![]() |
|
You are here Home | | What about Gerry Adams' statement about the IRA? Next or Previous « Will Paul Murphy leave after the election? | Main | Is Fianna Fail running scared - in the North? »
SOS - Save Our Slugger!
Help fund Slugger's new software: Or mail it direct to Slugger! |
April 27, 2005 What about Gerry Adams' statement about the IRA? Levitas asked: Does the statement from Gerry Adams concerning the future of the IRA represent a positive development which has the potential to break the current logjam? Brian Feeney said that the logjam will only be well and truly broken when the Sinn Fein representative on the NI Policing Board is the IRA Adjutant General - because one set of cops can't be chasing the other. Alex – Felt swapping statements between the IRA and Sinn Fein is ventroliquists' act. "I'm offended, as someone who supported the project. I actually believed SF and IRA were serious. It does offend me when Adams gets up and says he’s talking to the IRA." Dan McGinn – Reaction to the statement has shown a general weariness – right from the off – once he made the statement the reaction was, 'just get on with it'. Chris – Timing is election-based, but the statement itself is a product of what happened before with the Irish government - pressure applied from Bertie Ahern directly is what led to it . The result will be a shoring up of the "vote for peace" for SF. But Bertie Ahern said criminality is the acid test. Brian – The timing is important. It was held back until the election – they are trying to stand down the IRA – they had plans drawn up – they were going to stand them down – what they hadn’t agreed (I go to Bertie Ahern for this) is how to wind up what the Irish govt calls criminality – or if you prefer, revolutionary expropriations. There were last year difficulties in Dublin docks – which the Army Council didn’t authorize. They just handed some of the money in – they still haven’t agreed to do it – I’m not sure they know how to do it. The reaction will depend on how well they do in the election. Then they’ll issue a statement, in July probably. Once they’ve done that then we’ll know whether they’re prepared to go into negotiations, the prob is if a group guys in South Armagh pull off something, we have to wait a year til the IRA get a clean sheet because the DUP cannot go into negotiations. "They’ll have to wait a year to get a clean sheet. They only way you’ll know the IRA has stood down is when Sinn Fein is on the policing board and it’s the adjutant general". With Martin McGuinness appearing on Newsnight tonight, and Newsnight say they have the names of the members of the Army Council, who exactly does Brian Feeney think must be on the Policing Board then? Posted by: peteb at April 27, 2005 09:42 PM we'll have to wait n see Posted by: spirit-level at April 27, 2005 09:54 PM Yeah s-l.. that free wine was always going to be too tempting for the panel ;) Posted by: peteb at April 27, 2005 09:56 PM ouch peteb I'm on the dry.... well till friday ;) Posted by: spirit-level at April 27, 2005 10:09 PM Given past performances by all concerned.. I'd suggest no teeth and, at most, 5 minutes of stone-walling, not answering the question, and talking about where Martin wants everyone to be. Posted by: peteb at April 27, 2005 10:15 PM peteb The electorate will decide where Martin is going Posted by: john at April 27, 2005 10:33 PM "Given past performances by all concerned.. I'd suggest no teeth and, at most, 5 minutes of stone-walling, not answering the question." Sounds like a comment which could be made when the DUP are questioned on their connections with the gun runners of ulster resistance Posted by: harry at April 27, 2005 10:42 PM LOL.. Michael McDowell has just described Gerry Adams as a "political glove-puppet" of the IRA. Posted by: peteb at April 27, 2005 10:53 PM Not quite 5 minutes.. more like 2 or 3 minutes. But the predicted description of the 'interview' was right. Posted by: peteb at April 27, 2005 11:04 PM Newsnight just decided to name who they claim is on the Army Council, including Ferris, Adams and Mcguinness. Paxman interviewed McGuinness, who denied the allegations repeatedly. After a bit of "Answer the question" "I have answered that question" they ended the interview, I don't think that Paxman had his heart in it. Posted by: David at April 27, 2005 11:09 PM Wow - McGuinness was really rattled - a clear case of Paxman's revenge! Posted by: bik razor at April 27, 2005 11:10 PM Paxman looked well shaken up by that interview, and rightly so. He made an absolute fool of himself. That's what happens when you try cheap propaganda stunts to affect the outcome of an election. All of this information has been in the public domain for years. The BBC in bringing it up just now have had their agenda exposed. It's quite fitting that they fell flat on their faces with this pathetic effort. Hilariously enough the only sensible contribution came from Bill Lowry ex boss of RUC Special Branch. That shows just how bad the BBC effort truly was. Later they're going to be getting the views of Unionists on the matter. Sinn Fein supporters must be rolling on the floor laughing at the ludicrous contrivance of it all. Posted by: Jim Bob at April 27, 2005 11:11 PM I watched the newsnight interview online, however the first few minutes are missing, and all those named as alleged army council members are missing, can anybody repeat the names mentioned on newsnight? I did see McGuinnes deny IRA membership, Paxman tried to ask whether people had the right to know that someone standing for elected office was a member of the IRA army council. Given Martins previous denial, is it any wonder that he did not answer. I know of not one politician who would answer such a loaded hypothetical question. The original question was answered, he said he was not on the IRA army council, he had left the IRA in 1974, and he was not at an IRA convention in Cavan in 2002. Paxman, asked did he accept the evidence presented by the BBC? McGuinness rightly said that no evidence had been produced. If there is evidence then those named should be charged. Put up or shut up. Posted by: PaddyCanuck at April 27, 2005 11:18 PM what i'd like to know is where have the provos attached the strings to brian feeney? Posted by: freddiescapp at April 27, 2005 11:20 PM To Paddy Canuck McDowell admitted that he had no evidence. All he had was Intelligence. The interview was obviously cut short by the Newsnight studio directors. McGuiness was smiling and relaxed. Paxman was losing it. They later had Willie McCrea on ranting. These people just haven't a clue how this contrived stuff plays in the North. I'd imagine the SF vote shot up a few points on the back of this. Posted by: Jim Bob at April 27, 2005 11:29 PM martin was not smiling and relaxed. He had a fixed grin and looked utterly false. As if he was lying in fact Posted by: mocha at April 27, 2005 11:37 PM freddie "the man is a byword for opportunism" I think this label could be attached to most of the SDLP Westminster candidates Posted by: harry at April 27, 2005 11:38 PM It's a real pity that so many people who like to appear as being in someway decent give their vote to a party so clearly linked to murder, robbery and thuggery. I really hope that in this election people see the "men behind the masks" and vote for parties who see the murder of people like Jean McConville and Garda McCabe as the reprehensible crime they really are. Posted by: Intelligence Insider at April 27, 2005 11:57 PM To Mocha "martin was not smiling and relaxed." That's precisely what he was. Paxman was the flustered one, so much so indeed that he had to be rescued by his producers. The whole thing was the most risible contrivance from start to finish. Even the dogs on the street could see this for what it was. "He had a fixed grin and looked utterly false. As if he was lying in fact" There was a series on recently about body language and what you could tell from it. But you need to be honest about what the body signals are firstly. And then you can move to interpretation.
Posted by: Jim Bob at April 28, 2005 12:03 AM II Would you class the people who supported a government which ran the loyalist death squads as decent. There are those within this society who claim to be decent while covering their eyes to the crimes of the state. Was the murder of innocent catholics acceptable to a decent person like yourself Posted by: harry at April 28, 2005 12:07 AM To Intelligence Insider People just aren't so foolish as to be misled by partial accounts, whether it's from you or the BBC. People see these selective accounts for what they are. And the sooner people who peddle these partial accounts understand that the sooner you get all the problesm sorted out. That's of course if those who peddle these partial accounts are genuine in the first place. Mostly they're not of course. And indeed mostly they are creators of problems rather than solvers. Posted by: Jim Bob at April 28, 2005 12:10 AM The FORMER leading IRA figure was certainly "smiling and relaxed" if sitting with a surly expression and looking about as comfortable as someone with toothache looks "smiling and relaxed". Clearly, to some, it does. Funny old world. Perhaps the named individuals will sue. Unless .... Posted by: GavBelfast at April 28, 2005 12:17 AM "The FORMER leading IRA figure was certainly "smiling and relaxed" if sitting with a surly expression and looking about as comfortable as someone with toothache looks "smiling and relaxed"." Toothache - Laughing gas. I see. It was a bit like that. "Perhaps the named individuals will sue. Unless ...." Unless it would be a waste of time, I suppose
Posted by: Jim Bob at April 28, 2005 02:05 AM Mocha
Posted by: Pronsias at April 28, 2005 04:42 AM I thought Paxman was poor. He appeared to be taken off guard when McGuinness lied, which showed lack of preparation. Having asserted that he left the IRA in 1974, the follow up ought to have been "why?" Posted by: Jimmy Sands at April 28, 2005 05:41 AM Isn't it funny how so many people can watch the same thing and have such different interpretations….Here's mine...To me MMcG didn't look particularly bothered at any stage just a bit pi$$ed off towards the end and seemed to want to leave the interview because Paxman wasn't interested in hearing his usual interview script. It's bit like every time Big Ian is allowed out unscripted it's all about preaching to the converted. I don't think any SF voters changed their minds after last night or those not voting SF suddenly thought "OK right I'll show that Paxman one I'll vote SF!". Posted by: Dessertspoon at April 28, 2005 01:27 PM |
Slugger O'Toole records news, commentary and diverse opinion on Northern Ireland. Produced by Mick Fealty News, tips or crits here: mick.fealty -at- gmail.com Topics a long peace?books Britain Conflict Culture Economy Education election 2003 Election 2005 Enviroment environment Europe Gaeilge Glossary Government Highlights Human Rights Humour International Manifesto Media Nationalism Negotiations Parties Policing Soapbox Society Sport the south unionism
Highlights
Out with the crystal ball...Just a Mo... Commenting Policy A backgrounder on the McCartney affair Northern Bank raid and political fallout, so far
Readers comments
More corrupt than last year? - (4)Living on an island or in a state? - (31) a combination of historical ignorance and monumental self-pity - (42) Payout time... - (4) New Lansdowne revealed - (24) Far right 'imagination'... - (13) Nazi comments were a sectarian slur - (3) The price of peacemaking... - (17) belfast metropolitan area plan unveiled - (23) Why (or rather how) Alec Reid was right... - (37)
Archives
October 2005September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 July 2004 March 2004 October 2003 September 2003 May 2003 |
|
Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered:
Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com
All rights reserved.
|
<a href="(URL)">hyperlink</a>
It is important that you include http:// when adding the URL.