Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[glens abu]

Some people need to be very careful about spreading lies.

Says the man who has spent months spreading lies........

Takes one to know one.

Glens, now that you have finally admitted to been a liar, can you please explain to me what you claim to know about my brother in laws when you claimed the following:

"You keep an eye on the brother in laws with the money down your part of the world Dixie."

"now tell us what causes the brother in laws are involved in."


These are fairly serious allegations Glens, and i'm sure they are against the ethos and rules of the GAA Board.

Now would you care to explain what you mean?

Again selective reading,I didn't say your brother in laws I said the Brother in laws and don't pretend you don't know about who I am referring.

[Saffrongael]

glens Abu is the sort of fella that thinks it's ok for our great leader to let a paedo work with children in youth clubs in his constituency 

[Nally Stand]

Gerry is always quick off the mark to call people liars when they say something that involves himself. He forgets the lies he told to the Irish nation about not having anything to do with his child rapist brother for 15 years. The evidence produced in court proved that he was in fact a liar, and not the media who he and his followers claimed.

Here is the full court transcript of his cross examination in full:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_10_2013_cross_exam_gerry_adams.pdf

Also, as most people will recall, Gerry has always claimed that Dolours Price was a liar when she claimed he was behind the disappearance of several people in the early 70's in interviews carried by the Irish News, The Sunday Life, and the Telegraph.

Gerry Adams had the opportunity to go to court and challenge Dolours over her claims. He refused saying he couldn't afford it. Now that she is dead, he can call her a liar all day long. He had a chance to prove he was telling the truth when she was alive, but he refused. Now she is dead, he can say what he wants.

Gerry has no problem raising millions over the years from lavish dinners in 5 star hotels. The party rakes in millions from Stormont and the Dail through salaries and expenses. Now call me stupid if you may, but in my book, if Gerry wanted to prove his innocence he could have challenged her claims in a court of law in order to clear his name while she was still alive.

Everyone in Sinn Fein repeats the claim by Gerry that he is innocent, yet not one single one of them stepped forward and said Gerry, we will stand behind you in a court action against Dolours, and no matter what it costs, we will do everything in our power to raise the money to cover your expenses. That would have been the ultimate show of faith in his innocence, but somehow, they maybe didn't believe him enough to risk going to court to prove it...........

Dixie, not sure if you've seen the news in recent weeks but Gerry was actually arrested and questioned for four days about IRA membership and the disappeared. He was released without charge. Ergo, he is innocent.

Nally, I think you missed my point, and my previous posts where I did know he was arrested and released without charge pending a file sent to the DPP to decide if he will face charges or not.

Dolours Price was interviewed by 2 people and she claimed Gerry Adams was involved in the disappearance of several people. That interview was carried by 3 major reputable newspapers a couple of years ago.

He had a chance to take Dolours or the papers to court to prove his innocence and challenge the very serious claims. He refused citing he couldn't afford to.

Now tell me this. If I was to make the same claims against Peter Robinson say, or Enda Kenny, or Micheal Martin, or indeed yourself in the same 3 papers, what do you think you or they would do?

Do you think they would challenge the claims in any way they could, including going to court no matter what the costs were? Would you challenge me in court no matter what the cost, or would you sit back and do nothing?

When Gerry said he couldn't afford the costs, he didn't know then that he would be arrested years later and given a chance to clear his name. From then until Dolours died, those claims went unchallenged legally. It was his word against hers.

Over the past few years we have seen serious allegations made about many famous people in the press. Those alleged to have committed the offenses stood up and said they were innocent of all charges, and would fight tooth and nail to defend themselves.

Several high profile people were arrested, questioned, and released. Files were sent to the DPP, and charges were brought against several of them. They had their day in court to defend themselves, and from what we have seen, many of them were convicted, and some found not guilty. In defending themselves, some had to sell their houses and borrow money to pay legal fees.

What they all had in common was a determination to refute the claims made against them no matter what the cost, and no matter what the outcome.

When is the last time you ever seen a high profile person accused of serious crimes in the papers refuse to challenge the claims in a court of law?

Using the excuse of not been able to afford court costs was a very very weak excuse to use given how serious the allegations were.

Dixie so what if Delours Price made such allegations. A woman who didn't like him made claims about him without any evidence? Big woop. You seem to think she is the only one to have ever made a wholly unsubstantiated claim about Gerry Adams past. If he were to take all such people to court like you suggest he should have to Delours, he'd never be out of courtrooms ffs. So why should he have? As it stands he is an innocent man anyway.

Nally, how do you know Dolours had no evidence? You ask why should he have taken her or others to court. As I see it, she was one of very few who went to the national media and had mainstream publications carry the story. Given that he is the leader of a large political party, would it not be in his best interests, and the interests of the public, to put her in the dock and ask her to back up up claims? After all, he declared to everyone, without any evidence, that she was telling lies?

As it stands, he told us all that he couldn't afford to go to court to challenge her claims that he was involved in several murders, yet he can afford to hire Paul Tweed to go after 2 newspapers who carried a story in which his sister in law claims he spoke to the police before he was due to give evidence at his brothers trial.

Does it not strike you or anyone else as odd that he would lets claims of his involvement in murders go unchallenged, yet hire a lawyer who usually works for Hollywood stars to defend claims he spoke to a policeman?

I don't know what Paul Tweed costs, but given he has represented people such as Britney Spears and the Duchess of York, i'm sure he doesn't come cheap. Maybe McGuinness worked out a special deal a couple of weeks ago when he was dining with the Windsors in Windsor?

With respect Dixie, you're talking nonsense. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have faced more unsubstantiated allegations in the national press and television than you or I have had hot dinners. As I said,  if they were to bring to court every last person to accuse them, they'd get nothing else done. Considering the sheer number of people to have accused them both without providing any evidence whatsoever, why should you, or indeed Adams, get the knickers in a twist of just one of them. Dolours Price despised Adams and made claims against him without providing a scrap of evidence. Big fecking woop. She was just another in the line to do so. Meanwhile Adams is an innocent man.

[trueblue1234]

Dixie, no harm you keep quoting the Dolours Price allegations as if they're proof of Gerry being involved. Had it been the other way about you would be clamering for evidence. You can't have it both ways.

[glens abu]

glens Abu is the sort of fella that thinks it's ok for our great leader to let a paedo work with children in youth clubs in his constituency 

Again thats the level all you boys have sank,right into the gutter and your gang are putting this through the doors as election material. .Cant wait to see their faces at the count on the 23rd.

[AQMP]

I'm not into these big long quotes things, but this is in response to some of give her dixie's posts on the allegations against Gerry Adams and in particular those made by Dolours Price.  What Dolours Price said about Adams (whether true or not) does not constitute evidence and would not form the basis of a prosecution without some serious corroboration.  Also you have asked why Adams did not take her to court to "prove his innocence".  As far as I know the way the legal system works is that the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.  In other words Adams doesn't have to "prove his innocence" it is up to the accuser(s) to prove his guilt.  Why did Adams not sue her?  Well, to win a case like that Adams would have to show he had been damaged or harmed by the accusations.  His own performance in elections and that of SF recently would show some evidence that this has not happened?

[orangeman]

http://ulsterherald.com/2014/05/16/paint-attack-on-sinn-fein-office/

Sinn Fein PR machine is flying at the minute.

Gerry last week -  Gerry this week - paint bombs last night.

SF really making the most of it.

Reminds me of the time the orangemen were burning their own halls.

[armaghniac]

http://ulsterherald.com/2014/05/16/paint-attack-on-sinn-fein-office/

Sinn Fein PR machine is flying at the minute.

Gerry last week -  Gerry this week - paint bombs last night.

Was it whitewash?

[AQMP]

http://ulsterherald.com/2014/05/16/paint-attack-on-sinn-fein-office/

Sinn Fein PR machine is flying at the minute.

Gerry last week -  Gerry this week - paint bombs last night.

Was it whitewash?

No, it was dark art...

[orangeman]

http://ulsterherald.com/2014/05/16/paint-attack-on-sinn-fein-office/

Sinn Fein PR machine is flying at the minute.

Gerry last week -  Gerry this week - paint bombs last night.

Was it whitewash?

No, it was dark art...

I like it.

[give her dixie]

Some people need to be very careful about spreading lies.

Says the man who has spent months spreading lies........

Takes one to know one.

Glens, now that you have finally admitted to been a liar, can you please explain to me what you claim to know about my brother in laws when you claimed the following:

"You keep an eye on the brother in laws with the money down your part of the world Dixie."

"now tell us what causes the brother in laws are involved in."


These are fairly serious allegations Glens, and i'm sure they are against the ethos and rules of the GAA Board.

Now would you care to explain what you mean?

Again selective reading,I didn't say your brother in laws I said the Brother in laws and don't pretend you don't know about who I am referring.

No Glens, I do not know what you are talking about. Please explain.

[give her dixie]

Gerry is always quick off the mark to call people liars when they say something that involves himself. He forgets the lies he told to the Irish nation about not having anything to do with his child rapist brother for 15 years. The evidence produced in court proved that he was in fact a liar, and not the media who he and his followers claimed.

Here is the full court transcript of his cross examination in full:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_10_2013_cross_exam_gerry_adams.pdf

Also, as most people will recall, Gerry has always claimed that Dolours Price was a liar when she claimed he was behind the disappearance of several people in the early 70's in interviews carried by the Irish News, The Sunday Life, and the Telegraph.

Gerry Adams had the opportunity to go to court and challenge Dolours over her claims. He refused saying he couldn't afford it. Now that she is dead, he can call her a liar all day long. He had a chance to prove he was telling the truth when she was alive, but he refused. Now she is dead, he can say what he wants.

Gerry has no problem raising millions over the years from lavish dinners in 5 star hotels. The party rakes in millions from Stormont and the Dail through salaries and expenses. Now call me stupid if you may, but in my book, if Gerry wanted to prove his innocence he could have challenged her claims in a court of law in order to clear his name while she was still alive.

Everyone in Sinn Fein repeats the claim by Gerry that he is innocent, yet not one single one of them stepped forward and said Gerry, we will stand behind you in a court action against Dolours, and no matter what it costs, we will do everything in our power to raise the money to cover your expenses. That would have been the ultimate show of faith in his innocence, but somehow, they maybe didn't believe him enough to risk going to court to prove it...........

Dixie, not sure if you've seen the news in recent weeks but Gerry was actually arrested and questioned for four days about IRA membership and the disappeared. He was released without charge. Ergo, he is innocent.

Nally, I think you missed my point, and my previous posts where I did know he was arrested and released without charge pending a file sent to the DPP to decide if he will face charges or not.

Dolours Price was interviewed by 2 people and she claimed Gerry Adams was involved in the disappearance of several people. That interview was carried by 3 major reputable newspapers a couple of years ago.

He had a chance to take Dolours or the papers to court to prove his innocence and challenge the very serious claims. He refused citing he couldn't afford to.

Now tell me this. If I was to make the same claims against Peter Robinson say, or Enda Kenny, or Micheal Martin, or indeed yourself in the same 3 papers, what do you think you or they would do?

Do you think they would challenge the claims in any way they could, including going to court no matter what the costs were? Would you challenge me in court no matter what the cost, or would you sit back and do nothing?

When Gerry said he couldn't afford the costs, he didn't know then that he would be arrested years later and given a chance to clear his name. From then until Dolours died, those claims went unchallenged legally. It was his word against hers.

Over the past few years we have seen serious allegations made about many famous people in the press. Those alleged to have committed the offenses stood up and said they were innocent of all charges, and would fight tooth and nail to defend themselves.

Several high profile people were arrested, questioned, and released. Files were sent to the DPP, and charges were brought against several of them. They had their day in court to defend themselves, and from what we have seen, many of them were convicted, and some found not guilty. In defending themselves, some had to sell their houses and borrow money to pay legal fees.

What they all had in common was a determination to refute the claims made against them no matter what the cost, and no matter what the outcome.

When is the last time you ever seen a high profile person accused of serious crimes in the papers refuse to challenge the claims in a court of law?

Using the excuse of not been able to afford court costs was a very very weak excuse to use given how serious the allegations were.

Dixie so what if Delours Price made such allegations. A woman who didn't like him made claims about him without any evidence? Big woop. You seem to think she is the only one to have ever made a wholly unsubstantiated claim about Gerry Adams past. If he were to take all such people to court like you suggest he should have to Delours, he'd never be out of courtrooms ffs. So why should he have? As it stands he is an innocent man anyway.

Nally, how do you know Dolours had no evidence? You ask why should he have taken her or others to court. As I see it, she was one of very few who went to the national media and had mainstream publications carry the story. Given that he is the leader of a large political party, would it not be in his best interests, and the interests of the public, to put her in the dock and ask her to back up up claims? After all, he declared to everyone, without any evidence, that she was telling lies?

As it stands, he told us all that he couldn't afford to go to court to challenge her claims that he was involved in several murders, yet he can afford to hire Paul Tweed to go after 2 newspapers who carried a story in which his sister in law claims he spoke to the police before he was due to give evidence at his brothers trial.

Does it not strike you or anyone else as odd that he would lets claims of his involvement in murders go unchallenged, yet hire a lawyer who usually works for Hollywood stars to defend claims he spoke to a policeman?

I don't know what Paul Tweed costs, but given he has represented people such as Britney Spears and the Duchess of York, i'm sure he doesn't come cheap. Maybe McGuinness worked out a special deal a couple of weeks ago when he was dining with the Windsors in Windsor?

With respect Dixie, you're talking nonsense. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have faced more unsubstantiated allegations in the national press and television than you or I have had hot dinners. As I said,  if they were to bring to court every last person to accuse them, they'd get nothing else done. Considering the sheer number of people to have accused them both without providing any evidence whatsoever, why should you, or indeed Adams, get the knickers in a twist of just one of them. Dolours Price despised Adams and made claims against him without providing a scrap of evidence. Big fecking woop. She was just another in the line to do so. Meanwhile Adams is an innocent man.

Nally, I just find it odd that he refused to challenge serious claims about involvement in murder, carried by 3 main newspapers but yet hires in the worlds top libel lawyer over a claim in 2 papers by his sister in law that he had a conversation with a policeman.

[give her dixie]

Dixie, no harm you keep quoting the Dolours Price allegations as if they're proof of Gerry being involved. Had it been the other way about you would be clamering for evidence. You can't have it both ways.

The point I am making is simple.

Woman says Gerry was involved in murders. Gerry says he can't afford to go to court.

Woman says Gerry spoke to a policeman. Gerry hires in the worlds top libel lawyer.

[give her dixie]

http://ulsterherald.com/2014/05/16/paint-attack-on-sinn-fein-office/

Sinn Fein PR machine is flying at the minute.

Gerry last week -  Gerry this week - paint bombs last night.

SF really making the most of it.

Reminds me of the time the orangemen were burning their own halls.

Yet they fail to condemn  graffiti plastered all over West Belfast.

[trueblue1234]

Dixie, no harm you keep quoting the Dolours Price allegations as if they're proof of Gerry being involved. Had it been the other way about you would be clamering for evidence. You can't have it both ways.

The point I am making is simple.

Woman says Gerry was involved in murders. Gerry says he can't afford to go to court.

Woman says Gerry spoke to a policeman. Gerry hires in the worlds top libel lawyer.

And my point is that your point is nonsense. AQMP has already explained why.

I'll ask a simple question, Do you believe every allegation you hear about anyone if that person doesn't challenge it in Court?