Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial
- Thread starter Casually Red
- Start date
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
Can I ask a question as someone who is basically clueless about all this?
Is Martin McGuinness effectively untouchable by the British authorities? As in, he is now "establishment" and too important to delve too deeply into?
Is Martin McGuinness effectively untouchable by the British authorities? As in, he is now "establishment" and too important to delve too deeply into?
See above. The Good Friday process was all about the release of prisoners and - as was documented recently with the letters to those "on the run" - effective amnesty for those not (yet) arrested. On both sides, in theory, but the Republican side was far more coherent on this issue.
Without that, there'd have been no deal.
Without that, I fear the deal's in trouble. The British state must be very confident that it's infiltrated all those who might go over or back to the "continuity" strands of Republicanism. Either that, or the Police Service of Northern Ireland has gone rogue on the British state...
Until today I would have said yes. But seeing as they've hoiked Grizzly Adams in now, they've obviously got something that's a squillion percent cast iron.
And why would they only have one cast iron thing? Whoever has spilled the beans enough for the PSNI to have enough to call Adams in will know all sorts about McGuinness, too.
There's a strong hint that it's all about the Boston College papers/tapes. Interviews with players on all sides, given on strict condition that they not be released until after the death of the last named person, and deposited with Boston College in Massachussetts.
Requisitioned by the British state. Orders granted by the US courts. College failed to fight the orders sufficiently. Utter breach of academic ethics. Watch for comment from Ed Moloney (if he's not on the run tonight).
I assume he asked for, and got, permission to take his own flask of tea.
Never accept hospitality under such circumstances, just in case!
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
Unless it was McGuinness spilling the beans I suppose.
Really? I doubt that very much.
The amnesties and releases that laid foundations for the GFA was seen at the time to be Tony Blair's attempt to bring all parties to agreement and talks toward moving on. Mo Mowlam had set the wheels in motion and all around the world Blair was viewed as a political player of the highest order. It was to Blair the lawyer that this was just litigation and settlement and in hindsight a pre-emptive nest feathering for his post PM (and warmonger) life.
The Tories at the time would and possibly still are intent on driving any nationalist into the ground. They destroyed the miners for bringing down the Heath government, god help any involved in the deaths of their ilk.
IMO this government now will do anything to put away any involved, without regard to any Labour led agreement.
The Tories at the time would and possibly still are intent on driving any nationalist into the ground. They destroyed the miners for bringing down the Heath government, god help any involved in the deaths of their ilk.
IMO this government now will do anything to put away any involved, without regard to any Labour led agreement.
I don't think you're giving John Major enough credit there.
On the other hand, probably this rabble aren't either.
toggle
wobbly
iirc, we got told adams was involved in moloney's book- from the brendan hughes interview. lent my copy of it to a freind, so I can't confirm that right now, but afaik, moloney printed that hughes named adams, and dropped a fairly big hint that one of the other interview subjects had said more (cause he's a big fucking idiot)
and it's not that they failed to fight, it's that the offers that were made to the participants that should not have been made without explaining that the guarantee of non disclosure was never going to stand up in court . everyone who does OH interviews properly (like having learnt about the ethical implications of them and does their best to follow the common understanding of ethical practice) knows this. I've written interview consent forms for more than one local heritage project and the only meaning they really have is that i promise to play nice. they only real backing they have is my integrity.
from what i've read, Boston college's failure was to allow this project to go ahead under their name with a near complete lack of oversight so the agreement seemed to have a lot more weight than it did - like it was actually a promice they could completely guarantee. but once it was known there was something like the above in there, then it was only a matter of time before the tapes got handed over.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh cos everyone the police arrest is guilty like that man from corrie
I saw that at the time. I saw it as arse-covering by the college.
Because being accused of sex offences when you're a bit of an actor is precisely and exactly the same thing as being the big chief head honcho of the IRA, presumably.
toggle
wobbly
they are arse covering, cause they dropped the ball big time, but the issue was that the participants thought the guarantee they were offered was far, far more solid than it actually was. and no one with half an oz of integrity more than a story-chaser was there to check what was happening and see the participants were fully informed before they gave consent.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
It's true, the PSNI/RUC are renowned worldwide for only arresting the guilty, never a wrongful arrest.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Or the one from Weybridge.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
he seems to have had ...actually has had ...this untouchable status from a British point of view for the entirety of his IRA career, barring a few months in the mid 70s were he was remanded for IRA membership but set free. Unlike the vast majority of others who were simply conveyor belted into the H blocks via no jury diplock courts
he was never interned either, despite openly giving television and radio interviews on behalf of the IRA..not sinn fein..and being pictured in IRA uniform without a mask
Ive believed for many years the man was a British asset since the start of the conflict pretty much.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
they havent hoiked him in, he presented himself for arrest basically by appointment. It strikes me theyre just going through the motions, ticking a box. For the sake of propriety. Its like having to turn up at his nonce brothers trial . An unavoidable legal formality thats cropped up and has to be addressed .
Last edited:
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
prisoners werent set free. They were paroled on license. Any single one of them can be fired straight back into jail to serve their sentence out in full on the mere word of a British secretary of state. There doesnt have to be any evidence presented, simply the secretary of states belief. Prisoner cant see the case against him or her, cant question it. Martin Corey a case in point.
Sinn fein were running around telling people they won. Coherence isnt a word Id use to describe their position. Utter horseshit would be more accurate.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
well Gerry Adams has been quite instrumental in promoting them as the best thing since sliced bread. Encouraging people to join them, to be informants for them and criminalising and demonising opposition to them. In short legitimising them while delegitimising not only the people who oppose them but the very political and ideological basis for opposing them.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
That's sort of what I was thinking really. It makes sense that both sides did dance around at general level, not just at the foot soldier one. Murky business.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
you should read his chief of staff Johnathon Powells account of it. No wonder he was pissing himself laughing. The wheels were in motion long before Blair or Mowlam. I was at a sinn fein ard feis in the mid 80s were the wheels were already in motion. Blair was just dotting is and crossing ts by the time he came along . Choreography was how David Ervine described it.
As regards setting the political stage for an apparent deal it was most definitely the tories under Thatcher who set it up, Mayhews no selfish strategic interest etc . Theres zero difference between them and labour when it comes to this thing. It was Labour who built the HBlocks, invented the criminalisation policies, forced men onto the blanket. It was Mo Mowlam who sent the Orangemen down Garvaghy and the lower Ormeau rd over broken nationalist bones.Zero difference between them.
Similar threads
