Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Nally Stand]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

[dec]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

I don't find it hard to grasp at all. She asked a senior IRA figure about specific IRA activities.

[Nally Stand]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

I don't find it hard to grasp at all. She asked a senior IRA figure about specific IRA activities.

No, she made a very specific accusation about a named individual's death. This is not acceptable, particularly from the state broadcaster. Amazing you need that spelt out to you.

[dec]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

I don't find it hard to grasp at all. She asked a senior IRA figure about specific IRA activities.

No, she made a very specific accusation about a named individual's death. This is not acceptable, particularly from the state broadcaster. Amazing you need that spelt out to you.

State broadcasters have the same rights to freedom of speech as the rest of us. If Gerry hadn't been in the IRA he wouldn't be getting these questions.

[Nally Stand]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

I don't find it hard to grasp at all. She asked a senior IRA figure about specific IRA activities.

No, she made a very specific accusation about a named individual's death. This is not acceptable, particularly from the state broadcaster. Amazing you need that spelt out to you.

State broadcasters have the same rights to freedom of speech as the rest of us. If Gerry hadn't been in the IRA he wouldn't be getting these questions.

Right. Why do certain individuals from the Labour Party not face such allegations?

[dec]

So no comment on the murders themselves but blustering outrage at the commentary on the murders.

Standard response there hardy. Don't look at the conflict as a whole, and the context of it. Just pick one victim that suits the agenda and start the whatabouteries, eh.

Ah well, I didn't really expect you t be able to justify such a skewed set of sympathies.

"Ah well". Another standard response.

"Another standard response". Another standard response.

Speaking of responses, I haven't heard back from you on:

According to Nally Stand "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion."
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19293.msg962172#msg962172

And the dogs in the street also know that Adams and McGuinness were senior figures in the IRA.

Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

You said "The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion" because it is well known that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was asked about a murder committed by the IRA because it is well known that he was a senior figure in the IRA.

Not realy answering my question there are you. Me saying that the dogs in the street knew about collusion is a bit different than a journalist at the state broadcaster on live tv making a direct accusation of involvement in the death of a named individual, wouldn't you say???

Gerry Adams was a senior member of the IRA. It is entirely reasonable for a journalist to ask him about the activities of the IRA.

What part of "allegation involving a named individual" do you find so hard to grasp here?

I don't find it hard to grasp at all. She asked a senior IRA figure about specific IRA activities.

No, she made a very specific accusation about a named individual's death. This is not acceptable, particularly from the state broadcaster. Amazing you need that spelt out to you.

State broadcasters have the same rights to freedom of speech as the rest of us. If Gerry hadn't been in the IRA he wouldn't be getting these questions.

Right. Why do certain individuals from the Labour Party not face such allegations?

Which "certain individuals" should face such allegations?

[camanchero]

None!
That's why ocallaghan was completely out of order if not crossing the legal line by implying adams was in some way responsible for that named persons death!

I doubt if Adams would want the hoo ha of pressing legal charges over this ( presumably he has a case - defamation) so she and rte are prob going to avoid a repeat perf of last years fiasco where they had to she'll out for those allegations against that priest.

Ocallaghan is a daft unprofessional bint!

[Tony Baloney]

None!
That's why ocallaghan was completely out of order if not crossing the legal line by implying adams was in some way responsible for that named persons death!

I doubt if Adams would want the hoo ha of pressing legal charges over this ( presumably he has a case - defamation) so she and rte are prob going to avoid a repeat perf of last years fiasco where they had to she'll out for those allegations against that priest.

Ocallaghan is a daft unprofessional bint!

Big tits though.

[Maguire01]

None!
That's why ocallaghan was completely out of order if not crossing the legal line by implying adams was in some way responsible for that named persons death!

I doubt if Adams would want the hoo ha of pressing legal charges over this ( presumably he has a case - defamation) so she and rte are prob going to avoid a repeat perf of last years fiasco where they had to she'll out for those allegations against that priest.

Ocallaghan is a daft unprofessional bint!

So you reckon he won't take legal action because of the hassle?

[lawnseed]

all he had to say was "if you have evidence you should take it to the guards or psni" end of. she'd have shit herself

[Maguire01]

all he had to say was "if you have evidence you should take it to the guards or psni" end of. she'd have shit herself

I doubt that.

[muppet]

all he had to say was "if you have evidence you should take it to the guards or psni" end of. she'd have shit herself

You're not a real Shinner are you?

[ranch]

Well if she does evidence and is happy to tell the nation about it then surely she has a duty to inform the authorities?

[deiseach]

It always cracks me up when it comes to Northern Ireland how everyone defends the necessity of violence yet everyone denies having ever pulled a trigger. Who performed these killings? Martin Corry's beast?

[Nally Stand]

It always cracks me up when it comes to Northern Ireland how everyone defends the necessity of violence yet everyone denies having ever pulled a trigger. Who performed these killings? Martin Corry's beast?

Do you expect everyone who ever pulled a trigger to suddenly volunteer themselves to go to jail?