Sammy Brush on McGeough’s conviction

Pete has a blog on McGeough’s conviction for the attempted murder of Samuel Brush below and has also covered the suggestion that Sinn Fein might use its influence to try to help McGeough. Today the Belfast telegraph has a piece about Mr. Brush’s reaction to the trial and conviction.

Brush has met Michelle Gildernew and says he was touched by the gesture of her coming to see him and said “I have spoken to her on several occasions since she visited me. I would speak to her if I met her today and I get on very well with her father Liam, who is on the council.”

However, he is extremely critical of Gildernew’s call for McGeough not to be sent to gaol for his crime:

“Michelle has lost her marbles. We can’t simply throw out the law when we don’t like what it produces.”

“You can’t have one law for Irish republicans and one law for the rest of us.”
He said: “I am not keen on the fact that my attacker expresses no remorse and will only have to serve a maximum of two years, but it is something people voted for under the Good Friday Agreement so I have to accept it. So should she.
“You would think that he was being put away forever.”

Thus far Ms. Gildernew has not commented

, , , ,

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Did Mc Geough come under the heading of ‘On the Runs’ as discussed between the British and SF?

    If so, this was one of the matters fudged at the GFA negotiations and was always going to be subject to political consideration – which is the very nature of the GFA settlement.

    As I remember it the British and SF had reached agreement on the OTR issue and it was scuppered by the SDLP embarassing SF by reminding them that British Security Forces would also be benefit if the deal went through.

    Mr Brush, might therefore, also wish to seek clarification, comment from the British on this.

    Leaving the politics aside Mr Brush’s attitude to Gildernew and her father is an impressive example of forgiveness and dealing with the past.

  • “You would think that he was being put away forever.”

    Given McGeough has had two heart attacks recently, he could very well be getting put away forever.

  • between the bridges

    ulick, in most civilized counties if convicted of a crime you do the time, regardless of the fact you may or may not be suffering from the flu. now we are yet to reach the heady heights of normality and civilization but mr brush comments show that perhaps we can. as for mr geough’s lack of remorse, maybe he is only sorry that he didn’t finish the job? be assured that somewhere,out there, a croc is crying.

  • @between the bridges, whether you care to acknowledged it or not McGeough did not commit a crime in the normal sense, something recognised by the special prisoner status granted pre-1976/post-1982 and by the special provisions releasing prisoners in the GFA. The fact that he has now been ‘convicted’ by a bastardised version of justice, a relic from the past, further hightlights that no matter how the unionist mindset would wish it otherwise, he is no criminal.

    As for Sammy Brush, as a former combatant, he should have been big enough to recognise this instead of pursuing his own petty revenge agenda.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    between the bridges,

    In most countries when there is an insurgency and the insurgents assume power those involved in the insurgency dont go to jail.

  • between the bridges

    ulick, whether you care to acknowledge it or not a civilized normal country (ie one without a jihad against fellow countrymen) it is somewhat unusual to get shot for cleaning a police station or perhaps carrying out a civic duty such as jury duty, ( just in case your wondering how that barstewart justice came about)

    sammy when insurgents become part of the establishment well then as mr orwell says the pigs become farmers. as for petty revenge against someone that shot you…..shocking!

  • If people who were engaged in the conflict are not going to be prosecuted for what they did between 1969-2004, then it needs to include everyone, whether they be British solders, loyalist or republican para-miltaries.

    You cannot have selected prosecutions, especially when one of the participants in the conflict is doing the selecting, it smacks of victors justice.

    My take on the McGeough charade is here.

    http://is.gd/atWZ2O

  • between the bridges, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. The north is not a “normal country”, never was, probably never will be, hence the reason why McGeough’s gaoling is unjust.

  • ItwasSammyMcNally

    Mickhall,

    Was McGeogh one of the so-called OTRs?

  • Turgon

    Ulrick,
    “whether you care to acknowledged it or not McGeough did not commit a crime in the normal sense, something recognised by the special prisoner status granted pre-1976/post-1982 and by the special provisions releasing prisoners in the GFA. “

    The logic to that, however, is that the agreement’s proceedures should be followed. Those have been voted on and accepted. I may oppose the agreement and Ulrick may (or may not) for very different reasons.

    The provisions accepted in the Belfast Agreement are that indeed a convicted criminal spends only two years in gaol. I may loathe that but that is what was agreed. What was most definitely not agreed, however, was an amnesty for the likes of McGeough. Indeed since McGeough refuses to accept the agreement it is a moot point whether or not he should benefit from it. Benefit he does though and that benefit is only having two rather than ten or more years in gaol.

    Mickhall is, however, also correct. All those against whom prosecution can be mounted should be prosecuted. If they are found guilty then they should go to gaol: if innocent they go free. That should be applied to all without fear or favour be they police officers, soldiers, former paramilitaries or indeed current politicians.

  • between the bridges

    ulick i belive my point is unless mr geoghan is sharing a cell with Steve mcqueen and receiving parcels from the red cross he is a criminal. petty as mr brush may seem to yourself personally i think that he displays fairness and open mind, a lesson to us all.

  • @SammyMcNally, Gerry was one of the OTRs. Many of them are now living quietly in the north.

    @bridges glib responses without addressing the points don’t really merit a reply.

    @estragon I don’t recall any mention of Diplock courts in the GFA. Indeed one of the annexes mentions that the justice system should conform to human rights norms. The continued use of Diplock courts is contrary to that.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Ulick, the intimidation of witnesses in this case was obvious and it can therefore be presumed a jury would be similarly intimidated, therefore the exceptional circumstances for having a non-jury trial is proved.

  • DR it is not proved neither was the allegation of witness intimidation.

  • Drumlins Rock

    BTW Ulick, although we take Jury trial as sacrosanct in common law, most countries in the world operate Civil Law where all trials are a version of Diplock, and presuming you are a socialist, Jury trial has never been a feature of socialist states.

  • between the bridges

    mickhall, valid point all or none, but in a case of trying to be all things to all men we end up with this fudging, no doubt there are worse walking our street’s that mr geoghan. imho the only good thing that comes out of this case is that just maybe some who have thought themselves in the clear might now have a little doubt…

    ulick in that case it was rather good of you to respond my thanks, now as you have stated ‘diplock courts’ do not meet your high standards for justice. can i assume that mr geoghan acting as judge jury and executioner does meet your high standards for justice?

  • vanhelsing

    BTB ‘ulick in that case it was rather good of you to respond my thanks, now as you have stated ‘diplock courts’ do not meet your high standards for justice. can i assume that Mr McGeough acting as judge jury and executioner does meet your high standards for justice?’

    🙂 nice point

    VH

  • DR: my post was in direct reference to turgons logic if the GFA is followed in all cases, McGeough’s conviction should be accepted. If so then he should be able to access a justice system that conforms to human rights norms. There is nothing about this case which conforms to human rights norms, the Diplock system included. The case should have been thrown out years ago.

    bridges: I have no idea who Mr Geoghan is but this case cannot ignore the fact of the special circumstances in which the incident happened i.e. a low intensity war.

  • vanhelsing

    what about Sammys human rights?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

    ‘Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life’

  • between the bridges

    ulick my humble apologies but i have misplaced my copy of ‘the dangerous book for boys militaristic political mumbojumpo phrases for excusing murder’ can you pdf me a copy? its the only way me and you will ever be on the same page.

  • Oh please, do you really want to back to the conflict and question the application of the Eurpean Convention on Human Rights to every incident? Where would you like to start – Burntollet, Bombay St., Bloody Sunday?

    Maybe you’d be better off accepting the Brits didn’t enact the Convention into their domestic legislation until 1998, 16 years after Sammy Brush was able to pull his gun on his attacker.

  • Turgon

    Ulrick,
    The outcome of what you call a “low intensity war” was defeat for those trying to end British rule in Ireland. Now a compromise was agreed at referrendum by Northern Ireland (and indeed the RoI). That compromise agreed to the release of certain criminals after 2 years. McGeogh despite opposing that agreement will benefit from it.

    The Diplock court system as mentioned above is not remotely far from most legal systems on the continent. Having a judge and no jury may well make conviction less not more likely.

    As you know full well jury intimidation makes a fair jury trial extremely difficult. I suppose one might get a jury more difficult to intimidate in say Bangor or Coleraine or even in mainland GB but I suspect you might find the chances of McGeough’s conviction even higher in such a circumstance.

    That said since he had confessed to the attempted murder to the Swedish authorities, had used his own name when admitted to hospital in the RoI and had appropriate wounds and tattoos it is all looking a bit difficult for the McGeough is innocent campaign.

    Incidentally if you believe that this was a “low intensity war” I presume you favour the prosecution of criminals in the Hague for any war crimes they may have committed such as killing prisoners, torture and such like. Of course in that event the 2 year release provisions might not apply which could be even more unfortunate for those convicted.

  • between the bridges

    ulick progress at last ‘combat ant’ to ‘attacker’ would that be a criminal attack? or the more military “Auftauchen!”?

  • Mr Brush comes out of this well.
    We can yap on about agreements but why jail the monkey and let the organ grinder into parliament?

  • between the bridges

    don’t want to start a conspiracy theory but perhaps the monkey should have worked for m.f.i too?

  • Estragon.

    It seems you are trying to weasel your way out of your previous point on applying the GFA. Your opinion on the outcome of the conflict is neither here nor there. Similarly, your opinion on the suitability of Diplock courts is not going to sway anyone because, like you know, you would say that, just like I’m pretty sure you’ve tried to justify every other ham-fisted British intervention in Ireland. Besides the insinuation of what you said is wildly inaccurate, which even a cursory glance at conviction rates for scheduled offences and the number of miscarriage of justice cases now coming to light proves.

    There was no proven intimidation of any witnesses in this case. Indeed the two witnesses gave testimony to their priest and solicitors to that effect, so you can forget about that one. It is also highly questionable whether the Swedish evidence would be permissible in a normal court. Now we could sit here all day debating whether McGeough is innocent or not according to your criteria and your highly held values of British justice (which don’t apply to the Irish in their own country), but it is all immaterial. McGeough and Brush were both fully-fledged, weapons toting combatants in a war. Neither is denying that or could do with any degree of creditability. Where the two can be separated is the likes of Brush and yourself are like the Japanese in the jungle unaware or unwilling to accept the changes that have happened to the rest of the world.

    Regarding the Hague court I would have no problem with any referral to there though considering they’ll only accept cases from 2002, I’d be interested to know how you’d get on with that one.

  • Donations can be made to the McGeough Family Fund via PayPal @

    http://freegerry.com/donate.html

  • between the bridges

    Where the two can be separated is the likes of Brush and yourself are like the Japanese in the jungle unaware or unwilling to accept the changes that have happened to the rest of the world.

    Carlsberg don’t do irony but ulick does…

  • Turgon

    Ulrick,
    I see you have not adressed my point about jury intimidation. Like I suggested maybe the trial would have been acceptable to you in mainland GB? or maybe not.

    Actually from memory did the RoI have jury courts for terrorists during the Troubles?

    You have also not noted that the Belfast Agreement made no provision for an amnesty: it did allow for early release; something McGeough may benefit from. I am not weaseling my way out of anything: go read the Agreement; no amnesty, no wiping the slate clean. McGeough is a criminal and will remain so.

    Calling Samuel Brush or Gerry McGeough “fully-fledged, weapons toting combatants in a war” is of course utter nonsense. Sammy Brush was delivering letters: that is not a military action. McGeough tried to murder him whilst he was driving a post van and delivering letters. Thankfull Mr. Brush had a legally owned firearm. Also thankfully unlike McGeough he had the ability, courage and good fortune to use it to save his life. Had McGeough not shot at Mr. Brush he would not have been shot by Mr. Brush and indeed would not now be going to gaol. McGeough has only himself to blame for his current state of affairs.

    It is not me who is hiding in the metaphorical jungle. If you look whom you pay your taxes to; whose head is on the money; what colour the post boxes are; which flag is outside Belfast City Halll you will see who is hiding from the truth. I happen to think the British Government gave far, far too much but there you have it: it is still the United Kingdom we live in: get used to it.

    As to the Hague court fair enough. I would settle for a Nuremburg style tribunal provbided they dropped the death penalty and provided everyone was ameanable to it.

    Then again I am actually entirely happy with the current system by which a court here prosecutes suspected criminals: those found innocent are free to go; those found guilty get punished. The difference between that and the sort of justice McGeough and his friends utilised is marked.

  • between the bridges

    i agree with turgon basically your ‘combat ant’ tried to murder postman pat,
    ( i don’t remember that in Sun Tzu’s art of low intensity war)
    and got a slap for his trouble now he is getting a rap on the knuckles, good luck with the fundraising might i be as bold as to suggest a single? perhaps ub40, well it worked for nelson.

  • Nunoftheabove

    Nobody let the organ grinder into ‘parliament’ – he was elected to go there whether you, I or anyone else likes it.

    You have not got the slightest slither of credible evidence linking Mr McGeough’s involvement in the failed assassination attempt on Mr Brush to this organ grinder – about whom you appear to be utterly obsessed – so can you either front something of substance (validity, even) or let this thing drop. If you’re anything like as well connected as you want the rest of us to think you are then you should have very little bother producing some credible evidence beyond these fanciful Baldrick-esque conspiracies. Are you sure you weren’t working as a coffee boy/girl in Colin Wallace’s Thiepval Barracks unit in the early to mid-1970s ?

  • Zachariah Tiffins Foot

    I find Sammy Brush’s attitude very impressive. What an honourable chap he seems to be. Contrast that to the pathetic moaning of his bitter cowardly attacker who tries to paint himself as the victim in all this.

    Sammy I salute. You’re a much better man than me. If I’d have been in your shoes I would have wanted to hunt the fecker down and string him up from the nearest tree.

  • Nunoftheabove: Someone ordered IRA ASUs to go out and shoot UDR men Who do you think was giving the orders? If you don’t know, ask Gerry Adams and/or Martin McGuinness.
    Somneone was also aborting those missions. If you don’t knlow who, ask the usual suspects ,the organ grinders.

  • Alan

    If what you imply is true, surely they were the monkeys, not the organ grinder.

  • Good point as ever Mick Hall. Very true. And very sad.

  • Nunoftheabove

    “Who do you think was giving the orders? If you don’t know, ask Gerry Adams and/or Martin McGuinness” – I am under no misapprehension about who ordered it and/or who ok’d it at a more senior level (if at all) and am under no misapprehension about the essential untruthfulness of what’s on the record – thus far – by MMcG and A regarding thee length, depth or breadth of their involvement. So what ?!

    Now you appear to be saying that McG was set up by being provided with duff weaponry in 1981 – again, utterly baseless and not worth discussing further.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Ulrick, Turgon,

    The question about diplock courts to me is nothing to do with jury intimidation (although that is their principle justification). It is to do with a fair trial.

    I don’t think you’re a fool Ulrick which is why I’m surprised that you’re blindly parroting out the old line about Diplock. Tell me, in a place which is pretty much 90% opposed to McGeough’s current politics (which I agree is probably a contributing part of his current predicament), how do you think you would go about selecting an unbiased jury that would stick to the facts of the case ? Hell, go back to any period between the 1960s and the 1980s where unionists consistently got around 70% of the vote. What sort of makeup do you think a jury would have had, had it been randomly drawn from the population at the time ? Indeed how would republicans trust the process by which jurors were selected ? If you were a Republican and you were caught doing something, would you accept a jury even with nationalists like Seamus “a vote for SF is a vote for the IRA” Mallon on it ?

    Secondly, there is nothing in any human rights conventions (eg the ECHR) about the right to a jury-based trial. It’s not a “human rights norm”, there is no automatic or compulsory requirement for a jury trial in many kinds of case for many given Western nations. The requirements are for a fair trial and, as I argued above, jury trials can be quite easily set up in a way that would create an unfair trial. There is no way to hold the jury accountable for a wrongful conviction, especially given the principle that juries are supposed to deliberate in private without external influence.

    I know that if I was up in court in a case which involved finely balanced nuances in law, and it was a question of placing my trust in a panel of practiced and (even at least theoretically) accountable judges or a panel of randomly selected muppets from the arsehole of nowhere who may well know zero about the law, I would consider it an open and shut case.

    Thirdly, this bollocks about “British policy in Ireland” is a bunch of bullshit as well. The Special Criminal Court is rather more draconian than what we have here and it was introduced before Diplock. So you could say that Diplock was the introduction of an Irish innovation. Hell, the Free State introduced internment and the rounding up of ex-Provos long before Stormont came up with the concept. That leaves aside the fact that the idea of a jury in the form we are talking about is an English one.

    So stop spouting the bullshit and admit the truth, which is that you know fine well that this bullshit about Diplock is a sideshow designed to soak dollars and guns off certain stupid Americans who unquestioningly think that the US Constitution is the only valid declaration of the human rights of mankind. And stop the bullshit about McGeough being a combatant. If he was an honourable soldier he’d do his time as a prisoner of war and stop bitching about it. And you’re absolutely damn right that his conviction flows from the fact that he is running around the country doing speeches that would clearly have the effect of inciting violent dissident activity. The people of Ireland, north and south, don’t want his kind around anymore and frankly I think most of us would be just as happy if he’d fuck off and die.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Hell, the Free State introduced internment and the rounding up of ex-Provos long before Stormont came up with the concept.

    Before anyone nitpicks, yes I know they weren’t provos. The point still stands,.

  • Zig70

    This reminds me of my darling 10yr old. Every day I get it, ‘It’s not fair!’ . Queue the lecture on actions and consequences, followed quickly by ‘my house, my rules.’ Doesn’t stop the whining. At least he’ll grow up… Maybe.

  • Memo to self: Don’t try to whack Sammy Brish.

  • Drumlins Rock

    ‘my house, my rules.’
    maybe not that far of the mark there Zig.

  • orly

    In this thread: Ulick looks like a silly little apologist. Bringing Human Rights into it is similarly epic idiocy.

    Time for you to go away.

  • USA

    Comrade,
    Very weak arguement. Losing your touch?

  • Cynic2

    Its always great to see weasel words protesting about the human rights and ‘right to a fair trial’ for people who hid waiting to kill a fellow human being because of blind racial and political hatred.

  • Cynic2

    By the way Ulrick, the fair trail provisions in Article 6 dont mention a Jury.

    ARTICLE 6

    In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
    (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
    (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
    (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
    (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

    Mc Geough got his rights and Diplock Courts are compliant.

    By the way, the Jury of his peers stuff you quote comes largely from English Common Law and I believe perhaps even Magna Carta. Glad you are (slowly) realising the benefits of British civilization and the benefits it has brought to Ireland

  • Comrade Stalin

    Your arguments against jury trial would make your namesake proud. Having sat on a jury, my experience of my fellow jurors was far from them being muppets, they took the whole process extremely seriously and if we needed advice on a point of law we asked the judge. They were a real credit to the community they were there to serve.

    In any case I do not accept in this day and age ordinary unionists would not judge a republican fairly if called to serve on a jury, the more so if the make up of the jury was fairly balanced to reflect the society Mcgeough lived in.

    In my limited personal experience and that of others the psychology of juries just do not work like that.

    The system of jury trial is far from perfect, but it is far the best human kind has come up with to date. The problem with non jury trials is the judge comes with far more prejudicial baggage than the average jury, and unlike with a jury, it cannot be balance out.

    In a political case such as McGeough’s, it is far worse than that as the Judges whole future career may depend on their verdict. I am not suggesting they all behave in an unscrupulous manner but being human beings some undoubtedly have.

    In the McGeough case it was all either here say, circumstantial or the very contentious Swedish asylum application.

    Ireland has always been treated as a backwater by the UK state as if its people are not fit to have the same protection of the law as the rest of us.There are no Diplock type courts in the rest of the UK when it comes to Islamic terrorists, or major criminals, and nor should there be.

    During the New Labour government there were pressures to end jury trial for city business people as it was claimed the cases were to complicated for us ordinary mortals. If we look how things in the City of London eventually panned out, one get an idea why these demands were being made.

    When the powerful attempt to weaken the jury system it is always because they see benefits in it for themselves, whether it be political advantage or business.

    All you need to judge your fellow man is a good heart, a head full of legalese makes a judge the Guardian of the process, not the judgement, that must be left in the hands of the common man/woman.

    Best regards

  • Comrade Stalin
    Jackson, Doran, Boyle, Hadden, & Hillyard have all done empirical studies on the Diplock Courts and their conclusions on Trial prior to the introduction to Diplock Courts was that even in republican related cases Juries showed no undue indication of bias( possibly due to regard to British common law to which they cherish). They were referring specifically to Unionist Juries while you can only speculate and presume at best.

    I know that if I was up in court in a case which involved finely balanced nuances in law, and it was a question of placing my trust in a panel of practiced and (even at least theoretically) accountable judges or a panel of randomly selected muppets from the arsehole of nowhere who may well know zero about the law, I would consider it an open and shut case.

    That is your opinion and choice and who says that judges cannot be muppets, thick as champ, or biased? I posted this elsewhere but it went clean over your head first time round maybe you can take afresh run at it; here is a snippet of how the Birmingham 6 Trial went;

    “Members of the jury, the resolution of scientific argument of this sort is difficult, particularly for a jury of lay people, and I say once again that I am not going to try and go into the technicalities in detail because I would be in grave danger of misleading you. The only way that you can resolve these differences is by your impression of the witnesses.”

    The trial judge encouraged the jury to worry less about the details of the expert evidence and more on impression (and vibes) whom to believe.

    The judge repeatedly informed the jury that, “I would be in grave danger of misleading you”. That is evidence that the Judge had no clue and reason why he would not articulate the evidence given to the jury; this demonstrates the danger should judges, sitting alone, replace the jury as the fact-finder.

    Oh –the judge has benefit of taking notes over the course of say a 5 day trial so it is easy to assume they all have brains and jurist don’t. To maintain this disparity between judge and Jurers , juries are only permitted to transcribe their notes on the tablets of their brain.

    The argument of for and against jury or nonjury trials is not the same as a diplock style court.

    The people of Ireland, north and south, don’t want his kind around anymore and no more than we want your rabid sectarian bigotry that anyone who objects to your view of Diplock Courts is a Provo Propagandist. The people of Russia got rid of Stalin for good reason but there is always going to be some asshole who reveres his standards of justice.

  • Christy Walsh: Why can you not stay remotely on topic? Please don’t answer. Just try to stay on topic.

  • Mike the First

    Ulick

    “As for Sammy Brush, as a former combatant, he should have been big enough to recognise this instead of pursuing his own petty revenge agenda.”

    Truly warped comment. Sammy Brush is accepting of the fact that the man who tried to murder him will only serve two years in prison. As others have pointed out, Brush comes out of this rather well.

    As for McGeough, he should count himself very lucky he won’t be serving the length of prison term his crime deserves.

  • The topic is: Sammy Brush on McGeough’s conviction
    But that is enough about Christy. Let’s get back to Christy.

  • Alanmaskey –If discussion on jury trial makes you automatically think of me then I am flattered but you should read what is written and not what you imagine… doing so would probably help you avoid making a colassol ass of yourself.

    A large portion of discussion was on jury -non jury trails –Started by Comrade Stalin, contributed to by others.

    How about you stick to topic because in sooooo many bloggs you always go off topic about that infatuation that you have with Gerry A & Marty McG –and this blogg is no different!

  • Sammy Brush on McGeough’s conviction

    1. Me: In this case, I have to admire Mr Brush both before and after the attack on him. This would be so even though I don’t agree with his politics. However, many DUPers, I cannot put a percentage on it, seem to be very honest chappies,a trait I would not associate with another poltical party now allied to them in an unholy alliance.
    2. Mr Gerry McGeough was cnvicted of a range of offences related to the attack on Mr Brush. What I have tended to look at is the chain of cmmand Mr McGeough was a part of. No great fixation with personalities but I do tend to look at the top of that chain of command, whuch tends to lead us to the usual suspects.
    3. You………

  • AM “1. Me: In this case, I have to admire Mr Brush both before and after the attack on him. This would be so even though I don’t agree with his politics. However, many DUPers, I cannot put a percentage on it, seem to be very honest chappies,a trait I would not associate with another poltical party now allied to them in an unholy alliance.”

    I agree with that

    If Mr McGeoughs chain of command is of relevance then so too is the methods used to convict him ie, non jury court, AKA Diplock Court. My name was never mentioned —so do you see your problem? do the math!

    The thing I find with republican comraderie is there is always another republican trying to undermine you and sell you out… how are you so different from what you attribute to Gerry A & McGuiness?

  • Secret Squirrel

    unholy alliance
    LOL, pious clptrap, lol, rofl who needs cntent lol, blah blah lol
    some moree crap foflmbofdfbgerdxxddfx
    lol

  • Secret Squirrel

    🙂 lol rofl etc wtf

  • Secret Squirrel

    some abreeveeations lol haha rofl

  • Secret Squirrel
    Re your observation of Alan Maskey’s “unholy alliance” the guy is full of piety little does he realise that discussion of any DUP/SF allaince is not strictly what I would call in the full spirit of the discussion on Mr Brush.

    Alanmaskey (while maybe not an advocate for violence) strikes me as that all too common form of republican who will fight to the last drop of everyone elses blood. Utter little toe rag.

  • Secret Squirrel

    He’s not a republican.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Christy, you’ll see a new member on that other political forum that you and Ardoyne are members of.
    You can mail me privately there if you like.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Re Maskey he describes himself as “Connolly Socialist. Democrat. Joycean. With the collapse of the Republican ideal, each must be his own Republic. Like the Minstrel Boy, we must be true till death which, being Irish, we like. Is buaine blath na saol.” And uses picture of Bobby Sands as his avatar –that would be enough for MI5 to put him on their payroll 😉 –Or, shudder the thought, its enough for a Diplock Court to remove him from light of day!!

  • Secret Squirrel

    He’s a brit troll.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Ah, –he’s a republican wanna be! Now that is funny.

  • “Sammy Brush on McGeough’s conviction”

    Try to keep on focus. My av includes two, not one, well known Republicans.
    Ten wasted consecutive posts between the pair of you, all of which help Mr Brush’ arguments by default.

  • Alanmaskey “all of which help Mr Brush’ arguments by default.” au contraire mon frere according to you earlier christy walsh hijacked this blogg?

    Speaking of which did I tell you about a big court date for 7th March 2011 where the right to a fair trial and criminal conduct within the Ni legal system will be hammered out –not sure who all the parties are but doi know that David Ford and Chief Constable are two respondants… just cant think of that other guys name… jump in here if you know the name I am looking for…. mmmm –his name was on tip of my tongue earlier….

  • Loyalist terrorist found guilty of sectarian murder « Slugger O’Toole says: 28 February 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Good clark goes to jail but fingerprints were recovered on 3rd February 1973 —collusion, turning a blid eye, aiding abetting call it what you will but either the RUC or Prosecution service left this scumbag to kill and maybe kill again –until now???