strong suspicion that your interests th

  • My last paragraph should read:

    My dislike of you came from my suspicion about you which you have endevoured to increasingly confirm that you do not want any investigation into this man’s murder because it would not suit your interests.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    “Throughout this thread –with me and other contributors you have been absolute in your position –no doubts what-so-ever that the state or security forces had been involved in Mr Finucane murder.”

    And no-one has given any evidence or new information that might change my opinion.

    “Before any informers came about –it was documented during Mr Finucane’s lifetime that members of the security forces had been making threats on his life.”

    The only witness to these ‘threats’ was Mr Finucane himself – a man who lied on daily basis to earn his living.

    Why believe an accomplished liar with political motivation to discredit the RUC?

    “I have reasoned with you on how can you be absolute with S O’C’s account (which changes nothing in regard to the murder suspicions even if true) but you accept nothing else.”

    But you only refute S O’C’s account because you disagree with it.

    Again, there has been no explanation as to why or possible acceptance that Pat Finucane was at an IRA financing meeting in Letterkenny in 1980.

    “You have removed doubt, unabashedly so, your sense of ‘Finucane got his just deserts’ so to speak.”

    People who suffered at the hands of the IRA (and the men who Finucane helped keep on the streets) might agree he got his ‘just deserts’ (sic).

    However, I don’t believe anyone should be killed to further a political cause.

    “My dislike of you came from my suspicion about you which you have endevoured to increasingly confirm that you do not want any investigation into this man’s murder because it would not suit your interests.”

    I hope I don’t dent your ego (again) but I’m not here to make friends with ex-prisoners. I simply want to express my opinions.

    I don’t want money wasted investigating the murder of someone who willingly involved themselves in The Troubles (for financial gain) whilst thousands of IRA victims get no further in their quest for the truth about what happened to them or their loved ones.

    Maybe we can have an inquiry into Pat Finucane after we get to the bottom of Claudy, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Jean McConville, Peter Wilson, etc, etc.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    So you’re happy to take the RUC’s word when you agree with what they were saying but you still believe they murdered him??? :rolleyes:

    Yet if they had claimed they suspected he was a senior Provisional the gurning about collusion would have been 100 times louder!

    They couldn’t win with you lot! 😀

    As for him being a senior leader, WHAT WAS HE DOING AT THAT IRA FINANCING MEETING IN LETTERKENNY?

    Surely it was’t open to the average knuckle-dragging neanderthals who made up the rank and file of the Provos???

  • Granni Trixie

    There is something vile about saying about a man that was murdered that he was in the IRA without more than SOC word. Reminds me of Bloddy Sunday victims who were also maligned.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    Did Saville not confirm one of the bloody Sunday dead was an IRA member with nail bombs in his pockets???

  • Rory Carr

    Why don’t you tell us, Stephen ? You are after all the expert on who and who was not an IRA member and I am quite sure that you would know the contents of their pockets as well.

    Don’t bother reading the Saville Report though. It might upset you.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    Ah, yet again….

    Nationalists cherrypick what they want to believe (unarmed, peace-loving civilians being gunned down in cold blood) but ignore the inconvenient truths (IRA nailbomber Gerald Donaghy was one of the dead, Marty was seen with a gun, etc, etc).

    No doubt if an inquiry found Pat Finucane was a senior Provo it’d be ignored/denied or put down to British security force slurs on his good name.

    It doesn’t work like that Rory – you have to accept ALL of the findings.

  • Kevin Barry

    “I do have a problem with the families of PIRA leaders complaining when thy have received the same treatment they were happy to dish out to thousands of others.”

    Care to offer some proof aside from your dogs in the street? Oh yes, that one mention in the book of someone formerly in the PIRA that he was at a fund raiser in Letterkenny. Flimsy basis of not only inferring he was a member, but a leader. Do try better.

    “Blame the PIRA.

    They made solicitors ‘fair game’.”

    No, I blame those who killed him and who ordered the hit. Call me old fashioned, but I think those who committed the killing and ordered it should take the responsibility, but of course, throughout this thread you have been trying to shift responsibility for the murder in cold blood away from an innocent solicitor onto him for some pathetic reason.

    “Where’s the evidence for this?

    Just because he was killed by a group which may have contained an informer does not mean it was ordered by the British security services.

    Their handlers didn’t watch touts every second of every day.”

    Stevens Report anybody? You seem to like lifting things from wikipedia, why not the Stevens Report? Let me guess, doesn’t help in arguing for the murder of a solicitor in cold blood? No, instead, you take the word of someone from PIRA who many think to be a clown and take everything he says to be the truth, when questioned on the trustworthiness of his testimony, about how he was sent to LDN to kill Charles and Di etc (thus starting to show that he may not be a reliable source) you say that we are all saying that he is unreliable as it fits in with our

    “hypocritical propaganda led by a political party who certainly approved of Unionist solicitors being killed.”

    Instead, you clearly rely on the testimony of someone who unashamedly tells us how good he was in the PIRA without questioning his testimony whatsoever as it happens to fit neatly in with your theory. Are you afraid he might become discredited, thus blowing your flimsy argument up?

    “I doubt you’d believe Mark Haddock’s handlers ordered him to kill Sharon McKenna, would you??”

    Try and stay on topic Stephen, the thread is about Pat Finucane, remember.

    “When you have some actual evidence that the British government ordered this murder then perhaps you’ll have something to gurn about.”

    Was this a matter discussed at a cabinet meeting on Monday morning in 1989? Probably not. Were the forces of the State involved with the murder of a solicitor in cold blood? Last time I checked, the RUC was a force, as was the Force Research Unit of the Army, therefore, it follows that the Government has questions to answer over this whole affair.

    As I wait with a baited breath on your reply I ask if you can at least answer me one simple question:

    Do you think that if the forces of the Government where involved in the extra-judicial murder of someone should they, the forces of the State, not be made to face the same laws as you and I?

    I don’t agree with solicitors being killed, or anyone for that matter. The point that you seem to completely miss over this whole matter is not the fact that he was a nationalist, but the fact that a lot of evidence and reports point to the fact that the State was in some way involved with his murder; that when other solicitors were murdered, the forces of the state investigated those who did these horrible acts, while in this case, the forces of the state helped orchestrate his murder and then did all in their power to cover up their involvement; the fact that a Government should be held to a higher standard than others who act outside of the rule of law does not even come up in your thinking or analysis.

    I expect a lot of whataboutery and nonsense from you next…

  • Kevin Barry

    Stephen: Why do you believe Sean O’Callaghan so unreservedly and without question?

  • Kevin Barry

    Stephen: Why do you believe Sean O’Callaghan so unreservedly and without question?

  • Stephen Ferguson

    “Care to offer some proof aside from your dogs in the street? Oh yes, that one mention in the book of someone formerly in the PIRA that he was at a fund raiser in Letterkenny. Flimsy basis of not only inferring he was a member, but a leader. Do try better.”

    Not a fundraiser Kev – an IRA financing meeting alongside Gerry Adams (believed to be Army Council) and Sean O’Callaghan (head of IRA Southern Command). It most definitely wasn’t a ‘knees-up’ down the local Felons club. Only the PIRA’s major players would have been at such a gathering.

    “No, I blame those who killed him and who ordered the hit. Call me old fashioned, but I think those who committed the killing and ordered it should take the responsibility, but of course, throughout this thread you have been trying to shift responsibility for the murder in cold blood away from an innocent solicitor onto him for some pathetic reason.”

    Nonsense. I have condemned the murder and stated my opposition to all political violence on numerous occasions.

    PIRA and Loyalists would both claim they were fighting a ‘war’ from 1969 to 1998. In war there are ‘legitimate targets’ and those who are not. When the PIRA began murdering solicitors it’s only natural that their enemies would start doing likewise.

    “Stevens Report anybody?”

    Did the Stevens Report find the killing of Pat Finucane was ordered by the British state???

    “Instead, you clearly rely on the testimony of someone who unashamedly tells us how good he was in the PIRA without questioning his testimony whatsoever as it happens to fit neatly in with your theory. Are you afraid he might become discredited, thus blowing your flimsy argument up?”

    He was obviously credible and respected enough to rise to the position of IRA Southern Command, wasn’t he???

    “Try and stay on topic Stephen, the thread is about Pat Finucane, remember.”

    Answer the point.

    Just because an informer might have been involved in a murder does not mean it was ordered by the British state. Handlers did not watch their agents 24/7.

    “Was this a matter discussed at a cabinet meeting on Monday morning in 1989? Probably not.”

    So it wasn’t ordered by the British state then??

    “Do you think that if the forces of the Government where involved in the extra-judicial murder of someone should they, the forces of the State, not be made to face the same laws as you and I?”

    If they planned, ordered and carried out the murder then certainly they should. That is most definitely not what occurred with the killing of Pat Finucane.

    “I don’t agree with solicitors being killed, or anyone for that matter. The point that you seem to completely miss over this whole matter is not the fact that he was a nationalist, but the fact that a lot of evidence and reports point to the fact that the State was in some way involved with his murder; that when other solicitors were murdered, the forces of the state investigated those who did these horrible acts, while in this case, the forces of the state helped orchestrate his murder and then did all in their power to cover up their involvement; the fact that a Government should be held to a higher standard than others who act outside of the rule of law does not even come up in your thinking or analysis.”

    More nonsense.

    Men were arrested and convicted in relation to Finucane’s murder.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    He was there.

  • Kevin Barry

    Ah, and because he was there he, Sean O’Callaghan, would be unable to lie?

  • Kevin Barry

    Sean O’Callaghan has the ability to kill but does not have the ability to lie?

  • Stephen Ferguson

    Seeing as he was there I would tend to believe his version of events rather than yours.

    Pat Finucane was at an IRA meeting for senior members in Letterkenny in 1980. Now, what was he doing there?

  • Kevin Barry

    I’ll ask you once again Stephen, you would take the word of a killer without question? Is he incapable of lying.

    How about you answer the question Stephen this time.

  • Kevin Barry

    “Not a fundraiser Kev – an IRA financing meeting alongside Gerry Adams (believed to be Army Council) and Sean O’Callaghan (head of IRA Southern Command). It most definitely wasn’t a ‘knees-up’ down the local Felons club. Only the PIRA’s major players would have been at such a gathering.”

    You have proof? Oh, yes, yet again, your friend Sean who you don’t question whatsoever.

    “He was obviously credible and respected enough to rise to the position of IRA Southern Command, wasn’t he???”

    Credible? This a former PIRA man? He claimed he was sent to kill Charles and Di and was a known snitch, right?

    “Nonsense. I have condemned the murder and stated my opposition to all political violence on numerous occasions.”

    But you qualify the murder of Pat Finucane?

    “So it wasn’t ordered by the British state then??”

    Are you seriously saying that all decisions of the Government have to be made at a Cabinet meeting? Really?

    “Answer the point.

    Just because an informer might have been involved in a murder does not mean it was ordered by the British state. Handlers did not watch their agents 24/7.”

    True, however, I again refer you to the Stevens Inquiry and specifically that government forces including the RUC, Special Branch and the Force Research Unit all were involved. And you can say, with a straight face that the Government was not involved. I think you should speak to those dogs you seem to get so much of your info from. Try and stay on topic Stephen.

    “If they planned, ordered and carried out the murder then certainly they should. That is most definitely not what occurred with the killing of Pat Finucane.”

    And you know this? How? Again, Stevens Report showing collusion and the forces of the Government were most certainly involved.

    So, if the next inquiry confirms what Stevens has already confirmed can we expect you on here noting that those within the Government who planned the killing of Pat Finucane should be brought to justice?

    “More nonsense.”

    Care to elaborate? Oh, you’re refering to William Stobie while I’m referring to the guys in Special Branch, the RUC and Force Research Unit who aided and abetted him. You know, the guys who Stevens said were all involved.

    A state should be built on the idea of the rule of law, that no one is above it and that those who break these laws should be brought to justice.

    You are basing some of your argument on a book by a known killer, without questioning what he says or whether it is reliable merely to forward your twisted view.

    To think that a man like Pat Finucane invited his own murder for defending his clients, a right for all of us, is sick in the extreme.

    You say that you do not condone political violence and then in the same piece, with flimsy evidence at best you claim he was a senior commander in the PIRA and infer that if you live by the sword you die by the sword. That’s not good enough for me. If he was in PIRA, please provide me with something a bit more rock solid, some decent evidence. What you have shown is pathetic and would not stand in a court of law.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    He was there. That’s why I believe him.

    Understand?

  • Kevin Barry

    A convicted murdered is incapable of lying?

    Understand?

  • Kevin Barry

    Sorry, that should be ‘murderer’

  • JJM

    Stephen.

    He was checked out multiple times by meds and others who carried him, yet none of them felt any huge bulges in his pockets…strange eh?

    But 30 minutes later a soldier ‘finds’ a nail bomb in his pocket.

    Give me a break

  • JJM

    Don’t disparage Donaghy.

  • Stephen Ferguson

    “You have proof? Oh, yes, yet again, your friend Sean who you don’t question whatsoever.”

    He would obviously know more than either you or I.

    “Credible? This a former PIRA man? He claimed he was sent to kill Charles and Di and was a known snitch, right?”

    That didn’t stop him rising to one of the most senior positions in the PIRA. The rank and file of the organisation obviously felt he was ‘credible’.

    “But you qualify the murder of Pat Finucane?”

    No, it was entirely wrong. Though he can’t be classed as an innocent victim like the La Mon pensioners burnt to death, the Spanish kids blown to pieces in the Omagh bomb or Peter Wilson.

    He willingly involved himself in The Troubles for financial gain so cannot be labelled ‘innocent’.

    “Are you seriously saying that all decisions of the Government have to be made at a Cabinet meeting? Really?”

    That’s what many Nationalists (including a few on this site) would have the world believe. That the British Prime Minister rubber stamped a directive to murder Finucane.

    “True, however, I again refer you to the Stevens Inquiry and specifically that government forces including the RUC, Special Branch and the Force Research Unit all were involved.”

    ‘Involved’ in what way?

    Did they plan the murder?
    Order the killers to carry it out?
    Chauffeur them to and from the scene?

    Stevens did not mention any of this. A vague bit about mixing up intelligence and a failure to hold on to evidence was about the height of it. We don’t know if that evidence was misplaced after the huge IRA bomb at the forensic laboratories in Belvoir in 1992 which destroyed decades of records and evidence.

    “And you know this? How? Again, Stevens Report showing collusion and the forces of the Government were most certainly involved.”

    And not once did Stevens mention British security forces planned, ordered or carried out the killing.

    Do you accept Stevens or not?

    If you do then surely you have to accept ALL OF IT??

    “So, if the next inquiry confirms what Stevens has already confirmed can we expect you on here noting that those within the Government who planned the killing of Pat Finucane should be brought to justice?”

    BUT STEVENS NEVER CLAIMED THEY ‘PLANNED’ THE KILLING!

    If you provide me with evidence that people in the British security forces or government planned, ordered or carried out the killing I’ll certainly back your call for prosecutions.

    “Oh, you’re refering to William Stobie while I’m referring to the guys in Special Branch, the RUC and Force Research Unit who aided and abetted him. You know, the guys who Stevens said were all involved.”

    You’re reading things in Stevens report that aren’t actually there.

    “You are basing some of your argument on a book by a known killer, without questioning what he says or whether it is reliable merely to forward your twisted view.”

    Surely he would know who and what he witnessed at those secret IRA meetings in Letterkenny in 1980. Just because he’s a killer doesn’t mean he’s obviously a liar.

    Gerry Adams has never been convicted of murder yet has been been proven to be a pathological liar over the past few decades.

    Murder and lying do not go hand in hand.

    “To think that a man like Pat Finucane invited his own murder for defending his clients, a right for all of us, is sick in the extreme.”

    Yet he would have been willing to defend IRA men who were guilty of killing Unionist solicitors and done everything in his power to keep them out of jail.

    THAT is ‘sick in the extreme’.

    “You say that you do not condone political violence and then in the same piece, with flimsy evidence at best you claim he was a senior commander in the PIRA and infer that if you live by the sword you die by the sword. That’s not good enough for me. If he was in PIRA, please provide me with something a bit more rock solid, some decent evidence. What you have shown is pathetic and would not stand in a court of law.”

    I don’t recall the IRA ever looking for ‘court of law’ standard evidence when they killed people. Why should Loyalists??

    The UFF were happy with the information they had which pointed to the fact that Finucane was a senior provisional IRA leader (like his three brothers). As the IRA were willing to kill Loyalists then surely any senior Provo had expect that some night their enemy might come knocking.

    The ‘innocent solicitor’ nonsense is pure lies and needs to stop immediately.

  • Kevin Barry

    At last, we get to the bottom of it.

    “Yet he would have been willing to defend IRA men who were guilty of killing Unionist solicitors and done everything in his power to keep them out of jail.

    THAT is ‘sick in the extreme’.”

    You’re pissed that someone accused of being in or having anything to do with the PIRA would be afforded the same rights at trial as anyone else!

    I knew it but was just waiting for you to say it. Are you saying you’re against people being presumed innocent before trial? Are you against these people being brought before trial and having someone defend them? The answer is Yes of course. I am actually laughing my leg off here at you.

    That’s why your saying he was a senior figure in PIRA. Funny, being a murderer (Sean O’Callaghan (SOC)) would mean that your testimony might be seen as less trustworthy in a court of law rather than a blog. Seems like they have a higher standard of proof, evidence etc. Quite right also.

    The fact that SOC would, in front of a court of law, be deemed to be of bad character (a murderer), furthermore, SOC’s “evidence”(ha ha ha ha) would fall under the rule of hear say.

    As I have asked you many a time this evening, are you saying SOC is incapable of lying? Lets see if you can answer the question this time, he he he

    Also, nice bit of whataboutery re the UVF and the IRA and other atrocities, please try and stay on topic Stephen.

    Looking forward to how you won’t bother answering any of the points raised…

  • Granni Trixie

    SF; You are certainly a consistent troll. Saville confirmed that there were no bombs in anyones pockets. Everyone killed on BS wqs completerly ‘innocent’.

    You should show more respect for the dead of the Troubles.

    It is strange is it not that you seem knowledgeable yet you get it wrong every time. You have to be a troll or a plant.

  • Kevin, SF appears to have a vested interest to ignore all other evidence, circumstantial evidence and any reasonable doubt. He is illogical because it suits his argument.

    He certainly feels a sense of satisfaction that Pat Finucane was killed and has little regard for British Courts when it comes to conviction ‘beyond reasonablke doubt’. -only a small minority of defendants walked free from Diplock Courts and so we can assume that only a small number of Mr Finucane’s clients were successful –that they may actually have been innocent is something Sf refuses to contemplate –SF has trigger finger reasoning.

    As for S O’C, William Stobie or any other informer often with personal interests to tell lies –only an investigation will lend weight to the probability of one or none of them telling the truth –after all –was S O’C might not have been there –because there might not have been any meeting –I am sure SF would not accept that the Crown Forces had been instrumental in the devastation caused in Omagh.

  • Kevin Barry

    Thanks Christy. Agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Good luck with your campaign btw

  • Alan Maskey

    So: Was the killing of Pat Finucane worse than that of non person Peterr Wilson? By the hot air here, it seems to be more of an issue and cause for concern. Should the Brits name a street after Wilson or McConville the same way the Iranians named a street after Sands?
    Why not have an enquiry into the interestingly named Francisco Notarantonio, murdered to save someone else with an Italian name who Gerry insists was never a tout.
    From a Loyalist viewpoint, who would have been a better target, Finucane or harmless old Notarantonio?
    To say that Finucane was the George Best of the legal profession is bs. Had the cards been reversed, PIRA would have regarded him as a legitimate target. Edgar Graham and Robert Bradford certainly were.
    Stephen: Bloody Sunday is the wrong comparitor. Billy Wright is a better one. Put Wright and Finucane on the same plane. That will get the bleeding hearts going, baying for your blood, but not for the heads of those who spilled blood.

  • Cheers Kevin.