British State Collusion

[Trout]

http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html

And what...............................................?

[Nally Stand]

http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html

And what...............................................?

+1 

[Myles Na G.]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?

They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think   

You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

[Myles Na G.]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.

Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion. 

[AQMP]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.

Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion. 

Or to put it another way..."Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang....ooops I just condoned murder"

[Nally Stand]

1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?

They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think   

You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.

[Puckoon]

What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?

[Maguire01]

What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?

I hope you're not making the mistake of looking for logic Puck!

[Jim_Murphy_74]

He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.

[Evil Genius]

He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.

I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".

[pintsofguinness]

He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.

I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".

I would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?

[Oraisteach]

Myles, would you please let go of Gerry and Marty.  They're a red herring as far as the fundamental issue of this thread is concerned.

In your mindset, it is perfectly acceptable for the state to summarily execute its citizens without a trial, without evidence presented, without a defense mounted, without the not-yet-accused being able to be judged by his peers. 
WOW.

So your paragon of judicial excellence would be Don Corleone, is that right?  So screw fundamental human rights?

Myles, I don't know how old you are, but I'm thinking that even 1960's NI might be too tame a world for you. 

[Nally Stand]

What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?

Not being a member of the UUP, I have no idea what his advice to them has been, and I am at a loss as to why you are asking me such a question. If they have been relying on his advice, however, they should really look elsewhere as they have seen better times. As for me using it as a stick...put it this way, O'Callaghan is a former IRA vol., turned tout. He spent many of his "active" years in my local area and is regarded among the republican people as someone who greatly embellishes his own former importance to republicanism at every opportunity, he then joined the UUP, didn't want to change his identity, and wrote a book full of ego-massaging lies and delusions of grandeur. He is a class-A ego-maniac who cannot be trusted.

O'Callaghan stated in 2002 that while he has worked as a UUP adviser, he did not support them (go figure!). Which apparently doesn't contradict the following quote from him at the Friends of the Union convention, 1998: "We can back the Ulster Unionist Party, we can back David Trimble."


This is the man who says Pat Finucane was in the IRA. Hardly rock solid evidence.

Have to anything to add to Myles na G's claims here Puck, or once again, is it only my posts which you take issue with on a thread such as this?

[Trout]

He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.

I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".

There will never be one if Sinn Fein have anything to do with it, too much to lose for too many of them. They like the questions to be all one way.