Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Nally Stand]

Silence speaks volumes? It does indeed. Like your silence on this post.

[glens abu]

Whether this report is correct or not, the silence from many within SF on this latest Adams gaffe speaks volumes. I think it is inevitable that if SF spokes-persons continue to make statements of this nature, which belong in the past, they will lose votes.

No silence at all from within SF,as party has come out in support of leader over this and other issues.

[Applesisapples]

Silence speaks volumes? It does indeed. Like your silence on this post.

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families. And in my opinion Adams should have stayed silent on this his remarks were insensitive and unnecessary. The hypocrisy of blaming these unarmed officers for contributing to their own deaths whilst at the same time complaining about Loughgall and Gibraltar is also not lost. And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments. And lest I be ridiculed as an Stoop or worse let me state, I categorically applaud all that Gerry Adams has done to bring about peace, I accept that he had to do it from within and bring others with him. I also accept that he is often fair game for the media and unionists and partionists North and South, many times unfairly. I would also agree that he has delivered for SF at the polls. You will see from other posts that I have made that I understand the context of the troubles and all that took place. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that Gerry says or does. It doesn't mean that I can't hold a valid opinion on the rights and wrongs of his statements and the non response from other SF politicians. Even if they (SF MLA'S, MP's etc...) did flock to support him, in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

[lawnseed]

Sneeky little fianna fukrs! Trying to get peadar tobin to join just because he was suspended. Jeez what do they think we are...? Stoops?

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed. But the storm hypocritical or otherwise was instigated by Adams and his ill judged remarks.

[Rossfan]

Aren't Sinn Féin blessed all the same to have such a staunch advocate as Nalleen to fight their corner....... and him not even a member of SF ( as he says himself) 

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

[Applesisapples]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

[Nally Stand]

Sorry I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. But accepting that these men probably did contribute to the ease with which the IRA killed them is one thing. Coming out with the statements that Adams did is rubbing salt into the wounds of grieving families....in my opinion a vast number of voters not from the core SF constituency would still be appalled at the callousness of his remarks.

Again, you do realise that he was only repeating what was said in the report from witnesses from the RUC, the Gardaí and from the IRA. Was the report therefor callous, too? Or just Adams, for talking about what was contained in the report?

And I restate what I said at every opportunity that I am aware of SF have wisely not spoken on the controversy caused by his comments.

the non response from other SF politicians...

What do you think Mary Lou was talking about here then?
"To be absolutely fair about it, Gerry frontloaded his comments with expressions of understanding and sympathy for a grieving family - he knows all about this, he knows about the situations that families such as theirs find themselves in.
"And in terms of the security issues about the men themselves, he was only reflecting some of what was contained in the report and to say that that RUC and the Garda Siochana had a duty of care to these officers is just a statement of fact."

And I assume you missed Pádraig Mac Lochlainn was on Vincent Browne, strongly defending Adams the same night for almost half an hour?

I have to say I missed those, all i heard was no one available. But fro your Mary Lou quote that appears to be softening and back tracking a some what from what he actually said...welcome non the less.

It's repeating what Adams said. Adams acknowledged the hurt of the RUC men's families too in the same speech. People like your good self only get outraged about what the media focus on though and ignore the content of his full speech. It's just funny that the outrage is over him raising a point which the report itself raises.

I can't say I am outraged just pointing out that in my opinion he would have been best not saying it. I have to say I have just been watching the Tonight show with Vincent Browne...hypocrisy of Browne and Flannigan not to mention the hysterical reference by the journalist to rape is typical of the revisionist nonsense. It ranks with the revisionist nonsense we hear from Unionists. That said these guys were unarmed.

For someone who wasn't outraged, you're happy to throw out terms like "appalling" and "callous" and other such Micheal Martin-type crap. And if he was best not saying it, then surely the fact that the same issue come up in the actual report should be of much more concern to you?

But here the bottom line is they were unarmed, one waved a white hanky. You miss my point...Adams could have made bland generalised comments but he chose to make what I am entitled to believe were unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appaling remarks. I accept the point of my comments was it is damaging to SF. It is damaging because most potential voters have no concept of the Northern troubles are what they were about, they don't even understand that 1916 was the same conflict only on an All Island scale. They won't understand the rank hypocrisy of Charlie Flannigan or Vincent Browne. Fair play to MacLochlainn for taking them on but Gerry fed him to the bears. I noticed also that he refused to say that killing these guys was a duty. Again I say it to me it was Shoot to Kill in reverse.

Waved a white handkerchief? Apparently so. Could the IRA keep prisoners or something? You do realise how such guerrilla armies have to operate? The IRA were not the state forces. The IRA were at war and shooting-to-kill was their whole point. The state, by their own proclamation, were not at war and so, their own stated standards dictated that they shouldn't have been carrying out 'shoot-to-kill' operations. And they could take prisoners. And again, if you believe Adam's comments were "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling", then is it fair to say you view the report which he was referencing as "unnecessary, callous, hurtful and appalling" too then?

Nally I'll leave my comments as they are. As an uncritical supporter of SF you will never accept any wrong doing. But take it from me as a potential voter his comments are a concern.

You can leave them as they are all you want, I'm just wondering why it's not OK for Gerry Adams to mention the same thing the report mentions.

[glens abu]

SF TD hints at party exit as anger with Adams grows

NIALL O'CONNOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT – 10 DECEMBER 2013

SINN FEIN looks set to lose one of its most promising TDs in what will prove to be a huge blow to under-fire leader Gerry Adams.

The Irish Independent can reveal that Meath West TD Peadar Toibin has told his supporters that he is likely to quit the party in the new year.

In a clear indication of his dissatisfaction with the Sinn Fein leader, Mr Toibin last night contradicted Mr Adams's shocking comments about the deaths of two RUC officers.

Mr Toibin rejected outright Mr Adams's claim that Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan displayed a "laissez faire" approach to their safety prior to their savage murder in 1989.

"I don't believe it's ever correct to say that two police officers were murdered because of their own actions. These men's deaths were not determined by their own actions but the actions of the IRA. The IRA is responsible for the murder of these two men, not the officers themselves," he told the Irish Independent.

Mr Toibin's rebuke came as sources in Meath West confirmed that he was preparing to leave the party. While he did not want to comment on the matter last night, well-placed sources said he had already held talks with members of other parties.

Mr Toibin, who is one of the Dail's youngest TDs, was suspended by Sinn Fein in July after voting against the contentious abortion measures.

Sinn Fein figures believed he would return in the new year; however, it has emerged that Mr Toibin has engaged in serious discussion with senior Fianna Fail figures about a potential move to Micheal Martin's party.

Sources in Meath West have said that Mr Toibin is likely to vote against Sinn Fein again in relation to two private members' bills on the issue of abortion.

"Peadar is prepared to vote in line with his conscience. That will mean he will defy the party again," said a well-placed source.

The news of Mr Toibin's expected defection will prove to be a major blow for Mr Adams, who is due to travel to South Africa tomorrow to attend memorial events for Nelson Mandela.

While Mr Adams has received the backing of some of his TDs, others, such as deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald and finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty, did not respond to a request for comment last night.

Dublin North West TD Dessie Ellis refused to support the use of the phrase "laissez faire" by Mr Adams, but said the two officers had been "lax" in relation to their security.

"I know the area and you don't get away with that, even the Brits themselves wouldn't travel like that," he said.

Padraig McLoughlin, Caoimhghin O Caolain, Brian Stanley, Jonathan O'Brien, Martin Ferris and Sean Crowe all said they supported their leader's remarks.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/sf-td-hints-at-party-exit-as-anger-with-adams-grows-29823286.html



Peadar has denied the above on Twitter.

Meath West TD Peadar Tóibín, who was suspended from Sinn Féin after he voted against the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, has said he is not joining Fianna Fáil.

Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, he said he was quite shocked at reports that he planned to do so.

Mr Tóibín said that aside from his stance on the abortion issue, there was no other issue in Sinn Féin that he disagrees with.

He said there is no doubt that he wants to rejoin Sinn Féin and that his home is with the party.

Looks like you are a wee bit premature again with the Indo lies Maguire