Adams' brother sought over alleged abuse

[Evil Genius]

I woudnt read much in to that, there's members of my family don't speak to each other and they've been invited too and attended weddings and christianings, for the sake of the rest of the family and to stop rows.

Righto, so.

May I take it that if the reason you weren't speaking a member of your family (a brother, in fact) was because you believed that he had raped your four year old neice (and beat up her mother), that you wouldn't raise any objection to his attending a family wedding*, even though there would be bound to be lots of little children there, as well?

And then when questioned about it later, you would "forget" that the brother had been at these family events some time after you had decided to disown him?

Ever heard the term "GUBU"? 

I have not, what the hell is it?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+%22GUBU%22%3F

[Puckoon]

Much obliged.

[pintsofguinness]

I woudnt read much in to that, there's members of my family don't speak to each other and they've been invited too and attended weddings and christianings, for the sake of the rest of the family and to stop rows.

Righto, so.

May I take it that if the reason you weren't speaking a member of your family (a brother, in fact) was because you believed that he had raped your four year old neice (and beat up her mother), that you wouldn't raise any objection to his attending a family wedding*, even though there would be bound to be lots of little children there, as well?

And then when questioned about it later, you would "forget" that the brother had been at these family events some time after you had decided to disown him?

Ever heard the term "GUBU"? 

* - Or a Christening, ffs! 

I would alright but I've sibblings who dont speak about quite a serious matter, they'll probably never get on again but they would attend events like that for each other, they'd buy presents for each others kids and all the rest. Why? because it would cause further rows and annoyance to other family members if they didn't, and they also wouldnt let their differences affect their relationships with their nieces/nephews. So I can completely understand Gerry going to the christianing and even to the wedding, even if he wasn't getting on with the brother. 

[Evil Genius]

I woudnt read much in to that, there's members of my family don't speak to each other and they've been invited too and attended weddings and christianings, for the sake of the rest of the family and to stop rows.

Righto, so.

May I take it that if the reason you weren't speaking a member of your family (a brother, in fact) was because you believed that he had raped your four year old neice (and beat up her mother), that you wouldn't raise any objection to his attending a family wedding*, even though there would be bound to be lots of little children there, as well?

And then when questioned about it later, you would "forget" that the brother had been at these family events some time after you had decided to disown him?

Ever heard the term "GUBU"? 

* - Or a Christening, ffs! 

I would alright but I've sibblings who dont speak about quite a serious matter, they'll probably never get on again but they would attend events like that for each other, they'd buy presents for each others kids and all the rest. Why? because it would cause further rows and annoyance to other family members if they didn't, and they also wouldnt let their differences affect their relationships with their nieces/nephews. So I can completely understand Gerry going to the christianing and even to the wedding, even if he wasn't getting on with the brother.

Right.

So you'd attend a wedding even though you knew that a brother whom you believed to be a child rapist would also be there. I can just about accept* that "keeping up appearances" or maintaining family unity was more important than removing any possibility of risk to other children (e.g. by telling the abuser to make some excuse and stay away).

How do you explain, however, the fact that you subsequently "forgot" that his attendance at some of these events was AFTER you had decided to disown him?


* - Actually I can't. Especially if I were an MP and a leader of a political party, with all the responsibilities which that entails. As well as being accused of being a leading member of an organisation which boasted about maiming and banishing, even killing child abusers in their own community....

[pintsofguinness]

So you'd attend a wedding even though you knew that a brother whom you believed to be a child rapist would also be there. I can just about accept* that "keeping up appearances" or maintaining family unity was more important than removing any possibility of risk to other children (e.g. by telling the abuser to make some excuse and stay away).

I wouldnt no, but others would. It was the abusers wedding, he's couldnt stay away!

Adams will have to answer for himself, where has he said he forgot about these events anyway? I havent seen that.

[Main Street]

I can understand why Gerry, given his high public profile as the face of SF, tried to keep his brothers past under wraps for fear it would play out badly in the media against him and SF. However doing this makes him no better than than the bishops and cardinals that covered up abuse in churches.

You do realise that Adams claims to have spoken to social services in 1987 and claims to have made a statement to the PSNI in 2002, both which supported his niece's account. What similarity does that have to the Catholic church cover ups?
I don't recall where one of the accused clergy of cover ups ever made a statement to the relevant authorities supporting the abused person's account.

I don't see much new in the Tribunes claims that their  'investigation has uncovered a massive cover-up to find holes'
It appears Adam's brother has always denied the abuse claims, even to his brother.
Adams says he moved to get his brother expelled from SF, did Adams ever claim he succeeded in that move?

Adams claimed his brother had a minor role in SF in Louth and definitely referred to that very minor role in the RTE interview. That would be about the only clear hole found in his account.

Adams' account leaks like a sieve. His claims about contacting authorities at Clonard youth club or youth club officials in Dundalk have been contradicted by those same people. He has yet to explain why he permitted his brother to continue working with children for 5 years in west Belfast without doing anything about it. He claims to have made moves to have his brother expelled from Sinn Fein: now we learn Liam Adams was one of the movers and shakers in the party in that area for many years after Adams claims he intervened. Adams claimed that he was estranged from his brother, yet we learn now that no such estrangement took place and that Gerry was still attending Liam's wedding, the christening of his kids, etc. Gerry has been shown to have lied and lied and lied again. He should go.

As I wrote, there is not much new in the tribune investigation which claims to uncover great holes.


"Adams claimed that he was estranged from his brother, yet we learn now that no such estrangement took place and that Gerry was still attending Liam's wedding,"

Estranged does not necessarily mean banished from existance.
Adams has clearly admitted to having contact with his brother right from the beginning in the UTV interview, despite being estranged.

"He claims to have made moves to have his brother expelled from Sinn Fein"
Maybe he did make moves but did he claim to have succeeded in having him expelled?

"now we learn Liam Adams was one of the movers and shakers in the party in that area for many years after Adams claims he intervened"
You are getting confused again.
Adams claimed he intervened to stop his brother going forward as a candidate.
His brother stood down.
Then Adams claimed that his brother had a minor role in SF in Louth, some anti drug stuff and Adams minimised that.
It would appear that this is the only hole worthy of further examination

"His claims about contacting authorities at Clonard youth club or youth club official etc"
The Tribune did not investigate that.

Adams has admitted to that he would do things differently now, the question is what would he like to have done differently.

Adams made a statement to Social Services in 1988 and again to the PSNI in 2002.

[Evil Genius]

I can understand why Gerry, given his high public profile as the face of SF, tried to keep his brothers past under wraps for fear it would play out badly in the media against him and SF. However doing this makes him no better than than the bishops and cardinals that covered up abuse in churches.

You do realise that Adams claims to have spoken to social services in 1987 and claims to have made a statement to the PSNI in 2002, both which supported his niece's account. What similarity does that have to the Catholic church cover ups?
I don't recall where one of the accused clergy of cover ups ever made a statement to the relevant authorities supporting the abused person's account.

I don't see much new in the Tribunes claims that their  'investigation has uncovered a massive cover-up to find holes'
It appears Adam's brother has always denied the abuse claims, even to his brother.
Adams says he moved to get his brother expelled from SF, did Adams ever claim he succeeded in that move?

Adams claimed his brother had a minor role in SF in Louth and definitely referred to that very minor role in the RTE interview. That would be about the only clear hole found in his account.

Adams' account leaks like a sieve. His claims about contacting authorities at Clonard youth club or youth club officials in Dundalk have been contradicted by those same people. He has yet to explain why he permitted his brother to continue working with children for 5 years in west Belfast without doing anything about it. He claims to have made moves to have his brother expelled from Sinn Fein: now we learn Liam Adams was one of the movers and shakers in the party in that area for many years after Adams claims he intervened. Adams claimed that he was estranged from his brother, yet we learn now that no such estrangement took place and that Gerry was still attending Liam's wedding, the christening of his kids, etc. Gerry has been shown to have lied and lied and lied again. He should go.

As I wrote, there is not much new in the tribune investigation which claims to uncover great holes.


"Adams claimed that he was estranged from his brother, yet we learn now that no such estrangement took place and that Gerry was still attending Liam's wedding,"

Estranged does not necessarily mean banished from existance.
Adams has clearly admitted to having contact with his brother right from the beginning in the UTV interview, despite being estranged.

"He claims to have made moves to have his brother expelled from Sinn Fein"
Maybe he did make moves but did he claim to have succeeded in having him expelled?

"now we learn Liam Adams was one of the movers and shakers in the party in that area for many years after Adams claims he intervened"
You are getting confused again.
Adams claimed he intervened to stop his brother going forward as a candidate.
His brother stood down.
Then Adams claimed that his brother had a minor role in SF in Louth, some anti drug stuff and Adams minimised that.
It would appear that this is the only hole worthy of further examination

"His claims about contacting authorities at Clonard youth club or youth club official etc"
The Tribune did not investigate that.

Adams has admitted to that he would do things differently now, the question is what would he like to have done differently.

Adams made a statement to Social Services in 1988 and again to the PSNI in 2002.

"Who is so deafe or so blinde as is hee
That wilfully will neither heare nor see?"
John Heywood (1497-1580)

[mylestheslasher]

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Myles Na G and Evil Genius on this. Gerry has Fu*ked up here and the best thing he could do now is just come out with the truth and resign before he pulls the whole of SF down with him. In fairness, I think SF need some new blood at the top anyhow, especially if they want to grow in the South.

[Myles Na G.]

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Myles Na G and Evil Genius on this. Gerry has f**ked up here and the best thing he could do now is just come out with the truth and resign before he pulls the whole of SF down with him. In fairness, I think SF need some new blood at the top anyhow, especially if they want to grow in the South.

[Trevor Hill]

Tonights Spotlight, brought to you by Gerry A productions. 

[Myles Na G.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8451404.stm

'I acknowledged that although we were estranged, I volunteered that I had met him on quite a number of occasions, because I knew that. '

Roughly translated: 'I was able to attend Liam's wedding and the christening of his kids and to go canvassing with him at election time. Apart from that, I shunned him from the moment Aine told me he had raped her'.

Get outta fock, ya lying get!

[orangeman]

Reading the Sunday Tribune yesterday it seems that they are hell bent on getting Gerry to come clean about his exact relationship with his brother Liam.


For 3 weeks now, they've been asking the same questions and yesterday it was the editor's turn to ask them.


They're not going to give up easily.

[charlieTully]

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Myles Na G and Evil Genius on this. Gerry has f**ked up here and the best thing he could do now is just come out with the truth and resign before he pulls the whole of SF down with him. In fairness, I think SF need some new blood at the top anyhow, especially if they want to grow in the South.

he should do the decent thing and resign, the republican movement is bigger than one man. adams has been proven to be a liar.

[Main Street]

Fundamentally Adams made a statement to Social Services in 1987 that he claims supported his niece.
Again in 2002 he made another statement to the PSNI  in support of his niece.
Once those statements were made, Adams had no control over how they could be used in support of a legal charge against his brother. What cover up is going on there? What part of that is not understood?

There is no special Teflon layer on Gerry Adams that has protected him from the media. Any lawyer scrutinising his behaviour would conclude that those two statements he made are the foundation of his explanation for his actions around the abuse allegations. His brother has always denied the allegations, Adams has always sided with his niece in his legal documented statements.

[Myles Na G.]

Fundamentally Adams made a statement to Social Services in 1987 that he claims supported his niece.
Again in 2002 he made another statement to the PSNI  in support of his niece.
Once those statements were made, Adams had no control over how they could be used in support of a legal charge against his brother. What cover up is going on there? What part of that is not understood?

There is no special Teflon layer on Gerry Adams that has protected him from the media. Any lawyer scrutinising his behaviour would conclude that those two statements he made are the foundation of his explanation for his actions around the abuse allegations. His brother has always denied the allegations, Adams has always sided with his niece in his legal documented statements.

But he did have control over his own party and despite Gerry's repeated denials, Liam seems to have played a prominent role in it through all this. He did have the option of making the allegations against Liam known to people in Dundalk and west Belfast who were employing Liam as a youth worker. Gerry says he did, they say he didn't. Even if he did - huge, big if that - why didn't he pursue the matter when he saw that nothing was happening on the back of the information he passed on? Finally, he certainly had control over the company he chose to keep. Despite claiming that he was estranged from Liam as a result of Aine's allegations, he chose to continue normal family and professional relations with an alleged child rapist. Gerry Adams has been exposed as a liar. He has also been exposed as someone who chose to put his own interests and the interests of his political party before the welfare of children potentially at risk from a child abuser. He should hang his head in shame.