gaaboard.com

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7078981.ece


Brendan "darkie" Hughes, a former commander of the IRA in Belfast, has claimed posthumously that Gerry Adams ordered the killing and burial of Jean McConville, the mother-of-10 shot dead by the IRA in 1972. He also suggested that Adams gave the order for the Provisional IRA to hang one of its own members in Long Kesh in June 1973 after the 22-year-old cracked under police questioning.

Hughes also boasted that he personally ran a personation campaign for Adams's election as MP in west Belfast in 1987, and again in the council elections of 1989, stealing a "massive" number of votes.

The claims were made in a series of interviews Hughes gave to a researcher for Boston College in 2001 and 2002. He agreed to speak on condition that the material would not be published until after his death.

"I find it so difficult to come to terms [with] the fact that this man has turned his back on everything that we ever did," Hughes said in an interview before he died in 2008.


"I never carried out a major [IRA] operation without the okay or the order from Gerry [Adams]. And for him to sit in his plush office in Westminster or Stormont or wherever and deny it, I mean it's like Hitler denying that there was ever a Holocaust."

Hughes's interviews are contained in a new book, Voices From The Grave by journalist Ed Moloney, which is serialised exclusively in today's Sunday Times.

Adams, the Sinn Fein president, has denied any involvement in the killing of McConville and being a member of the IRA. Asked last month if he was aware that the widowed Belfast woman was to be murdered and her body dumped, he said "No".

Hughes revealed that he was deeply involved in the affair, one of the most high-profile killings of the Troubles. He said his unit found an army transmitter in McConville's flat in Divis. Her family insists that the widow was not an informer, and that she was shot for going to the assistance of an injured soldier.

"She was an informer; she had a transmitter in her house. The British supplied the transmitter [to watch] the movements of IRA volunteers around Divis Flats at that time," Hughes said. "I sent a squad over to the house to check it out and there was a transmitter. We retrieved [it], arrested her, took her away, interrogated her, and she told [us] what she was doing."

Hughes said he wasn't "on the scene at the time", but insisted that his unit took possession of the transmitter and, because she was a woman, released McConville with a warning. He claimed that within a few weeks another army transmitter had been put in McConville's flat.

"She was still co-operating with the British . . . getting paid by the British to pass on information. The squad was brought into operation then," he said. "And she was arrested again and taken away."

Hughes said he knew McConville was to be "executed" but didn't know whether she was to be "disappeared" or her body left on the street. He claimed Ivor Bell, another IRA leader, argued for the body to be dumped in public, but was over-ruled.

"There was only one man who gave the order for that woman to be executed," he said. "That man is now the head of Sinn Fein. I did not give the order to execute that woman — he did. And yet he went to see [McConville's] kids to promise an investigation into her death.

"[Bell] argued, 'if you are going to kill her, put her on the street. What's the sense of killing her and burying her if no-one knows what she was killed for?' "

Asked if Adams had rejected this logic, Hughes replied: "He rejected it." And ordered her to be disappeared, the interviewer asked. "To be buried. She was an informer."

Hughes accused the Sinn Fein leader of getting into a position where he had to deny all of his IRA past. "It . . . appears that way

Gerry Adams and me

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7078706.ece

Article is too long to post.

you wouldn't know what to believe.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 02:57:42 PM
you wouldn't know what to believe.

I dunno pints.

This bit resonated with me as I know some people who have been ostracised from the Shinners because they dared to question the direction the party was going in

QuoteHughes ended up deeply disillusioned, believing that the Provisional IRA was not led by its rank and file. "This is a movement led by the nose by a leadership that refuses to let go, and anyone who objects to it, anyone who has an alternative, is either ridiculed, degraded, shot or put out of the game altogether."

Oh same here ard

Quote
This is a movement led by the nose by a leadership that refuses to let go, and anyone who objects to it, anyone who has an alternative, is either ridiculed, degraded, shot or put out of the game altogether."

I know that part is true especially in recent years.

I would just question Hughes motives and it would make me wary or anything he says.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 02:57:42 PM
you wouldn't know what to believe.

Don't believe any of them

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:13:24 PM
Oh same here ard

Quote
This is a movement led by the nose by a leadership that refuses to let go, and anyone who objects to it, anyone who has an alternative, is either ridiculed, degraded, shot or put out of the game altogether."

I know that part is true especially in recent years.

I would just question Hughes motives and it would make me wary or anything he says.

I don't see why he would lie to be honest

I would imagine the SF strategy will now be to try and discredit Hughes at every turn.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 28, 2010, 03:36:42 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:13:24 PM
Oh same here ard

Quote
This is a movement led by the nose by a leadership that refuses to let go, and anyone who objects to it, anyone who has an alternative, is either ridiculed, degraded, shot or put out of the game altogether."

I know that part is true especially in recent years.

I would just question Hughes motives and it would make me wary or anything he says.

I don't see why he would lie to be honest

Lets see, hmmm, he was a murdering sc**bag and he had plenty of motive to lie, thats a good reason in my book for him to fabricate.

I would say that adams was smarter than that, no way he would leave himself exposed like this, especially since he knew there were informers all over the shop.

I also note that nothing was to be published until his death, nothing like putting the boot in on the way out the door.

ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Adams has consistently denied being in the IRA. That's not refusing to disclose 'everything he ever done'. That's denying everything he ever was, while at the same time insulting the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:12:39 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Adams has consistently denied being in the IRA. That's not refusing to disclose 'everything he ever done'. That's denying everything he ever was, while at the same time insulting the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

fine, change my "disclosing everything he ever done" to "disclosing he was in the IRA"...same point.

The reality is that we will probably never know the full truth surrounding any of this

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 04:13:57 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:12:39 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Adams has consistently denied being in the IRA. That's not refusing to disclose 'everything he ever done'. That's denying everything he ever was, while at the same time insulting the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

fine, change my "disclosing everything he ever done" to "disclosing he was in the IRA"...same point.

Not really. If it's okay for Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, and a whole cadre of other Shinners to admit they were in the IRA, why not Adams?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 04:13:57 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:12:39 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Adams has consistently denied being in the IRA. That's not refusing to disclose 'everything he ever done'. That's denying everything he ever was, while at the same time insulting the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

fine, change my "disclosing everything he ever done" to "disclosing he was in the IRA"...same point.

Not really. If it's okay for Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, and a whole cadre of other Shinners to admit they were in the IRA, why not Adams?

Either he wasn't in the IRA  or he has denied it for so long that he couldn't admit it now

Quote from: stew on March 28, 2010, 03:44:11 PM

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 28, 2010, 03:36:42 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:13:24 PM
Oh same here ard

Quote
This is a movement led by the nose by a leadership that refuses to let go, and anyone who objects to it, anyone who has an alternative, is either ridiculed, degraded, shot or put out of the game altogether."

I know that part is true especially in recent years.

I would just question Hughes motives and it would make me wary or anything he says.

I don't see why he would lie to be honest

Lets see, hmmm, he was a murdering sc**bag and he had plenty of motive to lie, thats a good reason in my book for him to fabricate.

Could  the same not be said about Adams?

McGuiness, Kelly and others have convictions for IRA membership and have done time therefore cannot be put away again for it. Adams has never been convicted of anything and therefore if he admitted it he would have to do some time for it.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:54:32 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 04:13:57 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 28, 2010, 04:12:39 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
ard, because he didn't agree with the way adams and co were taking the movement and wants to do them harm? (though I don't think anything disclosed so far will harm him)

I get it hard to understand why he couldn't understand Adams reasons for not disclosing everything he ever done especially when he's only done it himself when he's dead.

Adams has consistently denied being in the IRA. That's not refusing to disclose 'everything he ever done'. That's denying everything he ever was, while at the same time insulting the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

fine, change my "disclosing everything he ever done" to "disclosing he was in the IRA"...same point.

Not really. If it's okay for Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, and a whole cadre of other Shinners to admit they were in the IRA, why not Adams?

Do you really  not know why?  Why do people keep bringing this question up? Are you slow or do you think it makes some sort of point - have a look at slowcornerbacks's response and make a mental note so you never need to ask the question again and again.

Quote from: slow corner back on March 28, 2010, 05:28:29 PM
McGuiness, Kelly and others have convictions for IRA membership and have done time therefore cannot be put away again for it. Adams has never been convicted of anything and therefore if he admitted it he would have to do some time for it.

Unless he did something after the signing of the GFA, which I think is unlikely, he would not have to do any time at all.

Does it matter when he did something?  If he was found to have done something prior to the GFA then he would still get a small sentence for any charge he could be convicted of.

Then why is Gerry McGeough in court at the minute for an attempted murder in 1975?

He doesnt have to do something, being a member of the IRA is still illegal.
He'd have to be a f**king idiot to publicly admit to being a member of the IRA. Myles or anyone else who wants him to admit his past actions why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him...

Adams is being a bit of a hypocrite as he spends alot of time demanding others tell the truth about the past.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
He doesnt have to do something, being a member of the IRA is still illegal.
He'd have to be a f**king idiot to publicly admit to being a member of the IRA. Myles or anyone else who wants him to admit his past actions why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him...

I think the problem is that he denies having been a member, which is an insult to people's intelligence. If he can lie so easily about that, you wonder what else is a lie. Are you sure McGuinness was convicted of IRA membership? 

Could Hughes not have benefitted more financially if had of told his story while he was still living?

Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2010, 06:52:26 PM
Could Hughes not have benefitted more financially if had of told his story while he was still living?

Maybe it wasn't about the money... he was very disillusioned with the SF leadership.

Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 28, 2010, 06:52:08 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
He doesnt have to do something, being a member of the IRA is still illegal.
He'd have to be a f**king idiot to publicly admit to being a member of the IRA. Myles or anyone else who wants him to admit his past actions why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him...

I think the problem is that he denies having been a member, which is an insult to people's intelligence. If he can lie so easily about that, you wonder what else is a lie. Are you sure McGuinness was convicted of IRA membership?

and you think he should admit to IRA membership and run the risk of being convicted, how stupid would he have to be?

Yes, mcguinness was convicted of IRA membership (twice I think) - in the south - he stood in the dock in a court in dublin and made a speech. 


McGuinness also admitted to the public sunday enquiry (under immunity) that he was a IRA member but have a read of the last paragraph when considering why Adams won't publicly confess (without immunity)...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0429/bloodysunday.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0429/bloodysunday.html)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 28, 2010, 06:52:08 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
He doesnt have to do something, being a member of the IRA is still illegal.
He'd have to be a f**king idiot to publicly admit to being a member of the IRA. Myles or anyone else who wants him to admit his past actions why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him...

I think the problem is that he denies having been a member, which is an insult to people's intelligence. If he can lie so easily about that, you wonder what else is a lie. Are you sure McGuinness was convicted of IRA membership?

and you think he should admit to IRA membership and run the risk of being convicted, how stupid would he have to be?

Yes, mcguinness was convicted of IRA membership (twice I think) - in the south - he stood in the dock in a court in dublin and made a speech.

So he should refuse to comment on it...   is not like they ain't experts at avoiding questions. 

Quote
So he should refuse to comment on it...   is not like they ain't experts at avoiding questions. 

and then face a lot of other questions about why he won't comment....

Quote from: slow corner back on March 28, 2010, 06:40:25 PM
Then why is Gerry McGeough in court at the minute for an attempted murder in 1975?

Let's see how much time Gerry McGeough does if convicted. Not one day, would be my guess.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 28, 2010, 06:52:08 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
He doesnt have to do something, being a member of the IRA is still illegal.
He'd have to be a f**king idiot to publicly admit to being a member of the IRA. Myles or anyone else who wants him to admit his past actions why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him...

I think the problem is that he denies having been a member, which is an insult to people's intelligence. If he can lie so easily about that, you wonder what else is a lie. Are you sure McGuinness was convicted of IRA membership?

and you think he should admit to IRA membership and run the risk of being convicted, how stupid would he have to be?

Yes, mcguinness was convicted of IRA membership (twice I think) - in the south - he stood in the dock in a court in dublin and made a speech. 


McGuinness also admitted to the public sunday enquiry (under immunity) that he was a IRA member but have a read of the last paragraph when considering why Adams won't publicly confess (without immunity)...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0429/bloodysunday.html (http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0429/bloodysunday.html)

He's not admitting to current IRA membership, but to past membership. Would he do time? Absolutely not.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/loyalist-plum-my-lsquoproofrsquo-of-amnesty-deal-for-prisoners-14744535.html

I can t stand bare-faced liars no matter who they are or their background.

Adams is very comfortable when denying membership.

I don't believe that is the reason he won't admit it... as was said earlier, it is such an insult to peoples intelligence. I doubt they would chase a conviction for it.

I'll try and put it simpler for some of the simple minds - if any of you were in Adams position would you continue to deny or admit to everything knowing you run a risk of being prosecuted - anyone who says they would is a liar.

Myles you want him to tell the truth about his past membership and then lie about his current membership. Brilliant.
If he was to say he was a member previously and not now you'd be the first one criticising him about not coming clean about it all.

People say adams insults their intelligence by lying about it but obviously your insulting adams intelligence by arguing if he admitted to everything it would all be fine.  ::)

Quote
I doubt they would chase a conviction for it.

Seeing as your so sure a conviction wouldn't follow I can't understand why anyone wouldnt own up

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 07:28:19 PM
I'll try and put it simpler for some of the simple minds - if any of you were in Adams position would you continue to deny or admit to everything knowing you run a risk of being prosecuted - anyone who says they would is a liar.

Myles you want him to tell the truth about his past membership and then lie about his current membership. Brilliant.
If he was to say he was a member previously and not now you'd be the first one criticising him about not coming clean about it all.

People say adams insults their intelligence by lying about it but obviously your insulting adams intelligence by arguing if he admitted to everything it would all be fine.  ::)

Quote
I doubt they would chase a conviction for it.

Seeing as your so sure a conviction wouldn't follow I can't understand why anyone wouldnt own up

Why do you keep saying 'admit to everything'? Has McGuinness discussed every operation he was ever involved in? Has Gerry Kelly? Of course they haven't, but they haven't denied their membership of the IRA. Adams would not do one day in jail for admitting the same thing, even if it had to be processed through the courts. Gerry McGeough is being prosecuted, but AFAIK he hasn't been remanded in custody. For those who missed it, there is an amnesty in place for offences committed before the signing of the GFA. The only people being locked up for paramiliitary offences these days are the dissidents.

But they authorities claim he was a member of the IRA after the Good Friday Agreement...so you want him to continue to lie about that then? I thought the whole point of him admitting to membership of the IRA for people like you was that he'd be coming clean? He's not doing that if he has to keep lying. And you expect him to be willing to go through the courts and a prosecution for people like you? Even if the chances of him serving time is minimal. 

If you want him to tell the truth why don't you start campaigning for immunity for him?

Personally I'd like to here him admit he was a member of the IRA but at the moment I'd think he'd be idiot to confess.

Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 07:49:29 PM
Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

There is no official amnesty. It would appear to be at the discretion of the PSNI who they want to charge.

On Gerry McGeough
"Police became aware that this individual had re-entered the jurisdiction some time ago but it was not possible to effect an arrest immediately because of the complexity of the investigation and the need to recover and re-examine evidence dating back many years.

"The rationale for the arrest and its timing was based on the police obligation to investigate serious crime," a PSNI statement said.

Mr McGeough, who received 814 first preference votes on an anti-PSNI ticket, is being held at Antrim PSNI station.

It is believed he is being questioned about an incident in 1981 in which an off-duty UDR man was shot at while he was in a van.

Should the Republicans pull out of the peace process, Adams would be a sitting duck like McGeough.
Based on a PSNI suspicion that McGeough is aligned to the dissidents, with no evidence they can decide to do whatever they want re his past activity.

Not quite, Gerry McGeough was an OTR who returned without clearance he wouldn't be prosecuted.Gerry Adams is not an OTR so is not in the same situation. For the record McGeough will not do time if convicted.

Quote from: Ulick on March 28, 2010, 08:37:52 PM
Not quite, Gerry McGeough was an OTR who returned without clearance he wouldn't be prosecuted.Gerry Adams is not an OTR so is not in the same situation. For the record McGeough will not do time if convicted.

[/b]


It's unlikely he willl be convicted but why bother with this if he's not going to do time even if convicted ??

Personally I think it's vindictive as there is clearly no material evidence against him.

Quote from: Ulick on March 28, 2010, 08:48:39 PM
Personally I think it's vindictive as there is clearly no material evidence against him.

It seems that way alright.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 07:52:34 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 07:49:29 PM
Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

Did he never demand that the British admit colluding with loyalists in murder?

Maybe the question should be, why was Mc Guiness and others charged with IRA membership and Adams wasn't?... although he appeared in public wearing black beret...   


Adams and IRA's secret Whitehall talks
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News Online at the Public Record Office 

What happened when Gerry Adams and other republican leaders met the government in 1972? Documents finally released to the public reveal all.
Despite protestations to the contrary over the years, the British Government constantly maintained open channels with the IRA during the worst of the Troubles.
The first major meeting of 1972 when an IRA delegation including Gerry Adams was flown into London is among the most well known.

But documents released under the 30-year-rule reveal for the first time the details of official reaction at the time - and confirm that Mr Adams had an earlier longer meeting with two officials which had given the government hope of a breakthrough amid conflict.

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 09:12:15 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 07:52:34 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 07:49:29 PM
Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

Did he never demand that the British admit colluding with loyalists in murder?

Has he ever named individuals and asked them to admit publicly what they were involved in?

Where is Nally Stand when you need things cleared up ?

Quote from: Minder on March 28, 2010, 09:21:25 PM
Where is Nally Stand when you need things cleared up ?

:D

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 09:20:06 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 09:12:15 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 28, 2010, 07:52:34 PM

Quote from: Gaffer on March 28, 2010, 07:49:29 PM
Wel, if he isnt prepared to tell the truth about himself, then he shouldn't be demanding that others tell the truth about their activities.
Leave that to those in his party who have confessed to their past.

I know he argues for a truth commission - which I assume would mean immunity for anyone coming forward.
When did he call for people to turn over evidence against themselves?

Did he never demand that the British admit colluding with loyalists in murder?

Has he ever named individuals and asked them to admit publicly what they were involved in?

Doesn t have to name individuals to be a hypocrite,

He would ............

1. Demand British admit collusion
2. If this was done he would then demand that people are brought before the courts and prosecuted.

Or maybe you think he wouldn t do that?

there's a difference in calling for people to be prosecuted and in calling on people to admit things publicly.  As far as I know he hasn't called on anyone to admit to anything publicly and therefore turn over evidence against themselves which is what people expect him to do so I'm not sure how he's a hypocrite in that regard. 

I'm not even sure he would call on anyone to be prosecuted now I thought he was more in favour of everything being opened up in form of a truth commission?

Not strange at all. I can't think of anyone in the north who was charged with membership without an accompanying charge except in cases of an admission or supergrass testimony.

that oul craic again - 'gerry adams is ex IRA man' rubbish !  :D

also quite amusing to see that Brendan hughes left 'details' to ONLY be revealed AFTER he had died...
first time that Brendan wouldnt speak up for himself...anyone that knew the man would see plain through that bull**t

I'd agree that hughes didnt like the way sf were headin, and if alive today I'd say hughes would be aligned with the RSF or cira/rira (if he could find any that werent jumped up smugglers/linked to security forces).

adams was never 'up' in near the command of the IRA to be giving orders etc...he was(and still is) looked upon by such people with suspicion.

I see the Irish News has went to town on this today, first 7 pages or so devoted to the book. 

meant to say - theres a book involved so expect some 'headline grabbing stories'

Quote from: Doogie Browser on March 29, 2010, 10:53:47 AM
I see the Irish News has went to town on this today, first 7 pages or so devoted to the book.

election only 5 weeks away,so the Irish News will milk this for all its worth

Wasn't Gerry McGeough only arrested when he ran for election? With that in mind it certainly would seem to be politically motivated, with the effect of his arrest and a trial, even though there wont be any worthwhile outcome for the prosecution, being such that he has no chance of having any political success.

My own thoughts are that Brendan Hughes has no reason to lie - I'm inclined to believe his story. He obviously became disillusioned with the leadership, but any bits I've seen dont seem to be personally vindictive attempts to destroy GA's character, rather just honest frustration at the denial of a past Brendan Hughes felt Adams should have been proud of.

Thats the crux of the matter too. People like Hughes (and rightly so) are proud of their republican tradition, and wear it proudly and openly. Adams is much more politically astute, and recognises that it doesnt matter what you do/have done, its what you are perceived to do/have done. For him to admit membrship etc opens an entire can of worms. The questions wont stop there, next will be questions about how much he knew about individual murders, from their families, etc , etc. No matter what he does hes going to get asked questions, might as well keep them at the were you or werent you stage, than at any one further down the line.

Everyones a liar at the end of the day, and Adams lies about his IRA involvement are necessary for the smooth continuation of the peace process, so I'm happy enough with them.

Some of you Nordies can't keep yer mouths shut  :)

Usually when people talk about themselves they are not truthful.
There is a familiar pattern with Hughes when talking about incidents, how he was on the ball and others got it wrong.
Re Loughall "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said
Then his self admitted chronic deep suspicions
'Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage'
'There was, he believed, no IRA member in Belfast that he could trust any more, so widespread was corruption within the organisation'.

[i']Later on when he tackled Adams about it (corruption), he was told he was paranoid'[/i] 

I can't disagree with that  ;D

He clarified - I dont have the direct quote, but re loughgall he definitely said that it was only a lot later that he began to wonder if it had been sabotage, getting a lot of hard core out of the way in preparation for the peace process: it was clearly musings rather than direct accusations however, he said himself he didnt know, and was perhaps being unfair on them.

He was a deeply suspicious person, not just about Loughall.

Here is what was written in the ST about Loughall

In an ambush at Loughall in May 1987, eight members of the IRA were shot dead by the SAS. Hughes believed the operation proceeded without proper intelligence, organisation or training. "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said. "I sat in a house in Donegal along with Martin McGuinness and the rest of the GHQ staff where they were planning this major upsurge in the campaign; we were going to go in and take over [British] army billets and so forth, major operations involving major weapons.

"[Colonel] Gaddafi had come on board. Shipments of weapons came in [from Libya], all the money was there. What was lacking was the training, but there was this sort of bullish attitude from people like McGuinness to push ahead with these operations. I argued against them. But this push seemed to be coming from the top; [from] army council people like Joe Cahill."

Later, when he saw how the peace process unfolded, Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage — set-ups by peacemakers in the republican movement to remove militant hardliners who might be obstacles to the compromises that lay ahead. "I suspect now because of the situation that we're in, that there might have been intent as well, to bring about a disaster," he said.

"It's because I'm so suspicious of the people in positions of power now that [it] leads me to think that there's a possibility there was collusion there. I don't know — it may be fair, it may be unfair."

Quote from: Main Street on March 29, 2010, 12:16:44 PM
He was a deeply suspicious person, not just about Loughall.

Here is what was written in the ST about Loughall

In an ambush at Loughall in May 1987, eight members of the IRA were shot dead by the SAS. Hughes believed the operation proceeded without proper intelligence, organisation or training. "I remember arguing against operations [like this] going ahead," he said. "I sat in a house in Donegal along with Martin McGuinness and the rest of the GHQ staff where they were planning this major upsurge in the campaign; we were going to go in and take over [British] army billets and so forth, major operations involving major weapons.

"[Colonel] Gaddafi had come on board. Shipments of weapons came in [from Libya], all the money was there. What was lacking was the training, but there was this sort of bullish attitude from people like McGuinness to push ahead with these operations. I argued against them. But this push seemed to be coming from the top; [from] army council people like Joe Cahill."

Later, when he saw how the peace process unfolded, Hughes began to suspect that operations like Loughall might have been sabotage — set-ups by peacemakers in the republican movement to remove militant hardliners who might be obstacles to the compromises that lay ahead. "I suspect now because of the situation that we're in, that there might have been intent as well, to bring about a disaster," he said.

"It's because I'm so suspicious of the people in positions of power now that [it] leads me to think that there's a possibility there was collusion there. I don't know — it may be fair, it may be unfair."

I know it's a quote and all but that whole theory is very Ed Moloney-ish.  His "groundbreaking" book on Adams was based around this theory if I recall. 

It's funny but I doub that those showing such outrage about these "revelations" on Adams actually ever belief anything contrary anway.............

/Jim

It is a tragic story however if the family are so ready  to accept the word of Hughes about Adams's involvement, they should be accepting  she was an informer as he says. All duck or no dinner.
Whether the execution was a justifiable response is a whole other debate...

'In the book, extracts of which were published in the Sunday Times, Hughes said that an Army transmitter was removed from her flat by an IRA team.

Hughes said he helped in her interrogation and she admitted she was working for the British Army.

But because she was a mother and a widow, she was given a warning.

However, a second transmitter was later found and she was taken away to be killed.'

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 29, 2010, 01:16:52 PM

I know it's a quote and all but that whole theory is very Ed Moloney-ish.  His "groundbreaking" book on Adams was based around this theory if I recall. 

It's funny but I doub that those showing such outrage about these "revelations" on Adams actually ever belief anything contrary anway.............

/Jim

I haven't read a Moloney book. The theme might well be down his alleyway.

For this book (extracts of), I note that it looks to be one where Moloney asks the questions, prompting the stories from Hughes.
It is the questions Moloney asks which reveal a more rounded picture of Hughes to the reader, than if Hughes had wrote the whole thing on his own.
Moloney:  What did Adams say?
Hughes: Adams said I was paranoid.
But Moloney does not include his question in the book.

Iirc. it was Moloney in Hibernia magazine was the first mainstream journalist to write articles about Birmingham/Guildhall show trials.

Legal threat

The Sinn Fein president said he had asked for legal advice because he believed some of the claims to be libellous.

Mr Adams said: "To be libelled, means that in some way you are seen as being disreputable by your friends and associates, so the allegation about IRA membership, that has been consistently denied, may not be the most offensive and outrageous allegation which he has made." 

Asked what the most outrageous allegation was, Mr Adams said: "The whole suggestion, for instance, that I was involved in the killing, or would have known about the killing, of Jean McConville."

The interviews were carried out and recorded by Anthony McIntyre. Moloney was then given access to them by Boston College.

Quote from: Ulick on March 29, 2010, 02:56:37 PM
The interviews were carried out and recorded by Anthony McIntyre. Moloney was then given access to them by Boston College.

thats correct Antony McIntyre that says it all,just read the magazine he published"The Blanket" and that will tell you all you need to know about his politics ::)

That appears to be so,
but Ed is still claiming some credit for the interview process.
'Mr Moloney said he had encouraged the efforts to collect stories from republican and loyalist paramilitaries involved in the conflict to act as a store of information from the Troubles, with the research exercise backed by Boston college in the US'.

Quote from: Main Street on March 29, 2010, 03:38:02 PM
That appears to be so,
but Ed is still claiming some credit for the interview process.
'Mr Moloney said he had encouraged the efforts to collect stories from republican and loyalist paramilitaries involved in the conflict to act as a store of information from the Troubles, with the research exercise backed by Boston college in the US'.

Funny that. Paul Bew was on Talkback earlier saying it was all his idea. I believe McIntyre has previously made the same claims.

Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 29, 2010, 02:16:41 PM
It is a tragic story however if the family are so ready  to accept the word of Hughes about Adams's involvement, they should be accepting  she was an informer as he says. All duck or no dinner.
Whether the execution was a justifiable response is a whole other debate...

'In the book, extracts of which were published in the Sunday Times, Hughes said that an Army transmitter was removed from her flat by an IRA team.

Hughes said he helped in her interrogation and she admitted she was working for the British Army.

But because she was a mother and a widow, she was given a warning.

However, a second transmitter was later found and she was taken away to be killed.'

Exactly and it's not just the family that could apply to.

I see McConville's daughter is going to take civil action against adams, no I can't understand why he won't admit to his IRA involvement....

pints, I get what you are saying about Adams.  I think Adams is a liar though

Way I see it, the needs of victims of various actions which he may have been responsible for (if you believe Hughes) has been put to the side in favour of political expediency.  They knew who they were talking to in '74 when they sprung him from jail and transported him to Cheney Walk.  They knew he was central to taking the provos from a war footing and they have probably turned a blind eye to a lot worse than Jean McConville's murder

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 29, 2010, 08:16:30 PM
pints, I get what you are saying about Adams.  I think Adams is a liar though

Way I see it, the needs of victims of various actions which he may have been responsible for (if you believe Hughes) has been put to the side in favour of political expediency.  They knew who they were talking to in '74 when they sprung him from jail and transported him to Cheney Walk.  They knew he was central to taking the provos from a war footing and they have probably turned a blind eye to a lot worse than Jean McConville's murder

Of course he's a liar, he's had to be.

I dont think the brits turned a blind eye to things he's done, they just haven't been able to get anything on him...

Gerry was in a real bad mood this evening when being questioned about the allegations in the book.

" Don't get smart with me !! " was one reply to a question posed by a female journalist about his membership or not of the IRA.



Usually Gerry comes across well but the veil slipped a bit today.

if you listen carefully to ed maloney you will hear exactly what he is saying BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK...........I WANT YOUR MONEY BUY MY BOOK... the allegations are not new but if he'd not mentioned Gerry Adams at all it would be in the bargain basket before it was on the shelf. my book will be out soon in which someone who's dead swears that Gerry Adams had an affair with cardinal Daly.... :o see what i mean buy MY BOOK instead

 
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
THE IDES OF MARCH? This blog has been of a mind to write a frivolous piece for some time now about the citizens who comment on these musings of mine. In particular about the ones who get annoyed for no good reason. For example Anonymous, who is beside himself or herself because I refer to this blog as this blog.
Or the Saint Galls amadán who accuses me of bias against the All-Ireland champions when I have nothing but admiration for them, to the point where I am endeavouring to have our City Council and our Minister of Arts, Culture and Leisure Nelson McCausland host receptions for Naomh Gall.
This blog has already hosted a Stormont reception for this wonderful Gaelic sporting institution. That was a few years ago when a good time was had by all and the bar bill was more than this blog and your man could bear. This time the state and the city burghers should pay. Naomh Gall Gaels deserve it.
But to other matters. An old friend of mine, Brendan Hughes, has been in the news this week. The Irish News actually devoted eight pages on one day and three pages another day to a book containing interviews with Brendan.
This book by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre appears to be a rerun of an earlier tome by Ed Moloney.
Mr Moloney and Mr McIntyre have written books and countless articles attacking me, and in its time the IRA leadership.
I knew Brendan Hughes well. Better than Ed Moloney or Anthony McIntyre. And I cared more for him and about him than they ever will. Some time I hope to get the space to reflect on my life with Brendan and the separate twists and turns of his life, and mine.
He wasn't well and hadn't been for a very long time, including during the time he did these interviews.
He also carried with him an enormous sense of guilt over events surrounding the first hunger strike. This made him very vulnerable even before his health deteriorated.
However, that is no excuse for his involvement in this book.
Brendan also opposed the peace process. That was his right. His assertion that the struggle was not worth it is wrong.
The fact is that the decisions taken collectively by republicans have improved the quality of life for people across this island; have ensured the growth of republican politics and created a new and dynamic context in which there is the potential to achieve reunification and independence.
Brendan could and should have been part of this. For a mixture of reasons he wasn't. That was his choice. Like everything else he was involved in. Big boys didn't make him do it.
I reject any suggestion by Ed Moloney, or anyone else for that matter, that I have ever sought to distance myself or to disassociate myself from the IRA.
Anyone who recalls the years of conflict and the countless interviews I gave, and still give, in which this issue is raised, will know that I am the person most frequently interviewed about the IRA and who defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle, which thankfully now has ended.
I am proud of my association with the IRA. It was not a perfect organisation and it made many mistakes. Its business was war and in the madness that is war the IRA did many things which deeply hurt people.
I regret that very much and I have worked with others to ameliorate this. Some victims' families do not accept this. That is their entitlement. I reject absolutely any accusation that I had any hand or part in the killing and disappearing of Jean McConville or in any of the other allegations that are being promoted by Ed Moloney.
The issue of the disappeared is a terrible legacy of the conflict. A grievous wrong has been done to these families. Republicans are trying to right this wrong and have been trying to do so for some years.
The effort to do this was initiated by me after I was approached by some of the families involved. There are many other initiatives, mostly private, to bring healing to victims of the conflict. Republicans are very centrally involved, in personal as well as more formal elements of this.
Some of the allegations made against me are very serious indeed and, bizarrely, by an accuser who is not here to stand over his claims. I feel sorry for him.
Every other republican I have spoken to has a totally different view. As I have said before on other occasions, there are many people who would be prepared to give an account of their actions during the war and who would have the courage to do this while they are still alive. A process to do this is needed.
They include republicans, loyalists, unionist politicians, British politicians and British state forces. And me.
I have made it clear to both governments and in public remarks that the legacy of the past requires an independent, international truth commission to be established by an acceptable and reputable international body. It is a matter of public record that I personally would be prepared to give evidence and to encourage others to give evidence to such a genuine truth recovery process.

Posted by Gerry Adams at 9:51 PM

OK the Irish News is really bothering me with this stuff.

The biggest financial upheaval in Ireland and you have to wait until page 27 to read anything about it, including a sale of one of the big 4 banks in the province.  It was Page 14 before the most freakish weather in years got a mention.

And Gerry Adams saying Brendan Hughes "wasn't well" when he carried out the interviews gets the front page? 

I have no love for Sinn Fein but what exactly is their agenda? 

Quote from: Rois on April 01, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
OK the Irish News is really bothering me with this stuff.

The biggest financial upheaval in Ireland and you have to wait until page 27 to read anything about it, including a sale of one of the big 4 banks in the province.  It was Page 14 before the most freakish weather in years got a mention.

And Gerry Adams saying Brendan Hughes "wasn't well" when he carried out the interviews gets the front page? 

I have no love for Sinn Fein but what exactly is their agenda?

Election 5 weeks away and the SDLP owners "the Fitzpatricks" are big SDLP backers

Quote from: lawnseed on March 31, 2010, 11:41:46 PM
if you listen carefully to ed maloney you will hear exactly what he is saying BUY MY BOOK BUY MY BOOK...........I WANT YOUR MONEY BUY MY BOOK... the allegations are not new but if he'd not mentioned Gerry Adams at all it would be in the bargain basket before it was on the shelf. my book will be out soon in which someone who's dead swears that Gerry Adams had an affair with cardinal Daly.... :o see what i mean buy MY BOOK instead

I've seen Gerry doing the book signings too... why doesn't he put up here and sue?

Quote from: Rois on April 01, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
OK the Irish News is really bothering me with this stuff.

The biggest financial upheaval in Ireland and you have to wait until page 27 to read anything about it, including a sale of one of the big 4 banks in the province.  It was Page 14 before the most freakish weather in years got a mention.

And Gerry Adams saying Brendan Hughes "wasn't well" when he carried out the interviews gets the front page? 

I have no love for Sinn Fein but what exactly is their agenda?

[/b]


Maybe they believe that Gerry WAS a member of the Provos when he contends that he was never a member ?.

Maybe they accept Brendan Hughes' version of events, given that Gerry and others in the Republican movement hasn't always told the truth ?

But at the end of the day, they realise that Gerry IS NEVER going to sue them. Which is what he should do if he really believes that his name is being sullied.

They can try all they want Attwood has no chance in the west Gerry will still get 20 odd thousand votes ;D

Quote from: glens abu on April 01, 2010, 10:41:52 AM
They can try all they want Attwood has no chance in the west Gerry will still get 20 odd thousand votes ;D

Correct.

Quote from: orangeman on April 01, 2010, 10:37:42 AM

Quote from: Rois on April 01, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
OK the Irish News is really bothering me with this stuff.

The biggest financial upheaval in Ireland and you have to wait until page 27 to read anything about it, including a sale of one of the big 4 banks in the province.  It was Page 14 before the most freakish weather in years got a mention.

And Gerry Adams saying Brendan Hughes "wasn't well" when he carried out the interviews gets the front page? 

I have no love for Sinn Fein but what exactly is their agenda?

[/b]


Maybe they believe that Gerry WAS a member of the Provos when he contends that he was never a member ?.

Maybe they accept Brendan Hughes' version of events, given that Gerry and others in the Republican movement hasn't always told the truth ?

But at the end of the day, they realise that Gerry IS NEVER going to sue them. Which is what he should do if he really believes that his name is being sullied.

That is all fine but in one of the most turbulent economic weeks this country has ever seen, I was hoping that the Irish News would attribute a bit more coverage to associated events, rather than report non-news stories on their front page. 

Quote from: glens abu on April 01, 2010, 09:33:24 AM

Quote from: Rois on April 01, 2010, 09:12:04 AM
OK the Irish News is really bothering me with this stuff.

The biggest financial upheaval in Ireland and you have to wait until page 27 to read anything about it, including a sale of one of the big 4 banks in the province.  It was Page 14 before the most freakish weather in years got a mention.

And Gerry Adams saying Brendan Hughes "wasn't well" when he carried out the interviews gets the front page? 

I have no love for Sinn Fein but what exactly is their agenda?

Election 5 weeks away and the SDLP owners "the Fitzpatricks" are big SDLP backers

And the Fitzpatricks hate backing losers...

The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

I think that's 100% right

Informer, and I don't know about Gerry not suing people but I have a fair idea her relatives would sue idiots stupid enough to post that accusation on a open forum. Your not the brightest,  are you Angelo?

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2019, 12:17:05 AM
Informer, and I don't know about Gerry not suing people but I have a fair idea her relatives would sue idiots stupid enough to post that accusation on a open forum. Your not the brightest,  are you Angelo?

I'm not saying anything with any certainty, I'm just giving my view on the likelihood of events with the facts we know.

We have statements from a variety of different people that attest to the fact Adams knew about and actually ordered the execution of McConville and there are statements from a variety of people of McConville having being caught on a number of occasions with recording devices used by British Intelligence. So I don't know how that could be construed as libellous, there are a number of books published by respected authors who label McConville as an informer, there have been tv shows and documentaries that have aired allegations from Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes that McConville was indeed an informer.

I struggle to see why you are getting your knickers up in a twist.

I don't think we are likely to get anywhere on resolving the matter until Adams and the British come clean and until the McConville family try to stop burying the facts of the case they don't like.

I'm much smarter than you also.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 07:10:48 AM

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2019, 12:17:05 AM
Informer, and I don't know about Gerry not suing people but I have a fair idea her relatives would sue idiots stupid enough to post that accusation on a open forum. Your not the brightest,  are you Angelo?

I'm not saying anything with any certainty, I'm just giving my view on the likelihood of events with the facts we know.

We have statements from a variety of different people that attest to the fact Adams knew about and actually ordered the execution of McConville and there are statements from a variety of people of McConville having being caught on a number of occasions with recording devices used by British Intelligence. So I don't know how that could be construed as libellous, there are a number of books published by respected authors who label McConville as an informer, there have been tv shows and documentaries that have aired allegations from Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes that McConville was indeed an informer.

I struggle to see why you are getting your knickers up in a twist.

I don't think we are likely to get anywhere on resolving the matter until Adams and the British come clean and until the McConville family try to stop burying the facts of the case they don't like.

I'm much smarter than you also.

There are single celled organisms would give you a run for your money. ;D

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 07:20:56 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 07:10:48 AM

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2019, 12:17:05 AM
Informer, and I don't know about Gerry not suing people but I have a fair idea her relatives would sue idiots stupid enough to post that accusation on a open forum. Your not the brightest,  are you Angelo?

I'm not saying anything with any certainty, I'm just giving my view on the likelihood of events with the facts we know.

We have statements from a variety of different people that attest to the fact Adams knew about and actually ordered the execution of McConville and there are statements from a variety of people of McConville having being caught on a number of occasions with recording devices used by British Intelligence. So I don't know how that could be construed as libellous, there are a number of books published by respected authors who label McConville as an informer, there have been tv shows and documentaries that have aired allegations from Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes that McConville was indeed an informer.

I struggle to see why you are getting your knickers up in a twist.

I don't think we are likely to get anywhere on resolving the matter until Adams and the British come clean and until the McConville family try to stop burying the facts of the case they don't like.

I'm much smarter than you also.

There are single celled organisms would give you a run for your money. ;D

Until your balls ever drop low enough for you to take me on in a debate, you can make all the little hit and run jibes you want but we'll still see past them.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 07:26:51 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 07:20:56 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 07:10:48 AM

Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 18, 2019, 12:17:05 AM
Informer, and I don't know about Gerry not suing people but I have a fair idea her relatives would sue idiots stupid enough to post that accusation on a open forum. Your not the brightest,  are you Angelo?

I'm not saying anything with any certainty, I'm just giving my view on the likelihood of events with the facts we know.

We have statements from a variety of different people that attest to the fact Adams knew about and actually ordered the execution of McConville and there are statements from a variety of people of McConville having being caught on a number of occasions with recording devices used by British Intelligence. So I don't know how that could be construed as libellous, there are a number of books published by respected authors who label McConville as an informer, there have been tv shows and documentaries that have aired allegations from Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes that McConville was indeed an informer.

I struggle to see why you are getting your knickers up in a twist.

I don't think we are likely to get anywhere on resolving the matter until Adams and the British come clean and until the McConville family try to stop burying the facts of the case they don't like.

I'm much smarter than you also.

There are single celled organisms would give you a run for your money. ;D

Until your balls ever drop low enough for you to take me on in a debate, you can make all the little hit and run jibes you want but we'll still see past them.

Debate!!!  This from someone paranoid that every referee in the country is against Tyrone, hissy fit isn't debating.  8)

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Speculation and casting aspersions on someone who can't defend themselves and insulting their family is also not debate, it damn right dangerous.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 08:04:16 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Speculation and casting aspersions on someone who can't defend themselves and insulting their family is also not debate, it damn right dangerous.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 08:04:16 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Speculation and casting aspersions on someone who can't defend themselves and insulting their family is also not debate, it damn right dangerous.

This is a discussion board, I don't think you grasp that.

The information is in the public domain so I'm not speculating or casting aspersions, I'm merely making my own personal, rational conclusions on what we have available.

If you have anything that may contradict that then be my guest but if you're just sniping because you don't have the intellect to contribute to this discussion then I suggest you toddle on.

How have I insulted the family?

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:08:12 AM

This is a discussion board, I don't think you grasp that.

The information is in the public domain so I'm not speculating or casting aspersions, I'm merely making my own personal, rational conclusions on what we have available.

If you have anything that may contradict that then be my guest but if you're just sniping because you don't have the intellect to contribute to this discussion then I suggest you toddle on.

How have I insulted the family?

Sweet Jesus - Really? and you are talking about intellect!

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 09:35:05 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:08:12 AM

This is a discussion board, I don't think you grasp that.

The information is in the public domain so I'm not speculating or casting aspersions, I'm merely making my own personal, rational conclusions on what we have available.

If you have anything that may contradict that then be my guest but if you're just sniping because you don't have the intellect to contribute to this discussion then I suggest you toddle on.

How have I insulted the family?

Sweet Jesus - Really? and you are talking about intellect!

I think when someone attempts stonewalling when asked a question about a claim they made it would indicate a lack of intelligence.

It's a fairly basic question. Why don't you attempt to answer it?

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:48:35 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 09:35:05 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:08:12 AM

This is a discussion board, I don't think you grasp that.

The information is in the public domain so I'm not speculating or casting aspersions, I'm merely making my own personal, rational conclusions on what we have available.

If you have anything that may contradict that then be my guest but if you're just sniping because you don't have the intellect to contribute to this discussion then I suggest you toddle on.

How have I insulted the family?

Sweet Jesus - Really? and you are talking about intellect!

I think when someone attempts stonewalling when asked a question about a claim they made it would indicate a lack of intelligence.

It's a fairly basic question. Why don't you attempt to answer it?

Given the high intellect which you are purporting to possess and given what has been actually proven about this tragic case, i find it inconceivable that you don't know the answer to your own question.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 09:52:30 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:48:35 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 09:35:05 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 09:08:12 AM

This is a discussion board, I don't think you grasp that.

The information is in the public domain so I'm not speculating or casting aspersions, I'm merely making my own personal, rational conclusions on what we have available.

If you have anything that may contradict that then be my guest but if you're just sniping because you don't have the intellect to contribute to this discussion then I suggest you toddle on.

How have I insulted the family?

Sweet Jesus - Really? and you are talking about intellect!

I think when someone attempts stonewalling when asked a question about a claim they made it would indicate a lack of intelligence.

It's a fairly basic question. Why don't you attempt to answer it?

Given the high intellect which you are purporting to possess and given what has been actually proven about this tragic case, i find it inconceivable that you don't know the answer to your own question.

Can we have it noted for the record that the hot air balloon that is t_mac has been unable to substantiate his claims after being asked on multiple occasions to do so.

If I  insulted the family, it should be fairly easy for you to specifically point out where and how I have done so. You can't.

You are hard work, I can only assume you are an only child and always got your way.  If you were one of Jean McConville's children and read that unproven, scurrilous drivel would you not feel insulted?

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 10:16:36 AM
You are hard work, I can only assume you are an only child and always got your way.  If you were one of Jean McConville's children and read that unproven, scurrilous drivel would you not feel insulted?

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Why? Because you are unable to answer a basic question on the tenets of your claim. You're continuing to stonewall, why are you struggling to answe a very easy question?

I think the McConville children only want to pursue certain elements of the truth.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 10:24:48 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 10:16:36 AM
You are hard work, I can only assume you are an only child and always got your way.  If you were one of Jean McConville's children and read that unproven, scurrilous drivel would you not feel insulted?

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Why? Because you are unable to answer a basic question on the tenets of your claim. You're continuing to stonewall, why are you struggling to answe a very easy question?

I think the McConville children only want to pursue certain elements of the truth.

So after insulting the family, defending the insult, you go on to insult them again, classy act.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 10:44:45 AM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 10:24:48 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 10:16:36 AM
You are hard work, I can only assume you are an only child and always got your way.  If you were one of Jean McConville's children and read that unproven, scurrilous drivel would you not feel insulted?

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

Why? Because you are unable to answer a basic question on the tenets of your claim. You're continuing to stonewall, why are you struggling to answe a very easy question?

I think the McConville children only want to pursue certain elements of the truth.

So after insulting the family, defending the insult, you go on to insult them again, classy act.

You're accussing me of insulting the family yet you can't even substantiate your claims. You're full of hot air, you will bandy about insults and allegations yourself but will run away when pressed on them.

I'm confident in my views, I can substantiate my views, I am confident enough to explain my rationale.

I don't see how stating facts in an insult.

The McConvilles have continually sought not to countenance any possibility their mother was an informer despite the fact it is more than a credible theory.

People (including the McConvilles) are happy to take the word of Price, Hughes et al that Adams knew and was complicit in the orders to execute Jean McConville but won't accept the word from them that she was a tout and that she had received a warning after earlier being caught. You can't have it both ways.

If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 11:58:16 AM
If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

More stonewalling and deflecting.

You want me to publish my identity and you want to remain anonymous?

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 11:58:16 AM
If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

More stonewalling and deflecting.

You want me to publish my identity and you want to remain anonymous?

I am not the one throwing around unproven accusations about a mother who was murdered and insulting her memory and that of her family, 10 children who went through an ordeal one could never comprehend, but you carry on posting these scurrilous accusations under the cloud of anonymity.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 11:58:16 AM
If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

More stonewalling and deflecting.

You want me to publish my identity and you want to remain anonymous?

I am not the one throwing around unproven accusations about a mother who was murdered and insulting her memory and that of her family, 10 children who went through an ordeal one could never comprehend, but you carry on posting these scurrilous accusations under the cloud of anonymity.

I'm not throwing around accusations. I'm just basing my views on what is in the public domain and stating it as such.

All you've done is come on here and try and obfuscate any discussion on the matter. If you have nothing to add them why don't you toddle on? What is your own view?

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 10:16:36 AM
You are hard work, I can only assume you are an only child and always got your way.  If you were one of Jean McConville's children and read that unproven, scurrilous drivel would you not feel insulted?

Quote from: Angelo on October 17, 2019, 10:08:36 PM
The never ending saga back in the headlines again.

Basically it will go around and around in loops but it will never be solved until there is a willingness to come clean from all sides:

I think it looks incredibly likely the following took place:

- Jean McConville was a British Intelligence informant
- She had been caught and given a warning that she would be killed if she continued to do so
- Her British handlers were aware of this
- She was caught again and her death was ordered by the senior IRA figures
- Gerry Adams was likely the man who gave the orders along with Ivor Bell
- Dolours Price and Pat McClure carried out the execution and disappearance

But they'll never have closure:

- Adams won't admit to being in the IRA, won't admit to having knowledge of the decision to execute her or admit to giving the order
- The Brits won't admit to having her as an informant, won't admit to endangering the life of one of their assets in full knowledge that she was under severe threat and won't hand over classified documents
- Her family won't accept the likelihood that she was indeed a tout and was killed for this reason

It's a sad situation that bears all the hallmarks of the harshness of life back then but I think there were far worse atrocities and far bigger victims back that don't get the spotlight the Jean McConville case still does.

It will continue to wrangle on and wrangle on without ever reaching closure and certain elements will use here name to get as much political capital as they can.

There is validity to the point that if people want to take the Boston tapes as evidence, they have to take the whole lot. And that isn't just the who, its the why.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:58:04 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 11:58:16 AM
If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

More stonewalling and deflecting.

You want me to publish my identity and you want to remain anonymous?

I am not the one throwing around unproven accusations about a mother who was murdered and insulting her memory and that of her family, 10 children who went through an ordeal one could never comprehend, but you carry on posting these scurrilous accusations under the cloud of anonymity.

I'm not throwing around accusations. I'm just basing my views on what is in the public domain and stating it as such.

All you've done is come on here and try and obfuscate any discussion on the matter. If you have nothing to add them why don't you toddle on? What is your own view?

Under an anonymous name, base them under your own name on the twitter account I referenced.

The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 01:18:14 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:58:04 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 12:24:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 11:58:16 AM
If you are so confident in your own views and can substantiate them post them under your own name and include some contact details, ill post the link on twitter https://twitter.com/search/jean+mcconville or you can post them yourself.

More stonewalling and deflecting.

You want me to publish my identity and you want to remain anonymous?

I am not the one throwing around unproven accusations about a mother who was murdered and insulting her memory and that of her family, 10 children who went through an ordeal one could never comprehend, but you carry on posting these scurrilous accusations under the cloud of anonymity.

I'm not throwing around accusations. I'm just basing my views on what is in the public domain and stating it as such.

All you've done is come on here and try and obfuscate any discussion on the matter. If you have nothing to add them why don't you toddle on? What is your own view?

Under an anonymous name, base them under your own name on the twitter account I referenced.

Why don't you base your opinion and views under your own name? I'm not making any revelations, I'm merely commenting on information widely available in print media and online publications. You seem to be unable to understand the nuances of that.

This is an online discussion board. It is a thread on the murder of Jean McConville. There is nothing libellous, groundbreaking or insulting in what has been said. You would seem to be in the habit of coming on threads slabbering and then running away when you're asked to elaborate or substantiate.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

I would say it's very credible, multiple sources with little differences in their accounts and seems to stand up to robust scrutiny.

The Brits could make things a lot easier by releasing their files. For some reason they are holding back on the Divis files when most of the rest have been made available, the McConvilles don't seem to be pushing too hard on this. I think you have to question that.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

I would say it's very credible, multiple sources with little differences in their accounts and seems to stand up to robust scrutiny.

The Brits could make things a lot easier by releasing their files. For some reason they are holding back on the Divis files when most of the rest have been made available, the McConvilles don't seem to be pushing too hard on this. I think you have to question that.

Except academic scrutiny as the Boston Tapes are now being used as an exercise in how not to conduct an oral history.

Also judicial scrutiny when a judge says the tapes are completely inadmissible in court.

But apart from that yeah it's pretty credible  ::) ::) Did you not say something about being smart??!

Quote from: screenexile on October 18, 2019, 03:31:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

I would say it's very credible, multiple sources with little differences in their accounts and seems to stand up to robust scrutiny.

The Brits could make things a lot easier by releasing their files. For some reason they are holding back on the Divis files when most of the rest have been made available, the McConvilles don't seem to be pushing too hard on this. I think you have to question that.

Except academic scrutiny as the Boston Tapes are now being used as an exercise in how not to conduct an oral history.

Also judicial scrutiny when a judge says the tapes are completely inadmissible in court.

But apart from that yeah it's pretty credible  ::) ::) Did you not say something about being smart??!

What are you blathering on about?

The accounts that Price and Hughes gave corroborate each other, the equipment Hughes says was located at McConville's apartment fit in with the type of equipment used by British intelligence at that time. The British government have refused to release files relating to the Divis Flats specifically at that time. The McConville family are applying little if any pressure to release this files which would certainly help their stance if their was nothing in them that suggests Jean McConville was an informer. That is the robust scrutiny their accounts of events stand up to.

They are consistent in their stories, they are accurate in the type of equipment used, they made admissions or knowledge of the murder and interrogation.

What part of their stories do you have an issue with? Don't be like the other coward and actually address the question.

Wasn't Jean eldest son in prison for being a member of inla when she was shot. It would be strange for her to be informing if her son was a member.

Regardless of if she was an informer it was disgusting what happened to her. They left 7 kids alone in an apartment to fend for themselves for weeks, the eldest was 15 years old. When they were eventually put into care homes the youngest lad was sexually assaulted by priests for years. Disgusting.

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: screenexile on October 18, 2019, 03:31:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

I would say it's very credible, multiple sources with little differences in their accounts and seems to stand up to robust scrutiny.

The Brits could make things a lot easier by releasing their files. For some reason they are holding back on the Divis files when most of the rest have been made available, the McConvilles don't seem to be pushing too hard on this. I think you have to question that.

Except academic scrutiny as the Boston Tapes are now being used as an exercise in how not to conduct an oral history.

Also judicial scrutiny when a judge says the tapes are completely inadmissible in court.

But apart from that yeah it's pretty credible  ::) ::) Did you not say something about being smart??!

What are you blathering on about?

The accounts that Price and Hughes gave corroborate each other, the equipment Hughes says was located at McConville's apartment fit in with the type of equipment used by British intelligence at that time. The British government have refused to release files relating to the Divis Flats specifically at that time. The McConville family are applying little if any pressure to release this files which would certainly help their stance if their was nothing in them that suggests Jean McConville was an informer. That is the robust scrutiny their accounts of events stand up to.

They are consistent in their stories, they are accurate in the type of equipment used, they made admissions or knowledge of the murder and interrogation.

What part of their stories do you have an issue with? Don't be like the other coward and actually address the question.

Says the petulant child demonising a murdered woman and her family whom he knows nothing about except for hearsay, all under the guise of anonymity and he has the gall to call anyone a coward.  The tapes were inadmissible for a reason, you have no evidence she was a tout, and you are firing this term about in an effort to justify the fact she was murdered, you are a heinous, cowardly sc**bag of an individual.

Quote from: tyrone08 on October 18, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
Wasn't Jean eldest son in prison for being a member of inla when she was shot. It would be strange for her to be informing if her son was a member.

Regardless of if she was an informer it was disgusting what happened to her. They left 7 kids alone in an apartment to fend for themselves for weeks, the eldest was 15 years old. When they were eventually put into care homes the youngest lad was sexually assaulted by priests for years. Disgusting.

What happened to McConville is generally what happens to informers in war times. Why the British would choose to exploit and endager a single mother of 10 in full knowledge of the consequences and threats is a higher question. It's sad what happened but it was a sign of a times. Bad things happen in wars, if you are informing you are aware of the dangers and from what is in the public domain, it is a very credible theory that Jean McConville was an informant. Michael's Collin's squad had little hesitation in killing suspected informers. That is the cruel reality of war.

There were worse atrocities in the troubles that didn't get justice or a glimmer of the spotlight for me.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 04:14:33 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: screenexile on October 18, 2019, 03:31:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 18, 2019, 02:18:35 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

I would say it's very credible, multiple sources with little differences in their accounts and seems to stand up to robust scrutiny.

The Brits could make things a lot easier by releasing their files. For some reason they are holding back on the Divis files when most of the rest have been made available, the McConvilles don't seem to be pushing too hard on this. I think you have to question that.

Except academic scrutiny as the Boston Tapes are now being used as an exercise in how not to conduct an oral history.

Also judicial scrutiny when a judge says the tapes are completely inadmissible in court.

But apart from that yeah it's pretty credible  ::) ::) Did you not say something about being smart??!

What are you blathering on about?

The accounts that Price and Hughes gave corroborate each other, the equipment Hughes says was located at McConville's apartment fit in with the type of equipment used by British intelligence at that time. The British government have refused to release files relating to the Divis Flats specifically at that time. The McConville family are applying little if any pressure to release this files which would certainly help their stance if their was nothing in them that suggests Jean McConville was an informer. That is the robust scrutiny their accounts of events stand up to.

They are consistent in their stories, they are accurate in the type of equipment used, they made admissions or knowledge of the murder and interrogation.

What part of their stories do you have an issue with? Don't be like the other coward and actually address the question.

Says the petulant child demonising a murdered woman and her family whom he knows nothing about except for hearsay, all under the guise of anonymity and he has the gall to call anyone a coward.  The tapes were inadmissible for a reason, you have no evidence she was a tout, and you are firing this term about in an effort to justify the fact she was murdered, you are a heinous, cowardly sc**bag of an individual.

Loads of hot air and personal insults and zero substance and you have temerity to call me a petulant child.

There is plenty of substance and circumstances to support that Jean McConville was an informer. My own view is that with the information available and the accounts of Price and Hughes is that she was an informer. Price admitted to taking part in her murder.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm merely stating that there is more than a credible theory that she was an informer and that is why she was murdereed, right or wrong that's what happened informers.

Now maybe if you had the courage to engage your brain than resorting to pontificating, foul language and personal insults you might be to construct a coherent argument to support your views.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

No, I said you cant take bits out and say they are true and ignore other bits. But seems u are beyond reasoning.

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 05:57:59 PM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM
[quote author=Itchy link=topic=15832.msg1933111#msg1933111 date=1571401972]
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

[/b]

Must be 100% true then!

No, I said you cant take bits out and say they are true and ignore other bits. But seems u are beyond reasoning.
[/quote]

If people who told the truth, only told the truth and people who told lies only told lies., life would be a lot simpler.

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

Which bit? The bit you want to be true or the other bit you don't?

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 21, 2019, 11:38:27 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 18, 2019, 02:06:27 PM

Quote from: Itchy on October 18, 2019, 01:32:52 PM
The person interviewed on the Boston Tapes said that Jean McConville was an informer. The same person said Adams ordered her execution. So its either OK to put both in the public domain or neither of them.

Must be 100% true then!

Which bit? The bit you want to be true or the other bit you don't?

I would go with the proven bits, you go with what you want.