British State Collusion

[rossie mad]

The British state is now saying that PF was not in the IRA, yet at one stage most of the RUC special branch, MI5 and that army unit that Brian Nelson was attached to believed otherwise. That's precisely why he was set up to be murdered. The British government has changed its tune because it suits it to do so. To argue that PF was an IRA man would create the impression that the government was trying to justify the actions of state agents in murdering him. It would also keep the thing rumbling on when the government desperately wants to put a lid on it. It doesn't want a public enquiry that might reveal more details about the extent of collusion at the time, or which might start shining a light on how high up the involvement actually went. Much better, therefore, to issue a few apologies and blame it all on a few rogue operatives, who are mostly dead, out of service, or local thugs.

All this, of course, suits the republican agenda, which is happy  to portray PF as the innocent human rights activist cruelly cut down in his prime by the big bad Brits. I believe he was murdered by the state and that the murder was inexcusable. I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Show me some proof and your argument wont seem like a turkey on christmas eve,hopeless,
Your reverse pscyhology argument is showing you up like the alcoholic who says he will give up the booze in the morning but knowing full well that wont happen.

[heganboy]

I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

[stibhan]

It's a brave man that peddles lies about a murder victim.

[haveaharp]

I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

Because believing the alternative is beyond the capabilities of most Unionist mindsets.

[Myles Na G.]

I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

[rossie mad]

I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

The highlighted extracts are the huge black holes in your theory

[Itchy]

I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

It doesn't matter what you believe. There was no evidence of what you say and I assume if there was he would have been arrested. What happened is that people who "believed" like you and who were in a position supposedly of law and order decided to execute a man in front of his wife and children.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views...

There's a term for that guilt-by-association-groupthink, but for fear of invoking Godwin's Law I'll say nothing.

[Jeepers Creepers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane

[Ulick]

The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

What a load of balls.


1. " the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members"
I'm also from a "strong republican family" with many close relations active IRA members in every generation going back to my grandfather. I however was not, choosing instead to go to university and pursue a different path. I have never had any dealings with the IRA but by your logic I deserve to be shot!

2.  "PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons."
The IRA were able to smuggle cameras, radios, weapons and all sorts in and out of the Crum and Long Kesh even during the worst of the gaol protests in the 70s & 80s when prisoners were on 24 hour lock-down. You want us to believe they would compromise a solicitor by having him carry out work they were already capable of doing? That's bollocks.

3. "He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no."
Nonsense. I visited the gaols many times during the conflict and was never asked to carry anything more that a box of fags - and that was a request from the inside not out.

4. " You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so"
The IRA to my knowledge always claim their personnel when they die. I've been to enough funerals of 'unlikely' IRA volunteers to know this.

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

5. "It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views."
You mean republican views - so what if he had. I'd guess over half the population of this island have republican leanings, doesn't mean they approved of the IRA, their actions, or deserved to be murdered for having those views.

6. "he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel."
Maybe he could have doffed his cap every time one of his unionist betters passed him on the street as well.

7. "A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement."
No one, solicitor or not ever had unsupervised access to IRA prisoners in the gaols and prisoners were subjected to cavity searches every time they went to and came from any meeting.

8. "Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside."
See 2. above

9. "He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private."
He may have been entitled to do so under ordinary law but everyone knew conversations with lawyers and prisoners in the north were recorded (and still are).

10. ". Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament."
Go read the report.

11. "There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?"
There is plenty of evidence Adams was in the IRA, but none for Finucane.

12. Ballbag

[Jeepers Creepers]

Pat finucane was Murdered because he was good at his job as a solicitor and had the balls to represent republicans during the height of the conflict. He was seen as an obstacle to the state prosecuting republican suspects. His death would have also been used as a direct threat to other people within the law practice to think twice about representing republicans.

[Myles Na G.]

The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

What a load of balls.


1. " the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members"
I'm also from a "strong republican family" with many close relations active IRA members in every generation going back to my grandfather. I however was not, choosing instead to go to university and pursue a different path. I have never had any dealings with the IRA but by your logic I deserve to be shot!

2.  "PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons."
The IRA were able to smuggle cameras, radios, weapons and all sorts in and out of the Crum and Long Kesh even during the worst of the gaol protests in the 70s & 80s when prisoners were on 24 hour lock-down. You want us to believe they would compromise a solicitor by having him carry out work they were already capable of doing? That's bollocks.

3. "He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no."
Nonsense. I visited the gaols many times during the conflict and was never asked to carry anything more that a box of fags - and that was a request from the inside not out.

4. " You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so"
The IRA to my knowledge always claim their personnel when they die. I've been to enough funerals of 'unlikely' IRA volunteers to know this.

He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

5. "It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views."
You mean republican views - so what if he had. I'd guess over half the population of this island have republican leanings, doesn't mean they approved of the IRA, their actions, or deserved to be murdered for having those views.

6. "he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel."
Maybe he could have doffed his cap every time one of his unionist betters passed him on the street as well.

7. "A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement."
No one, solicitor or not ever had unsupervised access to IRA prisoners in the gaols and prisoners were subjected to cavity searches every time they went to and came from any meeting.

8. "Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside."
See 2. above

9. "He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private."
He may have been entitled to do so under ordinary law but everyone knew conversations with lawyers and prisoners in the north were recorded (and still are).

10. ". Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament."
Go read the report.

11. "There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?"
There is plenty of evidence Adams was in the IRA, but none for Finucane.

12. Ballbag

Too much there to respond to at this late hour, but point 4 looks wrong. The IRA sometimes only claims volunteers many years after the event, when it's politic to do so. Witness Gerard Donaghy, the young man shot dead on Bloody Sunday, only claimed as a volunteer many years later. Conversely, the IRA sometimes claims people who weren't volunteers - for example, the guy McElhone killed in the so called Battle of St Matthews. It later turned out that he wasn't an IRA man and he wasn't shot by loyalists, but rather by republican 'friendly fire'. In short, the IRA lies when ever it suits it to do so. Only a gullible gobshite would believe otherwise.

[stibhan]

'Of course there is no hard evidence of this'.

If you aren't going to base your claims on evidence then they are no more than falsehoods. The British Government would have had absolutely no reason to obfuscate the supposed fact that Finucane was in the IRA and your weasel words to the contrary are insulting to everyone's intelligence. You mentioned Gerard Donaghy, who was not exonerated of involvement in Fianna Éireann by Saville in any shape or form, a fact that completely contradicts your arguments.

As I said to that absolute p***k Ruth Dudley Edwards on twitter, you people may think that you get the right to decide who is/was a terrorist but you absolutely do not. None of your claims stand to reason but are based on the same kind of bigotry and sectarianism that led to Douglas Hogg's comments and the eventual murder of someone who represented both loyalists and republicans in court.

The question has to be asked, however, if you are labeling Finucane as a member of the IRA, are you also labeling his partner Peter Madden as such?

[stew]

So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.

The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.

On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.

Crawl back under your rock you horrible tit.

Give us evidence of PF being in the RA, you cant and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to smear a man that was murdered by loyalist butchers, you are pond scum, a coward and a hypocrite!

[stew]

It's a brave man that peddles lies about a murder victim.

It takes a coward who knows he cant be done for defamation of Character based on the fact the man whose good name he is trailing through the muck was murdered, it takes a special kind of tr**p to do that and myles fits the bill, he is a horrible bastid!