Irish governments turn to answer claims of collusion

[tyssam5]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

At the end of the day, Adams is a party leader and to palm of commenting on one of the biggest stories in the news "until he has read the report" is impossible. The SF bashers are always going to come out on this story anyway. If he said nothing he'd have been lambasted from every side for showing disregard for the report or some such nonsense. Adams said nothing controversial. He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men. The latter point being the one which seems to stir most of the bitter ramblings from the "rent-a-mob" attacks on him calling his remarks on this as "callous", "insulting", "incredible", despite the fact that Adam's point was also made in the report itself by witness from the Gardai, the RUC and the IRA!! Their petty digs and jibes ("FARC" etc ffs!!) will be seen for what they are, cheap, vindictive point scoring from the lowest common denominators of hypocrisy.

He would have been best to just spin the usual line - terrible times, regrettable anyone had to die etc. etc. There was nothing to gain in what he said - from a republican perspective, or any other perspective, and whatever about challenging the conclusion, it's an 'odd' one that he highlighted the 'caution for their own safety' aspect - a small part of a massive document.

This is embarrassing for the guards for why for SF? If the IRA were able to cultivate an intelligence source within the guards then that's job well done from their perspective. Is it somehow less 'fair' than if they'd just shot them by luck?

[haveaharp]

Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.

People suddenly find out Adams was an IRA supporter now just? 

Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.

Yes they do. If they stand to benefit from it, that is. Come on to this thread on Easter Sunday 2016 when the thousands and thousands will be parading through Dublin and try telling me then that the good-two-shoes people of the 26 counties don't condone violence.

People, me for one, who had been warming a little to SF, in the belief that they had left the past behind have been shocked back into the cold reality of what SF really are.
Its a real pity, I thought they might develop into a credible alternative over time, but no votes from me Mr Adams.

So what exactly did Gerry say yesterday that upset you? That the RUC officers were too relaxed about their own safety? Wasn't he then only repeating what was stated in the report? Was you problem that he said the report was contradictory? Well it did say there was collusion but that there was no evidence found of collusion. Wasn't Gerry just calling a spade a spade? Or calling a contradiction a contradiction?

For someone who's freedom was won at gunpoint, but who is so appalled by violence, maybe you could tell us what your opinion was on the Gardaí openly co-operating with the RUC?

Michael Collins, the wind that shakes the barley every film depicting Irish life around the time 1916 has Irish volunteers shooting Brits ffs even far and away a film with tom cruise and Nicole kidman has a Irishman taking aim at a Brit, all are depicted as heroes i,ve yet to see a show where the old IRA man was the baddie the Irish government annually line up were mick Collins was shot he was a leader of the IRA and yet  for some reason blowing the brains out of a British soldier in 1900 is different than doing it in 1989. records show that turn of the century 'volunteers' shot their land owning proddy neighbours- fellow Irishmen in every sense of the word for their land. now we have the direct descendants in government in the south- actual blood relations of these same old IRA men feigning disgust at the same thing happening in south Armagh.. a warzone! a warzone recognised by the Brits and the yanks and anyone who cares to look at the history of the place.

I want to know what the difference is? why is OLD IRA = GOOD AND MODERN IRA=BAD

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of w**kers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. w**kers with a capital W.

And of course the good old Brits with their sense of fair play would have allowed all that to happen.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Regardless of the argument, SF have committed political suicide with Adams statement and then compounded it with the performance on Vincent Brown last night.

People suddenly find out Adams was an IRA supporter now just? 

Hypocritical or not the vast majority of people in the south have no interest in violence be it war or terrorism.

Yes they do. If they stand to benefit from it, that is. Come on to this thread on Easter Sunday 2016 when the thousands and thousands will be parading through Dublin and try telling me then that the good-two-shoes people of the 26 counties don't condone violence.

People, me for one, who had been warming a little to SF, in the belief that they had left the past behind have been shocked back into the cold reality of what SF really are.
Its a real pity, I thought they might develop into a credible alternative over time, but no votes from me Mr Adams.

So what exactly did Gerry say yesterday that upset you? That the RUC officers were too relaxed about their own safety? Wasn't he then only repeating what was stated in the report? Was you problem that he said the report was contradictory? Well it did say there was collusion but that there was no evidence found of collusion. Wasn't Gerry just calling a spade a spade? Or calling a contradiction a contradiction?

For someone who's freedom was won at gunpoint, but who is so appalled by violence, maybe you could tell us what your opinion was on the Gardaí openly co-operating with the RUC?

Michael Collins, the wind that shakes the barley every film depicting Irish life around the time 1916 has Irish volunteers shooting Brits ffs even far and away a film with tom cruise and Nicole kidman has a Irishman taking aim at a Brit, all are depicted as heroes i,ve yet to see a show where the old IRA man was the baddie the Irish government annually line up were mick Collins was shot he was a leader of the IRA and yet  for some reason blowing the brains out of a British soldier in 1900 is different than doing it in 1989. records show that turn of the century 'volunteers' shot their land owning proddy neighbours- fellow Irishmen in every sense of the word for their land. now we have the direct descendants in government in the south- actual blood relations of these same old IRA men feigning disgust at the same thing happening in south Armagh.. a warzone! a warzone recognised by the Brits and the yanks and anyone who cares to look at the history of the place.

I want to know what the difference is? why is OLD IRA = GOOD AND MODERN IRA=BAD

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of w**kers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. w**kers with a capital W.

Hmm in the 30 odd years before 1916 Home Rule party had on numerous held balance of power and even had their bill passed three times. Still it wasn't implemented. I don't know if  that justified 1916 but let's not forget it surely frustrated many nationalists.

Also the UVF opposition to Home Rule and Curragh mutiny meant that partition was likely we'll on train too.

Also after the election you referred to the British government refused all overtures of negotiation from Sinn Fein. Indeed the great statesman Churchill pointed out that the government were charged with maintaining the empire not negotiating it's split.

Maybe they were all wankers but I wouldn't have too much admiration for their opponents.

/Jim.

[deiseach]

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of w**kers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. w**kers with a capital W.

This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.

[bennydorano]

He's on a Kevin Myers(esque) solo run without the grey matter getting in the way.

[Rossfan]

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of w**kers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. w**kers with a capital W.

This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.

+1.
couldn't have put it better myself if I tried for a year.
We didn't split our Country - the Unionists wanted it when they couldn't control the whole country any more and the Brits backed them by unleashing their Terror army on us after we voted for an Independent Republic in 1918.
If the Brits had given us our Co Council in 1912 instead of allowing the Unionist fascists to have their way..... things could have been so different.

[Nally Stand]

On a wider note, I think SF have blundered here.  The Tribunal was about alleged collusion between individual members of the Guards and the Provies.  That's something for the current government or previous governments to handle.  Quite what Adams was doing ensuring the spotlight was on himself/SF is beyond me.  What he should have said was something along the lines of... "You know what, this is a 450 page document and I haven't had the time to read what is a very important report.  I will give my considered opinion during the planned Dail debate on the report.  However I note in the executive summary Peter Smithwick states that he found no evidence of collusion".  Adams' hasty and ill thought out remarks (even if there's an element of "truth" in them) presented an open goal to SF bashers when it really had nothing to do with SF and was an issue for the government and An Garda Siochana to comment on.

At the end of the day, Adams is a party leader and to palm of commenting on one of the biggest stories in the news "until he has read the report" is impossible. The SF bashers are always going to come out on this story anyway. If he said nothing he'd have been lambasted from every side for showing disregard for the report or some such nonsense. Adams said nothing controversial. He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men. The latter point being the one which seems to stir most of the bitter ramblings from the "rent-a-mob" attacks on him calling his remarks on this as "callous", "insulting", "incredible", despite the fact that Adam's point was also made in the report itself by witness from the Gardai, the RUC and the IRA!! Their petty digs and jibes ("FARC" etc ffs!!) will be seen for what they are, cheap, vindictive point scoring from the lowest common denominators of hypocrisy.

He would have been best to just spin the usual line - terrible times, regrettable anyone had to die etc. etc. There was nothing to gain in what he said - from a republican perspective, or any other perspective, and whatever about challenging the conclusion, it's an 'odd' one that he highlighted the 'caution for their own safety' aspect - a small part of a massive document.

Not odd at all. The report found no evidence of collusion and the only one to be linked to passing on information at any stage was cleared of doing so; and the two RUC men, whether people like to hear it or not, made themselves the easiest of easy targets. Their failure to take basic safety precautions is a point that has been raised by countless people in the past few days, in the media and on this thread. Nobody batted an eyelid until Gerry Adams said it. Suddenly to do so became "grotesque"/"obscene"/"callous"/"insulting"/"despicable". One of Adams' biggest critics on this thread for commenting on that point was applesisapples, who early in the thread not only said the same thing as Adams (i.e. that they had been too relaxed about their own safety), but went further and said that in doing so "they also may have contributed to their own deaths". Adams had every right to comment on any part of what is contained within the report. Hypocrites will always, always find their way to heckle him one way or another anyway.

[Nally Stand]

He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men.

Could his comments be filed under one of the board's favourite terms for this kind of discussion - Whataboutery?

lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.

[lawnseed]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

yeap! lets all just 'want' a free Ireland but then when the shooting starts get disgusted and then support it if theres a chance the brits are too busy fighting the germanst too take notice. also worth mentioning that Britain was giving norn iron away for support in the war.. Ireland/dev refused and Irishmen died in british uniforms anyway

Really?

Nobody told you?

[Puckoon]

He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men.

Could his comments be filed under one of the board's favourite terms for this kind of discussion - Whataboutery?

lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.

I disagree. Pointing out an inconsistency in the wording of a report, focusing on a sub component of the report (i.e. The laissez faire attitude of the officers), and not addressing the actual finding of collusion is all fairly straightforward whataboutery in the context of the issue

[Nally Stand]

He pointed out an inconsistency in the report's wording (that there was collusion but that there was no evidence of collusion), and pointed out another aspect of the report which was the lack of caution for their own safety by the two RUC men.

Could his comments be filed under one of the board's favourite terms for this kind of discussion - Whataboutery?

lol whataboutery? Catch yourself on! Adams was talking about the contents of the Smithwick Report, not deflecting the topic to some other report.

I disagree. Pointing out an inconsistency in the wording of a report, focusing on a sub component of the report (i.e. The laissez faire attitude of the officers), and not addressing the actual finding of collusion is all fairly straightforward whataboutery in the context of the issue

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it. Smithwick can say as much in his report but if anybody else mentions him saying this in the report, they are indulging in "whataboutery"? Wise the head!

[LeoMc]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

yeap! lets all just 'want' a free Ireland but then when the shooting starts get disgusted and then support it if theres a chance the brits are too busy fighting the germanst too take notice. also worth mentioning that Britain was giving norn iron away for support in the war.. Ireland/dev refused and Irishmen died in british uniforms anyway

Really?

Nobody told you?

As usual you had me scratching my head there but then I realised you had jumped from 1916 to 1940.

[Maguire01]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

[Myles Na G.]

I'm much happier with the formula ALL IRA = w**kers. The men of 1916 and those who fought the War of Independence won nothing but the partition of my country. Their 'achievement' has been supported by every new generation of w**kers from 1922 until the present day. The result is that Ireland today is a country in which the division runs deeper and is far more firmly entrenched than ever, socially, politically and culturally. Had the men of 1916 not been so keen to demonstrate their machismo and had instead concentrated their efforts on a political strategy, we might not have been in the mess we're in today. Consider this: Sinn Fein took 73 of the 105 seats in 1918, or just over 40 more than the non-republican candidates returned. Assume that this sort of majority would have been repeated in subsequent elections. What would the Sinn Fein influence have been had the party decided to take its seats in Westminster? There have been 25 British general elections since 1918. About 10 of those parliaments have had majorities of 40 or less. How long do you think successive British governments would have tolerated the Shinners holding the balance of power in the mother of Parliaments before they gave them what they wanted just to be rid of them? Ah, but principles, you say. Principles my hole. Where were the principles when they took their seats in Stormont and the Dail? What was lacking was vision and cool heads. Too many psychotics like the blood-fetishist Pearse running about looking for martyrdom. w**kers with a capital W.

This has to be the most ahistorical farrago of nonsense I have ever read in my life. Who was it that brought 'machismo' into Irish politics after decades of political planning had brought Irish nationalism to the cusp of having a trumped up county council to call our own within the Empire? It was Unionism, arming itself and spitting in the face of Westminster. The punishment for their treason was to be rewarded at every step by Westminster. Before the GFA, there was only one instance - the proroguing of Stormont, something that took place because Unionism wanted a Bloody Sunday on the streets of Northern Ireland every day of the week - of the British standing up to Unionism, and yet you say that they would have given Nationalism what it wanted to be rid of them? Remember, Ireland had a disproportionate number of seats in Westminster after the Act of Union. Sinn Féin won more seats than Labour despite getting less than a fifth of the votes (uncontested seats would account for some of the disparity, but not that much). It would have been a simple matter to have rectified this undemocratic anomaly by merging the Irish constituencies and neutering the power of Sinn Féin to control the mother of all Parliaments. Yet in your fantasy world the reaction of a political system that elevated Andrew Bonar Law to the highest office, a man who could "imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them", would have quickly cut a deal to be rid of the bolshie Micks! You are either taking the piss or utterly clueless. Only you know which it is.

I think the IRB were ahead of the unionists, but that's not the main point of what I was saying. I agree that the British government traditionally caved in to unionist pressure, but there's no certainty that it would have continued to do so, particularly if the British were being impeded in their own parliament by the shinners. In more recent years, for example, the British have faced down unionism (e.g over the Anglo Irish Agreement) when it has been in their interests to do so. I'm not saying that Irish independence would have followed in 5 or 10 years, but I think it would have happened. Even if you're right, what would have been the worst case scenario? We would have reached the present day with Ireland still being part of the UK? So what would that have looked like? We would have had, at very least, a devolved Irish parliament in Dublin - Wales and Scotland have this, we wouldn't have been any different. So we would have been a united country, being governed from Dublin, without the bitterness that 90 years and many thousands of deaths have caused. We wouldn't have had partition, 50 years of unionist misrule, the RUC, B Specials, the Troubles. We wouldn't have had 2 separate states on the island turning their backs on each other, to the extent that many people in the south now regard 'Ireland' as something which stops at the border. We wouldn't have had all that and here we would be in 2013, with the nationalist population in the 6 counties now equal in numbers to their unionist counterparts, making any future partition of the island impossible. We could've called for a referendum, just as Scotland has done. Even in your worst case scenario, therefore, we would've been far closer to an independent, 32 county Ireland than we are now.

[lawnseed]

My response to the question you no doubt have prepared in response is that the rebels of 1916 would quickly be able to claim the support of the Irish people.

So the rising was legitimate because of the potential for a retrospective mandate for it?

yeap! lets all just 'want' a free Ireland but then when the shooting starts get disgusted and then support it if theres a chance the brits are too busy fighting the germanst too take notice. also worth mentioning that Britain was giving norn iron away for support in the war.. Ireland/dev refused and Irishmen died in british uniforms anyway

Really?

Nobody told you?

As usual you had me scratching my head there but then I realised you had jumped from 1916 to 1940.

So they sold our nordie asses twice collins and then dev