web analytics

WHEN THOSE THAT MAKE THE LAW BREAK THE LAW …..

By Patrick Van Roy On November 30th, 2020

Guest Post from Paul

 

 

The British Government announced today that there will be a public inquiry into one of the most infamous murders of the Irish conflict, that of lawyer Pat Finucane. There have already been a number of investigations into events linked to the murder and state involvement in the murder firmly established, with the then British PM publicly apologising to the Finucane family from the floor of the House of Commons  in 2012 for the ‘shocking levels of collusion’ in the murder. The British Government have always resisted the Finucane’s call for a full public inquiry into the murder and today’s decision was a result of a case taken by them to the UK Supreme Court last year which stated that a previous undertaking given to Mrs Finucane for an inquiry was ‘clear and unambiguous’ and that she had a ‘legitimate expectation’ a public inquiry would be held into his death. 

Today’s decision is a result of the dogged determination and steadfast tenacity of the Finucane family not to let the case be forgotten, fobbed of nor buried under a mountain of bureaucracy but to keep it in the public eye and a relevant concern.

Pat Finucane had three brothers who were members of the IRA and had many clients who were also accused of IRA actions, that’s where his IRA associations ended. He was a lawyer and a pretty good one, which seemingly was enough to make him an enemy in the eyes of some state agents and his murder wasn’t just an attack on an individual but an attack on the judicial process. Today justice has been seen to have been done and a transparent public enquiry will see the whole squalid, stinking truth exposed and also put to bed the disgusting character slur propagated by his killers as justification for his murder, that he was a member of the IRA.

It was widely anticipated that British Secretary of State in Ireland, Brandon Lewis, would announce a public inquiry into the murder of Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane today and I wrote this blog in preparation for it earlier. The public inquiry has since been denied at this time and the attempted cover up continues. 

 

78 Responses to “WHEN THOSE THAT MAKE THE LAW BREAK THE LAW …..”

  1. Thank you.

  2. BTW,

    WHEN THOSE THAT MAKE THE LAW BREAK THE LAW …..

    Was the original title of the blog prior to the decision being taken and me adding the first paragraph as an addendum.

  3. It helps if you’re clear about that when you send it…….

    Hey just a heads up, since us kidding around about this has set your dog off you may want to put him back on the leash before I do.

  4. Breaking News:

    This just in – Seimi is NOT Paul’s dog!Troll wrong yet again.

    How about you just man up and have a debate, instead of going to Paul? I thought people going to other peoplerather than addressing the issue head on annoyed you? Or was that an ‘alternative truth’?

  5. The first paragraph which I wrote after the decision had been taken needs to be added as a prologue to put the piece in context.

    Seimi isn’t ‘my dog’ Pat. He is one of my closest friends and while I think what happened was hugely unjust and will comment on it as and when the need arises I have as much control over how he responds to you as I have over how you respond to him.

  6. How amusing, the IRA fans are outraged that someone broke the law. Talk about motes and beams! Always ready to whinge and point the finger, never prepared to have the finger pointed back at them for the decades of atrocities they committed and supported.

  7. Well just so you know he’s on the edge. I just won’t have this everyday.

    This is a political site, not bar room brawl. It will end.

  8. How amusing, the IRA fans are outraged that someone broke the law.

    Have you suddenly transformed into Mr State when agents of the state actually murder its citizens?

  9. BTW, the prologue, written after this blog was created and the decision made public and subsequently removed was:

    It was widely anticipated that British Secretary of State in Ireland, Brandon Lewis, would announce a public inquiry into the murder of Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane today and I wrote this blog in preparation for it earlier. The public inquiry has since been denied at this time and the attempted cover up continues.

    It should be stated that this removal (by Pat) wasn’t politically motivated but rather a mix up regarding presentation.

  10. It was widely anticipated that British Secretary of State in Ireland, Brandon Lewis ..

    There is no such position or country.

    Brandon Lewis is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  11. BTW Pete, IIRC correctly weren’t you a weekend soldier?

    That organisation that you belonged to has more atrocities and innocent blood on its hands than the IRA could ever have.

  12. Brandon Lewis is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

    As you say above, there is no such country.

  13. “Brandon Lewis is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.”

    There is no such position.

    Technically Brandon Lewis is Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If you are going to get uppity about Paul not using the official terminology then maybe you should start by using the official terminology.

  14. Patrick Van Roy, on November 30th, 2020 at 7:00 PM Said:
    Well just so you know he’s on the edge. I just won’t have this everyday.

    This is a political site, not bar room brawl. It will end.

    You shouldn’t have started it then.

    Pete Moore, on November 30th, 2020 at 6:56 PM Said:
    How amusing, the IRA fans are outraged that someone broke the law. Talk about motes and beams! Always ready to whinge and point the finger, never prepared to have the finger pointed back at them for the decades of atrocities they committed and supported.

    I see Pete has morphed into a Brit again this evening. Better hide your Irish passport in the spuds there, Pete!

  15. Is there really a purpose in having a public enquiry into this murder ? The Troubles are full of countless murky murderous shady associations between ‘State’ and ‘ Non-State’ involved individuals groups and associates. Blind eyes being turned to criminality where it suited wider purposes, informers, protectionism, and a thousand other types of unsavoury activities resulting in murders mailings and criminal destructions that were never punished. If there isn’t going to ever be a full comprehensive ‘ Truth and reconciliation’ commission, is there any point in having selected public enquiries into individual events or cases ?

  16. “Is there really a purpose in having a public enquiry into this murder ?”

    It has been accepted by the British state that the British state murdered Pat Finucane (prompting relatively insincere apologies from the British government to the Finucane family). As was put very well by Pat Finucane’s son “we know who pulled the trigger, we want to know who pulled the strings”. The continued cover-up by the British state would suggest that uncovering “who pulled the strings” would net a pretty big fish. The implication being that this goes to a senior level of government. It is not only in the interest of the Finucane family to hold a public inquiry but in the general public interest as well – to determine if (and who) in the British government decided to murder a lawyer for doing his job.

    That is the distinction between it and most of the other killings carried out in the Troubles. There is less long-term implication. I think to rise to the level of public inquiry the situation must involve a matter of public interest – namely criminal actions and cover-up by the state, rather than criminal actions by people who are already seen by the law to be criminal. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  17. Is there really a purpose in having a public enquiry into this murder ?

    Absolutely there is. Not least of all to dispel the scurrilous slur that was used to justify his murder and is still ritually trotted out by both loyalism & unionism.

    As I say above,

    (This is) a result of the dogged determination and steadfast tenacity of the Finucane family not to let the case be forgotten, fobbed of nor buried under a mountain of bureaucracy but to keep it in the public eye and a relevant concern

  18. Colm,

    I tried responding to the other thread but the gallant defender of free speech has decided that we can no longer talk on it. But here is what I was going to say:

    I would be agreeable to that Colm. But Patrick needs to cool it with the ban threats. Because he has now repeatedly threatened to ban people in the last few weeks, including actually banning me and Seimi. If he threatens to ban people without cause (or if that cause is only what ever fiction he has concocted in his head) then people are going to react, and likely his previous unjust banning of people will be be brought up.

    I said it before Patrick’s “rules” (and his own continuous flouting of them) are nothing more than pretexts for banning people who stand up to him and disagree with him. So if he wants this place to be civil, if he wants people to move on from his unjust banning of people, then he needs to drop that behaviour. Because his uncivil behaviour will be challenged.

  19. He closed comments?? ROFL!! Oh, the ironing!!
    The defender of free speech! LOL!!

  20. Seamus

    Did the British State really say they organised the murder of Pat Finucane ?

    Would any public enquiry really be accepted in good faith . It’s parameters and powers would be set by the same British State that is implicated in the murder. Would Republicans and the Finucane family and supporters be satisfied with anything less than what they would expect to be delivered ?

  21. It’s been shut so that the owner can decide which direction things go next.

  22. Good, My last comment was the final one on that thread, and my words should be taken to heart and adhered to by everyone 🙂

  23. It’s been shut so that the owner can decide which direction things go next.

    Will the owner accept comments from commentators on this site, or only those of his *ahem* manager, before deciding? Can we hear from the owner, rather than his ‘manager’?

  24. Colm,

    The key finding of the Desmond de Silva review (which didn’t have for example the power to compel witnesses or full investigatory powers to determine the identity of the individuals involved) was:

    Overall, I am left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State. The significance is not so much, as Sir John Stevens concluded in 2003, that the murder could have been prevented, though I entirely concur with this finding. The real importance, in my view, is that a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder and that, in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice.

    That report has been accepted by the British government. So the British government have accepted that it is likely that Pat Finucane would not have been murdered had it not been for the actions of the state.

    “Would Republicans and the Finucane family and supporters be satisfied with anything less than what they would expect to be delivered ?”

    I imagine it would depend on the parameters of the inquiry. It would have to be independent, and provably so.

  25. Did the British State really say they organised the murder of Pat Finucane ?

    No, they acknowledged ‘shocking state collusion’ in it:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20662412

  26. Loyalist terrorists were happy to murder any random Nationalist/ Catholic they could get their bullets into. They were actively able to murder almost at will. I don’t really understand the particular view that appears to be prevalent that they wouldn’t and couldn’t have been able to murder Finucane without State assistance.

  27. “Loyalist terrorists were happy to murder any random Nationalist/ Catholic they could get their bullets into. They were actively able to murder almost at will. I don’t really understand the particular view that appears to be prevalent that they wouldn’t and couldn’t have been able to murder Finucane without State assistance.”

    You said it yourself. Happy to murder any random Catholic. Pat Finucane wasn’t a random Catholic. He was targeted. And targeted assassination of specific individuals by loyalists was uncommon throughout the Troubles.

  28. I don’t really understand the particular view that appears to be prevalent that they wouldn’t and couldn’t have been able to murder Finucane without State assistance.

    The point isn’t that they wouldn’t and couldn’t have been able to do it without the assistance of state agents, it’s that they did.

  29. The funny thing is these terrorists were as likely to kill protestants that “looked” catholic as they were to actually kill random catholics

  30. Seamus

    I said it before Patrick’s “rules” (and his own continuous flouting of them) are nothing more than pretexts for banning people who stand up to him and disagree with him. So if he wants this place to be civil, if he wants people to move on from his unjust banning of people, then he needs to drop that behaviour. Because his uncivil behaviour will be challenged.

    Absolutely spot-on.

  31. He’s gone very quiet, which either means he’s received a bollocking and is figuring out his response to everyone here, or he is planning a bit of a clear-out, in which case – bye!
    Or, he could just be asleep, or busy, or something.

  32. or I could just be in the either…….

  33. Just make your play.
    You offered ‘gloves off.’ So what are you going to do?
    Ban me? For what? Disrupting threads? You started the conversation on two posts. I had been completely silent for a couple of days. I even didn’t pursue my request for someone to bypass you and publish a post for me.
    You keep saying you won’t accept being called a liar. But I have called you a liar. I called you a liar because you said I called you a liar, but I didn’t. Which makes you a liar. I’m calling you a liar now, because of that. So are you going to ban me for that?

    Honestly, if calling me ‘scum’ and ‘child murder supporter’ is the best you’ve got, then you’ve really got nothing, whereas I can call you a liar all night long and I’ll be 100% accurate.

  34. Dave, and Seimi.

    Everyone else had moved on and got past it except the two of you.

    Seimi, Dave, and Seamus have continued nonstop with the nonsense that I am a Liar that I post false information for the sake of deceiving you all.

    I have never done that, I will never do that. I will not accept the nonstop attack and Slander that I am a Liar.

    It reached a point over the past two months after a year of asking you to stop. Warning that it would not be tolerated.

    I never complained about any of you disagreeing with me, I’ve never complained about being called a name, god knows I call all of you names also.

    I have been wrong in my views and opinions at times, but being wrong is not Lying.

    2 of you don’t attack what I say you just attack me. Then the third one joins in your defence.

    Seimi you were made an example of, it was a Low Blow, but you were the warning shot. And I sincerely apologized for making you the example. We all fought about it, it had actually been believed by all but two of you to be done and settled.

    You and Dave have however have continued daily with the attacks. You refuse to stop and tell me to go fuck myself when I and others tell you to let it go.

    Both of you have been continually asked and told to stop, and you refuse.

    I’m not perfect, I don’t expect any of you to be perfect. I have been civil, neither of you seem to be able to manage that.

    It must come to an end.

  35. “I have been civil, neither of you seem to be able to manage that.”

    You are rarely civil. You are by considerable distance the most abusive person on this site. You are the one who started the argument back up again today.

    So it is clear that you saying the rules apply to you was yet another lie. You have broken several of your own rules and yet here you are crying like a little bitch because people pointed that out.

    You want an excuse to ban me, Seimi, Dave and Paul all while trying to pretend you support free speech. You want your echo chamber. Just you and Allan bouncing far-right conspiracy theories off each other.

    You can ban us but all it will be I’d yet another example that you are dishonourable, a liar, a hypocrite, a bully and a coward.

  36. If this blog becomes nothing but an endless repetition of this issue then it won’t matter who gets banned or leaves it will become worthless as a discussion forum. If people only obey the one simple rule to not call someone a liar which is not the same thing as challenging their claims then this thorny knot can be untied. I am not interested in anyone coming back with childish “ he started it” or “he’s to blame” , the atmosphere has to change. Perhaps some of you won’t care if you destroy ATW with such endless bitterness but I still like it here and don’t want to see it closed. Call me a soft appeaser if you will ( call me what you want, I am not bothered) but I do wish this situation can change and no it does not rely on ‘the other guy’ changing.

  37. Troll
    You said I called you a liar. I didn’t.
    Now, the first time you said that I called you a liar could be regarded as a mistake on your part, which would fit in with your, “I never intentionally lie” spiel. However, even after I – and every other person on this site – repeatedly pointed out that I hadn’t called you a liar, but you kept saying that I did: that wasn’t stupidity on your part. That was a lie.
    You lied, over and over, about me calling you a liar.
    And then, when it was clear that I hadn’t called you a liar, and that you were actually lying about that, you started changing your story. So, I wasn’t banned for calling you a liar. I was suspended in order to make a point. What that point was, is still a bit unclear, because if it was to protest against being called a liar, it made as much sense as shooting someone in protest at the death penalty.

    I can see how this puts you in a pretty difficult situation. You fucked up. But instead of just admitting that you fucked up, un-banning me and moving on, you doubled down and tried to fool people who aren’t fools. And now, being as arrogant as you are, you just can’t get past the fact that you fucked up. You actually believe that saying that what you did was a ‘Low Blow’ – and I capitalised that because you did. I wonder what a psychologist would make of that – is enough to absolve you here. You also seem to believe that you ‘sincerely’ apologised. This is hard to believe, considering you appear to have retracted that apology several times tonight.

    I’ll happily reveal something here, Troll. Here’s part of one of the emails sent between us, one of the emails which, for some reason, you didn’t post on the site.

    Just to close this out, I’ll give you something to think about. When Charles and his wife visited recently, we, of course talked about other posters on ATW. He told me how you and Monica had driven all the way up to meet him, and how much that meant to him personally. I told him that I had enjoyed meeting everyone I had met so far, and that there was only one person I didn’t think I would want to meet, as I didn’t think I would be able to control my temper with them. That was *****. I also told him – and you can ask him this yourself – that of all the people I wanted to meet, you were top of that list because, despite our many, varied and loud disagreements, I found much in common with you, and much to admire, your sincerity being one of the main strong points.

    This feeling has now been shattered. This is not an attempt at emotional blackmail or any crap like that. This is me being, as always, 100% honest.

    I really do not wish to continue fighting with you here. But I don’t intend to leave. I also don’t expect you to leave, nor would I want it.

    But I cannot and will not just sit here and let this go. You banned me and it was wrong. You had the power to do so and you used it. Many, including myself, would say you mis-used it, and continue to do so.
    I’m not going to stop calling you out on this. I would prefer not to have to do that, but if that is what you choose, so be it. You will have to ban me.
    It’s up to you.

  38. Colm

    You enjoy the debate and the fun and the innuendo etc. Do you enjoy the lies? Do you enjoy the deceit? Do you enjoy the fact that some people can kick other people off the site on a whim?

    I know you don’t, because you spoke out when I was banned. But there isn’t a sell-by date on this behaviour. You don’t just forget about it after a couple of weeks. If something was a lie 3 weeks ago, it’s probably still a lie now.

    So don’t complain about a wrong one week, then complain about people complaining about the same wrong a couple of weeks later, just because you’re tired of complaining yourself. It’s still a wrong, whether you are tired of it or not.

  39. No Seamus I made a joke to Paul as I posted his piece and Seimi took a walk off the pier… again.

    My civility is gentler than yours, the insanity you spew in my direction is very rarely returned in kind. I enjoy your intellect, and your depth if not your point of view.

    You say that I am the most uncivil person here. Is it uncivil to give you and your Brethren a voice? Civility is not just tone it’s also action. I’ve published pieces by all of you, but I am anti-free speech.

    I don’t have to do that, but I guess that’s not being civil or do you feel owed ?

    I have to publish what is given or else….. no I’m just an uncivil liar looking for excuses to ban someone….

    I admire your loyalty to your friend, I do. It is however not helping him, me, you. or the site.

    I intend for this site to grow, to be a place where people can argue and share points of view.

    People get testy, it’s human nature, but the slander and the hounding will stop.

  40. …and Seimi took a walk off the pier… again.

    LOL. From the most emotionally unstable person on this site.

    I really can see why people leave and don’t come back.

    Troll, are you just incapable of telling the truth?

  41. I have another suggestion.

    You have been practising your video skills. I will happily debate with you, on video, why I was banned.

    How about it?

  42. Patrick

    Dave, and Seimi.

    Everyone else had moved on and got past it except the two of you.

    Seimi, Dave, and Seamus have continued nonstop with the nonsense that I am a Liar that I post false information for the sake of deceiving you all.

    Except once again Patrick, like you did with Seimi, you accused me of calling you a liar when I didn’t call you a liar. Simple truth is Patrick, you just can’t honestly debate people, and you get annoyed when they point out this dishonesty. Rather than addresses it, you blame the people pointing this out and threaten to ban them if they don’t stop pointing it out. Well I’ve got news for you, I believe in free speech and I stand up to bullies. If you don’t want people to point out your hypocrisy stop being a hypocrite.

  43. It is not slander (or even libel for those with a basic enough understanding of the English language) to call you a liar. Because you so quite clearly are.

    As for the civility, you are abusive, rude and insulting, and almost always throw the first punch. You are now pretending it was all a joke (straight out of the Trump playbook – say something and if you get pushback claim it was a joke). Frankly I don’t believe you. You apologised to Seimi for banning but have now returned to the same lies about why you did it – showing that your apology was bullshit.

    The only way this site would go back to normal is for it to go back to normal. And the new addition is not people arguing, or disagreeing (even in anger). The new addition is you banning people or threatening to ban people. As long as you keep that up I’m going to keep calling you out over it. If you want it to go back to normal then you need to go back to normal. Because it is your behaviour that has caused this.

  44. You apologised to Seimi for banning

    No he didn’t. He apologised for suspending me.

    Pedantic? Possibly. Accurate? Definitely.

  45. Patrick

    Dave If you keep making a topic of me I will ban You and it won’t be a warning shot and it won’t be a suspension.

    People get testy, it’s human nature, but the slander and the hounding will stop.

    I’m sure you intelligent guys have spotted this already, but Patrick is moving the goalposts of what behaviour constitutes a ban, from his very loose definition of calling him a liar, to also include making a ‘topic of’ him or ‘hounding’ him.

  46. I think it is a shame, also, that an important issue, ie the state-sanctioned murder of someone who upheld and defended the law, has been sidelined by this nonsense. Apologies, Paul.

  47. I’ll second that.

    It was a good post Paul, thank you.

  48. That doesn’t have to be sidelined. The topic of this post can still be debated .it’s an important issue.

  49. //Loyalist terrorists were happy to murder any random Nationalist/ Catholic they could get their bullets into. They were actively able to murder almost at will. I don’t really understand the particular view that appears to be prevalent that they wouldn’t and couldn’t have been able to murder Finucane without State assistance//

    It’s one thing to wait in a car at some interface area for the first Taig to come along and then shoot him and drive off. Another to know a certain busy individual’s every move and place of abode, and to know when he’s actually at home, then to enter a nationalist district, break down his front door and kill him in his house and then drive away without fear of arrest. All that requires prior intelligence, planning and subsequent protection – and the killers most likely got all that and more from state forces. Whether with or without the approval or connivance of political leaders remains to be seen.

    //f people only obey the one simple rule to not call someone a liar which is not the same thing as challenging their claims then this thorny knot can be untied. //

    Bullshit. If anyone – Pat or anyone else – tells deliberate lies he can’t complain about being called a deliberate liar.

    People should instead obey the even simpler rule: if you don’t like these eternal clashes with Patrick, simply don’t engage with him in debate. Ignore him.

    If people had followed that, none of this endless shit would have happened.

  50. Noel

    2 points.

    You cannot know that someone is telling a deliberate lie. You can believe the claim is utter rubbish but should not presume that the teller does not believe it.

    Your second suggestion has obvious logical merit but it rather defeats the purpose of this site. Patrick is the main promoter of a particular American political viewpoint here and regulars obviously want to debate and challenge (or agree) the claims on the subsequent threads. Why be here otherwise ? This isn’t a news site, its a discussion blog.

  51. //You cannot know that someone is telling a deliberate lie. Y//

    Eh… Are you the Colm who’s been on ATW all these years? Certain statements are of course often clearly lies. Do you think that certain lies have not been definitely proven here? Of course they have, hundreds of times. I could give you countless examples.

    //of a particular American political viewpoint here and regulars obviously want to debate and challenge (or agree) the claims on the subsequent threads//

    It isn’t the views that are the issue. But, OK, if that’s what you think, carry on regardless. But that’s exactly what brought us to this mess and don’t come complaining if/when it gets worse.

    No one contributor is absolutely indispensible. The site can – and often has – continued even when several key voices are absent. If my proposal were followed, everyone can participate or not and there would be civil and lively debate on practically all sides, just nobody getting hurt and no regular meltdowns. It would be better for the site and much better for everyone concerned, including Patrick, who would incidentally probably agree with me on this.

  52. All that requires prior intelligence, planning and subsequent protection – and the killers most likely got all that and more from state forces. Whether with or without the approval or connivance of political leaders remains to be seen.

    The guy who provided the intelligence and photo of Finucane to the UDA for him to be assasinated, Brian Nelson, arguably the most prolific sectarian murder enabler of the entire conflict, worked for Military Intelligence. The guy who supplied the arms for the murder, Billy Stobie, was an RUC Special Branch informer. The guy who drove the gunmen to Finucane’s house for the murder and then drove them away, Ken Barrett, was also an RUC Special Branch informer.

    It was RUC Special Branch officers proposed (allegedlly to Barrett) that Finucane be murderd:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20662412

  53. Ah, Noel – if only we were all as close to perfection as you! We could all sit on pedestals of our own making, gazing down with patronising benevolence on the likes of Troll, wallowing in their ignorance! 🙂
    In reality, of course, that’s not what happens. Everyone engages with just about everyone else here. You’re doing it with Troll, albeit indirectly. You mention him by name, which is enough to elicit a response from him. Just because you don’t respond to his subsequesnt response, does not mean you aren’t engaging with him; it just means that you deliberately kicked the wasps’ nest and ran away. All you are doing is establishing a loose form of deniability, before directly engaging with him.

    If you want your new-found philosophy of ‘Don’t engage – don’t react’ to actually work, you would have to:

    A) Never comment on anything Troll posted or commented on, ever again
    B) Never mention him by name ever again
    C) Limit your own comments only to those posts which;
    (i) Have been written by people other than Troll
    and
    (ii) Have not already been commented on by Troll

    Good luck in your endeavours!

  54. Seimi, if you think mentioning someone or quoting them means engaging with them, you’re still dreaming at such a late hour in the morning.

    But even if it did, the question is: does it work? In my case it certainly does, and would in yours too if you were consistent enough to follow it.
    Instead, you apparently can’t resist the temptation of correcting someone when you know, or should know, that it will have absolutely no effect outside you thinking your position here is thereby somehow enhanced, with the corollary of your pride being stung when he retorts as he does.

    It’s all a total waste of time and has absolutely no effect apart from generate these endless squabbles. If you really cared about this site, you’d follow my advice and these silly rows would end.

  55. A) Never comment on anything Troll posted or commented on, ever again

    Sounds easy enough, and we have a blueprint too. Almost everybody here has to come to ignore 99% of what Allan posts. I have the same approach to platforms like Twitter. If I think somebody is entirely beyond the pales, or, if our views are so divergent as to make any interesting engagement impossible, I simply ignore. I humbly suggest this is indeed the best approach. 🙂

  56. Noel, I would absolutely say that mentioning someone or quoting them is engaging with them, albeit indirectly (as I said). Wouldn’t you? If you write something here, and I then write, “Noel said…”, I wouldn’t be shocked to my core if you then wrote a follow-up comment. I wouldn’t rebuke you for jumping in to a discussion that had nothing to do with you.

    Plus, Troll is the most thin-skinned, over-sensitive child on this site, so even the slightest hint of his name is enough to set him off on a self-pitying whine, so there’s really no avoiding engaging with him or eliciting a response from him. Just because you then don’t respond doesn’t mean you didn’t initially engage.

    If you really cared about this site, you’d follow my advice…

    Jaysus! As they say around here, “If you were a Mars bar, ye’d ate yerself!” 🙂

    Where I come from, if someone does something wrong against you, you stand up to them. You don’t just accept it and not ‘engage.’

  57. I should have just done a blog on the etiquette of blog non engaging engagement. It seems that people find it a much more interesting subject than state agent collusion in murder.

  58. Paul — I have found over the years that no topic is more important on ATW than ATW.

  59. Sorry, a chara. No more non-related comments on this post from me.

  60. Goog advice from Noel an Colm.

  61. //Almost everybody here has to come to ignore 99% of what Allan posts. I have the same approach to platforms like Twitter. //

    Wise man, Petr. Mind you, by mentioning Allan and referring to his posts, you are engaging with him, “albeit indirectly” according to Seimi. He will respond, so you are deliberately kicking the wasp’s nest and now running away. 🙂

    Look, Seimi, I don’t want to argue with you on this stupid topic. But you will have noticed: there used to be a time when I engaged with (my definition) Patrick and I used to have the same kind of rows as this here one. But then I stopped, and naturally so did the rows. You seem to think I still engage somehow, but for some reason the rows between him and me stopped.
    In fact, I don’t respond to him in any political debate and that’s why there are no rows. Try it.

    Back to Paul’s post.
    Apart from getting justice for such a sound man as Pat Finucane, it would be nice to think any public inquiry will finally assert the role of responsible government and the rule of law and confound the efforts of the military to break that law and wage a covert war against citizens of the country who (albeit reluctantly) pay for them and their weapons and training. But is is now 30 years since the rooms used by the Steven’s Enquiry very conveniently burned down and even that matter was not resolved. Stevens was, however, in no doubt about the cause and the culprits

    It was only through the investigative efforts of my Enquiry team that I was able to identify and arrest the Army agent Brian Nelson in January 1990. When he was interviewed I discovered that he had been in possession of an ‘intelligence dump’ [on Republican suspects and PF]. This had been seized by his FRU handlers when my first Enquiry had begun, in September 1989. This crucial evidence had been concealed from my Enquiry team.

    There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson.

  62. Wise man, Petr. Mind you, by mentioning Allan and referring to his posts, you are engaging with him, “albeit indirectly” according to Seimi. He will respond, so you are deliberately kicking the wasp’s nest and now running away. 🙂

    Patrick Van Roy, on December 1st, 2020 at 12:35 PM Said:
    Goog advice from Noel an Colm.

    Yes, good boys. Don’t respond. Don’t engage. Comply.

    Sorry, Paul.

  63. Apologies Paul. I would have prefered that this thread stayed on point but the other thread was closed preventing comment from continuing there. Maybe if Patrick reopened that thread for comments and we could migrate this discussion back to that thread so this thread could be left to discuss the matter of the murder of Pat Finucane, and the cover-up of that murder.

    “You cannot know that someone is telling a deliberate lie. You can believe the claim is utter rubbish but should not presume that the teller does not believe it.”

    And yet Patrick is insiting that we are all liars. Let me make something 100% clear. Under US tort law defamation (incorrectly identified as slander by Patrick) requires someone to make an intentional false communication. So when Patrick accuses Seimi, Dave, myself, anyone of “slander” – in addition to not knowing what that word means – Patrick is claiming that Seimi, Dave, myself etc… made an intentional false communication. So by accusing us of “slander” Patrick is accusing us of deliberately lying about him.

    For it to rise the level of defamation Patrick would need to prove a) that it was false – that he is not a liar (good luck with that one) b) that we know it is false and c) that we intentionally made a false statement with the intent to harm him. Not one of those burdens has been met.

    ” there used to be a time when I engaged with (my definition) Patrick and I used to have the same kind of rows as this here one. But then I stopped, and naturally so did the rows.”

    I think it is one thing on an individual basis. However if collectively the entire group decided to stop engaging with Patrick then almost certainly, given his displayed personality characteristics, he would become abusive. Earlier in the year Patrick’s “posts” largely consisted of various right-wing and far-right wing propoganda videos. And people pointed out that they weren’t interested in watching them. And Patrick’s response was if you don’t want to watch them and comment on them then you don’t have to. Patrick then posted a video that was clearly important to him (about the murder of police officers) and no one watched it and no one responded to it. And he went fucking ape shit. And because no one watched his video and no one responded to his video Patrick said:

    No Prisoners, no mercy, no courtesy.

    Make all the excuses you want, cry to David all you want. No quarter will be shown by me to anyone regardless of your metrosexual weenie feelings.

    So I don’t think ignoring Patrick will work. Because he will become increasingly abusive, increasingly draconian, and increasingly authoritarian if we ignore him. He will show no courtesy if you ignore him. He has said that himself.

  64. (Now this REALLY is my last comment on this matter.)

    I doubt it, but perhaps you’re right Seamus. It’s still definitely worth a try at least.

    Besides, it wouldn’t be the entire group; there are always a few here who do engage but who seem to have more patience or something (and whatever it is, I ain’t got it) and it never gets bloody. Phantom especially seems to have the skin of a crocodile.

    So there would be that at least to absorb the wrath you mention.

  65. BTW, can anyone get past the DT paywall and put up this article here?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/01/time-has-come-irish-unionists-decide-kind-united-ireland-can/

  66. Paywall stands intact!

  67. Seamus the other thread is now back open.

    Both that thread and the original thread were closed so David could reread them.

    They are both now open.

  68. Thank you Patrick. Maybe, for ease of coherence, we could migrate the discussion to the thread that David has put up. But we should definitely leave this one for a discussion on Paul’s blog, and whatever organically flows from that.

    As per Noel’s request I have a telegraph subscription. I could post the article here (if that wouldn’t violate some sort of copyright rule). I’m not being snarky in that one. I’m geniuenly interested if we can post it.

  69. Not if you post like half the story, and the link to the rest…. that covers the copywrite

  70. Sadly the link is behind a paywall. I’ll see if I can find a free copy of it online.

    Edit:

    Found a free copy:

    https://medium.com/shane-greer/unionists-must-decide-what-kind-of-united-ireland-they-can-accept-683e3d9f90ac

  71. Dave please carry your complaints to the other thread as per requested by others above.

    Paul gave us a good post. Respect it.

  72. I’ve already removed my post Patrick.

    And if you hadn’t have closed the other threads, like the child that you are, I wouldn’t have had to post on here.
    And I talk to Paul a hell of a lot more respectfully than you do, you total hypocrite.

  73. Noel,

    I think truth be told the author’s suggestion is ludicrous. Unionists are not going to engage on a United Ireland, or what sort of United Ireland they would accept. In the same way I would have absolutely no interest in engaging on how to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, or what sort of Union with Britain that I would accept. While the offer of dialogue etc… always needs to be made (in the knowledge that it will be rejected), and a proposed United Ireland needs to be developed with Unionist concerns in mind, the simple fact is that the heavy lifting is going to be done in the absence of Unionists.

    Probably the most interesting aspect of the article is his (knowingly or unknowingly) resurrecting Éire Nua, the provisional and subsequently continuity Republican movement’s plans for a federal United Ireland.

  74. //Probably the most interesting aspect of the article is his (knowingly or unknowingly) resurrecting Éire Nua,//

    Yes, I had to smile at that. He also lists the 4 provinces; none of this “Northern Ireland” stuff; so Stormont being revamped as Dáil Uladh and all my clan in the three counties having claim to British citizenship. Well, I’m for it!

    It’s also a bit peculiar – and maybe part of the Unionist angst, I dunno – how he seems to exaggerate SF power in the RoI.
    He says the prospect of an UI is put back a few years by SF exclusion from govt and the FF-FG coalition. In fact, much as one can admire SF’s astounding successes, if a UI ever seriously comes on the agenda it will probably be despite SF rather than because of it. The IRA campaign in the North has put a lot of people in the south off the idea of unity, just as it has hardened Unionist resolve not to give a victory to the people they detest. SF is still very much linked to that campaign, and its various members seemingly never miss an opportunity to remind us of it.
    A unification movement driven by SF will never get as far as one without it.

    He also says the advent of a UI would destroy SF’s reason for being, and Unionists would then be rid of their worst foe in the South.
    Total exaggeration: SF’s resurgence in the South has little or nothing to do with unification. And he is downplaying the strength of UI feeling in mainstream opinion in the Republic. All parties in the Dáil trace their genealogy back to Easter Week and the War of Independence, and anyone who has tried to ignore that tradition has always got nowhere in Irish politics.

    But he means that Unionists should discuss this eventuality among themselves, not necessarily with anyone in Dublin, and talk about contingencies. He’s right. Similarly, an open discussion in the south is also needed.
    How many in the South would be prepared to give up so many cherished parts of their cozy identity?
    Ending the republic – Never.
    Rejoining the Commonwealth, while remaining a Republic? For the great prize of peaceful unity – Yes.

  75. And thanks for the effort and the article. Must look into that Medium site.

  76. I think Seamus’s 2:17pm is correct in terms of Unionist attitudes to uniting with the republic. It doesn’t matter what type of federation or mitigating processes are put in place, its of no interest to them. They do not regard themselves as Irish. Any more than the people of Portugal could be persuaded to unite as a single country with Spain on the grounds of all being ‘Iberian’.

  77. And he is downplaying the strength of UI feeling in mainstream opinion in the Republic. All parties in the Dáil trace their genealogy back to Easter Week and the War of Independence, and anyone who has tried to ignore that tradition has always got nowhere in Irish politics

    Spot on, Noel. Northern unionists and, particularly, many “take it down from the mast” northern nationalists dont realise this.

  78. Thanks for that link Seamus. It makes for interesting reading but I think that’s about the height of it. None other than former DUP head honcho and Assembly FM Peter Robinson has called on unionism to become involved in the UI debate:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/peter-robinson-has-delivered-a-wake-up-call-for-unionism-1.3581228

    and the OUTRAGE regarding the remarks from all shades of unionism, including prominent members of Robinson’s own party, reflect the intransigence and pig-headedness all too common in unionism, they’ll stick their fingers in their ears, hum and pretend nothing’s happening until a border poll is called before they know it.

    A UI will obviously have to be negotiated and whilst I personally might be persuaded to change the flag, anthem, adopt a federal structure and maybe even rejoin the Commonwealth if a strong enough argument was made that it would ease the insecurities of our unionist brethren, how do you negotiate with an entrenched bloc who are obstructionist at every turn? I’m in the paradoxical position of wanting Irish republicans and nationalists to be as flexible as possible in accomodating unionism in UI negotiations while being thoroughly fed up with unionism’s misplaced sense of arrogant self-entitlement. It’s the irresistible force paradox of politics.

    BTW Noel, let me echo Reg’s comments on the accuracy of your quoted comment above.