Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Maguire01]

Tommy Gorman, one of the interviewees for the Boston College Project, had this letter in todays Irish News


Some years ago, I was asked to take part in a project which, it was hoped, would help enhance understanding of the decades of political bloodletting that blighted our land and people.

I felt the plan to construct the archive by getting the thoughts and experiences of former combatants, and to examine the factors that led to people like us deciding to risk all in pursuance of our differing causes, would be valuable and instructive to future generations who may want to know what it was all about and hopefully help ensure it doesn't happen again.

And with eyes wide open and no hesitation I offered to help in any way I could.

I did the interviews in which I tried to describe the feeling of the community and the mood within the republican movement when the conflict was at different stages as well the prison struggle.

I didn't speak of any other volunteers just as I didn't expect them to speak of me. They were, after all, personal reminiscences from a very bloody period in our history.

Unfortunately, those at Boston College have not lived up to declarations made at the onset of the project in regards to confidentiality and assurances that the archive would remain secure from any external snooping.

The resulting media frenzy has allowed Shinner spinners and semi-literate graffitists to go into overdrive in attacking those of us among the many interviewees who don't agree that what is being peddled by Sinn Fein as 'the great leap forward' is anything of the sort.

In socio-economic, constitutional and inter-community development the opposite is true.

With the recent exposure of  post-ceasefire gunrunning by those 'fully committed to the peace process and support for the PSNI' we all should be dubious as to any excuse offered as to why, in this period of peace, there is a need for guns that are untraceable with no history or connection to any person or group.

One thing is sure: there is no way they are to be turned on the old enemy.

In all of our actions we must always strive to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable by refusing to be silenced

Further evidence, as if it were needed, that the only ones allowed to participate in this "history project" were people with a grudge against Sinn Féin. It's laughable at this stage!

It's hardly definitive. Neither you nor I know exactly who was interviewed, or indeed who declined to be interviewed.

Indeed but it's "further evidence" as I said. We don't know everyone who took part but all those we do know the identities of (particpants and organisers) have, to a man, got that one key think in common.

http://www.judecollins.com/2014/03/research-boston-college-tapes/

It's only further evidence of another anti SF contributor, nothing more.

There's no evidence that only people with such views were allowed to contribute. And not that you'll give it much credence, but those behind the project say two strong SF supporters gave interviews to the project.

There's also nothing to indicate that anyone was denied the opportunity to contribute - surely we'd have heard if that was the case. Therefore your claim that the "only ones allowed" to contribute... has no basis whatsoever.

I said "evidence" of. Easy to claim that two "pro-SF" people contributed when it's confidential! But again,  to a man, everyone we do know to be associated with the project held the same particular grudge. Could be a coincidence of course, but going on what we DO know, I think that's not bloody likely.

Given the position SF has taken on the project, any supporters who might have contributed can't admit to it.

But whatever about who did contribute, you have absolutely no basis for claiming that only certain people were allowed to participate, or that people of a certain political persuasion were not allowed to participate.

[Nally Stand]

Tommy Gorman, one of the interviewees for the Boston College Project, had this letter in todays Irish News


Some years ago, I was asked to take part in a project which, it was hoped, would help enhance understanding of the decades of political bloodletting that blighted our land and people.

I felt the plan to construct the archive by getting the thoughts and experiences of former combatants, and to examine the factors that led to people like us deciding to risk all in pursuance of our differing causes, would be valuable and instructive to future generations who may want to know what it was all about and hopefully help ensure it doesn't happen again.

And with eyes wide open and no hesitation I offered to help in any way I could.

I did the interviews in which I tried to describe the feeling of the community and the mood within the republican movement when the conflict was at different stages as well the prison struggle.

I didn't speak of any other volunteers just as I didn't expect them to speak of me. They were, after all, personal reminiscences from a very bloody period in our history.

Unfortunately, those at Boston College have not lived up to declarations made at the onset of the project in regards to confidentiality and assurances that the archive would remain secure from any external snooping.

The resulting media frenzy has allowed Shinner spinners and semi-literate graffitists to go into overdrive in attacking those of us among the many interviewees who don't agree that what is being peddled by Sinn Fein as 'the great leap forward' is anything of the sort.

In socio-economic, constitutional and inter-community development the opposite is true.

With the recent exposure of  post-ceasefire gunrunning by those 'fully committed to the peace process and support for the PSNI' we all should be dubious as to any excuse offered as to why, in this period of peace, there is a need for guns that are untraceable with no history or connection to any person or group.

One thing is sure: there is no way they are to be turned on the old enemy.

In all of our actions we must always strive to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable by refusing to be silenced

Further evidence, as if it were needed, that the only ones allowed to participate in this "history project" were people with a grudge against Sinn Féin. It's laughable at this stage!

It's hardly definitive. Neither you nor I know exactly who was interviewed, or indeed who declined to be interviewed.

Indeed but it's "further evidence" as I said. We don't know everyone who took part but all those we do know the identities of (particpants and organisers) have, to a man, got that one key think in common.

http://www.judecollins.com/2014/03/research-boston-college-tapes/

It's only further evidence of another anti SF contributor, nothing more.

There's no evidence that only people with such views were allowed to contribute. And not that you'll give it much credence, but those behind the project say two strong SF supporters gave interviews to the project.

There's also nothing to indicate that anyone was denied the opportunity to contribute - surely we'd have heard if that was the case. Therefore your claim that the "only ones allowed" to contribute... has no basis whatsoever.

I said "evidence" of. Easy to claim that two "pro-SF" people contributed when it's confidential! But again,  to a man, everyone we do know to be associated with the project held the same particular grudge. Could be a coincidence of course, but going on what we DO know, I think that's not bloody likely.

Given the position SF has taken on the project, any supporters who might have contributed can't admit to it.

But whatever about who did contribute, you have absolutely no basis for claiming that only certain people were allowed to participate, or that people of a certain political persuasion were not allowed to participate.

I'd repeat myself but I'll not bother.

[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.

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?

No I don't believe any allegation that I hear about anyone, but usually, as a general rule of thumb, if I read allegations of a high profile person been involved in murders in reputable newspapers, then I want to see what becomes of it. Wouldn't you have the same curiosity?

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I have generally found that anyone accused of a serious crime in a reputable newspaper usually challenges the newspaper or the person making those claims in a legal manner.

2 weeks RTE had to apologise to Gerry Adams in relation to a complaint he made as in relation to a failure on their behalf to use the word "allegedly" in a news report relating to the DPP seeking a review of a decision not to prosecute Gerry for withholding evidence about his brother, Liam.

This was their apology:

On the 7th of October, Drivetime broadcast an inaccurate report which was repeated on a number of news bulletins during the programme in relation to Mr Gerry Adams TD.

This report incorrectly stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams for withholding evidence about his brother.

The reports should have stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader for allegedly withholding evidence about his brother.

RTE apologises to Gerry Adams for this error.

Now, i'm sure you have read the full transcript of Gerry's cross examination......

Then, this week Gerry hires the worlds leading libel lawyer to go after the Independent Newspaper group because they reported on the Police Ombusman investigating a claim by his sister in law, Liams wife, that Gerry was briefed in a public meeting by a policeman on Liams case prior to him giving evidence against his brother.

Now, considering the above examples of how Gerry went after RTE because they left out the word "alledged" in an article, and had to issue a public apology, and how he has hired the worlds leading libel lawyer to challenge the claim printed in 2 major newspapers by his sister in law that he was de briefed by a police man on his brothers rape trial, a claim that is been investigated by the police Ombusman, doesn't it strike you as odd that he didn't go after the Irish News, The Sunday Life, or the Telegraph when they printed claims by Dolours Price that he was involved in the execution of Jean McConville and others, claiming he couldn't afford the costs to prove those claims were false?

After all, he got RTE to apologise for leaving out the word "Allegedly" in their report, and if you were to have read Gerrys testimony in the link I posted earlier, you can understand how RTE made the simple error.

[Nally Stand]

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?

No I don't believe any allegation that I hear about anyone, but usually, as a general rule of thumb, if I read allegations of a high profile person been involved in murders in reputable newspapers, then I want to see what becomes of it. Wouldn't you have the same curiosity?

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I have generally found that anyone accused of a serious crime in a reputable newspaper usually challenges the newspaper or the person making those claims in a legal manner.

2 weeks RTE had to apologise to Gerry Adams in relation to a complaint he made as in relation to a failure on their behalf to use the word "allegedly" in a news report relating to the DPP seeking a review of a decision not to prosecute Gerry for withholding evidence about his brother, Liam.

This was their apology:

On the 7th of October, Drivetime broadcast an inaccurate report which was repeated on a number of news bulletins during the programme in relation to Mr Gerry Adams TD.

This report incorrectly stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams for withholding evidence about his brother.

The reports should have stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader for allegedly withholding evidence about his brother.

RTE apologises to Gerry Adams for this error.

Now, i'm sure you have read the full transcript of Gerry's cross examination......

Then, this week Gerry hires the worlds leading libel lawyer to go after the Independent Newspaper group because they reported on the Police Ombusman investigating a claim by his sister in law, Liams wife, that Gerry was briefed in a public meeting by a policeman on Liams case prior to him giving evidence against his brother.

Now, considering the above examples of how Gerry went after RTE because they left out the word "alledged" in an article, and had to issue a public apology, and how he has hired the worlds leading libel lawyer to challenge the claim printed in 2 major newspapers by his sister in law that he was de briefed by a police man on his brothers rape trial, a claim that is been investigated by the police Ombusman, doesn't it strike you as odd that he didn't go after the Irish News, The Sunday Life, or the Telegraph when they printed claims by Dolours Price that he was involved in the execution of Jean McConville and others, claiming he couldn't afford the costs to prove those claims were false?

After all, he got RTE to apologise for leaving out the word "Allegedly" in their report, and if you were to have read Gerrys testimony in the link I posted earlier, you can understand how RTE made the simple error.

Dixie give it up ffs. Like I keep asking and like you keep not answering, why the fcuk should you or he get the knickers in a twist over Delours Price making unsubstantiated allegations about his activities during the conflict over anybody else doing the exact same? She was just yet another person in the queue with A: a grudge against Gerry; B: An allegation to throw up at him; and C: no evidence to substantiate their claims. Perhaps he had the sense to know he'd never be out of courtrooms if he set a precedence of taking action against them all. And perhaps he knew that one day he'd make himself available for questioning and/or be arrested over his past and knew that he would walk out a free man and that his decision not to run to court to take action against every tom, dick, harry or Delours would be vindicated by his walking out a free, innocent man on his own terms. And again, why your obsession with Delours' unsubstantiated allegations over any one of the countless others you could pull out of the air?

[Gaffer]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

[Nally Stand]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

[orangeman]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

[mylestheslasher]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

Maybe not so damning. Its like readers of the Nazi Chronicle newspaper voting overwhelmingly that they think Jews are the root of all evil.

[ONeill]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

Mad poll. 100% don't know.

[Bensars]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

Totally irrelevant. It's a good job people aren't convicted based on opinion polls.

[Maguire01]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

Maybe not so damning. Its like readers of the Nazi Chronicle newspaper voting overwhelmingly that they think Jews are the root of all evil.

To be fair, it's not a poll of Independent readers.

[Nally Stand]

I think you should give this up Nally

Dixie is running rings round you with reason and logic.

You sure?  Cos last time I checked,  Adams was an innocent man!

Another opinion poll this time on whether voters think Gerry is innocent or not - half reckon he's not innocent.

Indo.

NEARLY half of voters believe Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was involved in the murder of mother-of-ten Jean McConville, an Irish Independent/Millward Brown opinion poll reveals.

In a damning finding for Mr Adams, the poll shows that less than a quarter of voters believe him when he says that he had no role in the IRA's abduction and murder of Mrs McConville, a widow from Belfast.

I'm sure they all know something the police still didn't after four days of questioning. What's the chance that almost 100% of those who believe Brendan Hughes' allegation of Adams' involvement would also point blank refuse to accept his claim that she was informer. Suits the agenda better to claim she was abducted and killed for helping a wounded british soldier after all. Makes Adams look like an big bad ogre sure 

To borrow a specific piece from an article I linked yesterday from Jude Collins:

Finally,  a short Catechism q and a to see if you have a firm grasp on this matter:

Q: Who killed Jean McConville?

A: Gerry Adams

Q: Why did he kill her?

A: Because she put a coat under the head of a dying soldier.

Q: Has her body ever been recovered?

A: No.

Q: Why does Gerry Adams say he wasn't in the IRA?

A: Because he likes telling lies.

Q: Some people claim that Jean McConville was an informer. Do you believe that?

A: I most certainly do not.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: The papers hardly ever mention it.

Q:OK, pick up you BT Certificate of Merit on the way out.

[Maguire01]

Did the Ombudsman not say the informer claims were without foundation?

[Gaffer]

Did the Ombudsman not say the informer claims were without foundation?

Sure did but Nally ignores that.. Sure didn't the Provos say she was so that's that then.

[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.

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?

No I don't believe any allegation that I hear about anyone, but usually, as a general rule of thumb, if I read allegations of a high profile person been involved in murders in reputable newspapers, then I want to see what becomes of it. Wouldn't you have the same curiosity?

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I have generally found that anyone accused of a serious crime in a reputable newspaper usually challenges the newspaper or the person making those claims in a legal manner.

2 weeks RTE had to apologise to Gerry Adams in relation to a complaint he made as in relation to a failure on their behalf to use the word "allegedly" in a news report relating to the DPP seeking a review of a decision not to prosecute Gerry for withholding evidence about his brother, Liam.

This was their apology:

On the 7th of October, Drivetime broadcast an inaccurate report which was repeated on a number of news bulletins during the programme in relation to Mr Gerry Adams TD.

This report incorrectly stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams for withholding evidence about his brother.

The reports should have stated that the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions had asked for a review of the decision not to prosecute the Sinn Féin leader for allegedly withholding evidence about his brother.

RTE apologises to Gerry Adams for this error.

Now, i'm sure you have read the full transcript of Gerry's cross examination......

Then, this week Gerry hires the worlds leading libel lawyer to go after the Independent Newspaper group because they reported on the Police Ombusman investigating a claim by his sister in law, Liams wife, that Gerry was briefed in a public meeting by a policeman on Liams case prior to him giving evidence against his brother.

Now, considering the above examples of how Gerry went after RTE because they left out the word "alledged" in an article, and had to issue a public apology, and how he has hired the worlds leading libel lawyer to challenge the claim printed in 2 major newspapers by his sister in law that he was de briefed by a police man on his brothers rape trial, a claim that is been investigated by the police Ombusman, doesn't it strike you as odd that he didn't go after the Irish News, The Sunday Life, or the Telegraph when they printed claims by Dolours Price that he was involved in the execution of Jean McConville and others, claiming he couldn't afford the costs to prove those claims were false?

After all, he got RTE to apologise for leaving out the word "Allegedly" in their report, and if you were to have read Gerrys testimony in the link I posted earlier, you can understand how RTE made the simple error.

Dixie give it up ffs. Like I keep asking and like you keep not answering, why the fcuk should you or he get the knickers in a twist over Delours Price making unsubstantiated allegations about his activities during the conflict over anybody else doing the exact same? She was just yet another person in the queue with A: a grudge against Gerry; B: An allegation to throw up at him; and C: no evidence to substantiate their claims. Perhaps he had the sense to know he'd never be out of courtrooms if he set a precedence of taking action against them all. And perhaps he knew that one day he'd make himself available for questioning and/or be arrested over his past and knew that he would walk out a free man and that his decision not to run to court to take action against every tom, dick, harry or Delours would be vindicated by his walking out a free, innocent man on his own terms. And again, why your obsession with Delours' unsubstantiated allegations over any one of the countless others you could pull out of the air?

Nally, in case you havn't read what I posted I will repeat myself one more time.

A. Dolours made claims carried in 3 major newspapers that Gerry was involved in murders.

B. Gerry says he can't afford to go to court to defend his name.

C. RTE leave out the word "Allegdley" and Gerry uses any resource available to him and he gets RTE to issue an apology (And when you read his court transcript, you can understand why or how they left that word out)


D. The Independent newspaper group report on the fact that the Police Ombusman are investigating a claim that he was de briefed by a policeman prior to his brothers trial, and Gerry is straight out of the blocks saying it's not true and showing that money is no obstacle, he hires a lawyer who represents a member of the Royal family.

So Nally, when you look at it, you will see how Gerry has no problem defending himself over petty things, but when 3 major newspapers carry a story that he was involved in murders, he just shrugged his shoulders and said shes lying, but I can't afford to go to court to defend myself against her or the 3 newspapers. Despite what you say, this was the one and only reason why he said he wouldn't go to court.

Nally, the thing about liars like Gerry and Glens, is that after you have found them out telling lies, how can you believe anything they say afterwards? Did you believe him when he stood before the Irish nation and told us all that he was "estranged" from his brother for 15 years? Subsequent events proved beyond any doubt that he stood before us and lied. How can we believe or indeed trust him when it was proven that he covered up child abuse.

Gerry may very well be telling the truth, but considering how he lied to everyone before, how can we tell he is telling the truth in this instance? Are you 100% confident he is telling the truth and that 3 major newspapers printed lies by Dolours Price?