Adams' brother sought over alleged abuse

[Ulick]

Aine says about Gerry:

'The only present I ever received from him was a signed copy of his autobiography, Before The Dawn, in 1996."
She was horrified when she opened the book and read the foreword. Adams thanked his brothers and sisters, "especially Liam". Áine says: "I threw the book in the bin. It made me feel sick. Imagine sending the person you believed had been abused by your brother a book thanking that brother?" Áine's uncle, ex-IRA prisoner Bob Corrigan, says that Liam Adams was a researcher for his brother's autobiography.

0 out of 10 for sensitivity there, Gerry. And that brother you thanked - was he not the one you were estranged from? Except on the occasion of family weddings, of course. And family christenings. And canvassing for the party. And when you needed him to research your book...

I think that Bob and Aine need to draw the horns in here.  The Shinners whispering campaign is busy out discreditting Breen and her agenda-ridden lies.  The last thing they need is to have to deal with these two as well.  Both Gerry and Sinn Fein have made it clear that there is no case to answer.

/Jim.

Jim maybe you'd answer the points I put to EG last week on this thread regarding Breen?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Jim maybe you'd answer the points I put to EG last week on this thread regarding Breen?

I'll certainly have a look but I am happy to let you discredit Breen.  However I am satisfied that the quotes attributed to the victims in both the articles and Tribune statements are in just that: "quotes". 

So even if the manner that this information came to light is not satisfactory I personally believe the victims (and Bob Corrigan) when they contradict Adams' verson of events.

For example: A few pages back it was acknowledged that Adams had acknowledged Liam in his foreword.  It was explained that not mentioning him would have drawn attention to some kind of issue, hence endangering the victim rights to anonymity.  However I had the opportunity this weekend to flick through "Before the Dawn" and it does indeed mention "especially Liam".  Now, surely there was no need to single the man out if the purpose was only to keep up appearances?

So regardless of Breen's motives, methods or creditability I believe that Adams has questions to answer, questions he has not answered satisfactorily for a man of his position.  I believe this issue is far greater than whether some newshound's motives.

/Jim.

BTW:  The above is merely one example.  Others would be:

"I didn't know Liam was in Sinn Fein but had Gerry bothered to tell me, I would have waived my anonymity without hesitation," said Ms Tyrell.

"I said I was very concerned that Liam was seeking jobs working with children," said Ms Tyrell. "Gerry told me that was Liam's way of trying to make up to the community for what he had done."

[orangeman]

Gerry on Nolan show now regarding Tribune article

Missed the show this morning - how did the interview go ?

[Ulick]

Jim maybe you'd answer the points I put to EG last week on this thread regarding Breen?

I'll certainly have a look but I am happy to let you discredit Breen.  However I am satisfied that the quotes attributed to the victims in both the articles and Tribune statements are in just that: "quotes". 

So even if the manner that this information came to light is not satisfactory I personally believe the victims (and Bob Corrigan) when they contradict Adams' verson of events.

For example: A few pages back it was acknowledged that Adams had acknowledged Liam in his foreword.  It was explained that not mentioning him would have drawn attention to some kind of issue, hence endangering the victim rights to anonymity.  However I had the opportunity this weekend to flick through "Before the Dawn" and it does indeed mention "especially Liam".  Now, surely there was no need to single the man out if the purpose was only to keep up appearances?

So regardless of Breen's motives, methods or creditability I believe that Adams has questions to answer, questions he has not answered satisfactorily for a man of his position.  I believe this issue is far greater than whether some newshound's motives.

/Jim.

BTW:  The above is merely one example.  Others would be:

"I didn't know Liam was in Sinn Fein but had Gerry bothered to tell me, I would have waived my anonymity without hesitation," said Ms Tyrell.

"I said I was very concerned that Liam was seeking jobs working with children," said Ms Tyrell. "Gerry told me that was Liam's way of trying to make up to the community for what he had done."

Jim you are alleging a whispering campaign and now trying to poo poo my post, presumably before you have even read it. Adams surely has questions to answer but so to has Breen. My post below as Eg seem to be unable or unwilling to respond:

"Eh, have we finished with Suzanne Breen? Yesterday you were saying I was making snide insinuations or something about her creditability when today it has emerged that:

    * she identified one of the victims of abuse against her wishes,
    * falsely alleged that one of the alleged victims was raped/submitted to sexual abuse
    * never followed up on any of the allegations,
    * incorrectly alleged that Adams was informed of the abuse,
    * incorrectly alleged that the abuser is still a SF official
    * didn't disclose that the most high profile dissident republican in Belfast sat in on her interview with the alleged victim
    * didn't disclose that that dissident republican brought the story to her
    * never questioned the role of the PSNI, RUC and Social Services in these matters


Now I know you haven't lived in Ireland for quite a bit of time, so I can overlook your obvious little faux pas such as someone taking all the copies of the ST from the newsagents in West Belfast, as excusable particularity when you are picking up tittle tattle from OWC.

However how do you evaluate the behaviour of the paragon of virture and professionalism that is Suzanne Breen in light of these matters? On the face of it, it now seems my scepticism regarding Breen is well founded. "

As an addendum it also seems the Sunday Tribune editor was incorrect when he said that they have showed the finished article to X's victim as Breen told Pat Kenny on Friday morning that she read it to her brother down the phone before it went to publication.

[Myles Na G.]

Ulick,
You repeat that stuff though you know that most of it has been contradicted by the statement put out by the ST. You then further muddy the waters by claiming that Breen has contradicted herself, when you know (because you've read it) that the ST statement clearly states that the article was read to the victim over the phone. You're showing yourself up to be nothing but a parrot for the SF smear machine.

[Ulick]

Ulick,
You repeat that stuff though you know that most of it has been contradicted by the statement put out by the ST. You then further muddy the waters by claiming that Breen has contradicted herself, when you know (because you've read it) that the ST statement clearly states that the article was read to the victim over the phone. You're showing yourself up to be nothing but a parrot for the SF smear machine.

Show me where and what points have been contradicted. And less of the personal abuse unless you can prove it.

[Ulick]

Ulick,
You repeat that stuff though you know that most of it has been contradicted by the statement put out by the ST. You then further muddy the waters by claiming that Breen has contradicted herself, when you know (because you've read it) that the ST statement clearly states that the article was read to the victim over the phone. You're showing yourself up to be nothing but a parrot for the SF smear machine.

No it doesn't. Here is a quote from the Sunday Tribune editorial from last week;

"She posed for photographs in Belfast and after being read the contents of the story by Breen, agreed completely with it and with its publication."

That implies that she was read the article in person. Diarmuid Doyle and Breen both said on the radio last Sunday that she was 'shown it'. Friday on the Pat Kenny was the first time it was mentioned it was read down the phone (presumably because X's victim is now taking legal action against them) and it seems that it wasn't even read to the victim but her brother.

[Myles Na G.]

Ulick,
You repeat that stuff though you know that most of it has been contradicted by the statement put out by the ST. You then further muddy the waters by claiming that Breen has contradicted herself, when you know (because you've read it) that the ST statement clearly states that the article was read to the victim over the phone. You're showing yourself up to be nothing but a parrot for the SF smear machine.

Show me where and what points have been contradicted. And less of the personal abuse unless you can prove it.

'In follow-up telephone conversations before the publication of the article in the Sunday Tribune, the story, as it would appear in the newspaper, including the allegations against Gerry Adams, was read to both the victim and her brother. They both agreed it was an honest and accurate account of the interview.'
There's the first one.

[Ulick]

'In follow-up telephone conversations before the publication of the article in the Sunday Tribune, the story, as it would appear in the newspaper, including the allegations against Gerry Adams, was read to both the victim and her brother. They both agreed it was an honest and accurate account of the interview.'
There's the first one.

Have you any proof that's what happened? What about the rest of my points?

[Myles Na G.]

 she identified one of the victims of abuse against her wishes,
Last Saturday, January 16 2010, the victim, through the solicitors Madden and Finucane, claimed she had never given permission for the interview or allegations to be used. Although consent was freely given by the victim, the Sunday Tribune respected her decision to withdraw consent for her identity to be revealed and ran the story without identifying her.
    * falsely alleged that one of the alleged victims was raped/submitted to sexual abuse
The Sunday Tribune was approached in the first instance by this victim's brother who stated in writing that Gerry Adams had been personally informed about the allegations of sexual and physical abuse against an elected Sinn Fein member over two years ago.
    * never followed up on any of the allegations,
    * incorrectly alleged that Adams was informed of the abuse,
It is being claimed by Sinn Fein and by one of the women, whose identity was not revealed in the Sunday Tribune, that Mr Adams did not know of the abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of a Sinn Fein elected representative. This is directly at odds with the information we were given and we have proof of this.
    * incorrectly alleged that the abuser is still a SF official
At the time of the article, the accused was a SF member for Newtownabbey Council
    * didn't disclose that the most high profile dissident republican in Belfast sat in on her interview with the alleged victim
    * didn't disclose that that dissident republican brought the story to her
The Sunday Tribune was approached in the first instance by this victim's brother
    * never questioned the role of the PSNI, RUC and Social Services in these matters

You asked 'Have you any proof that's what happened?' I wasn't standing beside Suzanne Breen when all this happened, if that's what you mean. I believe her statements and the statements of the ST, most of which are supported by witnesses. What is SF's proof? The word of Gerry 'I wasn't in the IRA' Adams? Gerry 'I was estranged from my brother' Adams? Gerry 'Always look on the bright side of life' Adams?

[Ulick]

she identified one of the victims of abuse against her wishes,
Last Saturday, January 16 2010, the victim, through the solicitors Madden and Finucane, claimed she had never given permission for the interview or allegations to be used. Although consent was freely given by the victim, the Sunday Tribune respected her decision to withdraw consent for her identity to be revealed and ran the story without identifying her.
    * falsely alleged that one of the alleged victims was raped/submitted to sexual abuse
The Sunday Tribune was approached in the first instance by this victim's brother who stated in writing that Gerry Adams had been personally informed about the allegations of sexual and physical abuse against an elected Sinn Fein member over two years ago.
    * never followed up on any of the allegations,
    * incorrectly alleged that Adams was informed of the abuse,
It is being claimed by Sinn Fein and by one of the women, whose identity was not revealed in the Sunday Tribune, that Mr Adams did not know of the abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of a Sinn Fein elected representative. This is directly at odds with the information we were given and we have proof of this.
    * incorrectly alleged that the abuser is still a SF official
At the time of the article, the accused was a SF member for Newtownabbey Council
    * didn't disclose that the most high profile dissident republican in Belfast sat in on her interview with the alleged victim
    * didn't disclose that that dissident republican brought the story to her
The Sunday Tribune was approached in the first instance by this victim's brother
    * never questioned the role of the PSNI, RUC and Social Services in these matters

You asked 'Have you any proof that's what happened?' I wasn't standing beside Suzanne Breen when all this happened, if that's what you mean. I believe her statements and the statements of the ST, most of which are supported by witnesses. What is SF's proof? The word of Gerry 'I wasn't in the IRA' Adams? Gerry 'I was estranged from my brother' Adams? Gerry 'Always look on the bright side of life' Adams?

The Sunday Tribune said they would publish proof of their version of event yesterday. They didn't. It's not a question of believing either Adams or Breen as she freely admit she never asked him for comment.

[saffron sam2]

'In follow-up telephone conversations before the publication of the article in the Sunday Tribune, the story, as it would appear in the newspaper, including the allegations against Gerry Adams, was read to both the victim and her brother. They both agreed it was an honest and accurate account of the interview.'
There's the first one.

Have you any proof that's what happened? What about the rest of my points?

I found this little snippet from Ms Breen's articles interesting.

In follow-up telephone calls with both the victim and her brother several days before publication, the entire interview – word-for-word as it would appear in the newspaper – was read out to both individuals. The victim and her brother both agreed it was an accurate and honest account.

The Sunday Tribune can produce indisputable evidence that both individuals stated this in these telephone conversations.

Does this mean that a transcript or recording of the phone calls exists?

Secondly, I find this comment extremely disingenuous.

Although her consent had been freely given, we respected her decision to withdraw consent for her identity to be revealed.

I don't think anyone who read the article could be any doubt whatsoever about the identity of the family involved.

[Myles Na G.]

'she never asked him for comment.'

No, but he's certainly given his side of the story. Unfortunately for Gerry, his side of the story is contradicted by nearly everyone else involved: by aine, by Ms Cahill, by the Clonard youth club authorities, by various SF officials in Dundalk and Belfast, and by the physical evidence - the photos, the book acknowledgement, which show that Gerry was never estranged from Liam, despite what he says. Are all these people lying? Are they all trying to bring down good, honest Gerry who never told a lie in his puff?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Jim you are alleging a whispering campaign and now trying to poo poo my post, presumably before you have even read it. Adams surely has questions to answer but so to has Breen. My post below as Eg seem to be unable or unwilling to respond:

Ulick,

I am not my brother's keeper so I'm not sure why you are after me about EG not answering your questions.  I'm not trying to poo poo your post, indeed I undertook to read and said I would accept that Breen is discredited for the purpose of discussing what I view to be to much more serious issue: the possibility of a public representative playing fast and loose with the law, the truth and victim's welfare.

In terms of victim's welfare if the Tribune violated people's right to anonymity (even though both victims seem to have since given a retrospective blessing to that) then that is wrong but I don't think the entire discussion should be zoned in on that point.  Hence I take it as a given to get to meat of issues.

You acknowledge that Adams has questions to answer.  That I concur with and don't feel his answers to date stack up.  I most concede that whenever someone's story needs so many retrospective "clarifications" (ala Bertie Ahern) my suspicion is evoked.

/Jim.

[glens abu]

Anyone who wants to hear Gerry Adams answer all the questions he can answer regarding the Liam Adams case can hear them on the podcast of todays Nolan show.As far as the Meehan case don't think he has any to answer as the Meehan family have stated he wasn't contacted about them.Think this was a bit of  Ms Breen wishful think.